God-Bless

It has been some time since I have heard that. I have always loved Red Skelton. that was when comedians who were good, kind and loving were welcomed on stage and into our homes, and the h**eful nasty kind that frequent the air waves were not welcome. Thanks for reminding us of this kind and gentle man.

mirror-image

Supreme Court Destroys Trial by Jury
Posted on October 18, 2014 by Mark Horne —

Trial by jury means that, whether you are really guilty or not, if the jury acquits you, then you are acquitted. Once the jury has spoken, no other authority can punish you for that accusation.

But it doesn’t mean that. Not anymore.

gavel scales law books

Yesterday I ran across the Simple Justice blog’s post, “Sotomayor and Kagan, An Unforgivable Denial.” I suspect the title reflects the political perspective of the writers who expected better things of the liberal justices.

It is interesting that the dissenters opposing the Supreme Court’s decision were Scalia, Thomas, and Ginsberg!

This decision wasn’t an official hearing of a case; it was a refusal to hear a case. If just one more justice had v**ed with Scalia, Thomas, and Ginsberg, then the case would have been reviewed by the Supreme Court. Maybe they would still have nullified trial by jury. Hard to say. But that is what they did!


Here is the basic story.

Defendants are accused of a major criminal conspiracy involving narcotics, along with violent crimes, and a jury finds them not guilty.
The jury do find the defendants guilty of a very minor drug offense.
The judge sentences the defendants on the basis of their participation in a major criminal conspiracy involving narcotics.

Yes, that’s right: the judge, when sentencing the men for the one minor crime, threw out the jury’s ruling of “not guilty” and penalized them on the basis of the prosecutor’s allegations.

The question of sentencing on related, but unconvicted, conduct is one of the most controversial and disturbing aspects of federal sentencing. What is the point of the constitutional guarantee of a trial if a defendant can be sentenced for conduct for which he was never convicted by a jury? In Rita v. United States, the Supreme Court held that a sentence above the statutory max for an offense requires a verdict of guilt by a jury, but let stand that a sentence below the statutory max could be based on related conduct found by the judge, based on a preponderance of the evidence standard.

The question of acquitted conduct was left h*****g.

So now the question is no longer h*****g. People were punished for behavior of which a jury specifically found them to not be guilty, and the Supreme Court is going to let the conviction stand.

You can read Scalia’s dissent at the Sentencing Law and Policy blog. I can’t believe that either Alito or Roberts would not join Scalia and Thomas. Right now, the judge can not only include crimes of which you have never been convicted in sentencing you, but he can include crimes that a jury has denied you are guilty of.

That is a mockery of justice.

The Supreme Court has just practiced jury nullification.

CHILD MOLESTATION AND THE HOMOSEXUAL MOVEMENT
STEVE BALDWIN on 11 June, 2014

While the mainstream media has apparently refused to engage in any kind of investigative expose of the gay movement, it is not difficult to find support for child sex among key homosexual leaders if one searches their publications and literature. For example, the founder of the infamous homosexual group, ACT-UP, Larry Kramer, wrote in his book, Report form the Holocaust: The Making of an AIDS Activist, “In those instances where children do have sex with their homosexual elders, be they teachers or anyone else, I submit that often, very often, the child desires the activity, and perhaps even solicits it.” In a letter to the editor of a gay newspaper, Andy Humm, a key leader of one of America’s largest gay youth groups, Advocates for Youth, said, “no one should be denied basic civil rights because of his or her orientation, whether the person be homosexual, heterosexual, t***ssexual, t**********e, p*******e, sadist, masochist, asexual, wh**ever one can imagine… They are in themselves natural variations.”
It is the quotation from Andy Humm from Advocates for Youth about civil rights that should be of highest concern. Most adults whether heterosexual or homosexual are not interested in having sex with children but much of the research not generated by L***Q activist groups such as the Southern Poverty Law Center which is heavily funded by C*******t Party Member George Soros state that the known ration of heterosexual men having sex with under age girls is 1 to 400 and the known ratio of homosexual men having sex with boys is 1 to 20, which indicates a distinct difference. Many researchers believe that the men to boys number might be higher because, due to the stigma, boys being assaulted may include much more unreported crimes particularly in young teenage victims.

The claim that "same sex marriage promotes conservative values" then needs to be examined. The data for this section comes from Stanley Kurtz in The end of Marriage in Scandinavia" and "Slipping Toward Scandinavia" Once the government endorses the idea that marriage is just a legal contract, between between consenting adults of any g****r, then marriage will no longer be seen as a prerequisite for children. Marriage then is seen as nothing more than a c**pling. " Gay rights advocate Andrew Sullivan sees it that way now. He writes that "c**pling-not procreation- is what civil marriage is. In that case more couples will decide there is no value to marriage, go through the bother of getting married just to have children. Why tie yourself to one person if you don't need to. Having five children by five different sires is the result of such an attitude. That is damaging to children because the c**pling is seldom permanent and people in that kind of arrangement break up at a rate three to five times as high as married couples.There is no question that liberalized marriage laws change our attitudes about the necessity of a permanent relationship to raise children. Only 37 percent of people in countries with same sex marriage laws think they should marry if they want children, while 60 per cent of people in countries without same sex marriage laws think that marriage should be part of the equation.
Furthermore, homosexual activists are fighting to change marriage laws because they know there is a causal between law and behavior. Activists like Sullivan and Signorile have admitted they don;t want to change the law so that they can get married, but because they know that a change in the law will change the attitudes about marriage and homosexuality for all of society, as it is an attempt to validate homosexual behavior by marriage even though in Norway where same sex marriage has been legal for twenty years only about two percent of eligible homosexuals have married.
Blankenthorn and Kurtz, who are both researchers in the subject say "one can believe in same sex marriage . One can believe that every child deserves a mother and a father. One cannot believe both"
Most people believe that promiscuity is bad for the body and corrosive toward the soul. If they are right about that, them allowing homosexual couples to enter lifetime monogamy ought to be desirable"
If the love between homosexuals is spousal in nature, as the advocates of same sex marriage claim, we would then expect it to be as exclusive as heterosexual marriage. But if the primary interest is sexual, then the other person is replaceable. Lets compare the two the spousal and the promiscuous. Researcher Dr. Diggs writes that "the most extensive survey of sex in America found that a vast majority of heterosexual married couples are faithful while the marriage is intact. The survey further found that 94 percent of married people and 75percent of co habiting people (both groups heterosexual) had only one partner in the previous year. Dr. Satinover, who extensively researched homosexual behavior, cites a study done by two homosexual men found that of the 156 homosexual pairs only seven had maintained sexual fidelity for one year or more., and that of the hundred couples that had been together for more than five years, non had maintained sexual fidelity. So much for fostering virtue.

The discussion of homosexual couples being good for the children, there is much debate. Most activists will not admit that there are differences between men and women particularly in their approach to child raising. the biological differences in both sexes mandate the differences. Two men or two women are not as good as one of each for raising sound stable children who understand the emotional needs of both sexes. There was a man on OPP whose name was Rod Riddle. He and his "husband" adopted two boys who were unrelated to either adult or to each other. When the boys were around fifteen each announced that they were homosexual just like their parents. I still think that is rather odd, that two homosexual men would adopt two children and that each would be part of the two or three percent of men who are homosexual. What are the odds of that?

Some months ago I had a thread Brian has three daddies with information on the medical and abuse risks of homosexual adoption that were very very different from the "children are better raised by two same sex people than being raised by their biological parents which is often the claim by L***Q activists..

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

and that comes from all sides of the spectrum. Welcome to you.

tranquilizer

Our friend the artist cuts her husband's hair, nand has done it since they got married 45 years ago. She makes him sit on the dog g***ming table to have it done, and tells him to stay. Guess he is well behaved, she hasn't cut off an ear yet, and his hair looks pretty nice when she gets done. With me it is more a matter of finding it! SWMBO wears wigs, never grew in after chemo but won't let me borrow hers, says I wouldn't look good in them. I think she is right.

serene

I love the old hymns. That church is magnificent. Thank you.

south

gosling