In referring to our form of government, Alexander Hamilton once said, “Here sir, the people govern”.  But given the actions of some of the more arrogant members of our judiciary, there seems to be room for doubt.

In 2000, the people of California approved a statewide referendum defining marriage in that state as the union of one man and one woman, but in 2008 their state supreme court threw out that law (by a four to three vote of the court).  So in November, 2008 voters approved a state constitutional amendment to overturn their supreme court’s decision and again take control of the definition of marriage in their state, just as voters in over thirty states have done.

It has been a mass expression of sovereign will on a single subject unlike few (if any) others in our nation’s history – and one at which activists judges continue to thumb their noses.

A few weeks ago, federal district Judge Vaughan Walker gave us the latest example of contempt for popular sovereignty by overturning California’s state constitutional amendment.  It’s only the latest round of what has been an ongoing battle with activist judges.

The problem is that we have too few real judges in our country, and far too many would-be judicial oligarchs who see themselves as the “supreme” branch of our government, rather than just one of three.  It’s the product of a philosophy that sees our constitutional structure as an eighteenth century anachronism, rather than the law of the land.  read more »

Imagecolumn: 

While Americans have been busy focusing on one Obama overreach after another, with health care currently occupying the front burner, the issue of gay marriage has escaped scrutiny.

When he was out campaigning for President, Obama understood the politically explosive nature of gay marriage and decided that getting elected was more important than being honest.  He contorted himself to say the he supported the definition of marriage as one man and one woman, while at the same time letting homosexual activists groups know that he opposed the federal law which defines marriage as just that.

Among normal people this would be understood as being duplicitous at best.

The problem Obama has at the moment is that as the nation's chief law enforcement officer his job is to defend federal law, which at this point includes the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (or DOMA).  Solution?  Make a half-baked defense of the law and tell everyone, even the judges before which you're defending the law, that you think it is wrong and should be overturned.  read more »

My previous blog entry covered many labels that fit me, when understood in the proper context (in other words, when not twisted by the left for their own purposes): liberal, pro-choice, etc. I'd like to add to that list with a few labels that do not fit me, but that the left will insist on applying to me-- and if you oppose them, they'll insist they apply to you too. 

First, I am not Racist. I think it's great that we finally have a black President even though I did not vote for him. I don't agree with most of what he does and I don't trust his motives, but that's not because he's black. I wouldn't agree with the policies he's advancing no matter what color he was. Frankly, the idea that white people cannot oppose a black President's policies without being racist is one of the most racist things I've heard in the past year.

Second, I am not Fascist. I have much less in common with Nazi ideology than socialists do. The word Nazi is an anglicized abbreviation of the German word Nationalsozialismus, meaning National Socialism. The Nazi Party's official name was the National Socialist German Worker's Party. Their actual policies involved increased government control over every aspect of the German citizen's life. They opposed capitalism on principle and they "approved" of individual property rights only when those rights were used to further the Nazi agenda. I could go on and on, but this issue has been widely covered in other blogs lately.

Third, I am not Sexist. I am a man who believes that abortion is morally and socially wrong, at least as wrong as killing any other human being. I'm all for equal rights for both sexes, but that means equal rights for both, not better rights for women. Violence by men against women is horrible, but is violence by women against men somehow more acceptible? Why do feminists work so hard to cover up statistics about violence by women against men? Considering that criminological studies estimate 40%-50% of rape accusations are false, why is it wrong to suggest that those accused of rape should be considered innocent until proven guilty? Why is it wrong to hold false accusers accountable for the lives, careers and relationships they ruin? I've been called a rape sympathizer and told I'm as bad as an actual rapist, just for asking this. Many other men have been called sexist and worse for asking questions like these. Rather than address potent issues that could benefit us all, men and women, the left would rather have you believe that anyone who questions their dogma is simply sexist and bigoted.  read more »