By David A. Norris
Justice William O. Douglas, United States Supreme Court
In times past, our nation’s judges recognized that America has a civic religion. In 1952, Justice William O. Douglas wrote, “We are a religious people and our institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.”* Civic religion is different than the personal faith of individuals–their manner of worship, fellowship and practice. Read entire article…
By Shane Flait
Family Court Violates the Purpose of Courts and Fathers’ Unalienable Rights! The purpose of court is to reveal truth so as to administer justice to maintain liberty of the innocent, punish the guilty proportionately to his offense and compensate for damage done if possible to the aggrieved. 
The court’s process for accomplishing this must be recognized as a fair process. Family court ignores all of this. Read entire article…
By Dr. Gary DeMar
When Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas appealed to Natural Law theory in some of his legal opinions and writings, there were those on the Senate Judiciary Committee during his confirmation hearings in September 1991 who took exception. The most vocal critic was former Senator and now Vice President Joseph Biden.
William Blackstone
As long as Thomas defined Natural Law as Biden did, Thomas’ appeal to it was acceptable. But if he defined it as “Higher Law,” the belief that God was its author as eighteenth-century jurist William Blackstone (1723–1780) did, then his view of Natural Law would not be tolerated. Biden wrote an article that appeared in the September 8, 2001 issue of the Washington Post[1]in which he claimed the following for his version of natural law:
There is a divide that now noticeably exists among Christian political activists across the United States surrounding the answer to the question: should activists demand abortion be outlawed outright, or should they choose instead to incrementally reduce abortion out of existence by the application of varying degrees of aggravating regulatory laws? One side we will call the “incrementalist” insists the use of a method intended to gradually regulate abortion into oblivion, and the other we will call the “purist” demands incremental strategy be abandoned in favor of straight-forward legislation that clearly and entirely outlaws murder of the unborn at once.
The strident and ongoing disagreement between these two factions, ironically, guarantees the abortionist continues to win, as he has for the past 38 years since Roe v. Wade. A solution MUST be reached. Lives are literally at stake. Read entire article…
By Howard Jacobs | Published 2011
What is gay marriage? A marriage consists of a wife (the woman) and a husband (the man). Can one person be a wife one day and a husband the next day? Is it decided at the time of this marriage that one person will be always be the husband and the other the wife? Or are the concepts of husband and wife to be thrown away like so many other outdated and useless old concepts? Read entire article…
By Dr. Gary DeMar
The Constitution states that it is “the supreme law of the land” (Art. 6). This can’t mean that it is the supreme moral law of the land since there is very little of what we think of moral law in it. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land only in terms of what powers are actually enumerated in the document itself. If the Constitution does not address a topic, it has no authority over it and therefore does not carry the validity of “supreme law.” The Constitution assumes an existing body of moral law. Read entire article…
Are you interested in a Ron Paul Presidency? After a recent visit to Iowa, and my noting of Congressman Ron Paul’s continual appeals to the authority of scripture when discussing economic issues, I found it necessary to record the following video clip and share it with friends across the state of Iowa.
Read entire article…
by Howard Jacobs
Saul Alinsky’s book “Rules For Radicals” was published in 1971. Its methods have become synonymous with leftist political strategy. Even people who never read the book have been so ingrained by the techniques outlined within its pages that they use its methods without realizing it. Both President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are admirers of Saul Alinsky. Read entire article…
On June 29 and 30th, of 2010, Opinion Dynamics conducted a scientific national poll.[i] It revealed that 78% of Americans believe the founding fathers would be unhappy with our condition as a nation today. No doubt, the corruption and abuse of the 1st Amendment in our courts would be their chief horror.
Read entire article…
Former Governor Branstad routinely touts himself to church-going Iowans as “a fellow evangelical” and that he is “pro-life”, yet he vigorously campaigned for Lamar Alexander, in 1999, a presidential contender who firmly stated that he “did not support” overturning Roe v. Wade, and adamantly opposed the Human Life Amendment. Read entire article…
The text-book definition of “limited government” once found in 18th Century America, was a much different definition than that of our 21st Century. For example, some folks champion limited government by hollering, “I believe in LIMITED government!” Pry a little, and you’ll find out what they actually mean is, “The government has no right to tell me I can’t kill my baby if it suits my [selfish, cruel, and materialistic] preference to do so!”
The term might also mean “the government has no right to restrict my right to enjoy narcotics, methamphetamines, or any other type or shape of hallucinogenic I may or may not choose to employ while driving the local school bus!” Read entire article…
By Bryan English
2/9/10 Pleasant Hill, IA -
House Speaker Pat Murphy today presided over a vote that confirmed for all of Iowa that he and his caucus ought to shut off the lights in the State House and go home to look for legitimate work. With the exception of Rep. Deloris Mertz, the Democratic caucus today turned their back on the Constitution, their assigned legislative duty, and the people of Iowa by refusing to take action on the Iowa Marriage Amendment. Read entire article…
There was (and is) a law that governed the operation of the entire universe long before any three members of a group of five formed a majority! And that law cannot be changed; it can only be rebelled against or obeyed! Some people call it “natural law,” but old-fashioned, outdated, “non-progressive” conservatives like me call it “Divine Law.”
An Open Letter to the Iowa Supreme Court,
So many times we read editorials claiming “if it had not been for the courts, we’d still have slavery in America today!” This shameless untruth is nearly always stated in an attempt to praise modern-day judicial activism, (without which homosexual marriage in Iowa could not exist). Besides the glaringly obvious fact that being “gay” is a behavior, and has nothing to do with civil rights, in the first place…besides the fact that as recently as last year, the American Psychiatric Association repudiated the fallacy of “born-gay” science, (which is to say, from an impartial, non-political perspective, that being “gay” is NOT the equivalent of being a particular “race”), few debates of our time seem more prone to deteriorate into willfully unintelligent comparisons, than the one at hand. As I am prepared to demonstrate, the arguments of the left are found wanting. They are unworthy of serious consideration, once their emotion-driven talking points and historically inaccurate claims are exposed and discarded. Read entire article…
My hypothesis: If you were able to lock a randomly chosen Iowa State Lawmaker in a padded room, and inject him with a magical truth-serum, here are four things you’d hear, from their lips to your ears, on the conjoined subjects of gay marriage and judicial activism:
“We don’t believe in the canard of gay ‘marriage’!” So hollered the good and wholesome majority of citizens at city hall on February 2nd, 2009.
In response to their well-spoken arguments, the Sioux City Council passed a resolution that night, re-affirming Federal and State law which defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Despite what many consider “desperate efforts” and “very poor arguments” offered by both Mayor Mike Hobart and Mayor Pro-Tem Jim Rixner, the refreshing and necessary resolution passed by a predictable three/two margin.