Persecution of the Righteous

And the Right to be Moral. You don't have to be particularly religious to be moral. You don't have to belong to a specific congregation to be moral. Heck, there are studies of chimpanzees who are altruistic in their behaviors of communal sharing and protection, etc. Some behaviors we consider moral are even in the animal world and people actually devote careers to studying it. (don't ask me to replay that chimpanzee video). These may be weird people, but they have a point. Some things are considered respectful, dignified, altruistic, and other behaviors are not. There is a reason why "motherfu***er" and "c*&cksucker" are perforative terms. People know what they mean and they know that it is bad behavior. So why are people who are trying to teach good moral behavior being blasted in social policy? Why have the Democrats so stupidly become the party of motherfu*T&*ers and c*^*&cksuckers? Seriously. There are however, highly moral people doing things like devoting their lives to teaching little kids how to be good, nice and what the scriptures said and mean. There are highly moral people who are trying to teach people to take care of their neighbors and love them like themselves. There are highly moral people who are out there every day of the week trying to give young girls a sense of dignity so they don't squander themselves on trash. And so why is public policy insisting on undermining all of that- by forcing for example a contraception mandate on people who don't suffer c*^&*^*cksuckers lightly. This is a mistake. It is a huge mistake. Even if Obama gets re-elected it is a huge mistake. Because the country can't allow persecution of the righteous under the guise of equality or equal access or anything else that pretends to be more altruistic than the altruism that morality brings under the name of fairness or secularism or enlightenment or anything else it wants to call it. There is a good, there is a right, there is a truth. And it is not and can not be defined by political flavor of the season. You know it when you see it. I know you do.

The Oh Please, Get A Life Moment of the Decade

And the First Amendment Right to A Sense of Humor This is not legal advice. While I went to the same law school as Sandra Fluke this is not legal advice. Neither is her diatribe for the most part because she is not a member of any bar yet. She is a STUDENT. Which definitionally means she has something or two to learn. Not to mention she is twelve. So lately. Can we talk? Now some television quasi-editorialist journalist blondish (Loreal for $7.00 I don't care) woman says in response to Fluke's engagement "to a man?" and everyone goes apoplectic like she is a raving homophone. Pallleeeeze. Can't the woman have a sense of humor? Perez Hilton can blast the heterosexual world from here to Studio 54 and an innocuous comment like "to a man" gets the politically correct police pounding at her door demeaning an apology for the insensitivity? People, people, people. Do you know there is a nuclear program afoot in Iran and women in Saudi can't go out in public showing their ankles? Congrats Sandra Fluke on your engagement. I don't know you but engagements generally are very good things. If a man loves a woman enough to put a ring on it they should be given the metal of honor. But give us a break. Really. Lighten up.

Everything you wanted to know about Religion and Public Policy

FORMIDABLE

http://kennedynew.byu.edu/archive/lecture.php?id=2494

The Good Wife

Brings Home the Bacon. Who can find one of those? That's the primordial quest of the Proverbian. According to Proverbs 31, the biblical definition of a Good Wife, which is adhered to by Jewish and Christian believers alike who believe the Proverbs to be good advice, the paragon of virtue in a woman is an income generating woman. In fact, Proverbs 31 has her buying real estate with her own earnings, and planting vineyards (vineyards made grapes which makes wine, which was also income producing) The Proverbs 31 definition of a Good Wife has her being a small business woman with assets. Stay at home Moms are great, but ideally, if they generate income to help out the household all the more virtuous according to the Bible. So will everyone please lay off those who criticise Ann Romney's stay at home to raise the kids model. I am more impressed that Pelosi has a tribe of kids and works and owns a vineyard in California. Most Americans cannot afford not to have two people trying to generate some income. Most Americans are not in the my husband only gets a quarter mil. a speech category. Those who say Ann Romney is clueless about the economic struggles of most American families are totally correct and should be supported in their criticism. Hillary Rosen- you go girl.

LIFE

WITHOUT Parole Is bad enough don't you think? Congrats to Connecticut for being the latest state to abolish the death penalty. Should be done federally everywhere. Bad-A murderers in Texas should have the same Right to Life as Bad-A murderers in Connecticut and the same Right to Life as Fetusus don't you think (note to Texas Pro Lifers) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/12/connecticut-death-penalty-repeal_n_1419597.html?ref=politics


  As an attorney who has done research on Habeus cases I know it is very difficult to exhonorate someone- even when they may be innocent- The system makes it difficult because we don't like overturning juries. But juries can get it very wrong and do. Judges can tilt the system and do. And the laws regarding double jeopardy and laws regarding what type of evidence is or is not allowed as new evidence makes it difficult if not impossible to exhonerate someone wrongfully convicted.

   On the odd chance there is even one person who is wrongfully convicted we shouldn't get to kill anyone off--but the odds are better or worse than that. Since DNA started to be tested on people who had DNA to test around 300 people who were scheduled to be killed by the state were let go because they were wrongfully convicted.  There are many many capital cases where there is no DNA to test. For each of the roughly 300 wrongful convictions that have since been overturned the jury found that beyond any reasonable doubt the person did it. They were wrong- they missed the reasonable doubt or they were not collectively reasonable. Juries in this country can be Not Collectively Reasonable. Often. That is why we really need to eliminate a death penalty.

Juries cannot always put the pieces together properly. They cannot always grasp nuance or suggestion. They are not always smarter than a fifth grader. They get it wrong- often.

  People have vendettas against people. I recently read a case where a child who was manipulated by one parent in a divorce setting to falsely claim that the father raped them did many years on a false rape charge until the child recanted later. There are motivations for falsely impuning criminality to someone.
The system is not always right. Habeus petitions are rarely granted cert. by the Supreme Court.

   It thus really should be a Federal initiative - a Federal law that a Democratic President should want to take seriously. We need to abolish the death penalty for good in this country. France did it decades ago. Most civilized western countries don't have a death penalty. Texas doesn't look that civilized.

  It is just flatly CRUEL AND UNUSUAL to kill anyone off. If the 8th Amendment does not mean that, it does not mean anything. There is no greater torture than death.

You thought I was kidding.

Blood Clots and Birth Control
http://www.everydayhealth.com/womens-health/0411/certain-birth-control-pills-may-carry-higher-blood-clot-risk.aspx?xid=aol_eh-women_5_20120409_&aolcat=HLT&icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl13%7Csec3_lnk1%26pLid%3D151053
Seriously, Why???

http://www.natpresch.org/exegesis/sermon2012-04-08.mp3