News Snippets From All Beats

In a stunning blow to national sovereignty, and national security, the Supreme Court ruled this week that captured alien combatants, in this case terrorists, are entitled to Constitutional rights. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy rationalized his decision by explaining “the laws of the Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times.”¹ What’s extraordinary is that a Supreme Court Justice could correctly understand that the founders intended for the protections of our Constitution to endure, but could no longer comprehend they were written to apply to American citizens and not to enemy soldiers sworn to our annihilation.

The decision will certainly cause harm to Americans, and dissenting Justice Antonin Scalia put it best when, explaining his opposition to the ruling from the bench, said it: “Will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.”² While tragic, the infidelity is not entirely new. Placing unarmed citizens in harms way only continues a disgraceful trend of the Supreme Court in weakening this country. It started when the Justices began abandoning the Constitution in favor of their own convoluted reasoning, and accelerated when they found it vogue to enforce the laws of other nations on Americans.

In 2003, Justice Anthony Kennedy consulted the European Court of Human Rights in deciding that homosexuals had a right to sodomy.³ Later, speaking at Georgetown Law School, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor endorsed citation of foreign law in deciding cases by claiming it, in effect, was a valuable undertaking necessary in a “search for a more peaceful world.”⁴ Despite the fact that nowhere in our Constitution is the Supreme Court of the United States of American instructed to subordinate our Constitution to the opinions of foreign nationals, much less are they given the duty of finding the key to world peace, Justices have been tripping over their robes in making sure that the Constitution does not remain in force.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg opined in 2005 that it was her duty to disabuse Americans of the idea of: “The notion that it is improper to look beyond the borders of the United States in grappling with hard questions,” for the intolerable reason that this idea “has a certain kinship to the view that the U.S. Constitution is a document essentially frozen in time as of the date of its ratification,” she said.⁵ This notion shares a certain kinship with the word “impeachment,” but the treason continues unabated. At the least, she should have been told to warm up the notion of looking beyond our boarders (though it be hard to find any firm ones) for her paycheck.

As despicable as this betrayal is, there is no chance that it will be arrested. The Supremes’ dereliction of duty is necessary. Bible prophecy buffs have struggled to identify American in end time events, and their quest was predicated on the assumption that such a superpower would be somewhere noted as a key player. But there is a reason she is unrecognizable in the scriptures. America must be annihilated as a super power as Bible prophecy plays out. It will be absorbed into a Union of Americas to compete the European Union, or nuked into whimpering subsistence; in any event, it will be of no consequence. In the future, Russia will join with Arab nations in attacking Israel (Eze 38; 39), something it was prevented from doing so long as American remained a superpower, and had a semblance of morality, or rather remained a superpower because of it. That is changing fast.

Notes:

^1. Robert Barnes, “Justices Say Detainees Can Seek Release,” Washington Post, June 13, 2008.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008

/06/12/AR2008061201695.html?hpid=topnews

^2. Ibid.

^3. Joan Biskupic,”Supreme Court citing more foreign cases,” USA Today, July 7, 2003.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-07-07-foreign-usat_x.htm

^4. Steven G. Calabresi,Stephanie Dotson Simdahl, “The Supreme Court and Foreign Sources of Law: Two Hundred Years of Practice and the Juvenile Death Penalty Decision,”

Social Science Research Network, Aprl, 2005.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=700176

^5. Dave Eberhart, “Justice Ginsburg: Supreme Court Considers Foreign Laws, Not Just Constitution,” Newsmax, April 3, 2005.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/4/3/82551.shtml

The British Humanists Association is championing new regulations set to go into effect next month in England which will contain stricter regulations for psychics and other spiritualists, including faith healers. The new regulations are designed to reflect European Union directives on fair trading and consumer protection against fraud. The affected spiritualists are complaining that the burden of proof will be shifted by the laws from prosecutors proving guilt to the accused proving innocence.

The Humanists occupy themselves with “campaigns against religion and supernatural beliefs,”¹ and one could wonder what future EU compliances will dictate further regulations on faith claims from churches where the Christian gospel is preached. There are, after all, some very impressive claims made that might prove hard to support in an EU court.

Exactly how would one prove, to the satisfaction of Humanists judges, that they are innocent of fraud when they claim to have a message that can save a human soul from Hell? The psychics in England are taking some ribbing about whether they should have seen this coming. One is tempted to ask: does the Church see what’s coming?

Notes:

^1. Steve Addison and Paul Casciato, “Psychics see big trouble over new laws,” Yahoo! News, April 18, 2008.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080418/od_nm/britain_psychic_

dc;_ylt=AifYpnlUnZ_nQoyPTmTuTeCs0NUE

Relying on an artist’s rendition of a man in a portrait influenced by thousands of years of speculation as to the physical appearance of Jesus Christ, the ACLU has ordered Slidell City Court in Louisiana to remove the painting from the courthouse lobby. The ACLU contends that the portrait violates the establishment clause; and that the court could not possibly accommodate the 1,500 religious groups that might request similar religious displays in the lobby. Interestingly, the ACLU did not claim that any such requests were ever made.

David Dansker

Read about it here