Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore Is the Best Choice to Fill Scalia’s Vacant Seat


This is from

I would not mind seeing  Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore appointed to the United States Supreme Court.

The DemocRats would try to destroy Chief Justice Moore just like their attempted lynching of Justice Thomas.


Who will be the next US Supreme Court Justice?

That’s the question that is embroiled in partisan politics. Barack Obama has nominated Merrick Garland, the current Chief Judge of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, to fill the seat vacated by the death of Antonin Scalia. Republicans in Congress are refusing to even hold hearings or vote on Garrick, claiming that whoever wins the presidential election in November should be the one to nominate the next Supreme Court Justice.

Other than to say that Congress should move forward with hearings and vote, Hillary Clinton has not ventured to say who she would consider nominating to fill Scalia’s seat.

According to a recent report, Donald Trump has suggested that he would consider nominating William H. Pryor Jr. to the bench. Pryor is a federal judge on the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and a Commissioner on the US Sentencing Commission.

Supposedly, Trump is considering Pryor for his stand against homosexuality, same sex marriage and sodomy. In 2003, Pryor filed a legal brief in a Texas case where he stated:

“[There is] no fundamental right to engage in homosexual sodomy just because it is done behind closed doors.

“Homosexual sodomy has not historically been recognized in this country as a right — to the contrary, it has historically been recognized as a wrong — it is not a fundamental right.”

“Texas is hardly alone in concluding that homosexual sodomy may have severe physical, emotional, psychological, and spiritual consequences, which do not necessarily attend heterosexual sodomy, and from which Texas’s citizens need to be protected.”

While I totally agree with Pryor’s stand against LGBT rights, I still like Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore to fill Scalia’s seat on the high bench.

A few years back I had the opportunity to hear Moore speak and what I heard I really liked. He spoke about ruling on the Constitution for what it says, not what he wished it said or on his own agenda. He said the Bill of Rights guarantees us the freedoms of speech and religion and that the government is not allowed to infringe on those rights.

Moore also stated that America was founded as a Christian nation and the separation of church of state is not in the Constitution or Bill of Rights and therefore is not a rule of law. He explained that what the Constitution says is that the government shall endorse or establish a state religion. The Framers wrote that because at the time, many European countries had one official state religion or in most cases, denomination. Countries demanded their people worship only the state religion, where it be Catholic, Lutheran, Episcopalian of some other denomination and they didn’t want that to happen here in the US. But nowhere in any of our founding documents did they write about a separation of church and state, pointing out that this erroneous doctrine came from a letter that Thomas Jefferson sent to the Danbury Baptist Association.

Moore’s belief in America being founded as a Christian nation spurred him to defy federal orders to remove the Ten Commandments from the Alabama Supreme Court House.

Jerry Newcombe, who spent many years with Dr. D. James Kennedy, wrote about Judge Moore, saying:

“When I first met Roy Moore in 1995 and interviewed him for television, he was a lowly circuit judge in a decrepit building in Gadsden, Alabama — kind of close to Birmingham.”

“He was being sued by the ACLU because he supposedly assaulted the First Amendment by having a plaque of the Ten Commandments hanging in his courtroom wall. It was surrounded by the Declaration of Independence and, as I recall, pictures of Washington and Lincoln.”

“Moore noted, ‘When I first put the Ten Commandments on the courtroom, I thought it was very fitting since it is the foundation of our laws, the foundation of our country. And I thought it also represented a return to the thing we need most in society, which is a return to morality.’”

“He viewed this as obeying his mandate as a state official: ‘We do the very thing that the state of Alabama in its constitution says we are to do by invoking the ‘favor and guidance of Almighty God.’ In the beginning of this country, when they wrote the First Amendment, when they wrote the Constitution, they did not think that an acknowledgement of God was an establishment of religion’.”

Moore was eventually removed from the state Supreme Court because of his Christian and constitutional beliefs. A few years later, the people of Alabama voted Moore back to the state Supreme Court.

Moore also spoke about the Second Amendment rights to own and bear arms and stated that there was no legal provision that spelled out the need for any form of gun control. He believes in the right of American citizens to be able to be armed for self-defense at home and away from home.

More recently, Judge Moore refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. In an interview about the matter, Moore told the media:

I completely disagree with the authority the Supreme Court has. I’m quite sure they broke several constitutional amendments in that ruling.”

Once again, Judge Roy Moore has been removed from the Alabama Supreme Court because he continues to stand for the US and Alabama Constitutions and the principles our nation was founded upon proving that he is a man of conviction and will not sway from the laws and morals our nation was founded upon.

This is the kind of man we need on the US Supreme Court. In fact, I would be very tempted to support and vote for Judge Roy Moore if he decided to run for president. He is the type of leader that our nation so desperately needs. If I were president, Roy Moore would be my first nomination to the US Supreme Court. If I were chairman of the Republican National Committee, Roy Moore would be the man I would be pushing to run for the White House.


Who were the first six Supreme Court justices?

1 Comment

This is from the National Constitution Center.

It was 226 years ago today that the United States Supreme Court opened for business. The court back then bared little resemblance to the current one, but it certainly had some interesting characters.


James Wilson











The original six, and not nine justices, included a Chief Justice who became the most-hated man in America for a time; a justice who didn’t want to the serve despite the Senate’s confirmation; and another justice who literally jumped into Charleston Bay when he lost his seat on the bench.

The first business of the First Congress was to establish a law setting up the Supreme Court. The framers had made provisions for the court in Article III, Section 1, of the Constitution, but it took the Judiciary Act of 1789 to make the court a reality.

Lawmakers passed the Judiciary Act on September 24, 1789, which established the framework for the Supreme Court, as well as circuit and district courts and the attorney general’s office. President George Washington named six Supreme Court justices who were approved within two days by Congress.

The date of February 1, 1790 was set for the Court’s first meeting. John Jay, who Washington’s choice for Chief Justice, had to wait a day to start a full session, after travel issues delayed some of the jurists.

The first meetings included four of the six original justices: John Rutledge was in New York, but decided not to attend the session, while Robert Harrison was too ill to travel to the session, and he had indicated he would resign from the Court. (President Washington confirmed Harrison’s resignation about a week later.).

In addition to Jay, James Wilson, William Cushing, and John Blair Jr. were in attendance. Each had interesting stories and backgrounds, but had little to do at the Court’s first two sessions in February and August 1790

The Judiciary Act has created the “inferior” courts that had just started their operations, so there were no appeals to be heard by the Supreme Court. The justices spent their time approving bar appointments and organizing the court system. The Supreme Court didn’t get its first case for a year, and it took two years for the first argument to be heard by the justices.

The Supreme Court justices were also required to “ride circuit,” and hold hearings twice a year in one of three judicial districts. Circuit duties weren’t popular with the first justices and they took up most of their time. Not until 1794 did the Court meet in extended sessions.

Here is brief look at each of the six original Supreme Court justices.

John Jay. The first Chief Justice had written part of The Federalist essays, but his role as the first Chief Justice included two campaigns for governor in New York (while he was still a justice) and the controversial Jay Treaty with Great Britain. The treaty Jay negotiated, while he was still on the Supreme Court, was highly unpopular. The chief justice later said he could find his way across the country by the light of his burning effigies. Jay left the court in 1795 after finally winning a gubernatorial election.

James Wilson. Wilson was a key figure at the Constitutional Convention who had a troubled career after joining the high court. Wilson was a leading legal theorist, but he was also troubled by bad debts after getting involved in some land deals. Wilson was imprisoned twice for bad debts while he served on the Supreme Court, and he missed several court sessions as he avoided bill collectors. Wilson died in 1798 while still on the bench. He was staying at the house of a friend in North Carolina, out of the reach of creditors, and riding the Southern District court circuit.

John Rutledge. Rutledge also was at the Constitutional Convention and an important figure in South Carolina when he was first named to the Supreme Court. He served two years on the bench and quit in 1791, without hearing a case. President Washington then asked Rutledge to return as chief justice to replace Jay in 1795 while the Senate was in recess, and Rutledge heard two cases during that time. However, the Senate rejected Rutledge’s permanent nomination after he publicly criticized the Jay Treaty with some inflammatory language (he compared it to prostitution). Rutledge jumped off a wharf in Charleston in a failed suicide attempt after he heard about the Senate vote (he was rescued by two slaves who saw the incident). His public career was over.

William Cushing. The longest-serving justice appointed by Washington, he remained on the court until 1810. But Cushing rejected the job of chief justice in 1796 even though Washington nominated him and the Senate had unanimously approved the nomination. (Perhaps he saw what happened to Jay and Rutledge.)

John Blair Jr. He was a highly regarded jurist from Virginia who served on the court until 1795. Blair came from a distinguished family and he attended the 1787 Constitutional Convention  in Philadelphia. He said little at the convention, but was strongly allied with James Madison.

Robert Hanson Harrison. Harrison was one of Washington’s aides-de-camp during the Revolutionary War and later became his military secretary. After serving as the chief justice for Maryland’s court system, Washington nominated Harrison to the Supreme Court. Sickness kept Harrison from accepting the position and he died in April 1790.


Another Federal Court Undermines the Second Amendment

1 Comment

This is from Town Hall.

Judge AssHat was appointed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals by Landslide Lyndon B.Johnson.

The man that declared war on poverty and poverty won the war. 

Crime once again is on the rise in America. According to recent figuresfrom the Bureau of Justice Statistics, crimes against property are up a staggering 12 percent from last year; violent crime even more — 15 percent. Citizens in many of our country’s largest metropolitan areas increasingly are becoming victims of gun-toting criminals, even as liberal mayors, governors, and state legislators continue their efforts to undermine the Second Amendment rights of those very citizens.

One might think that the end of America’s two-decade long decline in crime might serve to justify the need to strengthen – not weaken – the ability of law-abiding citizens to arm themselves defensively in order to fight back against armed criminals. Not so; and even learned federal judges are not immune from succumbing to the childish notion that the best way to protect citizens is to disarm them. Take Third Circuit federal appeals court Judge Ruggero Aldisert.

Writing recently for the Third Circuit in Drake v. Jerejian, Judge Aldisert ruled that bureaucrats working for the Commonwealth of New Jersey may summarily deny citizens the right to protect themselves against armed criminals — notwithstanding the language in the Second Amendment guaranteeing individuals that right, and as reaffirmed by the United States Supreme Court in two landmark decisions in 2008 and 2010.

Judge Aldisert’s misguided opinion is awaiting a decision from the Supreme Court whether it will hear the case (which hopefully it will). The issue at stake is vital – whether a citizen of the United States and of the Commonwealth of New Jersey, can defend himself or herself with a firearm, without having to submit themselves to the arbitrary decision of a local government official. Specifically, the question is whether New Jersey’s handgun permit law unconstitutionally restricts citizens’ Second Amendment rights – first, by forcing them to obtain permission to carry a concealed firearm from the local police chief; and second, by requiring them to demonstrate to the local government a “justifiable need” for carrying a concealed firearm.

In its opinion, the federal appeals Court relies on an exercise in circular reasoning that would make one of the Obama Administration’s arguments in support of ObamaCare appear logical by comparison. The lynchpin of the Court’s ruling is that the “justifiable need” aspect of the New Jersey statute falls outside the scope of the Second Amendment. The two-member majority opinion grants essentially absolute deference to the state legislation; finding it to be “presumptively lawful” and “longstanding.”

In other words, if a state legislature has passed a gun-control measure that has been on the books for a long time, the citizens of that state can be denied their right to keep and bear arms; and the government officials who have thus rendered the citizens defenseless, are immune from constitutional scrutiny.

The rationale on which the Third Circuit bases its opinion is that the seminal 2008 Supreme Court Heller decision – which clearly affirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, as opposed to some amorphous, collective right as long-argued by gun-control advocates – extended only to possession of a firearm inside the home. Such a pinched reading of the Second Amendment, of course, flies in the face of history and common sense – as noted in December 2012 by Seventh Circuit Judge Richard Posner. Posner, unlike at least two of his colleagues on the Third Circuit federal bench, understood the absurdity of allowing a state to enact “[a] blanket prohibition on carrying [a] gun in public,” because doing so renders a person defenseless perhaps where it matters most – walking in a crime-infested neighborhood.

Obviously mindful of Judge Posner’s opinion, Third Circuit Judge Aldisert noted that his fellow judge “may have read Heller too broadly,” even though he admits, “it is possible to conclude that Heller implies such a right [to publicly carry arms for self-defense]” – which of course, it does.

Ever since the 2008 Heller opinion (and the companion, 2010 Chicago v. McDonald decision), liberal judges and anti-gun state and local government officials have been fashioning ways to undercut and subvert the ability of citizen to exercise their Second Amendment rights. That’s why Alan Gura, the prominent Second Amendment lawyer who argued both Heller and McDonald, has stayed so busy since 2008. “It’s nice that the Supreme Court declared we enjoy a fundamental individual right to bear arms, but that doesn’t mean much if they allow lower courts to rubber stamp any infringement of the right,” says Gura. “It’s not the judiciary’s role to ‘defer’ to the legislature’s alleged wisdom and expertise. It’s the judiciary’s role to guard our rights and enforce the constitution.”

As the opinion by Judge Aldisert in the Jerejian case starkly illustrates, the battle to protect the right of citizens in these United States to defend themselves with a firearm, remains very much alive today, and must itself be defended against assaults at all levels – up to and including the Supreme Court of the United States


1 Comment

This is from Breitbarts Big Government.

This is outrageous beyond words the cross has been in

place almost 60 years.

The article’s author says the Obama Regime’s defense of this

this case has been lackluster at best.

What else can be expected from the two Americas hating

Communist Holder and Obama?


After 24 years of litigation, a federal court revealed in an emotional hearing that it has ordered the famous Mount Soledad Cross removed from a veterans memorial, holding it is a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Since 1913, a cross has stood as the centerpiece of the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial in San Diego, surrounded by nearly 3,000 granite plaques, individually honoring war heroes from every American war, from the Revolutionary War to Iraq and Afghanistan.

The structure is a 29-foot Latin cross, which was erected in 1954. For much of this time, it was in a city park in the La Jolla neighborhood of San Diego. Then, in 1989, the ACLU filed a lawsuit, arguing that allowing a cross on government land violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. This memorial has been embroiled in litigation ever since.

In 2004, Congress passed a law making this city-owned display a “national memorial honoring veterans of the United States Armed Forces,” dedicated as a tribute to those service members “who sacrificed their lives in the defense of the United States.” Congress officially found that the “patriotic and inspirational symbolism of the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial provides solace to the families and comrades of the veterans it memorializes.” Although the Latin cross is identifiably a Christian symbol, Congress noted that the memorial is also “replete with secular symbols” and symbols of other faiths, such as 18 Stars of David. In this pluralistic context, the cross plays the role of commemorating veterans’ service and death.

That law sparked the latest round of litigation in federal court. In 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed its prior decision on this display, holding that because of the cross, the memorial “primarily conveys a message of endorsement of religion.” Specifically, it “projects a government endorsement of Christianity.”

The United States Supreme Court denied review in 2012 but sent a written message noting that the lower courts were still considering whether the memorial could be modified in a way that preserves its character. In a statement by Justice Samuel Alito, the Court signaled that it would seriously consider taking the case if these additional efforts did not produce a positive outcome.

After almost two years of additional proceedings, on Dec. 12 the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California reluctantly held that under controlling precedent from the Ninth Circuit, the district judge still had no choice but to declare the cross an endorsement of Christianity. He has ordered it removed within 90 days.

Judge Larry Alan Burns read the order from the bench in court and appeared to choke up as he ordered the memorial’s destruction, observers told Breitbart News. Burns then issued a stay of his decision to give the memorial cross’s lawyers time to appeal back to the Ninth Circuit and, if necessary, the U.S. Supreme Court.

Originally, the U.S. Justice Department defended the cross memorial. However, when President Barack Obama was elected, the government’s defense of the memorial under Attorney General Eric Holder seemed to become lackluster, and the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial Association stepped in to bolster the defense. They are represented by Allyson Ho, a partner at the powerhouse firm Morgan, Lewis & Bockius (Ted Cruz was a partner at that firm prior to his Senate election, and in fact Cruz and Ho were the co-chairs of the firm’s Supreme Court practice group), and Jeff Mateer and Hiram Sasser fromLiberty Institute, one of America’s foremost religious-liberty law firms.

Hiram Sasser tells Breitbart News, “We will continue to fight for this memorial and the selfless sacrifice and service of all the millions of veterans it represents; it is the least we can do for those who gave so much to us all.”



Federal Judge Says California Attorney General Kamala Harris Wrong on Gun Control Laws

Leave a comment

This is from AmmoLand.

It is refreshing to see a Federal Judge is getting something right.

The amazing thing about this judge he was appointed by

Bill Clinton.


CalGuns FoundationCourt denies Harris’ arguments and agrees with gun rights group The Calguns Foundation, says state’s firearm waiting period laws fail to meet Constitutional muster

ROSEVILLE, CA-( In a rejection of California Attorney General Kamala Harris’ stance on the rights of law-abiding gun owners, Senior Federal District Court Judge Anthony W. Ishii denied Harris’ motion for summary judgement today in a federal civil rights lawsuit filed by The Calguns Foundation, indicating that California’s 10-day “waiting period” gun laws are likely unconstitutional.

“The fact that a federal judge saw these laws for what they are — baseless restraints on the exercise of a fundamental civil right — is monumental,” explained Gene Hoffman, Chairman of The Calguns Foundation. “California’s waiting period laws for those who own guns is not Constitutional and this order really underlines the point.”

In his order, Judge Ishii said that Harris has “not presented sufficient evidence to show that the [10-day waiting period laws] passes either intermediate or strict scrutiny.”

About the laws being challenged in the case, named plaintiff Jeff Silvester of Hanford, California, said, “I have a license to carry a loaded firearm across the State. It is ridiculous that I have to wait another 10 days to pick up a new firearm when I’m standing there in the gun store lawfully carrying one the whole time.”

“This is certainly an exciting development in Second Amendment case law,” noted Brandon Combs, an individual plaintiff in the case and the Executive Director of The Calguns Foundation. “If our Constitution means what it says, then California’s gun waiting period laws have to be overturned and law-abiding people must be allowed to exercise their rights without irrational infringements.”

Regardless of the final decision at the district court, the case is virtually certain to end up at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and possibly even the United States Supreme Court.

“Cases like this one will define the limits of government regulations on firearms and Second Amendment rights,” said Combs. “We look forward to making sure laws like California’s waiting period are properly scrutinized by the courts.”

Judge Ishii was appointed to the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of California by President Bill Clinton in 1997.

The Calguns Foundation (CGF) ( is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization that serves its members, supporters, and the public through educational, cultural, and judicial efforts to defend and advance Second Amendment and related civil rights. Supporters may visit to join or donate to CGF.
Read more:
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution


Gun Control Laws

1 Comment

This is by Dr.Thomas Sowell in Town Hall.

Now that the Supreme Court of the United States has decided that the Second Amendment to the Constitution means that individual Americans have a right to bear arms, what can we expect?

Those who have no confidence in ordinary Americans may expect a bloodbath, as the benighted masses start shooting each other, now that they can no longer be denied guns by their betters. People who think we shouldn’t be allowed to make our own medical decisions, or decisions about which schools our children attend, certainly are not likely to be happy with the idea that we can make our own decisions about how to defend ourselves.

When you stop and think about it, there is no obvious reason why issues like gun control should be ideological issues in the first place. It is ultimately an empirical question whether allowing ordinary citizens to have firearms will increase or decrease the amount of violence.

Many people who are opposed to gun laws which place severe restrictions on ordinary citizens owning firearms have based themselves on the Second Amendment to the Constitution. But, while the Supreme Court must make the Second Amendment the basis of its rulings on gun control laws, there is no reason why the Second Amendment should be the last word for the voting public.

If the end of gun control leads to a bloodbath of runaway shootings, then the Second Amendment can be repealed, just as other Constitutional Amendments have been repealed. Laws exist for people, not people for laws.

There is no point arguing, as many people do, that it is difficult to amend the Constitution. The fact that it doesn’t happen very often doesn’t mean that it is difficult. The people may not want it to happen, even if the intelligentsia are itching to change it.

When the people wanted it to happen, the Constitution was amended 4 times in 8 years, from 1913 through 1920.

What all this means is that judges and the voting public have different roles. There is no reason why judges should “consider the basic values that underlie a constitutional provision and their contemporary significance,” as Justice Stephen Breyer said in his dissent against the Supreme Court’s gun control decision.

But, as the great Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said, his job was “to see that the game is played according to the rules whether I like them or not.”

If the public doesn’t like the rules, or the consequences to which the rules lead, then the public can change the rules via the ballot box. But that is very different from judges changing the rules by verbal sleight of hand, or by talking about “weighing of the constitutional right to bear arms” against other considerations, as Justice Breyer puts it. That’s not his job. Not if “we the people” are to govern ourselves, as the Constitution says.

As for the merits or demerits of gun control laws themselves, a vast amount of evidence, both from the United States and from other countries, shows that keeping guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens does not keep guns out of the hands of criminals. It is not uncommon for a tightening of gun control laws to be followed by an increase– not a decrease– in gun crimes, including murder.

Conversely, there have been places and times where an increase in gun ownership has been followed by a reduction in crimes in general and murder in particular.

Unfortunately, the media intelligentsia tend to favor gun control laws, so a lot of hard facts about the futility, or the counterproductive consequences of such laws, never reach the public through the media.

We hear a lot about countries with stronger gun control laws than the United States that have lower murder rates. But we very seldom hear about countries with stronger gun control laws than the United States that have higher murder rates, such as Russia and Brazil.

The media, like Justice Breyer, might do well to reflect on what is their job and what is the voting public’s job. The media’s job should be to give us the information to make up our own minds, not slant and filter the news to fit the media’s vision.

My Daughter Died From the Abortion Drug 10 Years Ago Today

Leave a comment

This is from Life News.

These are the stories the Obama Media will not carry.

As it does not promote the pro abortion template.

Obama is worried about the children of Syria being killed.

What about the thousand’s murdered by abortion each day?

The U.S. Supreme Court recently accepted a case Cline v. Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice, challenging Oklahoma’s regulation of the abortion drug Mifeprex commonly known as mifepristone, RU-486, or The Abortion Pill.​

The case is an appeal by the state of Oklahoma from a ruling by its Supreme Court striking down a 2011 law that requires prescribing physicians to follow the FDA’s protocol for administering the Mifeprex abortion pill regimen using a combination of two drugs; mifepristone and misoprostol.

The Oklahoma law does not ban the use of the Mifeprex regimen, nor does it ban any abortion before or after 49 days gestation. It simply requires that the medical abortion regimen be administered in the way deemed safest by the FDA. The Act imposes no obstacle or undue burden to women seeking access to an abortion.

Monty Patterson’s Participation in the Case

As part of this Supreme Court case, I submitted an “Affidavit of Monty Patterson, father of Holly Patterson” in support of the “Brief of Women and Families Hurt by RU-486.”

My daughter, Holly Patterson, tragically died in 2003, seven days after the initial start of her 7-week-old pregnancy termination from a massive infection known as Clostridium sordellii toxic shock syndrome that was associated with a medically induced abortion.

Planned Parenthood prescribed my teenage daughter an unapproved, off-label RU-486 medical abortion regimen touted to be equally as safe an effective as the FDA protocol. Holly, barely 18-years-old, took advice from her provider and was persuaded to choose their alternative medical abortion regimen.

Holly did not receive accurate and truthful information concerning medical abortion in order to make an informed decision about her safe reproductive healthcare.

Since my daughter’s death, I have researched and studied the risks of mifepristone and misoprostol medical abortion and have built an educational website that discusses and details the facts that reveal significant safety concerns for women who consider an early pregnancy termination.

In the past 13 years, since FDA approval of RU-486, there have been an alarming number of serious health complications and injuries to women, including death.

The FDA has evaluated these injuries and deaths and publicly reported the off-label uses of the Mifeprex regimen has resulted in serious or sometimes fatal adverse events.

Personally, I do not believe any medical abortion pill regimen using mifepristone and misprostol to terminate early pregnancy is safe.

My focus is not to be pulled into the larger national abortion debate that has divided the United States into pro-choice and pro-life camps.

The United States Supreme Court has made it landmark decision on the issue of abortion. Women have certain legal rights to access and reproductive health care choices under the law.

With the legalization of abortion, a woman and her family should therefore be entitled to all the facts and risks to properly make informed decisions that are in their best interest, safety, health and welfare. This includes the choice of medical abortion with the drug regimen of mifepristone and misoprostol.

Abortion providers are promoting the use of unapproved off-label medical abortion regimens that may not have received the same degree of scientific scrutiny as the FDA approved mifepristone protocol. This problem needs to be addressed.

I have made it my focus to help educate women, families, researchers, even health care professionals to become informed of the facts and health risks of medical abortion to terminate an early pregnancy.

Significant issues of concern to me are: What are acceptable medical abortion practices? How are medical abortion providers exposing women to unnecessary health risks to already a potentially dangerous procedure?

The issue of legalized medical abortion should not be in question, but the issues of safe medical abortion protocol(s) and practices remain to be answered.

Off-Label Loopholes and Practices

Special interest groups and abortion providers have been taking advantage of huge loopholes in our drug regulatory system. Once medical abortion was approved by the FDA in 2000 and put on the market, there is absolutely nothing to prevent any abortion provider from using an alternative drug regimen in any manner, in any dose, for any patient he or she chooses. The drug’s labeling contains the indications approved by the FDA and these alternative uses are called “off-label” use of drugs.

Medical Abortion advocates contend that “doctors use drugs off-label all the time!” Organizations like Planned Parenthood are taking matters into their own hands when it comes to the use of medical abortion with mifepristone and misoprostol on their women patients. Sometimes these patients are teenage adolescents as young as 14 years old.

Common off-label usage of drugs in general does not prove it is a good idea, especially where safe medical abortion practices are critical to a woman’s health. Should medical abortion providers continue to promote their off-label prescribing as they continue to gain more confidence in what has been a serious mistake resulting in thousands of injuries and at least 14 deaths?

Medical abortion advocates claim off-label uses are not considered experimental to patients because their regimens have been “demonstrated by scientific research to be safer and more effective.”

Who makes the decisions if the medical abortion industry-sponsored research is sound scientific evidence? Who are these scientific bodies? Is it an organization of professionals trying to protect the special interests of their members?

Medical abortion providers using unapproved off-label regimens represents both a cavalier disregard for the safety of women and a total lack of faith in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s drug regulatory system.

Isn’t the whole purpose of FDA approved on-label use to provide assurances to the patient there is sound scientific evidence?

Providers Ignore FDA Public Health Advisories

The argument that the approved FDA protocol is an “old guideline” and considered to be “bad medicine” does not appear to be embraced by FDA officials.

The FDA has published Mifeprex “Public Health Advisories” when women have been seriously injured or suffer fatal consequences as a result of Mifeprex off-label medical abortion practice. These advisories state that the safety and effectiveness of other Mifeprex dosing regimens, including use of oral misoprostol tablets intra-vaginally has not been recognized or accepted by the FDA.

The FDA continues to stand by the Mifeprex protocol they evaluated and publicly remind abortion health care professionals of the approved Mifeprex dosing regimen.

Medical abortion practitioners continue to ignore every FDA Public Health Advisory. They continue to use modified regimens, by increasing the gestational age limit, shortening the process, decreasing their costs, changing the dosing regimen, decreasing physician oversight by allowing women to administer misoprostol at home (instead of at the provider’s clinic) and reducing the number of patient’s return visits back to the clinic. Some practitioners advise their patients to repeat misoprostol dosing to try to improve on abortion success rates.

These practitioners have turned their off-label regimens into  the “Do it Yourself” at home procedure where women are shouldering the responsibility for their own health, safety and well-being.

Making The Case For Safety

Medical abortion rights advocates are trying to make the case that off-label regimens are a safety improvement over the current FDA protocol. They oppose any action where providers may be required to prescribe three-times-more Mifeprex, essential for pregnancy termination, than they think is called for. No matter if it violates FDA approved protocol.

What about the off-label prescribing of the second drug misoprostol?

Is it considered a safety improvement for abortion providers to double the dose of buccal or vaginally administered misoprostol to further induce labor and increase contractions to expel the embryo and placental tissues? Further, additional doses of misoprostol may be prescribed for incomplete abortion complications.

Misoprostol carries its own boxed warnings, but they can’t be found in the Mifeprex drug labeling or the Patient Agreement and Medication Guide. Why aren’t providers informing women about uterine rupture that has been reported when misoprostol is administered to induce labor beyond the eighth week of pregnancy?

Providers have increased medical abortion gestation age limits from 7 weeks to 9 weeks to make it available to more women. Is that another safety improvement?

Mifeprex is being prescribed at a 1/3 reduced dose because medical abortion providers understand the cost benefits of misoprostol over Mifeprex. Mifeprex is expensive but misoprostol is a very cheap and readily available. To increase profits, misoprostol is used by providers as the predominant abortifacient agent in the regimen (not mifepristone) to terminate early pregnancy.

Medical evidence points to the fact that off-label uses of Mifeprex have resulted in more serious adverse health events, including death, than the FDA-approved regimen.

Medical abortion rights advocates claim this action is about punishment and discrimination against women who seek Mifeprex to induce medical abortion. Did the FDA have that in mind when they approved the drug sponsor’s application for distribution and prescribing of Mifeprex?

The off-label prescribing of medical abortion drug regimens has resulted in disastrous health consequences for thousands of women. Every recorded U.S. death, as in the case of Holly Patterson, has been a result of off-label Mifeprex and misoprostol use to terminate early pregnancy.

Medical abortion can be an unpredictable and dangerous alternative, especially when abortion providers choose to ignore and circumvent the FDA approved protocol.

Medical Opinion Or Evidence?

FDA’s approval of mifepristone is supposed to be based on controlled studies and independent analysis of data by qualified doctors and scientists designated to review and monitor clinical medical research.

If abortion researchers and providers believe they have regimens that are “safer and more effective” than the one approved by the FDA in 2000, then they should submit them to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, along with their unbiased and so-called “evidence-based” studies, for rigorous FDA review and evaluation. Obviously, they haven’t, and don’t intend to do so.

After all, shouldn’t women deserve quality information to ensure the medical community has all of the available facts on which to base medical abortion treatment decisions that aren’t biased, industry-sponsored and motivated by profit and market expansion?

If medical abortion advocates, providers, and their researchers were really looking out for the best interest of women’s reproductive health care, this contentious debate requiring a U.S. Supreme Court decision may have been avoided.





This is from Breitbarts Big Government.

Why is it Christians have to compromise  their religious convictions?

Muslims are never told to compromise their religious convictions.

Homosexuality is an abomination.

Leviticus 18:22

King James Version (KJV)

22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.


Today the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that Christian photographers cannot decline to participate in gay-marriage commitment ceremonies, even though that state does not have gay marriage and the court acknowledged that providing services for the ceremony violated the Christian’s sincerely-held, traditional religious beliefs. This becomes one of the first major cases where religious liberty collides with gay rights, and could now go to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Elane Huguenin is a photographer in New Mexico. She and her husband Jonathan jointly own their family business, Elane Photography. Specifically, Elane is a photojournalist—using a carefully-planned series of photographs to tell a story and convey a message. She is also a devout Christian, who believes that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

In 2006, Vanessa Willock contacted Elane Photography, asking Elane to photograph her lesbian commitment ceremony. It was a private commitment ceremony because New Mexico recognizes neither gay marriage nor gay civil unions. Elane thanked Willock for her interest, but explained that due to her religious beliefs she only does traditional weddings.

Willock filed a complaint against Elane with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission, citing a state law that does not allow discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The commission ruled Elane’s decision illegal, and imposed a fine of $7,000 to cover legal fees.

Elane took this matter to court, represented by Jordan Lorence of the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). The trial court upheld the fine, as did the court of appeals.

The New Mexico Supreme Court has now affirmed the lower courts, holding that Elane Photography is a “public accommodation,” and because they photograph wedding ceremonies they cannot refuse a gay-commitment ceremony (even if it is not a legal wedding).

In a concurring opinion, Justice Richard Bosson wrote Elane and Jonathan:

… now are compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives… the result is sobering. It will no doubt leave a tangible mark on the Huguenins and others of similar views.

… At its heart, this case teaches that at some point in our lives all of us must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others. A multicultural, pluralistic society, one of our nation’s strengths, demands no less. The Huguenins are free to … pray to the God of their choice … But there is a price, one that we all have to pay somewhere in our civic life.

Bosson goes on to say having to violate your religious beliefs when they conflict with social issues like gay marriage “is the price of citizenship.”

In response to today’s decision, Lorence said in an ADF statement:

Government-coerced expression is a feature of dictatorships that has no place in a free country. This decision is a blow to our client and to every American’s right to live free. Decisions like this undermine the constitutionally protected freedoms of expression and conscience that we have all taken for granted. America was founded on the fundamental freedom of every citizen to live and work according to their beliefs and not to be compelled by the government to express ideas and messages they decline to support. We are considering our next steps, including asking the U.S. Supreme Court to right this wrong.

A recent Rasmussen poll showed that 85% of Americans support the right of a religious photographer not to participate in a gay-marriage ceremony.

A petition to the U.S. Supreme Court asking for review is due by mid-November.


SCOTUS decisions on the 2A

1 Comment

This is from Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership.

I was aware of some of these rulings.

Some of the I will look up.


In an attempt to spread the word about the unconstitutional sedition being considered throughout our nation, and the sedition already committed by your Colorado legislature and that of New York I have compiled a compacted list of appropriate standing SCOTUS decisions dealing with our unalienable rights. Please see them below and I’ll encourage you to have them researched and then blasted as far as you can blast them.
Bill C



Supreme Court Rulings relevant to a Free People

The Supreme Court ruled that it had the power to overturn and/or control laws of Congress with the ruling written by the great Chief Justice John Marshall, which simply said: “All laws repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.”
Marbury v. Madison, 1803 5 US 137

The Supreme Court decided that a slave could not be a citizen because if he were a citizen, he would be entitled to enjoy all the rights which American citizens enjoy by reason of their citizenship, rights which the “courts would be bound to maintain and enforce,” including the rights “to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”
Scott v. Sandford, 1857 60 US 691, 705

“The people’s right to bear arms, like the rights of assembly and petition, existed long before the Constitution, and is not “in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.” This ruling also upheld that all able bodied males are members of the militia (one of three such clear rulings).
U.S. v. Cruikshank, 1876 92 US 542, 553

“All citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserve militia, and the states cannot prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms so as to disable the people from performing the (militia) duty to the general government.”
Presser v. Illinois, 1886 116 US 252

“Individuals have a right to possess and use firearms for self-defense.”
U.S. v. Beard, 1895 158 US 550

In 1897 the Supreme Court ruled that the right to arms is an “ancient” and “fundamental” right, a right which was “inherited from our English ancestors” and has existed “from time Immemorial.”
Robertson v. Baldwin, 1897 165 US 275

The Supreme Court ruled that that by implication even resident aliens have the right to possess “weapons such as pistols that may be supposed to be needed occasionally for self-defense.”
Patsone v. Pennsylvania, 1914 232 US 138

The Supreme Court decided that a person facing a deadly attack may use lethal force in his self-defense, adding “Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presense of an uplifted knife.”
U.S. v. Brown, 1921 256 US 335

The Supreme Court stated that, the great and essential rights of the people are secured against legislative as well as against executive ambition. They are secured, not by laws paramount to prerogative, but by constitutions paramount to laws.” (Chief Justice Hughes quoting James Madison).
Near v. Minnesota, 1931 283 US 697, 714

“The militia is comprised of all able bodied males … ordinarily when called these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of a kind in common (military) use at the time.”
U.S. v. Miller, 1939 307 US 174

In a first amendment case involving freedom of the press and religion, the Supreme Court ruled “The power to impose a license fee on a constitutional right amounts to prior restraint and the power to restrict or deny the right … a tax laid specifically on the exercise of these freedoms would be unconstitutional.”
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 1943 319 US 105

The Supreme Court ruled that “The United States is entirely a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority have no other source. It can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution.”
Reid v. Covert, 1957 354 US 1

Strangely, the Supreme Court has ruled that a convicted felon is exempt from obeying gun registration laws, that a “proper claim of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register a firearm … or for possession of an unregistered firearm.”
U.S. v. Hayes, 1968 390 US 85

The Supreme Court has twice ruled that a federal official who deprives a citizen of a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution may be held personally liable for damages.
Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 1971
403 US 388 / Carlson v. Green, 1980 446 US 14

The Supreme Court ruled that a person enjoys a fundamental right to possess arms until his first conviction for a felony offense.
U.S. v. Lewis, 1980 445 US 95

“Police have no duty to protect any individual, but only a general duty to protect society, and cannot be held personally liable for failure to protect an individual.”
South v. Maryland, 1855 / Warren v. District of Columbia, 1981

“The term “the people” as explicitly used in the Second Amendment and elsewhere in the Constitution and Bill of Rights is a term chosen by the Founding Fathers to mean all individuals who make up our national community.” U.S. v. Verdugo Urquidez, 1990 No. 88-1353

The Supreme Court has ruled that a state official who, “under color of state law,” deprives a citizen of a right guaranteed by the federal Constitution may be held personally liable for damages.
Hafer v. Melo, 1991 No. 90-681

And so that none can be mistaken, the Supreme Court has ruled seven times in this century (plus one concurring opinion) that the first eight amendments express fundamental personal rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
Twining v. New Jersey, 1908 211 US 78
Powell v. Alabama, 1932 287 US 45
Grosjean v. American Press Co., 1936 297 US 233
Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963 372 US 335
Duncan v. Louisiana, 1968 391 US 166
Moore v. East Cleveland, 1976 431 US 494
Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 1992 No. 91-744
Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965 (concurring) 381 US 479

The Supreme Court ruled that public housing tenants in Maine cannot be barred from keeping guns in their homes. 10/2/1995

The United States Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm for private use in federal enclaves. It was the first Supreme Court case in U.S. history to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self defense.

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia. The Court of Appeals had struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are “arms” for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the District of Columbia’s regulations act was an unconstitutional banning, and struck down the portion of the regulations act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept “unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock” “Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975”
District of Columbia v Heller, 2008 554 U.S. 570 (2008)


Briefs Submitted Challenging San Francisco Gun Laws

1 Comment

This is from AmmoLand.

I am glad to see the fight being carried to these loons.

We need to be real aggressive in our fight for freedom.

It is better to die on your feet than live on your knees.


San Diego, CA-( In a refreshing move that underscores the sharp cultural divide on the meaning and parameters of the right to self-defense and to keep and bear arms, both the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors the Lemoore City Council have adopted resolutions in support of the Second Amendment and the right of the people to keep and bear and arms.

In 2008, the United States Supreme Court confirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and carry a firearm for self-defense. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 636 (2008). Two years later, in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Supreme Court held that the right to keep and bear arms was incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment, thereby prohibiting state and local governments from infringing upon one’s Second Amendment rights. 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010).

Despite the Supreme Court’s holdings, in the wake of recent and tragic instances of gun violence many proposals for extremely stringent gun-control laws have been advanced by politicians at the local, state, and federal levels.

While the Siskiyou Board of Supervisors encourages discussions and ideas to protect its citizens from violence, officially and publicly its resolution makes clear that it will not abide by any provision of law that infringes upon the Second Amendment. The City of Lemoore made an equally forceful resolution confirming its commitment to the right to keep and bear arms.

We commend and thank the Supervisors and Council members for their courage, for standing up for the Constitution, and for respecting the individual’s fundamental right to keep and bear arms.

You can thank them too by sending them an email. To contact the Siskiyou Board click here, and to contact the Lemoore City Council, click here.

Support the NRA/ CRPAF Legal Action Project

Seventeen years ago the NRA and CRPA joined forces to fight local gun bans being written and pushed in California by the gun ban lobby. Their coordinated efforts became the NRA/CRPA “Local Ordinance Project” (LOP) – a statewide campaign to fight ill-conceived local efforts at gun control and educate politicians about available programs that are effective in reducing accidents and violence without infringing on the rights of law-abiding gun owners. The NRA/CRPA LOP has had tremendous success in beating back most of these anti-self-defense proposals.

In addition to fighting local gun bans, for decades the NRA has been litigating dozens of cases in California courts to promote the right to self-defense and the Second Amendment. In the post Heller and McDonald legal environment, NRA and CRPA Foundation have formed the NRA/CRPA Foundation Legal Action Project (LAP), a joint venture to pro-actively strike down ill-conceived gun control laws and ordinances and advance the rights of firearms owners, specifically in California. Sometimes, success is more likely when LAP’s litigation efforts are kept low profile, so the details of every lawsuit are not always released. To see a partial list of the LAP’s recent accomplishments, or to contribute to the NRA or to the NRA/CRPAF LAP and support this and similar Second Amendment cases, visit and All donations made to the CRPA Foundation will directly support litigation efforts to advance the rights of California gun owners.

About: is an online research resource designed primarily for use by attorneys and interested firearm owners. strives to provide easy access to and facilitate understanding of the multitude of complex federal, state, and local firearm laws and ordinances, administrative and executive regulations, case law, and past and current litigation that defines the California firearms regulatory scheme in theory and practice. is designed and organized to make it easy to research the law and to locate source materials and related information. All of the articles are cross referenced. Note the two sections on the right: Related Items and Related Law. Related Items will take you to any article related to the one you are currently viewing. Related law takes you to the related law and statutes for the item you are looking at.



Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: