Rightank

The incorigible 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a criminal’s written death threat against the President is “free speech” under the First Amendment. Here is the threat letter authored by Jonathan Lincoln (Bush’s biggest fan!):

President Goerge [sic] W. Bush:

you think cause [sic] you go Over there and Blow Them up that The killing with Stop in you [sic] Dream They got over 275,800 or more since, Never mind that this is only the Beging [sic] of the Badass war To come Just think Their army is over here already hiding They have more Poison gas Then [sic] you know. ha ha. Too bad you don’t think Like Them. You will see a good Job Done agin [sic] may [sic] 2 week’s, [sic] maybe 2 months, 3, who know’s [sic]. You Will Die George W. Bush real Soon They Promissed [sic] That you would Long Live BIN LADEN.

Lincoln attempted to send the letter to Bush, but the prison authorities read it and notified the FBI. Furthermore, six months earlier Johnson was writing in his Anger Management Workbook such pleasantries as “Kill Bush” and “Kill Bush Wife.”

The 9th Circus (as Rush Limbaugh endearingly calls them) found that because Johnson used “they” instead of “we” and that a reasonable person would not view the letter as threatening. In fact, it seems from the Court’s reasoning that a true threat would have existed only if Johnson or Johnson’s associates had tried to kill President Bush previously. But, if Johnson had or has any connection to Bin Laden or Al Qaeda, wouldn’t that connection have sufficed? Hasn’t Bin Laden threatened the life of President Bush and all Americans?

This is my favorite statement of the Judge Rawlingson: “Although the language used was disturbing, Lincoln was exercising his constitutional right to endorse the violent actions of Al Qaeda, which is protected speech.” What?! I recognize that “freedom of speech” is broadly-interpreted, but this is turning the First Amendment on its head. Why should any American be permitted to endorse the killing of our Nation through violent means? By protecting Johnson’s death threat, the 9th Circus endorses this type of speech, not merely protects it.

A fortiori, would the 9th Circuit permit Bin Laden to come to Berkley and spout his anti-American vitriol as protected free speech?

Side note: According to Fox News, Lincoln’s attorney stated that his client is mentally disabled. Interestingly, the 9th Circuit did not care about Johnson’s sanity at the time of composition. Perhaps, Judge Rawlingson thought the letter was an act of sanity albeit “disturbing.”

Apparently, Gallup, USA Today, and CNN refuse to report on the results of their poll finding increased support for marriage (See “Public Says NO to Same-sex Marriage”). Stanley Kurtz argues that the dearth of media coverage of the poll demonstrates “an egregious case of media bias.” No doubt. The MSM’s silence about poll results showing that Americans increasingly favor a constitutional amendment protecting marriage between one man and one woman and disfavoring legal recognition of same-sex marriage proves the MSM’s pro-gay attitudes and favoritism.

Also, Kansas overwhelmingly passed a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. What was the percentage? 70% to 29% in favor. A whopping 51% chasm between the two sides. And who is reporting this vote of the polity? Well, the New York Times seemed to have missed it. Andrew Sullivan, hey why bother. The ACLU . . . not a peep. They’re too busy defending high schoolers who support gay rights.

Bottom line: Despite what is portrayed as main-stream in the MSM, the majority of Americans vote to preserve marriage and will vote to preserve marriage in the future.

A recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll reveals that Americans strongly oppose same-sex marriage and increasingly support a constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage. The percentage favoring laws that shun same-sex marriage rose a whopping 13%, from 55% to 68%. A mere 28% support legalizing same-sex marriage. That’s a 40% gap between the two. Talk about a landslide of American opinion. Truly, this should not be surprising when you consider that last year 72% of Missourians voted to amend their state constitution to define marriage between one man and one woman.

Also, the percentage of Americans who favor a federal constitutional amendment rose 9% to 57%, up from 48% while the percentage who oppose a FMA (”Federal Marriage Amendment) fell from 46% to 37%–a 20% gap.

These are very positive signs for our Nation’s social health. The naysayers and gay advocacy groups must be in a frenzy. I’m sure Andrew Sullivan is whining right now, but, he’s probably too busy worrying about the treatment of the Gitmo prisoners and arguing that torture is giving the enemy combatants AIM toothpaste instead of Crest.

More importantly, these poll figures should encourage and embolden Congressional leaders who are sponsoring the FMA. Furthermore, the level of support should compel those Senators and Representatives sitting on the moral fence to get off their protectionist perch and vote to protect the family.

Ultimately, if the FMA fails, same-sex marriage will be the devilish result. The American people understand–do Congress and President Bush . . . or will the FMA sit on the legislative back burner?

It seems that judges just cannot get a break. First, they attempt to impose gay marriage upon our Nation (e.g., California and Massachusetts) and then flip-off Congress and the President in refusing to reconsider the facts in the Terri Schiavo (RIP) case. Now Republican Tom Delay is blasting judges for their “out-of-control” and “unaccountable” behavior.

Predictably, organizations who are activist-friendly are upset at such honest “rhetoric.” The President of the American Bar Association, Robert J. Grey Jr., is repulsed by the unfriendly talk:

While it is appropriate for commentators, policymakers and the broader public to debate the societal challenges and dilemmas brought to light by Terri Schiavo’s case, there is no need for personal attacks on the judges in this case. They are not killers as some have called them, nor are they activists bent on pushing an ideological agenda. They are simply dedicated public servants called on to serve as impartial arbiters in a very difficult case. Instead of maligning them for applying existing law to the case at hand, even though it may not reflect the current will of Congress, we should praise them for dispensing even-handed justice and upholding the independence of the judiciary even under the most difficult circumstances. These judges deserve our respect, not our scorn.

Hmmm. Judges aren’t activists? They have no ideological agendas? Six Supremes favor looking to foreign laws and practices to determine U.S. constitutional questions? Is that not an ideological agenda? Or would Grey call those discretionary preferences?

To liberals, an independent judiciary means a decision-rich haven for expanding rights not found in the Constitution. In reality, an independent judiciary means an judiciary with an activist disposition. Originally, the “independant judiciary” was designed as a third branch of government set apart from or divided from the Executive and Legislative branches. Now, the principle of judicial independance is indicative of a judge who bases his or her decision not necessarily on the law or laws which form the basis of a complaint but rather on their personal policy preferences. Judicial independance has been pushed from an institutional (judicial) perspective to a personal (judge) perspective.

It is this radical independence that judges are using permiscuously to undermine the federal and state constitutions and throw our society in a crucible of moral chaos. It’s time to take back the law-making power from the Judicial branch and return it to the Legislative branch . . . before it’s too late.