Category Archives: Gospel of Luke

Follow Brother Nathaniel!

How to Celebrate July 4 by Compassing the Death of the King—a day to Remember the Importance of Bad Manners, Disrespect All Authority, Never to be Satisfied with anything “Conventional”, and so Always to Resist the Lure of Safety in the Authoritarian Impulse

In particular—STAND UP FOR SMALL TIME BULLYING, HAVE A FIGHT WITH YOUR SPOUSE/SIGNIFICANT OTHER (then make up), AND GIVE A COP A COPY OF THE CONSTITUTION WITH THE BILL OF RIGHTS HIGHLIGHTED and tell him to study it real hard and consider getting an honest job where he’s NOT a paid bully for the richest and most powerful people only….. or even that he use his experience in oppressing others and destroy lives for meaningless violations of traffic laws, zoning regulations, and the like—and turn around and join in the cause of freedom.

I have meant to write about this one minor topic all year because it has been irritating me: the Southern Poverty Law Center has been sponsoring a gigantic national campaign against “BULLYING” all year, and I think it’s about time somebody stood up for the Bullies.

What is particularly disturbing about the SPLC’s campaign to stop bullying is that it is all about suppressing the bad manners of “little people.”  I do not favor BIG Bullies—I have dedicated my life to fighting the arrogance of the Banks, the Judges and “licensed” attorneys they carry around in their pockets, and all the legal and systemic ways in which our Government of the Rich, by the Rich, and for the Rich has, in the name of “the General Welfare” assumed to tell us all what to do.

Do you see where this is leading?  The SPLC campaign against Bullying is just one more attack on the Freedom of Speech, the right to maintain highly individualistic values, and the right to deal with other people in whatever manner seems appropriate—or even without any manners at all.

Now I grew up in a home where decorum was valued above all things.  Everyone was extremely quiet and no one ever spoke above a hush.  I guess that’s why I eventually married a Greek girl who came from a family where everyone yelled at each other morning news and night, fought constantly, and basically acted the way out of control Mediterranean types are famous for acting.  Ok, it’s also a large part of the reason why that particular Greek girl and I parted company, but the point is, liberation from norms is: LIBERATING.

Now the SPLC has paid HUNDREDS, maybe nationwide THOUSANDS of extremely good looking young kids (99% white) to go around in red v-neck shirts or jackets, depending on the weather, in malls and commercial streets from the Third Street Promenade in Santa Monica to Michigan Avenue in Chicago and Newberry Street in Boston asking people to sign petitions and make contributions to stop BULLYING in Schools.

What this plainly means is that the SPLC wants to invade yet another social arena and tell people how to live and what to think.  You see, ridicule is a key element of political discourse—I’ve dished it out and I’ve taken it, sometimes gracefully sometimes not so much.  Ridicule and “Ritualized Humor” as a means of social control was and remains a powerful tool.  It is very sinister when the corporate Government itself resorts to manipulation of norms through ridicule—and the Obama administration and its allies have engaged in a great deal of such manipulative conduct through their agents and operatives on the World Wide Web—including ridicule of some of the positions nearest and dearest to me (such as the importance of adherence to the Constitution and Barack Hussein Obama’s status as a non-Christian, non-American, non-Democratic, and completely non-Constitutional President).

I object to the use of “big money” to engage in bullying for “big players”—and what I see is the huge IRONY of the SPLC employing major corporate money and corporate methods to try to suppress “the little guy or gal” even more than s/he is already suppressed.

The BULLYING that the SPLC wants to attack is, of course, bad manners directed in politically incorrect ways at certain “disadvantaged” and hence now FAVORED groups in society.  The SPLC wants to USE THE POWER OF SCHOOL DISCIPLINE (i.e. the power of the STATE, for all intents and purposes), to correct people’s manners in school in regard to whatever the “SPLC cause supported group du jour” may be.  In short, to enforce POLITICAL CORRECTNESS even for adolescents and pre-teens in Middle School, High School, and probably even elementary school and kindergarten.

THIS IS CALLED: STATE CONTROL OF MIND-FORMATION.   And of course, the concept of “bullying” is just vague and nebulous enough that it can apply to criticism or ridicule of anything you want it to apply to—I daresay that EVEN ordinary political debate could easily be targeted—“You Republicans have got to stop bullying the Democrats”—or vice versa….Anyone ridiculed, in particular, for supporting the current President, I daresay, would be a bully worthy of expulsion from any school at any level.  Unofficial, Private Audience Criticism of the President has already cost people their jobs in the U.S. Army and led to summary discipline against even U.S. JUDGES—who ordinarily cannot be reprimanded or reproached for ANYTHING.  (look up, for example, the case of Montana District Judge Richard Cebull, whose crime was that he dared quite literally to call Obama a “son of a bitch”—and was ordered to write a letter of apology to the President and his family: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/02/richard-cebull-obama_n_1317131.html).

We all have to have the right to call the President a “Son-of-a-Bitch”—or worse.  I recall in the movie “Raising Arizona” in the opening narrative I think, when Ronald Reagan was called a “Son-of-a-Bitch” and I can’t remember anybody (right or left) so much as batting an eye.  I had voted for Reagan and I certainly laughed at the jab in its context.

So it worries me extremely that just as the right to ridicule the high and mighty is under attack, and that people as “immune” from any sort of prosecution as Judges and military officers are being persecuted for speaking ill of the President, that the SPLC goes out into the malls and preaches that even small acts of unkindness or breaches of manners should be punished.

So, for this Fourth of July—-PLEASE insult someone in a position of power, and hand him or her a copy of the First Amendment as you do so—maybe even the whole Bill of Rights.   And, here’s another suggestion—either have a fight with your husband or wife or significant other, or just discuss the bumper sticker I’ve seen on the back of so many LAPD squad cars recently: IS THERE ANY EXCUSE FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE?

I would contend there is: we are HUMAN, and in ADAMS FALL, WE SINNED ALL.  An old song by Hank Williams, Sr., (not coincidentally called “MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS”) includes the wonderful line “If my wife and I’re a fussin’ brother that’s our right, cause me and that sweet woman got a license to fight, why don’t you mind your own business.“)

I suggest that any couple who cannot admit that they are incapable of controlling their emotions and actions at all times is not mature enough to be married—but that’s just my opinion and I don’t plan on trying to enforce it on others.  I definitely believe, however, that any couple contemplating marriage or living together should ask themselves whether, when they get into a fight, one or the other would resort to dialing 911 and calling the police.   Any prospective partner who says “yes” he or she would call the police—should be SHUNNED.  Marriage and home-making are all about forming a new community, a shelter from the larger cruel world, and any spouse who would bring in the ravenous dogs of state-empowered law enforcement into that community is unworthy.

I write this today, July 4, 2012, because exactly ten years ago today and tomorrow, my aforementioned Greek wife Elena destroyed our home and marriage precisely by calling the police (Williamson County Sheriff’s Department) when we were having a marital dispute about who should drive our one remaining car (since one car was in the shop) to run las minute holiday errands, including buying a fireworks display for the Fourth of July.

Elena called 911 only after she had bitten and stabbed me, which was a bad move on her part because the Williamson County Sheriff’s Department ended up arresting HER rather than me.  Oddly enough, I worked for the next forty eight hours to get her out of jail, but she never forgave me (even though it was pretty much all her fault).  That was the beginning of the end.  But it was also the beginning of my education in the most horrific abuses of the Family Courts in America—all of which were embodied in and committed by Judge Michael Jergins and attorney-flesh eating vultures such as Laurie J. Nowlin and J. Randall Grimes of Williamson County Texas, without any doubt the scum of the earth, along with social workers like Travis County’s Mark Ashworth, who work to make sure that all marriages fail and all spouses turn to the state for dispute resolution—when that resolution is always destruction, which is always the feeding of the vultures.

The use of the police to intervene in Domestic Relations disputes is another clear and plain attack on the autonomy of the home, the sanctity of the family, and the autonomous responsibility of each individual to govern himself or herself.  The use of the Courts to impose restraining orders on one or another spouse who may have raised his or her voice or slapped or hit the other is just a matter of putting the state in charge of our human nature.  We are animals, and animals fight—more commonly in nature about sex and food than anything else.

Judge Michael Jergins in Williamson County adjudged me a bad father because I discussed my family’s problems with our minor son, Charlie, who was the primary victim of our family’s problems.   It was Michael Jergins, Laurie J. Nowlin, and J. Randall Grimes who opened my eyes to the possibility that Family Law and Domestic Relations law could be used to overturn the constitution “in the best interests of the child” and finally I understood the relationship between Welfare and Communist Dictatorship: “you will lead good lives, as we define good, or else you will die and have nothing.”

When Moses handed down the commandments from Mount Sinai and Christ preached to the people to love and care for one another—these were exhortations to the people to live a good life—not warning that their lives would be taken away if they didn’t.  In fact, it was precisely this kind of legalistic bullying and oppression by the Pharisees and Sadducees that Christ came into the world to protest.

No group more epitomizes the Pharisaic path of oppressive bullying more than the SPLC in modern times—CONFORM OR BE OSTRACIZED!  So, at the very least, they deserve to be ignored when they come forward asking you to contribute to their campaign.  Or you can, as I’ve done several times now, ask them how they square their views of bullying with the First Amendment to the Constitution—not to mention the Ninth and Tenth Amendments (powers and rights reserved to the people).

So we need to celebrate our bad manners, disrespect all authority, never be satisfied with anything “Conventional” (especially manners, norms, or wisdom) and above all we must alway accept the dangers of freedom—that we will fight with those we love and then have no one but ourselves to fall back on when there is no one to come to our aid—and hence to be REQUIRED to FORGIVE and LIVE TOGETHER, in order to take care of each other, as Christ taught us all.

So on this Fourth of July—let us celebrate our Free Will, our freedom to engage in bad manners is protected by the Constitution, and we should celebrate the fact that returning to the Sermon on the Mount is a far better solution than either the strictures of Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Numbers, or the Family and Domestic Relations Code of any State.   If we cannot live well, in fact, we must at the very least strive to live free.

Expressing our opinions of others—i.e. “Bullying”—is good and healthy so long as we do not use the excessive and overwhelming force of government to “act it out.”  The SPLC, the police, the family courts and their social workers, and other arms of the current corporate governmental regime are our enemies, not our friends, lest we ever forget.  Let us never allow THEM or their rapacious tyranny into our homes and schools lest they consume our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

***********************************************************************

To end on a slightly lighter note, I suggest singing and reflecting on the real wisdom of Hank Williams’ lyrics to “Mind your Own Business”—if some elements are out-dated (such as the reference to “party line”) some are timeless, immortal and directly relevant to the doctrines of Political Correctness and Elitist manipulation such as that engaged in by the SPLC “Mindin’ other people’s business seems to be high tone“):

Words and music by Hank Williams, sr.

If the [d] wife and I are fussin, brother thats our right cause me and that sweet womans got a license to fight [d7] Why dont you [g7] mind your own business (mind [d] your own business) cause if mind [a7] your business, then you wont be mindin [d] mine. Oh, the woman on our party lines the nosiest thing She picks up her receiver when she knows its my ring Why dont you mind your own business (mind your own business) Well, if mind your business, then you wont be mindin mine. If my woman stay out til two or three Now, brother thats my headache, dont you worry bout me. Just mind your own business (mind your own business) If mind your business, then you wont be mindin mine. If I get my head beat black and blue Now thats my wife and my stove wood too Just mind your own business (mind your own business) If mind your business, then you wont be mindin mine. I got a little gal that wears her hair up high, The boys all whistel when she walks bye. Mind your own buisness blah blah, you sure wont be minding mine. Mindin other peoples business seems to be high-toned I got all that I can do just to mind my own Why dont you mind your own business (mind your own business) If you mind your own business, youll stay busy all the time.

State-Licensed Marriage is a CRIME AGAINST GOD, HUMANITY, and NATURE!

My Dear Friend Dr. Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson of Palm Beach Continues her Crusade against the forces of Secular Humanism as they fight against Constitutional Freedom, Liberty and Individual Integrity and Autonomy.  04-16-2012 KAGL Edited Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Determination back in 15th Judicial Circuit Court.  We a complete reversal in the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeals!  Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson’s divorce decree was vacated and nullified (on February 15, 2012) as having been entered in the Complete Absence of Jurisdiction, by Judge Richard L. Oftedal (now off the case).  The 4th DCA returned its mandate to the Florida Circuit Court in North Palm Beach County on Friday 13 April, and so here we are, back in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court in and for Palm Beach County.  Hurray, Kathy! 

Notice of Respondent’s Constitutional Objections to Personal Jurisdiction,

Motion for Leave to Amend Answer & Counterclaim,

Motion for Scheduling Order and New Trial, and

MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING DETERMINATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL JURISDICTION

COMES NOW the Respondent Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson, pro se, giving notice of her constitutional objections to the exercise of personal and subject matter jurisdiction over her by and under the Family and Domestic Relations Code and Courts of Florida. The fundamental question which Respondent submits is this:

Where there is no express constitutional authorization, how can there be any legitimate constitutional exercise of control over any subject matter or personal question defined as a matter of fundamental right, such as marriage, privacy, and child-rearing? If neither the constitutions of the United States of America nor the State of Florida authorize the licensing or dissolution of marriages, nor to regulate domestic relations in any way except with regard to public safety, how can the State of Florida erect and maintain courts to adjudicate cases relating to such matters?

The Fourth District Court of Appeal for the State of Florida has expressly decided in its order of February 15, 2012, that the Judge Richard L. Oftedal had no power whatsoever to enter a final judgment on April 29, 2010 for the dissolution of marriage.  In other words, the Fourth District Court found that Judge Richard L. Oftedal acted in the complete absence of jurisdiction in entering that “Final Decree of Dissolution” dated April 29, 2010, and that his actions were a nullity.  Implicitly, Judge Oftedal must also have acted unlawfully when he refused to set aside his April 29, 2010, order upon Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson’s post-trial Motion.  As the Fourth DCA correctly noted, Respondent Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson had not one, but two appeals of non-final orders filed (pursuant to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, 9.130).

The two interlocutory appeals both concerned constitutional challenges to the Florida Family Code and Florida Domestic Relations jurisdiction. Since the Fourth DCA denied Respondent’s motion for clarification or rehearing on these subjects, the appellate justices essentially declined to decide and/or found it unnecessary or improper to reach these issues, since they had already reversed and vacated Judge Oftedal’s final judgment in full in Respondent’s favor[1].

Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson now returns to this Circuit Court and asks for leave to amend her pleadings, and for a new scheduling order, a new opportunity to conduct discovery (which she never did) and for a New Trial in this Court to find and/or determine, after sufficient hearing and inquiry into the underlying facts and law of the case all of the Constitutional Issues which Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawon has sought to bring to bear in this case, as a matter of law.

The essential point is that neither the United States Constitution nor the Constitution of the State of Florida authorize the State to Issue Marriage Licenses or to impose jurisdiction by statute to resolve cases or controversies involving or arising from private domestic relations or religious questions of any kind (so long as no breaches of the public safety or peace are involved or implicated).

Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson now demands that, in the interests of judicial economy, this Court rule (after seven long years of waiting) how the Florida Florida Family Code (in particular as dealing with dissolution, division of property, and child custody) derives any legitimate power or constitutional authority in light of Article I: §§1, 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 12, 21, 22, 23, 27, including but not limited to Basic Rights, Religious Freedom and Non-impairment of contract provisions of Article I: §§3 & 10 (including the proposed amendment of Article I: §3 submitted to the people for popular mandate on the ballot this November 2012) of the Florida Constitution, as well as the First, Fifth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as a whole, and her rights to Due Process of Law (Art. I: §9), Trial-by-Jury (Art. I: §22), and protection from wrongful intrusion into her privacy (Art. I: §23) by the Courts as a precondition of preserving those rights in dissolution proceedings.

The only mentions of “marriage” in the entire constitution of Florida appear in the recently adopted negative definition in I: §27 and in Article X, §5.  Neither section neither authorizes nor implies state authority to license marriage.  Article I, §27 mandates that Florida will respect only heterosexual unions as marriages as a matter of law, for whatever legitimate purposes there might be in so doing.  Article X, §5 likewise makes no reference to state regulation of marriage, but addresses (somewhat mysteriously, and perhaps redundantly with Article I, §2 above) another issue of “respect” under law:

There shall be no distinction between married women and married men in the holding, control, disposition, or encumbering of their property, both real and personal; except that dower or curtesy may be established and regulated by law.

Accordingly, Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson now asks this Court finally to rule, resolve, and clarify, upon new trial after amendments, discovery, and full-briefing herein requested to resolve Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson’s constitutional questions and affirm her challenges both to this court’s exercise of personal and subject matter jurisdiction.

Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson is the respondent to the Petition for Dissolution of Marriage brought by her husband, Jeffrey P. Lawson, originally in February of 2005.

Contending from the beginning that there was a defect in the subject matter jurisdiction of this Court, Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson has never consented to the jurisdiction of this Court.  It is a time honored principle in this state, affirmed steadily by our Supreme Court since at least Lovett v. Lovett, 93 Fla. 611, 112 So. 768 (Florida March 29, 1927) that any:

Party proceeding without objection with hearing in equity court of controversy, jurisdiction of which may be given by consent, may not thereafter complain as to jurisdiction.

            But the record will show that Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson has continually objected to the jurisdiction of this Court and never waived her rights to challenge the personal or subject matter jurisdiction of any Florida Court to adjudicate any aspect of her marriage, her domestic relationship with her husband, or her domestic relationship with their daughter, or to dispose of any of their property except that her husband or the Court show positive constitutional authority to do so, and not merely acquiescence by silence as to this point of most sacred and fundamental rights.

Nor has Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson ever been afforded the right to amend her pleadings in accordance with her constitutional objections and challenges to the personal and subject matter jurisdiction of this Court.  Accordingly, Respondent here and now further requests that this Court acknowledge, affirm, and enforce her right under Article I, §§1, 2, 3, but especially §5 (Right to Instruct Representatives and to Petition for Redress of Grievances), §9 (Due Process of Law) and §21 (the “Open Courts” provision) of the Florida Constitution to amend her pleadings, conduct discovery (Art. I, §24), file pre-trial (and, unlike under Judge Oftedal, have a full and fair hearing on all) motions (including but not limited to Constitutional questions of both substance and procedure[2]), and otherwise to prepare try her constitutional and jurisdictional challenges related to the current Florida Statutory Scheme for the Dissolution of Marriage.  Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson submits that seven years is too long already, and that she should no longer have to wait to challenge and deny the power of the State of Florida so to intrude upon her fundamental rights as to design and enforce upon her a Family Law Jurisdiction and application of judicial process without consent to deny her (1) right to petition, (2) right to privately contract, (3) right to due process of law, (4) right to a trial-by-jury, (5) rights and powers reserved to her as one of the American people under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson has already collected statistical and documentary evidence which she would have plead and presented by and through expert witnesses and testimony (long ago) to the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, had she been allowed to do so by Judge Richard L. Oftedal, which shows that Florida Courts automatically grant 100% petitions for divorce without regard to any principal or standard other than that to allege that a marriage is irretrievably broken is taken as sufficient proof of the same as a matter of both fact and law.  Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson would also have argued that such a system was enacted by the Florida Legislature without legitimate or even colorable constitutional authority, then enforced by the State Judges and “officers of the Court,” and applied to her in defiance of all constitutional and statutory law, and in violation of her rights guaranteed under the Federal and Florida Constitutions to rights to due process, equal protection, and freedom from both state impairment of the obligations of contract and takings of liberty and process in violation of the First, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.


[1]           Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson abandoned these two interlocutory appeals once Judge Oftedal entered his final judgment on April 29, 2010, but the issues were not waived firstly because by operation of law the issues raised by the interlocutory merged, and secondly because these issues were fully briefed, as part of Kathy Ann-Garcia-Lawson’s Initial Appellate Brief, of which the Florida Fourth D.C.A. reached only the 9.130 jurisdictional issue and refused, even on her March 1, 2012, motion for clarification or re-argument, to address, decide, or resolve in any manner.

[2]           This Court should be aware that Judge Oftedal, on the record, refused to hear or rule upon any constitutional issues in his court, which is surely a denial of Kathy Ann Garcia’s rights under both the State and Federal Constitutions of Florida and the United States.

In the full version of this Motion, attached above, Kathy quotes in her conclusion of Chief Justice John Marshall’s stirring words in Cohens v. Virginia (March 3, 1821):

The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is, to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously to perform our duty.

The Full text of Cohens v. Virginia is attached here: Cohens v State of Virginia 19 US 284 5 LEd 257 6 Wheat 264 Chief Justice Marshall March 3 1821

Candidate Statement 2012: For Freedom and Real Social Diversity, “Jeffersonian Democracy” defines everything we call “Freedom”.

It Is My Intention To Run For United States Senator In The Non-Partisan Primary Election Currently Scheduled For June 5, 2012—

I intend to run on the following statements:

ALL FINANCIAL AND GOVERNMENTAL MONOPOLIES, AND LEGAL IMMUNITIES FOR WRONGFUL TAKINGS OF LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PROPERTY MUST END, WITH FULL ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THOSE ILLEGITIMATE MONOPOLIES AND TAKINGS.  Government licensing and government regulation of the economy are inherently destructive to the public welfare they seek to protect.

I STAND FOR THE RESTORATION OF A JEFFERSONIAN FEDERAL DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLIC wherein governmental intrusion into private life is limited by the constitution, reserving all powers to the people!

My interim campaign managers in this venture are: in Orange County: Renada Nadine March (949) 276-1970 and Aurora Isadora Diaz (714) 767-3311; Ed Villanueva in San Diego County (858) 231-5033; as well as my Campaign Treasurer, National Coordinator, and longtime personal trustee Peyton Yates Freiman (512) 968-2666.

Anyone interested in promoting “diversity” in the Democratic Party and U.S. Senate by electing a Conservative, sound money, pro-Private Property, pro-Common Law, pro-10th-Amendment, Libertarian Candidate to replace the hopelessly establishmentarian and politically correct Senator Dianne Feinstein, who has played a leading role as member of the Senate Committees on the Judiciary and Intelligence in approving and ratifying the corruption which shackled America, should seriously consider backing me for Senate.

To elect anyone with my “outsider” credentials and background would “send them a message” inside the Washington Beltway that the people are uncomfortable and dissatisfied with the Status Quo and want real change.

My specific platform planks are:

(1) restoration of full First Amendment rights, and the abolition of all forms of governmental regulation of speech and expression, including the elimination of penalties for advocacy and repeated submission of petitions for redress in the Federal Court system.

One of my favorite passages in the Gospels is Luke 18:1-8, the Parable of the Unjust Judge—which tells of a Judge to whom a widow repeatedly brings her petition for redress, and which Judge finally grants her relief rather than hear her plea again.  Apparently, in Ancient Israel, it was unimaginable that any person would be penalized for repeatedly seeking justice—even it was by no means certain that this particular widow or any person would obtain anything by her efforts.  The Federal Courts, with Congressional support, have all but cut off the power of the people effectively petition through the Courts.  Federal Courts seem to exist only for the benefit of large corporations and law firms.  This particular corruption must end, even though, harking back to one of the passages in the Hebrew Bible, it is an ancient problem.

The following, from Isaiah 59, seems to me to embody my own frustration, and the frustration of many I know, with the Judicial System and its most numerous “officers of the court” who are the lawyers (one of my Great Grandfathers was a Judge & Justice in Louisiana—according to family legend he had a plaque on the walls of his chambers which read, “Dead Lawyers Lie Still”.   ISAIAH 59:

4 No one calls for justice;
no one pleads a case with integrity.
They rely on empty arguments, they utter lies;
they conceive trouble and give birth to evil.
5 They hatch the eggs of vipers
and spin a spider’s web.
Whoever eats their eggs will die,
and when one is broken, an adder is hatched.
6 Their cobwebs are useless for clothing;
they cannot cover themselves with what they make.
Their deeds are evil deeds,
and acts of violence are in their hands.
7 Their feet rush into sin;
they are swift to shed innocent blood.
They pursue evil schemes;
acts of violence mark their ways.
8 The way of peace they do not know;
there is no justice in their paths.
They have turned them into crooked roads;
no one who walks along them will know peace.
So justice is far from us, and righteousness does not reach us.
We look for light, but all is darkness;
for brightness, but we walk in deep shadows.
10 Like the blind we grope along the wall,
feeling our way like people without eyes.
At midday we stumble as if it were twilight;
among the strong, we are like the dead.
11 We all growl like bears;
we moan mournfully like doves.
We look for justice, but find none;
for deliverance, but it is far away.
14 So justice is driven back,
and righteousness stands at a distance;
truth has stumbled in the streets,
honesty cannot enter.
15 Truth is nowhere to be found,
and whoever shuns evil becomes a prey.

(2) restoration of full Second Amendment rights, on the grounds that the power of the people to defend themselves against government is the necessary backup to the freedoms secured by the First Amendment (an all-powerful army and police force with the monopoly of legitimate violence is simply incompatible, in both the long and the short term, with meaningful individual or social freedom). We must reinvigorate the concept of the civilian militia, composed of every adult man and woman in society.

Switzerland and Israel both follow this model of public participation, which just shows that there are no guarantees of anything in life or politics: Switzerland by its rigid neutrality has avoided direct involvement in all the wars of the past century, while Israel has been in a state of nearly constant war since even before its creation 63 years ago in 1948.

In the United States, we have somehow combined both worlds: up until 1992, we had enjoyed a century of nearly complete domestic peace.  Discounting several dozen essentially disorganized and nearly random urban riots relating to the Labor movement in the 1890s and the Civil Rights and Vietnam War Protest movements in the late 1950s-early 1970s, there was no serious conflict or “state of hostility” on United States soil following the withdrawal of occupying forces from the South in 1877 and the dawn of the “Decade of Domestic Terrorism” which ran from 1992-2001, and led to the transformation of American government and the near obliteration of civil rights.

(3) freedom of contract from governmental interference of every kind;

To fully implement this phrase would eliminate such a large portion of the United States Code and the work of lawyers generally that overtaxed pulp-tree farms (and recycling plants) everywhere would heave a sigh of relief.   Just as an example, the IRS code and many Federal Courts frown on contracts for barter or exchange—meaning that the most basic instinct of exchange of goods, labor, or services of any kind for negotiated substantive value without assigning any formal cash value has been very nearly made a Federal crime.

(4) reduction in governmental subsidies with a goal towards ultimate elimination, of  corporate welfare, individual welfare, and all programs which foster dependency on the state rather than freedom and social-interdependence of people on each other as equals—again of absolutely every kind;

(5) reduction in governmental power over all aspects of human life, but including especially but not limited to all regulations which tend to affect individuals as members of families, and to alienate the individual from his family as a considered governmental “benefit” or “service” in support of “domestic relations” laws; and also including all regulations which tend to impose uniform philosophies or beliefs, or enforce normative standards of human philosophy, religion, or ideology of any kind.

Returning to the point about the First Amendment above, a free society (such as existed in the United States during the Colonial, Early Republican, and up through mid-19th century period at least) must foster the development of new and divergent lifestyles based on emergent new philosophies rather than trying to straightjacket society and culture into a “one-size” fits all narrow menu of politically correct and socially acceptable choices.

(6) abolition of government programs such as massive environmental regulation (including the construction and maintenance of dams and nuclear power plants) which necessarily increase the dependence of the people on the government and government controlled monopolies for their very survival;

(7) the abolition of all kinds of official immunity, including but not limited to judicial and prosecutorial immunity, for violation of civil rights, and especially for those violations and abuses of office which design or promote private or unofficial political and “social engineering” goals;

(8) any and every attempt by the state or federal government to regulate or control family organization in the name of “public welfare”;  here again, multiple apparently opposing interests may be reconciled creatively.   The interests of so-calle “social conservatives” will be served because the Federal government would no longer subsidize the state-sponsored breakup of families, pitting husbands and wives against each other in an eternal redistributive battle which ultimately enriches only lawyers and empowers only Judges and social workers.   Moreover, the power of Churches, Religious, Philosophical, and/or even Private Social or cultural groups to institute, promulgate rules, and regulate marriage and the education of the young will be restored.

However, persons of a socially liberal bent will find that the abolition of all civil and criminal restrictions on “gay marriage” and any other (victimless, voluntary) “alternative lifestyles” will lead to complete individual choice and private decision-making, limited only by individual imagination and the criminal laws against physical injury and slavery of any kind.

In a truly free society, if the Unitarian Universalist and other churches wish to solemnize gay marriage, they shall do so according to their own rules and regulations without leave or license from any state officer. But at the same time, the Conservative Presbyterians and Southern Baptist Convention will be free to ban and forbid membership to any individuals choosing what appears to these groups an “ungodly” lifestyle.  The marketplace of ideas, in short, will be open to all competing models, and the triumph or failure of any ideology will be utterly without beneficial or detrimental consequences in the law.

(9) a restoration of strict construction of the constitution and civil rights as respecting life, liberty, and property ownership;

(10) a complete restructuring of the banking and government finance systems, including but not limited to abolition of the Federal Reserve and the Federal income tax;

(11) a restoration to the people of the power (and the duty) to structure their own lives and social relations by contractual agreement without governmental interference, the major legitimate function of the courts being to enforce and judge the fairness of private contracts, including but not limited to marriage contracts and other agreements relating to domestic relations, such that the marriage license and state-sponsored divorce should be forever abolished and erased from the American social scene, restoring true freedom of association and freedom of religion to the people so that MEANINGFUL cultural and social diversity can flourish in the absence of regulation.   In this connection, all victimless crimes should be abolished, and the definition of “crimes against society” or humanity should be strictly limited to those behaviors which actually place real individuals in physical danger.  “Moral” or “Mental” injuries such as the consequences, for example, of merely “hateful” expression (without associated conduct such as assaultive behavior) must no longer be allowed to be a cause for criminal punishment (although tortious actions for “emotional distress” and other forms of non-physical victimization would be greatly expanded and liberalized, although subjected to the funnel and fulcrum of trial-by-fully-informed juries).

(12) corporate and professional, like governmental immunity, should be abolished or at least severely curtailed so that corporate, like governmental, officers, cannot hide behind legal shields while they wield immensely destructive financial swords, (

13) electronic voting should be carefully and independently monitored and subject to citizen audits, as should all governmental actions, but electronic voting should be supplemented by duplicative paper ballot receipt systems where the voter casts his vote electronically, but then casts and keeps a confirming paper copy of his vote, so that recounts will have double and triple built in security systems,

(14) all ancient prerogative writs, including quo warranto should be restored and forever guaranteed to the people,

(15) Federal judicial rules should be reformed in favor of freely amended pleadings and limiting the discretion of judges to dismiss complaints based on subjective criteria such as “plausibility”, while the right to decide all matters of credibility and fact-finding should be strictly reserved to juries, which should also have the power to decide whether laws are fairly applicable in each individual case.

I submit that I am a candidate for all the people.  As an individual, I was born a “WASP” from the Upper Middle Class of White America, and for much of my life I thought of myself as a “Goldwater-Reagan” Republican, albeit with deep admiration for Conservative Democrats such as populated the South through at least the 1970s.   But as an Anthropologist and Historian, I should hope I have a deeper than average appreciation for the mechanics and implications and demands of REAL socio-cultural and political diversity.

And because of my unusual individual life-history, I should find a “common table” with traditional elements of the California “Blue State” Democratic coalition including California’s Hispanics (I am fluent in Spanish and support official bilingualism in Government and the Court System on what you might call “the Canadian Model”), as California’s African Americans (I have suffered more than my share of unjust judicial and financial oppression and I recognize that they have been uniquely victimized as a group), along with California’s labor unions, for whom I would always defend the rights of freedom to organize, freedom to associate, and freedom to negotiate and contract without governmental interference.

Finally, I think that my social-“diffusion of power” program regarding lifestyle choices and values should appeal not only to every ethnic group belonging to the California “plurality of diversity” but also to every Californian who shares in this state’s tradition of eccentricity and the embrace of real normative divergence. The socialist tyranny which has characterized California politics and social policy during most of my lifetime stands in marked contrast to the real diversity of the California population—at least by origins.   All who enjoy support California’s diverse makeup must admit that such diversity cannot meaningfully coexist with homogenization through coercive unitary educational, financial, and legal systems.   “Good fences make good neighbors” and the freedom the build good fences and maintain actual distinctions is one of the freedoms to whose protection I am most deeply committed.

Above all I think I will appeal to California’s homeowners and property owners of every ethnic and class background: like no one else in this or any other race, I will fight first and foremost to restore the integrity and reality of private property against all Federal Tax-based schemes and programs of securitization and transfers of real ownership as a result of corrupt banking and lending laws.   A

s an anthropologist and archaeologist, I think I have a better appreciation for the cultural history and diversity of all groups in California than anyone else, and understand the importance of maintaining identity and actual diversity by avoiding forced assimilation of any and every kind: “Vive la difference.”

As strongly indicated above, I also support absolute freedom of expression and religion, and would work to remove all Federal Support for or mandates involving state licensed or controlled marriage or relating marriage or support to the social security system, which has turned the State Family Courts into surrogate Federal Tax Collection facilities for the purpose of welfare and wealth redistribution.

As a United States Senator I would demand proof of the legitimacy and honest integrity of all our programs, institutions, and officers, including but not limited to the monetary system (the value of the dollar, the threat of renewed inflation), the Federal Reserve Banking System as a whole, every branch of the Federal Government, and yes, even of the Presidency and of the current occupant of the White House.

I would specifically fight in the U.S. Senate for amendments to the Civil Rights Statutes of Titles 18, 28, and 42 which would amendments would ensure the color blind application of the civil rights laws.   “Equal opportunity under the law” must flourish and promote itself as among the greatest of American Values, not so much as a divisive but unifying slogan and ideal in our courts—available to the members of the DAR and recent immigrants alike.

I would also fight for the repeal of the recent National Defense Authorization Act, the Patriot Act, and the Real ID act, FISA, and the secure restoration of meaningful Habeas Corpus, and the removal of every sort of unnecessary governmental program intruding upon or regulating any aspect of business or private life.

My approach to developing a policy for California’s ecological and environmental would be simple: nature is best, all modifications of nature which pervert demographics from their natural tendencies are bad.  In particular, no more dams should ever be built with Federal Funds and those dams which exist now should be subjected to retrospective environmental assessment to see which can be removed to restore rivers and lakes to their natural configurations.  I think that the restoration of natural hydrology will ultimately lessen the need for governmental regulation and intervention in economic and social life, as well as solve many of the most pressing environmental threats to all life on earth.   I will support every sort of incentive to develop non-fossil fuel energy bases EXCEPT hydroelectric based on damming our rivers.  Deserts should probably remain dry rather than the site for suburban sprawl.  Restoration of natural water flows will decrease the tendency for the United States Federal Government and State Governments to become modern day examples of “Oriental Despotism.”  Energy independence for the individual household and family or local communities through wind and solar power is the ideal to be preferred.

Please consider supporting me in my attempt to shake up the California Democratic Party and Washington establishments!  In sum, and conclusion, I would just offer as a Haiku-like motto

“Jeffersonian Democracy” defines everything we call freedom.

Statement originally published on May 20, 2011 @ 1:54, & May 21, 2011 @ 2:08 AM

Why should we not celebrate both Advent and the Twelve Days of Christmas? Revisiting one of my favorite questions: what is a “law respecting an establishment of religion” under the First Amendment?

This month we have been celebrating the 400th Anniversary of the original Publication of the King James Bible, Sponsored by King James I of England and VI of Scotland, son of Mary Queen of Scots, “executed” (effectively murdered “under color of law”) by Queen Elizabeth I.  In spite of the sometimes unjust and bloody history of the Christian Church and religion, there are times when I really do think that we would be better off in the United States of America if we had a solemn four weeks of “Advent” preceding Christmas followed by a joyous 12 days of Christmas, a major holiday possibly beginning as early as December 21 and running through the Feast of the Epiphany on January 6.  Why not?  Is it because the State has usurped all the forms and functions of religion and sells them to us under the fraudulent guise of “Non-Religion” when in fact the State has merely imposed the “Secular Humanist” religion on us in place of Christianity?  I originally published this post on August 3, 2011, at 4:30 pm during one of the coolest summers in California history, but one week before Christmas seems like a good time to revisit these issues!

12-16-2011 What is a Law Respecting an Establishment of Religion under the First Amendment_

The 1559 Book of Common Prayer, adopted by Parliament under the leadership of Queen Elizabeth I, established Moderate “Middle Way” Protestant Anglo-Catholicism as the State Religion of England & Wales.  Everything contained in that Book of Common Prayer is an ASPECT of Religion and hence its adoption by Parliament, or Congress, or any State is a “law respecting an establishment of religion.”

[I have a modest proposal and it involves answering this question: how much behavioral content do the words “religion” and establishment “cover”?  Could we now accurately interpret and meaningfully paraphrase the establishment clause “Neither Congress nor the states shall make any law regarding any of the behavior covered in the Administration of the Sacraments or other Rites and Ceremonies of the Christian Church?”  or even “Neither Congress nor the states shall make any law regarding lifestyle choices or philosophy?”  Could it be that the entire Regulatory-Welfare State was and remains expressly forbidden and unconstitutional?”]

The First Amendment is without any doubt the most powerful of all the Amendments, indeed, quite possibly, all the clauses of any part, of the constitution.  The U.S. Supreme Court, it seems to me, has focused an inordinate amount of time focused on “School Prayer” and “Teaching Evolution vs. the Bible” and similar subjects in its “Establishment” and “Free Exercise” jurisprudence over the past 50-70 years.  It is almost as if “Religion” is only relevant as an academic exercise, and for that reason, only the “teaching” of religion—the transmission of certain “epiphenomenal” beliefs about the creation of the world or how to commemorate the mechanisms of creation, is in any sense relevant to the constitutional question.

I have been thinking a lot about it, and it seems to me that the word “establishment” should be taken in what—to the Framers of the U.S. Constitution in 1787-1792 at least, must have seemed the most relevant historical context of this word “establishment”—and I have never seen the U.S. Supreme Court discuss this issue at all.

At the Accession of Elizabeth I, in 1558-1559, the Queen of England and her Parliament agreed on a Book of Common Prayer and an Act of Uniformity which, without any doubt at all, “Established” the Church of England and made non-conformity a crime, albeit a very minor misdemeanor.  (Failure to attend the Bishop-Governed, i.e. “Episcopal” Church every SUnday was then and there made subject to a fine of 11 pence.)****

THOSE LAWS, my friends, the 1558-1559 adoption by Parliament of the Book of Common Prayer and the enactment of the requirement of Church Attendance punishable by a fine were LAWS RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION.  See inter alia:  http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1559/BCP_1559.htm

As with so many books, it is the subtitle that gives the critical information we need to know:  the full Title and subtitle of Queen Elizabeth I’s “Coronation” BCP together read “The Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England.”

I want to make a radical proposal here: any subject, repeat ANY SUBJECT, which was treated under the “Administration of the Sacraments and Other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England” is a “Law Respecting an Establishment of Religion.”  The teaching of the Bible is covered by the Book of Common Prayer. Accordingly, one supposes, teaching of the Bible in Public School, if authorized by statute, might well be the result of a “Law Respecting an Establishment of Religion.”

But what of the actual “Sacraments and Other Rites and Ceremonies” of the Church of England?  The subject of the sacraments is the orderly cradle-to-grave organization of life.  Each of the sacraments is what anthropologists call “Rites des Passages” marking certain boundaries or “limnal moments” in life: birth = baptism, coming of age as an adult= communion + confirmation, marriage, major decisions about how to live life (= assumption of Holy Orders), reconciliation with one’s self and society after “sin” (= confession/reconciliation), and extreme unction (= death, last rites).

Could it be that the Founding Fathers actually meant and intended, in 1792, to forbid the United States Federal Government from involving itself in ANY “cradle-to-grave” programs involving the orderly structuring of life from cradle-to-grave?  Was this the true meaning of “religion” and/or any “law respecting an establishment of religion”?  “Re-ligio” in Latin means something like “rebinding” or “binding-well”—“ligare” is a verb etymologically related to “lis” or “litis” as in “binding litigation” and “lis pendens“—a “lis” was a string or rope.   I.E., “Religion” is something obliging people to do certain things in certain ways.  Perhaps what “religion” really means is “life style” or in particular, an ordered, well bounded, life-style….”walking the straight and narrow path” or words to that effect.

If so, if “religion” meant (and still means) “life-style choices”, then the First Amendment in effect forbids the social welfare state—and I don’t believe anyone has ever raised this point before, either as an historical truth or even an hypothesis to be tested linguistically or by comparison with the writings of Samuel Johnson, David Hume, Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, William Hazlitt, or any other English Philosophers and writers of the late 18th Century, much less any of the Founding Fathers of the USA—but I propose that this is a meritorious hypothesis which ought to be explored.

Equating the word “religion” with “lifestyle” and translating any “law respecting an establishment of religion” as “any law concerning the ordering or structured command of lifestyle” would be and in fact is a very radical, radical idea, by which I mean it cuts to the very root of things (going back to Latin again “radix = root”).   Defining “religion” as “life-style” might explain, for example, why I always (analytically but also somewhat instinctually) tell friends of mine in the “Landmark” program that “Landmark” is really their “Religion”—Landmark is one of those “secular” philosophies or “life-style choices” which orders its adherents’ lives completely.   Did the Founding Fathers wish to PREVENT the Federal Government from Ordering peoples’ lives completely?  I think, in the context of the First Amendment, this makes a GREAT deal of sense.

So, if the phrase “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” could be paraphrased “Congress shall make no law respecting an ordering or structuring of individual personal lifestyles or philosophies”, or even more narrowly “Congress shall make no law respecting any kind of behavior described by or relevant to the limnal moments in life or rites des passages described or constrained in the phrase “administration of the sacraments and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England”, then most of what government does is illegal under the First Amendment, because the “nanny state” has become horribly intrusive into every American’s everyday life.

After the Civil War, the Thirteenth Amendment was passed to abolish slavery or involuntary servitude “except as punishment for crime” and the Fourteenth Amendment was passed, at least in part, to apply (or, as the Supreme Court and legal scholars like to say, “incorporate”) the Bill of Rights to the States.  NOTHING in 20th Century Jurisprudence at the Supreme Court of the United States has been more clear or consistent than the proposition that ALL clauses of the First Amendment were forcibly “incorporated” to apply to the States in or by the Fourteenth Amendment.   For inexplicable reasons, the Seventh Amendment has perhaps faired the worst of all the amendments, in that the Supreme Court has ruled more than once that the states need not “incorporate” trials-by-jury into every civil proceeding, but the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments have all been held as “incorporated” to the States by the Fourteenth, though sometimes with less vim and vigor than the First.  The Status of the Second Amendment remains ambiguous, as does the continuing vitality of the ninth and tenth amendments, which are showing slightly renewed “life” in recent years, albeit a little bit too little too late to save either state or individual sovereignty in any meaningful way from….of all things…..the vast encroachment of the Welfare State.

Earlier this year, there was a minor and very temporary explosion of discussion and major news coverage concerning whether School Prayer at a Public High School Graduation in south Texas near San Antonio constituted “State Action” or not.  An arrogant United States District Judge for the Western District of Texas (the first jurisdiction ever to disbar me….) threatened Jail for Contempt of Court to any student or school administrator who led the student body in prayer.  Very briefly, I had wished I were back in Texas.  If I had been there, I would have advocated and recommended absolutely informed defiance of this Judge.  This not so very honorable U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division, should have been placed squarely in the position of deciding whether to jail something close to the entire student body/faculty/and audience of the graduation ceremonies.  Now THAT  would have been a true “Tea Party” moment in the spirit of the original Boston Tea Party, and of civil disobedience of the finest kind.   I strongly suspect that Rick Perry and all the other  wee sleekit cowerin’ tim’rous beasties of the Texas Republican “Tea Party” movement would never have had the nerve to do anything quite this “revolutionary”.

And oddly and ironically enough, the May 2011 Texas Graduation Day Prayer Showdown was averted precisely when Texas State Governor Rick Perry and Texas State Attorney General Greg Abbott championed the “prayers” of that particular South Texas High School.  Perry and Abbott came down on the side of praying, and they all together “prayed” to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  Then and there a panel of the U.S. 5th Circuit, sitting in the John Minor Wisdom Courthouse on the river (south) side of Lafayette Square on Camp Street in New Orleans (just opposite a building where Lee Harvey Oswald used to live, back before 11-22-63) determined that the U.S. District Judge was wrong.   The Fifth Circuit decided, once Governor Perry and Attorney General Abbott had intervened, that no “State Action” was involved in the School Prayer at Graduation.  This outcome makes sense, in context, to anyone with advanced alzheimer’s or dementia, but only if you think about it, so everyone in Texas breathed a sigh of relief.

During even that brief time, who knows how many Texas Child Protective Service workers invaded homes and recommended families for highly intrusive “governmental service plans”.   The number might be countable, but who knows how many Temporary Orders by Texas District Judges or “Baby Judges” (as the Honorable Laura Livingston once described herself before she became a District Judge in Travis County) in Family Courts were issued in how many new divorce or dissolution cases, awarding temporary custody of children and splitting families irrevocably apart.

I propose that, in particular, the First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits both the Federal Government and (through the Fourteenth Amendment) the States, from “establishing” any regulations relating to any of the subjects covered by the Book of Common Prayer in England in 1558-9 or 1662 (http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/england.htm and  http://www.eskimo.com/~lhowell/bcp1662/index.html) or even 1789 in the new United States (http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1789/BCP_1789.htm).

I further propose that the true meaning of the First Amendment is absolutely to guarantee both freedom of conscience and freedom of personal individual lifestyle choices and behavior, to the extent that the Modern Regulatory-Welfare State is incompatible with the First Amendment to the Constitution, above all else which may be said about the Unconstitutionality of the various statutes and regulations which have brought this Regulatory-Welfare State into existence.

****(In Elizabeth’s time there were 12 pence [“pennies”] in every old English Shilling, 24 pence in a Florin, 30 pence in a Half-Crown, 60 pence in a Crown, and 240 pence [20 shillings, 10 florins, or 4 crowns] in the Pound Sterling until A.D. 1969.  Although I was by then only a summer visitor with my grandparents in England, rather than a resident with my parents, I remember that summer and the transition to the new currency vividly. For that reason [and inspite of the inspirational moon landing] 1969 is accordingly a year which shall live in infamy in my own mind and memory and the memory of many Patriotic and Sentimental Brits and people of British heritage and descent—the adoption of the decimal system was a much more cowardly precursor to the U.K.’s entry into the Common Market/European Community than anyone at the time ever realized).  

Above all, I challenge Governor Rick Perry and everyone else who pretends to care about Religion in the United States to address this question, and to admit that the prohibition against any “law respecting an establishment of religion” means that the debate must expand FAR, FAR beyond the boundaries of education, public prayer, private prayer, or the teaching of evolution, or even the school lunch consumption of ham or bacon sandwiches.  

It is time to publicly debate and answer the question: must government be banned forever from ALL activities regarding the regulation or control of the human life-cycle, from cradle-to-grave?  Is this the true meaning of freedom?  

Meanwhile, in Texas, the trivial pursuit games go on unabated…..

Judge tosses attempt to stop Texas prayer rally

APBy APRIL CASTRO – Associated Press | AP – Thu, Jul 28, 2011

  • FILE- In this June 23, 2011 file photo, Texas Gov. Rick Perry speaks during the 28th annual National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials conference in San Antonio. A federal judge on Thursday, July 28, 2011 dismissed a lawsuit that sought to stop Perry from sponsoring a national day of Christian prayer and fasting, ruling that the group of atheists and agnostics did not have legal standing to sue. (AP Photo/Darren Abate, File)FILE- In this June 23, 2011 file photo, Texas Gov. Rick Perry speaks during the 28th …

HOUSTON (AP) — A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit that sought to stop Gov. Rick Perry from sponsoring a national day of Christian prayer and fasting, ruling Thursday that the group of atheists and agnostics did not have legal standin g to sue.

U.S. District Judge Gray H. Miller said the Freedom From Religion Foundation argued against Perry’s involvement based merely on feelings of exclusion, but did not show sufficient harm to merit the injunction they sought.

“The governor has done nothing more than invite others who are willing to do so to pray,” Miller said.

Rich Bolton, who argued for the group, said he was considering an appeal.

“I wonder if we had a Muslim governor what would happen if the whole state was called to a Muslim prayer,” said Kay Staley, one of five Texas residents named as plaintiffs in the suit. “I think the governor needs to keep his religion out of his official duties.”

Staley said she would be at the prayer rally to protest.

The Freedom from Religion Foundation argued in the lawsuit that Perry’s involvement in the day of prayer and fasting would violate the First Amendment’s establishment clause. The event, which is called The Response, is scheduled for Aug. 6 at Houston’s Reliant Stadium.

A day earlier, Perry defended the event, comparing it to President Barack Obama’s participation in theNational Day of Prayer.

“My prayer is that the courts will find that the first amendment is still applicable to the governor no matter what they might be doing and that what we’ve done in the state of Texas or what we’ve done in the governor’s office is appropriate,” he said. “It’s no different than what George Washington or Abraham Linlcoln or President Truman or President Obama have done.”

Perry, an evangelical Christian, said he didn’t yet know what his role in the rally would be.

“I’m going to be there — I may be ushering for all I know — I haven’t gotten my marching orders,” he said. “It’s not about me and it’s not about the people on the stage either, this is truly about coming together as a state lifting up this nation in prayer, having a day of prayer and fasting. That’s all it is.”

The group, which unsuccessfully sued to stop Obama’s National Day of Prayer earlier this year, filed the case on behalf of 700 members in Texas and called on the court to stop Perry from participating in the meeting or using his office to promote or recognize it.

Perry invited the Obama administration, the nation’s governors and Texas lawmakers to attend the event. The Republican governor is moving closer to jumping in the race for the White House.

The event is being sponsored by several evangelical Christian groups, including the American Family Association, which has been criticized by civil rights groups for promoting anti-homosexual and anti-Islamic positions on the roughly 200 radio stations it operates.

The foundation said it does not oppose politicians taking part in religious services, but that Perry crossed a line by initiating the event, using his position as governor to endorse and promote it and by using his official website to link to the organizer’s website. The plaintiffs also contend that Perry’s use of Texas’ official state seal to endorse the event and his plans to issue an official proclamation violate the Constitution.

An appellate court in April dismissed the group’s previous lawsuit against the Obama administration over the National Day of Prayer, on which people of all faiths were invited to take part. Like Miller, the three-judge panel in that case ruled that the group could not prove that they had suffered any harm when the president issued a proclamation observing the day.

For the First Sunday in Advent, the Magnificat in English, French, Greek, Latin, and Polish (Gospel of Luke 1: 46-55)

As far back into infancy as I can recall, the Magnificat was among the very earliest things I remember learning in life.  My mother taught me this version from the 1662 Church of England Book of Common Prayer, published as revised during the reign of Charles Edward Stuart, II.  During Advent, we remember that Mary was the real force who linked the Old and New Testaments as one single story, remembering her own ancestors and God’s promise to Abraham at the same time as carrying within her the seed of the whole new Covenant:

My soul doth magnify the Lord : and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.  For he hath regarded : the lowliness of his handmaiden.  For behold, from henceforth : all generations shall call me blessed.  For he that is mighty hath magnified me : and holy is his Name.  And his mercy is on them that fear him : throughout all generations.  He hath shewed strength with his arm : he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.  He hath put down the mighty from their seat : and hath exalted the humble and meek.   He hath filled the hungry with good things : and the rich he hath sent empty away.  He remembering his mercy hath holpen his servant Israel : as he promised to our forefathers, Abraham and his seed for ever.

My mother also taught me the Magnificat in French: Le Chanson de Marie (Le Magnificat désigne le cantique de la Vierge Marie dont il est question dans l’Évangile selon Luc au chapitre 1, versets 46 à 56 (visite de Marie à Elisabeth ou visitation). Il est aussi appelé Cantique de Marie).

Le Seigneur fit pour moi des merveilles, saint est son nom!
Mon âme exalte le Seigneur, exulte mon esprit en Dieu, mon Sauveur!   Il s’est penché sur son humble servante ; désormais, tous les âges me diront bienheureuse.   Le Puissant fit pour moi des merveilles ; Saint est son nom !   Son amour s’étend d’âge en âge sur ceux qui le craignent.  Déployant la force de son bras, il disperse les superbes.   Il renverse les puissants de leurs trônes, il élève les humbles.  Il comble de bien les affamés, renvoie les riches les mains vides.  Il relève Israël, son serviteur, il se souvient de son amour, de la promesse faite à nos pères, en faveur d’Abraham et de sa race, à jamais.  Gloire au Père, au Fils, au Saint-Esprit maintenant et à jamais dans les siècles des siècles.

It wasn’t until College that I got around to learning this texts in Koiné Greek
Μεγαλύνει ἡ ψυχή μου τὸν Κύριον
καὶ ἠγαλλίασεν τὸ πνεῦμά μου ἐπὶ τῷ Θεῷ τῷ σωτῆρί μου,
ὅτι ἐπέβλεψεν ἐπὶ τὴν ταπείνωσιν τῆς δούλης αυτοῦ.
ἰδού γὰρ ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν μακαριοῦσίν με πᾶσαι αἱ γενεαί,
ὅτι ἐποίησέν μοι μεγάλα ὁ δυνατός,
καὶ ἅγιον τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ,
καὶ τὸ ἔλεος αὐτοῦ εἰς γενεὰς καὶ γενεὰς
τοῖς φοβουμένοις αυτόν.
Ἐποίησεν κράτος ἐν βραχίονι αὐτοῦ,
διεσκόρπισεν ὑπερηφάνους διανοίᾳ καρδίας αὐτῶν·
καθεῖλεν δυνάστας ἀπὸ θρόνων
καὶ ὕψωσεν ταπεινούς,
πεινῶντας ἐνέπλησεν ἀγαθῶν
καὶ πλουτοῦντας ἐξαπέστειλεν κενούς.
ἀντελάβετο Ἰσραὴλ παιδὸς αὐτοῦ,
μνησθῆναι ἐλέους,
καθὼς ἐλάλησεν πρὸς τοὺς πατέρας ἡμῶν
τῷ Αβραὰμ καὶ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα.

and Latin (although this is the slightly edited most “up to date”  Vatican RC Version approved by John Paul II):

Magnificat anima mea Dominum, et exsultavit spiritus meus in Deo salvatore meo, quia respexit humilitatem ancillae suae.  Ecce enim ex hoc beatam me dicent omnes generationes, quia fecit mihi magna,qui potens est, et sanctum nomen eius, et misericordia eius in progenies et progeniestimentibus eum.  Fecit potentiam in brachio suo,  dispersit superbos mente cordis sui;deposuit potentes de sedeet exaltavit humiles;esurientes implevit boniset divites dimisit inanes.  Suscepit Israel puerum suum, recordatus misericordiae,sicut locutus est ad patres nostros, Abraham et semini eius in saecula.

And finally, for Daria, in Polish:

Found this on-line, but it's quite beautiful....

I can't really read or type in Polish at all, honestly, and this is much more visually appealing anyhow... All I'm sure I can make out is "Abrahamowi" right at the end, more-or-less confirming that this IS the Magnificat...

Today at All Saints, the Reverend Barry Taylor delivered an amazing sermon on the parallels between the coming of Christmas and the coming of the Apocalypse, and of God’s time and of being awake or asleep while waiting.  Simultaneously, he was eloquent, entertaining, and awe-inspiring, contrasting the laconic text of Mark with the more flowery prose of the other Gospels.  But the connexion with Advent and the preparation for the first earthly appearance of Jesus was minimal, and I think that’s too bad (but I don’t get to set the Scripture readings in Church….)

Up to a very real point I think that the stories of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and also of Mary Magdalene, the first to see the empty tomb, did more to make Christianity acceptable and familiar to the pagan gentiles of the world than any other two single aspects of the Gospels.  The proof of this is in the Universality of “Mary” as the most common woman’s name anywhere and everywhere the world has accepted Christ.  It is almost impossible to reconcile Saint Paul’s near misogyny with Jesus’ tolerance and obvious love of the women in his life, and of women generally.  While 1 Corinthians 13: 1-13 is rightly known as the “Hymn to Love,” this divine love or agape is not the kind of richly human love and relationships of which Jesus’ mother sings in the Magnificat, nor of which we celebrate during the successive seasons of Advent,  Christmas, and Epiphany.  What would Paul have said to Saint Joseph (whom I once played in a public school Nativity Play in Texas—the very concept of a “public school nativity play” is kind of astounding in 2011—but J.S. Armstrong elementary in Highland Park, Texas, well that was a different place and a different time altogether from anyplace in the United States today that I know of…)…what would Saint Paul (formerly Saul) have said to Saint Joseph during Advent about Joseph’s pregnant wife, and the fact that the two of them had not been married at the obvious time of Jesus’ conception?  Paul completely ignores all of that in his Epistles.  I cannot find the name of “Mary”, nor the words “Annunciation,” “Mother of Jesus”, “Angel Gabriel,” or anything like that even in Fr. Joseph A. Fitzmyer’s index or concordance to his exhaustive commentary on First Corinthians in the Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2008). Fitzmyer comments that Paul only refers briefly that he knew the Lord’s Brothers (1 Corinthians 9:5) and elsewhere in Galatians 1:19 indicates that he (Paul) knew James, the Brother of Jesus and First Bishop of Jerusalem as one of the Apostles.  This is pretty much all that Paul says of Jesus’ family.  (See especially Fitzmyer 2008: 353-359).  “Brotherhood” and family in 1 Corinthians refers to the community of believers—an abstract family bound by spiritual values rather than blood, whereas the Gospels are all so intimately physical and related to Jesus’ capacity to be human, eat and drink with everyone, touch and heal the sick, embrace sinners, and ultimately to die.   The practical and earth Pagan world of Europe and Egypt would never have accepted Paul’s Christianity alone.  The hierarchical political world of the Roman Empire would never have accepted Jesus’ Gospels of Love and Tolerance alone.   In Mary the people and the Church found their Earthly and Heavenly Queen, and this is (to me anyhow) the essential lesson on which we must focus during the Season of Advent.

For Family, Home, and Freedom: Abolish State Licensing of Marriage and all Federal Welfare Conditions Mandating State Domestic Relations Law

I have been saying the same thing about Britney Spears for several years, and you could say the same thing about several dozen other Hollywood Celebrities.  It remains true that nothing is more offensive to the sanctity of marriage (and to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment) than the requirement of a State Marriage License and the existence of State Family and “Domestic Relations” Courts.  

         However, the degree to which the mainstream media permits these extremely high priced hookers to serve as an inspiration to the rest of the world’s population has just got to be evidence that the media is participating in the plan to abolish the family, private property, and the “Bourgeois State.”  Together, the Family Courts and the Media do indeed make a mockery out of marriage, and these are literally the “models” for how everyone else thinks it’s “Normal” to behave. 
        In my opinion, then, the subject of marriage is one in which strict construction of the constitution leads to a victory for the conservative religious right as well as the socially liberal left:
          Conservatives can have their traditional marriages entirely governed by their Churches, with no state interference.  Liberals likewise can have their non-traditional marriages governed according to contract without any hint of Sacramental “marriage” or any involuntary imposition of anyone else’s religious standards on them.  The Courts of the State will be available to adjudicate disputes arising under partnership contracts without discrimination or religious establishment (or moral judgment) of any kind (except with regard to fundamental notions of equity).
         All sections of the United States “Public Health & Welfare Code” (Title 42) which mandate or place conditions upon Welfare based on State conformity with Federal Law be repealed and/or declared unconstitutional, and that almost every provision of every State Family Code or Domestic Relations Code likewise be declared unconstitutional as a direct infringement on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as integrated to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.
               In short, I also propose that no court could ever again be involved in a family dispute except to construe a written marital or “domestic partnership” contract, will, or trust.   I not only do not believe that Gay Couples should not be allowed Marriage Licenses by the State, I do not believe that anyone should be allowed Marriage Licenses by the State: gay, straight, or hermaphrodite/transsexual.  The State must be BANNED from the bedrooms (and living and dining and breakfast rooms) of the people all together (we’ll leave the propriety of state regulation of attics, rec-rooms, garages and laundry rooms for another discussion).  
          Only Churches should be allowed to perform marriages and/or to judge their validity.   Traditional Roman Catholics can choose to be bound by Papal laws concerning marriage and divorce.  Traditional Anglicans can choose to be bound by the Book of Common Prayer adopted by Parliament in the time of Elizabeth I in the Four Hundred Year Old Language (whose quatuor-centennial is being celebrated this very year and month) of the Bible as published in 1611 under King James I.  But Unitarians and Universalists, as well as Pagans and Wiccans, will be free to celebrate gay marriages if they wish.   The Mormons may reestablish Polygamy if they wish (so long as no one is ever coerced into it without legal consent, and the state will still preserve the right to establish uniform ages and other tests of mental competence of contractual capacity, including the capacity to agree to sex and marriage).
          The Civil Courts will continue to adjudicate marriage and/or civil partnership agreements as they would ANY OTHER CONTRACT.  The Statute of Frauds adopted under Charles II will continue to apply to marriage and all other contracts affecting real estate or duties to be performed over more than one year in time, but this is merely and really a secular standard for the enforcement of any contract. Any couple (of any orientation) without the literacy or common sense to create a written contract will simply be left “on their own” to deal with “partnership breakup” problems.  
                This is how marriage always was historically, since the most ancient times, and it is how marriage ought to be now: a contract to which the “loving couple” and their families are parties, with friends as witnesses.  If these people cannot work out an agreement that’s fair and reasonable under the circumstances, the state should not impose “contracts of adhesion” on them.
If you would like to help the fight for “corny old values” like Truth, Justice, and the American Way, for Family, Home, and Freedom, and to add one Senator for the Bill of Rights and against Indefinite Detention, against the PATRIOT ACT, and against the use of United States Troops in this Country against its own citizens, please support Charles Edward Lincoln, III, for U.S. Senator from California.  We are fighting one of the most entrenched establishment seats in Congress—Dianne Feinstein who tried to make cosmetic changes in the “indefinite detention” provisions of Senate Bill 1867 to hide the grim and oppressive reality—and we ask you to send your check or money order to Lincoln-for-Senate 2012 to Charles Edward Lincoln, III, 952 Gayley Avenue, #143, Los Angeles, California 90024.  Call 310-773-6023 for more information.