SharonsSlideShare

SharonsFacebook

www.facebook.com

Sharon's Favorites

Loading...

Saturday, December 5, 2009

Sharon Anderson Presidential Bid 1992

Our Campaigns - Candidate - Sharon AndersonHomeAboutChatUsersIssuesPartyCandidatesPolling FirmsMediaNewsPollsCalendarKey RacesUnited StatesPresidentSenateHouseGovernorsInternational

"A collaborative political resource."
Email: Password:

Anderson, Sharon
CANDIDATE DETAILS
AffiliationRepublican
NameSharon Anderson
Address
St. Paul, Minnesota , United States
Emailsharon4anderson@aol.com
WebsiteNone
BornUnknown
DiedStill Living (2009 years)
ContributorThe Oncoming Storm
Last ModifedThe Oncoming Storm
Aug 22, 2006 08:17am
Tags
InfoSharon is a registered Gun Owner and
believes in the 2nd Constitutional Amendment of the "Right to Bear Arms"


JOB APPROVAL POLLS

BOOKS
TitlePurchaseContributor

EVENTS
Start DateEnd DateTypeTitleContributor

NEWS
DateCategoryHeadlineArticleContributor

DISCUSSION
[View Previous Messages In This Discussion (4 Previous)]
Importance? 0.00000 Average

FAMILY

INFORMATION LINKS
RACES
09/15/2009St. Paul Mayor - PrimaryLost 3.87% (-63.92%)
09/09/2008MN State House 64A - R PrimaryLost 25.10% (-49.80%)
09/11/2007St. Paul City Council - Ward 2 - PrimaryLost 3.19% (-46.73%)
09/07/2006MN Attorney General - R PrimaryLost 42.00% (-16.01%)
09/13/2005St. Paul Mayor - PrimaryLost 0.86% (-50.95%)
09/09/2003St. Paul City Council - Ward 2 - PrimaryLost 1.41% (-27.44%)
09/10/2002MN Attorney General - R PrimaryLost 31.19% (-37.62%)
09/11/2001St. Paul Mayor- PrimaryLost 0.64% (-29.72%)
09/12/2000MN State Senate 64 - R PrimaryLost 24.57% (-50.86%)
09/09/1997St. Paul Mayor - PrimaryLost 1.30% (-53.55%)
09/10/1996MN State Senate 64 - R PrimaryLost 17.63% (-64.74%)
09/12/1995St. Paul City Council - Ward 2 - PrimaryLost 7.22% (-56.08%)
11/08/1994MN Attorney GeneralLost 29.20% (-37.43%)
09/13/1994MN Attorney General - R PrimaryWon 40.01% (+5.56%)
09/14/1993St. Paul Mayor - PrimaryLost 0.43% (-28.22%)
09/15/1992MN House Seat 64A - R PrimaryLost 35.23% (-29.55%)
07/01/1992US President - R PrimariesLost 0.00% (-72.84%)
09/11/1990MN Attorney General - R PrimaryLost 17.14% (-29.92%)
09/12/1989St. Paul Mayor - PrimaryLost 1.08% (-44.16%)
09/13/1988MN US Senate- R PrimaryLost 4.54% (-88.93%)
09/09/1986MN Attorney General - R PrimaryLost 43.85% (-12.29%)
09/12/1978MN US Senate - Special D PrimaryLost 3.00% (-45.03%)
ENDORSEMENTS
Get Firefox!


Saturday, May 2, 2009

Judges Defining and Destroying Freedoms_CourtWatch

http://capwiz.com/eagleforum/utr/1/OLBMKKPBEJ/KOQEKKPBFK/3287301436
mailto:CourtWatch@EagleForum.org

VOL. 11, NO. 3April 30, 2009
How Judges are Winning the Culture War:
"Defining and Destroying" "Religious Freedom, III"

American judges are winning the Culture War for the Humanist/Reconstructionist side, partially through the extensive use of their "define and destroy" tactic — using landmark cases to alter the meaning of fundamental constitutional phrases and cultural values to such a radical degree as to destroy the original meanings of the words. These judges may be likened to Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carroll's famous story, Alice in Wonderland. Declared Humpty Dumpty, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — nothing more." Alice responded, "The question is whether you can make words mean so many different things." To this replied Humpty Dumpty, "The question is which is to be master — that is all."

In contemporary America, the question is, which is to be master — the Constitution properly interpreted according to its original meaning, or Reconstructionist judges interpreting the document to mean "just what they choose it to mean — nothing more." In this series of "Briefings and Commentaries," we are examining the courts' define and destroy weapon as wielded particularly against six foundational guarantees, beginning with "personhood," which we considered in our last issue. We now focus on the Constitution's guarantee of religious liberty — specifically the guarantee against "establishment of religion."

Few areas of American jurisprudence are as hopelessly muddled as the court-created body of Establishment Clause jurisprudence. Imperialist judges have defined this Clause with meanings so radically different from the original as to virtually destroy the Clause in its original meaning. This is true for several reasons.

Establishment Clause decisions of courts are supposedly guided by the mythical "wall of separation" doctrine which the Court read into American law in 1947 (Everson v. Board of Education). This mythical "wall" concept, in turn, led the Court to create the "three-pronged test" for determining when the "wall" had been breached (Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971). But this test and the "wall" concept are so flawed that various Justices through the last 35 years have described them as "all but useless," "mercurial in application," "unhistorical," "non-textual," and productive of "insoluble paradoxes" and "unprincipled, conflicting litigation." It is hard to imagine a clearer description than this of muddled body of law. Indeed, the Court has substantially reworked the Lemon test and often departs from it — creating even more inconsistent law.

Textbook examples of this constitutional quagmire are the Court's decisions regarding the Ten Commandments and the Pledge of Allegiance — cases in which the petitioners argued that the displays and Pledge recitation "violated the Establishment Clause." In the case of the Alabama Ten Commandments monument involving Chief Justice Roy Moore (Glassroth v. Moore), Federal District Judge Myron Thompson admitted that he lacked "the expertise to formulate [the court's] own definition of religion for First Amendment purposes," but he nonetheless concluded that Moore had "established a religion."

This was a seismic break with earlier American law in which "religion" had a definite, intelligible, accepted meaning. The Moore court opinion is even a break with Court decisions of the 1960s in which Justices contrived their own definition of "religion" (ambiguous and inconsistent, but more than that offered by Judge Thompson). Judge Thompson's bald admission is also alarming in his assertion that he, not the Constitution, should provide the controlling definition of "religion" in these cases. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review this case, leaving lower court judges to "destroy by not clearly defining" "religion" in its original meaning.

In 2005, the U. S. Supreme Court did hear other cases attacking two Ten Commandments displays in Texas and Kentucky (Van Orden v. Perry, McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky). The Court's decisions again reeked of inconsistency as they upheld the Texas display but struck down the Kentucky display. The majority concluded that the circumstances of the two displays were so different as to render one constitutional (Texas) and the other not (Kentucky). A key to the senseless Court reasoning in McCreary was that the Kentucky circumstances satisfied the mind-reading Justices that state officials had an unconstitutional "intent to establish religion." The fact was that the Kentucky display consisted of nine framed documents of equal size entitled "The Foundations of American Law and Government." Other documents included in this display were the lyrics of the national anthem and a picture of Lady Justice. In these cases, the Justices created the standard that no religious display, utterance, etc. is intrinsically "religious" for purposes of Establishment Clause law. Rather, the circumstances surrounding the challenged display, utterance, etc. determine whether or not challenged action is "religious" and whether there is an unconstitutional "establishment of religion." This unarguably defines the Clause so capriciously as to destroy it.

A theme running throughout the courts' define and destroy campaign against the Establishment Clause is the argument that "religious pluralism" is necessary and is the only constitutional condition allowable in American today. But this myth is a classic example of judicial define and destroy tactics, as illustrated in the Pledge of Allegiance case, Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (2004). The Supremes refused on technical grounds to hear this case in which lower courts had outlawed the public school recitation of the Pledge. But the issue will surely come to the Court again. The "pluralism" issue was addressed eloquently by two pro-Pledge justices on the Ninth Circuit Court: outlawing the Pledge, they correctly observed, afforded Michael Newdow "the right to impose his view on others . . . [and gave him] a right to be fastidiously intolerant and self-indulgent [i.e., non-pluralistic]." Furthermore, "the silence the majority [i.e., pro-Newdow judges] required is not neutral . . . . absolute prohibition on any mention of God in our schools creates a bias against religion." ". . . does atheism become the default religion protected by the Establishment Clause?," asked the pro-Pledge judges. Trying to define Establishment Clause standards as mandating religious pluralism in America destroys the Clause.

The bottom line is that neither a "wall of separation" nor "religious pluralism" is possible. "The extent to which a government can be neutral and equally tolerant of all deeply held values, including religious beliefs, has very definite limits . . . . Increasingly, government will be compelled to make choices between conflicting values, including religious values" (law professor Carl Esbeck, 1982).

What, then, was the original meaning of "establishment of religion" which is prohibited by the Constitution? First, it was a "jurisdictional provision" — one designed to limit who was the target. The national government, not the state governments, is the object of the Establishment Clause, properly interpreted. Second, the Clause limited what the national government could do. As explained in recent opinions by U. S. Supreme Court Justices Scalia and Thomas, the Clause prohibited "actual legal coercion" — using the law and its penalties to force certain religious observances, payment of taxes to support ministers, etc. None of these prohibitions even remotely resembles the displays, utterances, etc. attacked by Humanists/Reconstructionists in the court cases discussed here — and others similar to them. But the ironic result of the Reconstructionists' define and destroy weapon has been to do that which the Establishment Clause clearly prohibits — place the weight of legal coercion squarely behind anti-orthodox [i.e., Humanist/Reconstructionist] religious positions.

And so we return to Humpty Dumpty. Will we Constitutionalists continue to allow runaway judges to play Humpty Dumpty with our precious Constitution? Or will we effectively join and fight the Culture War and rescue the Establishment Clause from the abyss into which it has been cast by the define and destroy tactics of Reconstructionist judges?

The TEA Party is Over —
Now Take the Next Step with Us

Will You Invest JUST THREE HOURS in Empowering
Yourself to Revive the Constitution?!!

Register for Our Short Course:
"Reviving the Constitution: Blackstone Blitz Version"

  • "Must Have" facts & firepower for all patriots-adults, collegians, and teens-a jam-packed study on the courts, the Constitution, and the Culture War
  • Learn:
    • how to demolish Humanism's favorite arguments against our Constitution and culture — "the separation of church and state, relativism, pluralism/diversity, and tolerance"
    • how Humanism and the Judeo-Christian worldview oppose each other on fundamental Constitutional issues
    • how to describe and defend the Judeo-Christian position on these fundamental Constitutional issues
  • Online multi-media course
  • Typical completion time for Blitz = 3 hours (individual study); also great for group meetings (2-4 meetings recommended)
  • Excerpted from our full course, "Reviving the Constitution: The Courts, the Constitution, and the Culture War"
  • Additional studies available
  • Taught by Virginia Armstrong, Ph.D., Blackstone's Pres.; Eagle Forum's Nat'l. Court Watch Chrm.; Texas Teen Eagles' Leader

http://capwiz.com/eagleforum/utr/1/OLBMKKPBEJ/BZWOKKPBFR/3287301436

National Chairman: Virginia Armstrong, Ph.D. * 2438 Industrial Blvd. PMB 190 * Abilene, TX 79605
325-673-3020 * E-mail:
CourtWatch@EagleForum.org



Sunday, March 8, 2009

Sunday, March 1, 2009

Abolish SCAP Secret Court_Judge Kathleen Gearin_Let the Truth be Known

Lori Swanson MN-AG http://www.ag.state.mn.us/
YouTube - BPBS
Channel Icon

In this essay, Bill Moyers reflects on the passing of human rights activist Alison De Forge and writer and poet Christopher Nolan. Bill Moyers Journal airs Fridays at 9 p.m. on PBS (check local listings). For more:
http://www.pbs.org/billmoyers
ILL MOYERS JOURNAL Bill Moyers: In Memorium PBS

LET THE TRUTH BE KNOWN :

Kathleen Gearin Canvass Board-SCAP
Hi Janice great article altho the Denial of Due Process to the courts, Affiant and others must expose the Secret Court of the SCAP Panel Commitments
Perhaps you may do alittle more research into the Courts Budget
We concur with the Governor the Courts are Antiquated
another serious Budget Health Claim is the outsourcing of our
Health Care to France via Bull_MN-France could put our VA Hospital
at risk, when another country has our medical records.
We should eliminate "Unpublished Opinions" SCAP Panels
Best Ex. is Judge Kathleen Gearin, on Canvass Board,SCAP, who knows how many other conflicting tax supported....Conflicts_Separation of :Powers etc.
Do a Study of the http://www.mncourts.gov/ the Judges time sheet
Its a Judicial Joke the money spent to seek redress.
Sincere Thanks, as a Victim of Kathleen Gearin for the past 20 years Sharons GoodWill is to expose the Corrupt Judiciary http://sharon4council.blogspot.com/
Further We have turned in Judges for over 20 years for wrongdoing, the heinous
embellezment by Judge Gearin for pecuniary Gain unabated by Authorities is SICKO
/s/ Sharon4Anderson@aol.com ECF_P165913_sa1299 Sharon Scarrella Anderson's Page - We The People USA
political ?(Sharon4Anderson?)
Alliance for a Better Minnesota Sharon Anderson's Blog Click here: Sharon4Council file4[1]Shar_thune_22.pdf - Google Docs
Disclaimer on Site'sThe Electronic Communications Privacy Act
MY FindLaw (ECPA) sets out the provisions for access, use, disclosure, interception and privacy protections of electronic communications. Sharon4Anderson Scribd pdf files. The law was enacted in 1986 and covers various forms of wire and electronic communications. According to the U.S. Code, electronic communications "means any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photo electronic or photo optical system that affects interstate or foreign commerce." ECPA prohibits unlawful access and certain disclosures of communication contents. Additionally, the law prevents government entities from requiring disclosure of electronic communications from a provider without proper procedure. The Legal Institute provides Title 18 of the U.S. Code, which encompasses ECPA. Blogger: Dashboard AndersonAdvocates/ddaweborg.msnw

NOTICE: This communication is not encrypted. This e-mail (including any attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521, and Electronic Communications Privacy Act The CAN-SPAM Act: Requirements for Commercial Emailers


Subject:Abolish MN SCAP Court
Date:3/1/2009 3:10:27 P.M. Central Standard Time
From:Sharon4Anderson






Wednesday, February 25, 2009

MN Courts_Antiquated_No Confidence

Published February 25 2009

Courts warn of service cuts

ST. PAUL — Minnesota’s court officials say Minnesotans will see significant service cuts if Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s proposed budget passes, but the governor says the court budget needs trimming as a way to pressure them to change.

By: By Don Davis and Kelly Boldan, West Central Tribune


ST. PAUL — Minnesota’s court officials say Minnesotans will see significant service cuts if Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s proposed budget passes, but the governor says the court budget needs trimming as a way to pressure them to change.

“The court is antiquated and needs significant reform,” Pawlenty said Tuesday. “The courts need to change and improve their processes. All the paperwork needs to become electronic in nature.”

The governor’s comments, made to the West Central Tribune in Willmar, mirrored long-term plans court officials outlined Tuesday to the House Public Safety Committee. But court officials were talking about changes further down the road than Pawlenty apparently wants.

Pawlenty and many legislators say cuts are needed to deal with a state budget deficit, while court officials say they need to be saved from those cuts and get $5.6 million more to begin making technological changes to streamline the court system.

Judge John Rodenberg, who works in south-central Minnesota, said the court system now is mostly paper-based. He and other judicial officials asked the House Public Safety Committee to back their proposal for funds to use technology to improve the courts.

Any increase in funding appears doubtful for the courts, even with promises of long-term improvements.

Rep. Dave Olin, DFL-Thief River Falls, said all parts of the state budget will be cut in light of what many predict will be a $7 billion deficit in a $33 billion budget.

“It is not an easy decision because everyone has to be in this together ... ” Olin said. “There are going to be some cuts that are not very popular. That is just a fact of life.”

Chief Justice Eric Magnuson has traveled the state warning Minnesotans that the 5 percent cut Pawlenty proposes would mean courts would drop 21 types of cases because they just would not have enough time to deal with them.

“All of these cases are important to those who bring them,” Judge James T. Swenson of Hennepin County said.

If the Pawlenty plan prevails, court leaders expect to lose 405 jobs — 15.5 percent of their work force — and stop hearing cases ranging from truancy to shoplifting, consumer credit to traffic.

The cuts could delay cases so long that some home buyers would not be able to close purchases, Swenson said, when they need judges to clean up deeds.

“We cannot do all the work that comes into our door,” said state Court Administrator Sue Dosal. “There will be no consequences for shoplifting ... worthless checks, things like that.”

Pawlenty said that he sticks with his plan to make cuts because the courts have not changed quickly enough.

“Yes, we can find a middle ground for the state justice system,” the Republican governor said during his Willmar stop. “We just need to have better accountability and reform the system to make it more efficient.”

For instance, he said, 90 percent of drunken driving violations have standard outcomes. “Could they be handled more efficiently; rather then tying up court time?”

Also, he said, the courts need to find new ways to deal with the high volume of cases “and other inefficiencies.”

“We need to keep the pressure on to facilitate the reform,” the governor said.

Olin, a longtime Pennington County attorney, said that he thinks the court is right in saying that Pawlenty’s cuts will be felt by Minnesotans.

“Having worked in the court system for years, it is getting to be that bad,” he said. “The courts are getting more and more cases and it is getting worse yearly.”

Tags: , , , ,

Sharon4Judge