I am disgusted by recent revelations the chief justice of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had posted pornographic pictures and images on his Web site.
If you missed the coverage last week, the Los Angeles Times reported that Judge Alex Kozinski had posted --on his publicly accessible Web site--content which included sexual-fetish videos and bestiality images. Kozinski's excuse? He wasn't aware the public could access those particular pages on his site.
There was no apology and no remorse.
The fact that he didn't know the public could see the posted content is irrelevant! The real question is, why is a federal judge collecting pornography and displaying it anywhere? And who did he post the images for? His friends, his family, his colleagues?
A Reagan-appointee, Kozinski has been presiding over a highly publicized obscenity trial, which he suspended for 48 hours at the prosecution's request. The district attorney handling the case said he saw a potential conflict of interest for a judge with a sexually explicit Web site to hear this case.
This is worse than a simple conflict of interest! This is an incredible moral lapse! It demonstrates a huge lack of decency and morality and it should disqualify Judge Kosinski from further service on the federal bench.
Even liberal California U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein stated, "If this is true, this is unacceptable for a federal court judge." Unacceptable it most certainly is.
Kozinski has a reputation as an extreme civil libertarian. He had previously blocked efforts to put filters on the computers of court administrators, to keep them from accessing internet pornography.
While we pray for Judge Kozinski and his family, for the sake of decency and the integrity of the federal courts, the judge should resign.
Click here to support Vision America Action's efforts to help return America to Judeo-Christian morality.
Another Attempt to Stop CA Homosexual MarriageLiberty Counsel -- a national conservative legal association that has fought for traditional values in our nation's courts for years -- has entered the fray in California.
Last week, the group filed a petition asking the California Court of Appeals to block the issuance of marriage licenses to homosexual couples.
According to Liberty Counsel, the Court of Appeals has regained jurisdiction over homosexual marriage cases. The Supreme Court has directed the Court of Appeals to take "further action consistent with this opinion."
However, the Supreme Court - which ordered the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples -- only ruled on two laws, and Liberty Counsel contends that a myriad of other marriage regulations still exist in California and any changes must take place in the legislature.
I agree!
In our government, there is a separation of powers for a reason. Our nation's system of checks and balances was designed to keep the tyranny of the few from circumventing representative government and democracy. But, little by little, we have neglected these protections, and now we see these limits consistently ignored.
I encourage you to join with us in support of the marriage amendment that will appear on the Nov. 4 general election ballot in California. This state amendment will place protections for traditional marriage in the California Constitution. It states, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
Click here make a donation to Vision America Action as we work to educate the public about these issues and the power of the people to stand against judicial tyranny.
Obama Supports Partial Birth Abortion "The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act," Barack Obama stated following a July 17, 2007, speech to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund.
One year later, he hasn't changed his mind.
The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) was introduced in Congress following the April 19, 2007, Supreme Court decision upholding a Congressional ban on partial birth abortion.
It was reintroduced this year.
FOCA would create an absolute right to abortion that would override any federal, state or local law that simply "interfered with" that right -- no matter how compelling the justification for the law.
Denise M. Burke, vice president and legal director for American United for Life, sees FOCA as a real danger to women and the unborn.
"FOCA creates a new and dangerously radical 'right,' Burke wrote in a commentary about the legislation. "It establishes the right to abortion as a 'fundamental right,' elevating it to the same status as the right to vote and the right to free speech, which unlike the abortion license, are specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution."
"Critically, the U.S. Supreme Court has never (in Roe v. Wade or any subsequent decision) defined abortion as a fundamental constitutional right," Burke said. "FOCA goes beyond any Supreme Court decision in enshrining unlimited abortion-on-demand into American law."
We will continue to monitor this dangerous piece of legislation and alert you should action need to be taken to stop it. Click here to help Vision America Action in its vital efforts to defend the unborn - the most defenseless of God's children.
Fairness Doctrine Is Unfair
Actions are being taken in Washington D.C. to prevent the Federal Communications Commission from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, which mandated that broadcasters airing opinion programs must also grant air-time to those expressing an opposing viewpoint. The Fairness doctrine was in effect from1949 to 1987.
The Broadcast Freedom Act would ensure no future president could regulate the airwaves in this way without an act of Congress.
"Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine would amount to government control over political views expressed on the public airwaves. It is dangerous to suggest that the government should be in the business of rationing free speech," U.S. Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) said. He introduced the Broadcaster Freedom Act a year ago.
Currently, the bill is bottled up in committee. Pence has gathered 194 signatures (out of a required 218) on a discharge petition, a maneuver that would force the bill out of committee and onto the House floor for a vote. On Wednesday, Pence challenged House Democrats to "declare their independence, stand for freedom and sign the Discharge Petition for Broadcast Freedom before the 4th of July."
Since conservatives dominate talk radio any attempt to re-impose the Fairness Doctrine would be an attempt to muzzle and stifle conservative speech.
"The idea of the government being the censor of what happens on the radio is one of the more bizarre things I have heard," U.S. House Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) said. "Let's make a permanent law so we don't have government censorship of our airwaves."
Select here to contact your representative and senators, urging support for the Broadcast Freedom Act.
Click here to help Vision America Action oppose the imposition of liberal censorship over talk radio.
I remain...Your servant and friend,
