New campaign demanding ‘gay’ Prop. 8 Judge Vaughn Walker be booted

Comments Off

This is what happens when you defy and rile “we the people”.

New campaign demanding ‘gay’ Prop. 8 judge be booted

‘It’s just a gross breach of his judicial responsibilities … activism on steroids’

The openly homosexual federal judge in California who overturned the state’s constitutional limitation of marriage to one man and one woman ignored a warning from the state’s own Supreme Court about the coming chaos of polygamy and incest if same-sex “marriages” are established and now is the target of an impeachment campaign.

Judge Vaughn Walker, who openly has lived a homosexual lifestyle, yesterday issued an order that the state could not enforce its own constitutional requirement that marriage is between members of the opposite sex only.

The ruling from Walker said “race and gender restrictions shaped marriage during eras of race and gender inequality, but such restrictions were never part of the historical core of the institution of marriage.”

“Today, gender is not relevant to the state in determining spouses’ obligations to each other,” Walker said. “Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage.”

His opinion ignored the terse warning in state Supreme Court Justice Marvin Baxter’s dissenting opinion in the 2008 case affirming same-sex marriage. Baxter warned of the “legal jujitsu” required to establish same-sex marriage just a few months before California voters passed Proposition 8 and amended the constitution to limit marriage to one man and one woman.

“The bans on incestuous and polygamous marriages are ancient and deeprooted, and, as the majority suggests, they are supported by strong considerations of social policy,” Baxter warned in his dissent. “Our society abhors such relationships, and the notion that our laws could not forever prohibit them seems preposterous. Yet here, the majority overturns, in abrupt fashion, an initiative statute confirming the equally deeprooted assumption that marriage is a union of partners of the opposite sex. The majority does so by relying on its own assessment of contemporary community values, and by inserting in our Constitution an expanded definition of the right to marry that contravenes express statutory law.

“Who can say that, in 10, 15 or 20 years, an activist court might not rely on the majority’s analysis to conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified?” Baxter wrote.

The decision by Walker, which is being appealed, was too much for the tradition-oriented American Family Association, which promptly launched an action alert to its several million supporters.

The alert asks supporters to contact their members of Congress and demand impeachment of Walker.

“What you have here is a federal judge using the power of his position to legitimize what is sexually aberrant behavior,” Bryan Fischer, an analyst for the organization, told WND. “He’s trampling on the will of 7 million voters in California. It’s just a gross breach of his judicial responsibility.

“We think of it as an expression of judicial tyranny, judicial activism on steroids,” he said.

The organization’s action alert offers to constituents an option to track down their representatives in Washington and contact them directly on the issue.

“We have congressmen, they actually campaign on the premise these judges are unaccountable,” Fischer said.

But that’s simply wrong, he contended.

“There is a provision under which they can be held to account. The Framers did not intend for any branch of government to be unaccountable. There are mechanisms for federal judges who are out of control to be called to account,” he said.

Fischer noted the federal documentation provides that judges serve during “good behavior.”

“Of course, that leaves the question open for discussion what is good behavior, but our contention is this is egregiously bad on the part of this judge,” he said.

The AFA argues that since “marriage policy is not established anywhere in the federal Constitution, defining marriage, according to the 10th Amendment, is an issue reserved for the states.”

But, “Under Judge Walker, it’s no longer ‘We the People,’ it’s ‘I the Judge,’” the action alert states.

“In addition, Judge Walker is an open homosexual, and should have recused himself from this case due to his obvious conflict of interest.”

“Impeachment proceedings, according to the Constitution, begin in the House of Representatives. It’s time for you to put your congressman on record regarding the possible impeachment of Judge Walker,” the alert said.

Fischer said the goal is that the campaign will put members of Congress on the spot, and on the record, about their willingness to rein in a renegade federal judge.

Worldnet Daily

Judge OK with government prying into personal information

Comments Off

You know I’ve got to ask that judge, what about the Constitution and the 4th amendment,probable cause and warrants?  The excuse of ‘terrorism’ doesn’t suspend the Constitution. This is what is wrong with a lot of things today, judges think they can just rule how ever they want….well they can’t, the Constitution overrides them in decisions like this with the 4th amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

‘Court has said officials can feel free to rifle through the private files of citizens’

Government officials who rifle through your personal details held in government databases apparently should have little to fear in the way of punishment, according to a federal judge in Ohio.

U.S. District Judge Algenon L. Marbley has dismissed a complaint brought against Ohio state officials who hunted for details about “Joe the Plumber” when the working man confronted then-candidate Barack Obama during his campaign for the presidency in 2008.

The civil-rights lawsuit was filed by Judicial Watch on behalf of Joe Wurzelbacher, aka “Joe the Plumber,” against state officials who, reportedly in their pursuit of support for Obama, had state databases searched for information about Wurzelbacher.

However, Marbley dismissed the action, ruling there was no real damage to Wurzelbacher when officials searched police, social services and other databases for his details.

“The implications of this court decision are frightening,” said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch. “Essentially the court has said that government officials can feel free to rifle through the private files of citizens without fear of being held accountable in court.”

He continued, “How can the American people feel comfortable exercising their First Amendment rights when they may be subject to secret searches by politicized bureaucrats in return? It is unconscionable that high-ranking state officials pried into confidential government files to punish Joe Wurzelbacher for asking a simple question.

“Justice was not served with this decision. Judicial Watch will most certainly file an appeal on behalf of Mr. Wurzelbacher,” Fitton said.

The case alleged Ohio officials violated Wurzelbacher’s constitutional rights by accessing – illegally – confidential information from the state’s official archives of information.

The case accused Helen Jones-Kelley, Fred Williams and Doug Thompson, three top officials at the state Department of Job and Family Services at the time of the database searches, of being politically motivated in their searches for Wurzelbacher’s details.

It was on Sunday, Oct. 12, 2008, when Wurzelbacher was tossing a football with his son in the front yard of his home. Obama and his entourage appeared on the street in front of his home and Wurzelbacher, working with a small plumbing business, asked Obama about the impact of his tax plans on small businesses.

Obama responded that he wanted to “spread the wealth.”

“It’s not that I want to punish your success; I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you that they’ve got a chance at success, too. I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody,” Obama said in a sound bite that has been replayed ever since by critics.

The subsequent investigation by the office of the inspector general for the state of Ohio found only four days after Wurzelbacher’s encounter with Obama, the defendants held a meeting to discuss him.

After the meeting, Judicial Watch said, they authorized and instructed agency workers to search confidential office databases for his information. The report said all three are believed to have been supporting Obama’s campaign.

The inspector general’s report said, “Our investigation determined that there were 18 separate records checks conducted on Wurzelbacher following the Oct. 15, 2008, presidential debate. Five were conducted in response to media requests for information and eight were conducted by various agencies without any legitimate business purpose.”

Records searched were the state Department of Jobs and Family Services, the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, the Department of Taxation and others.

“Jones-Kelley’s authorization to search three confidential agency databases … was improper, and her use of state e-mail resources to engage in political activity was also improper,” the inspector general’s report said.

The report noted Jones-Kelley explained the information was searched because Wurzelbacher was “thrust into the spotlight.”

“None of the justifications provided by Jones-Kelley meet any reasonable ‘agency function or purpose’ as required,” the report said.

But Marbley found that there wasn’t any “specific” injury beyond embarrassment, humiliation and emotional distress, and dismissed the complaint

Worldnet Daily

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Google-Verizon Deal: The End of The Internet as We Know It

Comments Off

Well here it goes again……..the attempt to shut down internet blogs like this one and turn it over to government regulated speech. Internet 2.0

Google-Verizon Deal: The End of The Internet as We Know It

For years, Internet advocates have warned of the doomsday scenario that will play out on Monday: Google and Verizon will announce a deal that the New York Times reports “could allow Verizon to speed some online content to Internet users more quickly if the content’s creators are willing to pay for the privilege.”

The deal marks the beginning of the end of the Internet as you know it. Since its beginnings, the Net was a level playing field that allowed all content to move at the same speed, whether it’s ABC News or your uncle’s video blog. That’s all about to change, and the result couldn’t be more bleak for the future of the Internet, for television, radio and independent voices.

How did this happen? We have a Federal Communications Commission that has been denied authority by the courts to police the activities of Internet service providers like Verizon and Comcast. All because of a bad decision by the Bush-era FCC. We have a pro-industry FCC Chairman who is terrified of making a decision, conducting back room dealmaking, and willing to sit on his hands rather than reassert his agency’s authority. We have a president who promised to “take a back seat to no one on Net Neutrality” yet remains silent. We have a congress that is nearly completely captured by industry. Yes, more than half of the US congress will do pretty much whatever the phone and cable companies ask them to. Add the clout of Google, and you have near-complete control of Capitol Hill.

A non-neutral Internet means that companies like AT&T, Comcast, Verizon and Google can turn the Net into cable TV and pick winners and losers online. A problem just for Internet geeks? You wish. All video, radio, phone and other services will soon be delivered through an Internet connection. Ending Net Neutrality would end the revolutionary potential that any website can act as a television or radio network. It would spell the end of our opportunity to wrest access and distribution of media content away from the handful of massive media corporations that currently control the television and radio dial.

So the Google-Verizon deal can be summed up as this: “FCC, you have no authority over us and you’re not going to do anything about it. Congress, we own you, and we’ll get whatever legislation we want. And American people, you can’t stop us.

This Google-Verizon deal, this industry-captured FCC, and the way this is playing out is akin to the largest banks and the largest hedge funds writing the regulatory policy on derivative trading without any oversight or input from the public, and having it rubber stamped by the SEC. It’s like BP and Halliburton ironing out the rules for offshore oil drilling with no public input, and having MMS sign off.

Fortunately, while they are outnumbered, there are several powerful Net Neutrality champions on Capitol Hill, like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Henry Waxman, Jay Rockefeller, Ed Markey, Jay Inslee and many others. But they will not be able to turn this tide unless they have massive, visible support from every American who uses the Internet — whether it’s for news, email, shopping, Facebook, Twitter — whatever. So stop what you’re doing and tell them you’re not letting the Internet go the way of Big Oil and Big Banks. The future of the Internet, and your access to information depends on it.

Huffington Post

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 396 other followers