They suddenly want to get out of a legal binding contract, and none of us could get out of our loan contracts just because we did nto like it. They are complaining about changes in the rules being retroactive. Well, so how it feels when something changes retroactively and applies to everything.

VOL. 11, NO. 2
March 27, 2009

How Judges are Winning the Culture War: “Defining and Destroying” “Personhood,” I.

“Our American institutions and culture are being undermined today by judicial supremacists. They are carrying out a revolution in our system of government . . . .” So wrote Eagle Forum Founder/President and the “First lady of American Conservatism,” Phyllis Schlafly, in her highly acclaimed book, The Supremacists: The Tyranny of Judges and How to Stop It.

The deadly phenomena described in the Schlafly expose of Reconstructionist judges are the “Culture War” and judicial victories in that war — the theme of this series of our “Court Watch Briefings.” Our focus is on one of the Reconstructionist judges’ most lethal weapons-perhaps THE most lethal weapon — their “define and destroy” tactic. This tactic can assume two forms:

1. courts may focus on a term/guarantee that actually appears in the Constitution, but transmogrify the guarantee’s meaning so that the guarantee in its original meaning is destroyed;
2. courts may create new terms/guarantees that have no roots in either America law or tradition and then define those terms in any conflicting way the judges desire, creating and destroying guarantees at will.

In our last “Briefing” we described this weapon as the judges’ use of landmark cases to alter the meaning of fundamental constitutional phrases and cultural values — alterations so radical as to destroy the original meanings. Six such constitutional guarantees/cultural values, most cogently expressed in the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, have been the particular target of Reconstructionists:

• personhood
• life
• liberty
• expression/thought
• religion
• law.

Because of the nature of these six issues and the courts’ handling of them, not only the Constitution, but the entire culture has suffered, as Reconstructionists’ rulings have corrupted major societal institutions. In this series of studies, therefore, we shall examine each of these six guarantees/values from three perspectives:

1. the form into which Reconstructionists have corrupted the Constitutional term/guarantee, virtually destroying it;
2. the societal institution corrupted and/or being destroyed;
3. landmark court decisions which have been pivotal in this “define and destroy” campaign.

Today we consider the first in this list: “person[hood].” “Personhood” is the cornerstone of our Constitution and our culture. “We the People of the United States” is the opening statement of the Constitution. The five other phrases/values of our study are guaranteed to “persons.” Indeed, the individual “person” is the building block of society. Webster makes this clear: a “society” is “an organized group of persons associated together [for a variety of purposes], “a body of individual [human beings-i.e., persons] living together as members of a community” (Webster’s Universal College Dictionary, 2001, emphases added). When the concept of “personhood” is corrupted or destroyed, therefore, society in totality is the institution corrupted or destroyed. Such wanton destruction is exactly the damage inflicted by Reconstructionists judges in their worst decisions.

A “terrible trio” of U. S. Supreme Court decisions has spawned and energized the ongoing judicial attack on “personhood” as a constitution/cultural concept and on society as an institution. This trio includes the two basic pro-abortion decisions, Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania (1992), and the pro-evolutionist censorship decision in Edwards v. Aguillard (1987). This trio of cases excises from our constitutional and cultural vocabulary the definition of “person” foundational to American society.

Webster makes the meaning of “person” clear: a “person” is “a human being, a man, woman, or child,” “a human being, as distinguished from an animal or thing“ (Webster, 2001, emphasis added). But the judges’ pro-abortion, pro-evolutionistic exclusivism (recognizing as valid only the theory of evolutionism and its innumerable corollaries to the exclusion of creationist theory and its corollaries) have destroyed Webster’s definition of “person.”

The Roe Court was blatant in its denial of “personhood” — “[the evidence we have examined] persuades us that the word ‘person,’ as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.” “Personhood” under this standard depends totally on the residence of the living being. No unborn child — a baby still in its mother’s body — is a “person.” But what if that child still residing inside his/her mother’s body were conceived eight months and thirty days ago, while another child conceived eight months and twenty-nine days ago has “been born” — has exited the mother’s body and now resides outside the mother? The younger child is a “person,” while the older one is not. This position is surpassed in its absurdity only by its deadliness.

The 1992 Casey Court had the opportunity to rescue the Constitution and culture from such judicial insanity, but refused to do so — for reasons that almost make Roe’s illogic look acceptable. The 1992 Court actually admitted the possibility of Roe’s being in error. In a badly divided set of opinions, the plurality opinion declared that even if “the central holding of Roe was in error,” the Court would not over-rule Roe. Or again, “. . . any error in Roe is unlikely to have serious ramifications in future cases” (emphases added)

The plurality offered this lame defense of its side-stepping of the “error” issue: “We are satisfied that the immediate question [we must decide here] is not the soundness of Roe’s resolution of the issue, but the precedential force that must be accorded to its holding. And we have concluded that the essential holding of Roe should be reaffirmed.” Why such anti-constitutional anti-intelligent intransigence? In order to “protect the Court’s legitimacy and the rule of law.” And in a statement that further drives sound minds to distraction, the Court asserted the incredible: “. . . a decision to overrule [a precedent] should rest on some special reason over and above the belief that a prior case was wrongly decided.”

The diabolical heart of the matter was acknowledged by the Roe Court, however, in rejecting “the suggestion of personhood [of the unborn]” when that august body baldly admitted that “If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case (for abortion), of course, collapses, for the fetus’s right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as such on re-argument.” Casey’s pro-abortion Justices could not let this happen. Rejection the “personhood” of the unborn is a tactical and policy necessity — not a constitutional or cultural truth — if the Reconstructionist/Humanist agenda for capturing our Constitution and conquering our culture is to succeed. The abortion cases thus corrupt the Constitutional recognition of “personhood” to viewing man as only an “animal,” and corrupt the entire society as an institution.

But if the unborn child is not a “person,” what is he/she? According to Webster’s definition quoted above, a “non-person” must be either an “animal” or a “thing.” Since the child is alive, he/she cannot be just a “thing.” The child must, therefore, be an animal.

This conclusion is consistent with the Court’s most recent creationism v. evolutionism decision, in Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), where the Court placed its imprimatur on the teaching of evolution-only in the public schools. The impact of this decision was to place the weight of the government’s power behind the belief and teaching that man is only an animal. Thus, Aguillard and the abortion cases lead to the same dastardly conclusion, except that the abortion cases focus on the unborn human being as an animal, while the Court’s “man-as-animal” finding in Aguillard applies to all people.

We shall pursue a fuller examination of Aguillard in a later “Briefing.” But what we have already said forcefully reminds us that we must be vigilant as Barak Obama begins naming his choices for federal judgeships. Obama has just announced his first judicial nominee — U.S. District Judge David Hamilton of Indiana to be elevated to the U. S. Seventh Court of Appeals in Chicago. The conservative Judicial Confirmation Network quickly responded, describing Hamilton as an “ultra-liberal” and “former leader of the Indiana ACLU chapter.” As District Judge, Hamilton threw out Christian prayers in the Indiana Legislature and an Indiana abortion regulation. Both of these decisions were over-turned by the Seventh Circuit. We must have Constitutionalist judges committed to protecting the “personhood” of all human beings!

(3) PROHIBITED USES OF FUNDS- No funds awarded under this section may be used for–

This language can be applied in a discriminatory fashion to disallow the funding from being received to modernize or renovate any building where sectarian instruction occurs. Sectarian instruction is any instruction that relates to or has characteristics of a sect or sectarian (Merriam Webster’s Dictionary). This would not only limit actual sectarian schools but also secular universities that offer sectarian courses of study.

An application of this section to funding would for example deny stimulus funding to renovate or modernize certain buildings on the campus of my alma mater, DePaul University because of the sectarian nature of the Catholic Studies Department and therefore the course work taught.


Photo Credit: DePaul University

For example, the Catholic Studies Department is on the fourth floor of Schmitt Academic Center, which is the same building that houses the School of Education as well as the the departments of History and Mathematical Sciences. This is mainly an administrative building.


Photo Credit: DePaul University

Levan Hall which is the main academic hall for Liberal arts would also be excluded under this language because this is where Catholic and Religious Studies courses are generally taught. O’Connell Hall the other wing of the building is where the math and science courses are taught. Under this language these buildings could be denied funding if renovations or modernization were needed.

Many schools public and private offer Religious Studies programs and under this language certain buildings where the Religion/Religious Studies department are located and the buildings where the courses are taught could be denied funding under this language. This language needs to be stripped from the bill before it goes to President Obama for his signature.

Why do we always seem to circle the wagons, lick our wounds, and seem to expect that if we keep doing the same things we will get a different result? Isn’t that expectation the definition of insanity?

Our leadership needs to listen to internal critics because it is more effective to listen to those who are directly involved in order to rebuild and reform the party rather than simply reacting to what the other side does and says. What we need us the message discipline and communication style of Reagan, the organizational resources of Obama, and spokes people that communicate warmth, knowledge, and common sense as well as conservative principles.

First, lets recognize and celebrate the history of electing Sen. Barak Obama President of the United States. There were people that believed that this momentous turn of events could not happen because of racist sentiment in the country. However, people from all backgrounds unified to elect Barak Obama. Obama also brought in many new voters and won the youth demographic. His coattails helped bring some new blood into the legislatures of this country as well.

The task now turns to governing and we need to watch closely and hold him accountable for his actions because he has promised and even acted conciliatory in holding out an olive branch to the defeated conservatives, thus inviting them in any wanting to hear their concerns. This is an improvement.

Now I will turn to the actions of conservatives who want to throw those who dated raise questions about ticket McCain-Palin, even when they gave good reasons for their decision to vote for and/or endorse Obama, as well as those who just criticized the ticket. These questions of those like Christopher Buckley, Michael Smirconish, William Kristol, Daivid Frum, and David Brooks should be seriously pondered. All questions and concerns need to be heard when addressing the rebuilding the Conservative/Republican Brands. Those who love Sarah Palin have no fear becasue she has a prominent place in the rebuilding of the brand. However, the questions about her experience were just as relevant as when the same questions were about Barak Obama. The particular questions that were most prescient in this election were the economy and foreign policy. On the second issue set Palin’s inexperisnce would have posed a problem if she had to take over as president. Barak Obama at least has spent the last two years on the Foreign Relations Committee of the United States Senate.

This election proves that the GOP must rebuild its brand and credibility even as this greatest country on God’s green earth makes history.

Ever since Senator John McCain (R-AZ) the GOP presidential nominee announced his surprise selection of Governor Sara Palin of Alaska as his Vice President Sun-Times columnist Mary Mitchell has been hammering away at Palin. This commentary is an attempt to respond to Mitchell and her charges.

In her first column ” The Gender Game” Mitchell mentioned the historic nature of Gov. Palin’s selection as Senator McCain’s running mate and even called her a reformer. She also though that Palin was a fighter, but then the rest of the column set a negative tone. She bemoaned that the “Choice feels sleazy.” She then diminishes the choice by claiming that it is not Palin’s brains that McCain is after, but her gender because of Hillary voters. She called the selection a desperate and sleazy game for which women would not fall.

If Sen. McCain’s selection of Palin were just about capturing the Hillary voters by choosing a women there are others he could have chosen like Rep. Heather Wilson (NM) or Gov. Jodi Rell of Connecticut. These two women are also very intelligent and capable of leading the country. Some thought he might chose fellow Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson (TX), however, rather than going with the two known individuals or the eastern Republican he chose the Gov. of Alaska. Granted Hutchison and Wilson are insiders and he was looking for an outsider. That would leave Palin or Rell and he chose Palin because according to McCain Palin campaign manager Rick Davis “He saw alot of himself in her ( Newsweek, 30 Aug 08)”. There is nothing sleazy or cynical here. This was a choice based on his instinct of who he would be able to work with the best.

Second, in ” Palin not on board Straight Talk Express” Mitchell called it ‘melarkey’ that they thought it was a beautiful thing that their daughter was going to bring a baby in to the world because Republicans don’t extol the beauty when a girl similar to Bristol Palin on the South Side of Chicago turns up pregnant. They call it a tragedy. She calls Palin and her views part of the problem. She blames the absence of comprehensive sex-ed and the presence of abstinence-only programs. She talks about 17 year old girls throwing caution to the wind and having unprotected sex regardless of the messages that adults send to children. She also calls melarkey that the Palin’s were happy that their daughter was gong to marry the young man. She reasoned that Gov. Palin should have publicly acknowledged the disappointment she felt about the situation. She calls for compassion for those in the less fortunate areas.

It is folly to blame either the absence of comprehensive sex-education programs or fault the presence of abstinence-only programs for the complex problem of teenage pregnancy. It is also difficult to completely blame the parents of Bristol Palin or any other unwed, pregnant teenager when we know that some will get pregnant no matter weather we send the abstinence-only message or the message sent in comprehensive programs. It is hard to expect these programs and parents to completely cancel out the effects of friends and culture as a whole. Young people are bombarded with sexual messages through the very media that we expect to provide the message of responsibility, which does not sell that well. I do believe that the Palin’s were disappointed in their daughter for getting pregnant, but if they would have come off as reprimanding her in public then there would have been an outcry. This delicate situation should be dealt with privately and not made in to a platform for policy and politics.

Third in ” Palin knows how to throw a punch” Mitchell makes the assertion that Palin was only selected because she can throw a punch. She speaks to Palin’s “heart of a street fighter.” The column goes on to chronicle some of the highlights of Palin’s acceptance speech at the Convention. She mentions that Palin made the media the enemy because she didn’t feel accepted by them. Here conclusion was that even if Palin’s selection was a scheme the battle is real.

Hockey (or other Sports Moms for that matter) moms sure do know how to throw a punch and stand up in a fight. However this was not the only reason she was chosen, she was chosen for the reason stated above and those that will follow. I thought her acceptance speech was an excellent speech. This selection was not a scheme but a gamble that will pay huge dividends for Sen. McCain.

Fourth, in ” Is attack dog’s bite even worse than her bark?” Mitchell talks of Palin overshadowing McCain and her feeling that Palin is being divisive. Her claim is that Palin pit small-town people against everyone else and black against white. She thought Palin was mean and seemed to believe that Palin was saying that good people can’t come from cities. She also bordered on accusing Palin of saying that others were not patriotic. Though Mitchell admits that Palin’s war memorial comment was not meant as anything against Obama she could see how some could take it that way.

Gov. Palin will not overshadow Sen. McCain in the same way that Hillary Clinton, though immanently qualified would overshadow Barak Obama. Gov. Palin and Sen. McCain Complement each other very well. He is a war hero and a reformer and she is a reformer as well as having administrative experience. In her convention speech Palin was neither mean nor divisive. Mean spirited and divisiveness can be read into it though by those who wish to fan the flames of discontent. In her comment about good people coming from small towns she was recognizing her roots and not slighting large urban areas. Palin never said anyone was unpatriotic. All she meant by her war memorial comment was that it is people who have served this country that are on war memorials in small towns and they are usually the names of hometown heroes. I also understand how this comment could be taken in the other context, but we do not need columnists at major newspapers fanning the flames on this.

Finally, in ” Palin should be a laughingstock to all feminists” Mitchell asserts that Palin makes her sick even though she liked a fiesty character on Thelma & Louise she could not stand Palin’s fiestiness at the convention. She also has a problem with her appearing to be caught off guard by the question about the “Bush Doctrine.” She asserts that the media has crowned her as a new age feminist, but Mitchell does not think so. She also asserts that it is a stretch that Palin is reform minded, even though earlier she said that Palin was a reformer. and then reveals some things that she believes tarnishes the claim. There is also the claim that she would not have had any time to attend any events for her children at school. Mitchell believes that her views on abortion and abstinence are extreme. She wraps up by saying the fact that Palin is a star should make any feminist sick.

Feminists should be proud that Gov. Palin has been chosen as the GOP nominee for Vice President, even though they disagree with her on policy and don’t plan to vote for the McCain Palin ticket. Just her presence on a major party ticket advances women and shows that women can work and raise a family. I can understand where she wouldn’t have time to attend school functions, but I believe that she did attend some. Mitchell had claimed earlier in her writing that Palin was a reformer. Palin’s reform credential were gained in the battle to reform her home state of Alaska. I disagree with her personal opinion on not allowing abortion in cases of rape or incest but agree that states should decide the issue and not the federal government. I also am glad that she understands and is willing to work with all to reduce teenage pregnancy. I think that Palin was genuinely caught off guard by Charlie Gibson’s question about the “Bush Doctrine” and handled it well because it is not something that many people can definitively describe, as there are at least four definitions of it and Gibson could not even answer the questions. The media has not crowned Palin a new-age feminist, but derided her and tried to stop her from busting the glass ceiling. It is outrageous to dislike a woman who is feisty in real life and extol the virtues of a television character. Palin is not and should not be a laughingstock. Palin and her candidacy should be celebrated and exalted even though you may not vote for her or like the GOP. Palin’s selection as Vice Presidential nominee is as historic as Barak Obama being nominated by the Democrats.

The first step in reducing teen pregnancy and abortion is to know the facts. Actually, we know what works. Child Trends and the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy published their own data and the corroborating findings of a vast body of scientific research which found that the recipe for delaying sexual activity is parental involvement, good friends, strong faith and participation in church activities. The bottom line, they said, is that parents and friends have tremendous influence on their children, regardless of socio-demographic or economic background and characteristics.

Obviously, many of the nation’s adolescents don’t have those positive influences in their lives; researchers from the left and the right acknowledge the problems associated with single parent families, father absence, declining church attendance, and lack of community networks.

Adolescent girls facing those challenges in their personal lives are particularly vulnerable. Only 1.7 percent of teenage males were fathers in 2002; that means the vast majority of fathers of the babies born to teen mothers are age 20 or older. There are far more sexually experienced girls than there are girls who are sexually active – which probably means that the girls’ sexual initiations were not likely precipitated by mutual passion and instead involved drugs and/or alcohol. So, it is not surprising that fully 63 percent of teens regret early sexual activity and wish that they had waited.

Read More from the Beverly LeHaye Institute

I am also reviewing the Supreme Court’s decision and am disappointed in your over reaction to it. The one tweak that may be needed to satisfy the Court is to allow the review to be a habeas review. I thought that the procedures were generous and sufficient, but that does not equate to constitutional and in keeping with the habeas statute. I certainly don’t think you should make a statement like the one you have until you have completely finished reviewing the decision. I am a bit concerned about your constant warring with the Court.

In my reading so far I see nothing that says that they would have a right to sue. However, if the Court did have full review and found that an individual was wrongly detained; especially because of the length of time involved that justice ought to be rendered even if it meant a lawsuit against our government for improper detention.

A portion of this problem is the legislature’s fault because they did not act and set guidelines for capture, detention, and trial at the outset. Now you are finding out that you have to deal with many court decisions that you don’t like because of not getting your colleagues to move sooner on this issue.

I am sure that if you look carefully that there is a way that you can comply with this decision and not harm the military. You need to retreat from the political sphere with your law books and the case document and study it carefully. It is also wise to seek the counsel of other attorneys and have an open discussion. This cannot be done in the political sphere because when attempt this sort of thorough analysis in the hot political sphere you end up not making a wise conclusion like the promise that you will support overturning this decision.

It is the job of lawyers and congress to figure out how to comply with the edict of the case and not compromise security. There has to be a way and you need to find it.

I am shocked at your comment in the Washington Post that President Bush longs for the days when both sides could get along and work together because he knows he could have that if he would actually work with others. When his party does something he doesn’t like he uses a signing statement and when the opposition does something he vetoes it.

He has polarized this country and he almost never invites Democrats to the table to discuss issues and he always insists on his way or the highway. He uses executive and now administrative orders when Congress won’t bend. It is inexcusable that you could defend someone who believes that congressional oversight is useless and that the Senate should not ask questions of a nominee that he sends up. This is a tantrum after Judge Mukasey failed to satisfy his inquisitors on both sides regarding the issue of torture in general and water boarding in particular. He still refuses to answer the question of weather the practice is illegal.

If he really wants to work with both sides why don’t you try to catalyze this by setting up a meeting with him and a group of bipartisan members of congress to discuss issues instead of just 105 Republicans. He needs to talk to everyone on both sides and attempt to work out differences instead of just berating Congress for not cooperating. Congress is charged in the Constitution with being a separate and coequal branch of government that is supposed to check the power of the executive through oversight.

Thank you for considering my opinion on this matter.