Time: Sun Aug 31 21:39:43 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA11015; Sun, 31 Aug 1997 21:36:51 -0700 (MST) by usr01.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA08551; Sun, 31 Aug 1997 21:34:30 -0700 (MST) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 21:34:31 -0700 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: Dobson Calls Impeachment of Supreme Court Justice Dear Clients, This is long, but priceless. /s/ Paul Mitchell http://www.supremelaw.com <snip> > >>Subject: Dobson Calls Impeachment of Supreme Court Justice >>Date: Saturday, August 30, 1997 5:56 PM >> >>Dear Friends, >> >>In 1981, when our son and daughter were 11 and 16 years of age, >>I made perhaps my greatest mistake as a father. Our family had >>gone to Mammoth, Calif., for a wonderful three-day ski trip in >>the spring of the year. Our kids were finally learning to buzz >>down the mountain without risking life and limb, and I was >>proud of them both. In the exhilaration ofthat day, I made a >>decision that almost proved disastrous. >> >>Thinking that Danae and Ryan were more skilled and confident >>than they actually were, I figured it was time to offer them >>a greater challenge. We rode the gondola to the very top >>of Mammoth Mountain, more than 11,000 feet above sea level, >>where the air is thin and the view is magnificent. There at >>the edge of the sky, I invited my son and daughter to fly >> with me down a scary slope known as "The Cornice". It >>begins with a nine-foot drop and then descends at a >>dramatically steep angle. Even experienced skiers are >>sometimes reluctant to tackle this part of the mountain. >>Danae and Ryan were also apprehensive, but they both >>have venturesome spirits and I encouraged them to go for >>it. I soon regretted it. >> >>The snow was icy and slick as we headed downhill that >>morning. I thought my kids were behind me as I dropped >>about 50 yards in a matter of seconds. Then I looked >>back and saw a terrified boy and a girl hunched on the >>side of the mountain about 15 feet from the top. >>Both were panic-stricken. Danae was saying, "I'm going >>to die. I know I'm going to die. Oh God, please save me >>'cause I'm gonna die." Ryan was in a similar state of mind. >> >>I instantly realized that I had made a very big mistake. >>These two kids, whom I loved more than life itself, had >>no business being on that "expert" slope at least a mile >>above the saner skiers. They were literally paralyzed >>with fear. I told them to stay where they were (they >>could do little else), and I would sidestep back up >>the mountain to help them. I reached >>Ryan first, and tried to calm him. >> >>"See, Ryan," I said. "There's nothing to be afraid of. >>We'll just work our way gradually to the base." >> >>At that precise moment, my lower ski slipped out from >>under me, and I tumbled head over heels and slid more >>than 300 feet down the mountain. As I fell, I created >>what is known as "a yard sale" -- scattering skis, >>poles, hat, gloves, glasses and goggles over the landscape. >>When Ryan saw me plunging toward eternity, he was even >>more convinced that his end had come. >> >>Fortunately, two expert skiers witnessed our predicament >>and gently ushered Danae and Ryan down the mountain a few >>feet at a time. I greeted them at the bottom of the slope >>with hugs and thankfulness that no one was hurt. Ryan went >>on to develop outstanding skill in subsequent years and >>loved to burn the Cornice like a pro. Danae became a good >>skier, too, but she's never been back to the top of Mammoth >>Mountain. Both kids have forgiven me for my foolish decision, >>but I still haven't forgiven myself. >> >>You can understand, having heard this story, why the term >>"slippery slope" has special significance for me. It refers >>to those situations in our lives when we make unwise >>decisions that place us symbolically on the side of >>precipitous mountains. The footing is so unstable that a >>step in any direction can send us plunging headlong toward >>the crevices below. In our private lives, the predicaments >>in which we find ourselves often result from unwise and >>impulsive decisions that should have been given a little >>more thought. >> >>It is a fact that nations, as well as individuals, also >>suffer from bad choices made by leaders who place millions >>of people on the cusp of the slippery slope. That is what >>is occurring today in these United States. In my general >>letter last month, to which many of you responded, I tried >>to illustrate how radically we have departed from the values >>and beliefs of our founding fathers. What a wonderful >>heritage those great men handed down to our era. It was as >>though they were guided by internal gyroscopes -- moral >>compasses -- that pointed them to the spiritual principles >>by which the universe is governed. Most of their public >>policy decisions were in harmony with the scriptures, >>which established our nation on the bedrock of eternal >>truth. There's nothing slippery about that. >> >>Unfortunately, those spiritual concepts on which the new >>nation was built are being superseded now by philosophies >>and judgements that are rooted in atheism. The God of the >>Bible has been removed from every vestige of public life, >>as though He were a cancerous growth that threatened the >>life of the organism. Our public policy decisions >>increasingly reflect the humanistic and pagan notions of >>the day. This transformation is occurring, not by >>the will of the people who remain overwhelmingly religious, >>but by our elected representatives and by liberal judges >>who seem determined to recast society in their own >>image. >> >>I am among those who are becoming alarmed by the inclination >>of the U.S. Supreme Court, including six justices of the >>current court, to reinterpret the Constitution according >>to its own vision for the future. There is no better >>example of this arrogation of power than occurred >>in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 1992. To understand >>it, we have to return to the Roe v.Wade decision in >>1973, which held that a woman has an implied right >>to abortion as expressed, more or less, in the 14th >>Amendment. 1 Everyone knows that no such wording >>is actually there, but somehow seven justices thought >>they found it tucked between the lines. Thus, from >>1973 to 1992, abortion for any reason, or for no reason, >>was legal throughout nine months of pregnancy because >>of this implied language in the Constitution. >> >>Pro-lifers always hoped that a subsequent court would >>overturn that 1973 decision when asked to validate >>the ruling. The Rehnquist Court got that opportunity >>in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 1992. Instead of >>overturning the decision, however, the majority >>said that the right to kill babies was guaranteed >>within the 14th Amendment, rather than simply being >>implied generally by the principle of "privacy" in the >>14th Amendment. 2 In so doing, they sealed the fate of >>countless millions of unborn babies. According to some >>constitutional scholars, this was one of the most important >>rulings in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court. >> >>They also say the decision did two things that every >>citizen should understand. First, it put the right to >>abortion in concrete. Only once has the Court taken away >>a right that was declared, for all practical purposes, to be >>"explicit" within the Constitution (which occurred in >>1946 with a court that had been "packed" by Franklin >>Roosevelt). Scholars tell us that is most unlikely to >>ever occur again. Therefore, nothing short of a >>constitutional amendment will protect the unborn child. >>That is why we must work tirelessly to secure that >>objective and not be deterred by politicians who claim, >>disingenuously, that there are "other ways" to >>address the problem. There IS no other way. According >>to the Supreme Court, the Constitution now explicitly >>defends a woman's right to kill an unborn baby, and >>neither the Congress, state legislatures nor lower >>courts have the power to override that ruling. >> >>But there is another implication of the Casey decision >>that places our culture squarely on the edge of the >>slippery slope. Please stay with me as I attempt to >>explain it. The Court ruled in this case that American >> citizens are entitled by the 14th Amendment to create >>their own reality -- to make their own rules -- >>to determine individually what is right and wrong >>under the law. 3 In so doing, the justices abandoned >>the historic concept of "natural law" -- which assumes >>there is a God who has established the moral framework >>on which all our statutes are based. This assumption of >>divine presence and absolute truth has been the >>cornerstone of our democracy from the earliest days >>of the Republic. Thomas Jefferson referred to it in >>the Declaration of Independence when he wrote, "that >>they are endowed by their Creator with certain >>unalienable Rights..." 4 Human dignity and equal >>protection under the law are not gifts from government >>or from any other human institution. They are >>bestowed by the One from whom all moral judgments, >>including the Ten Commandments, are derived. This >>is the essence of the inspired system of government >>handed down to us generation after generation. >> >>Tragically, the words written by Supreme Court >>Justices O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter in >>the Casey decision stand in stark contrast to that >>historic acknowledgment of God. They said, "At the >>heart of liberty is the right to define one's own >>concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, >>and of the mystery of human life." 5 >> >>Never before has a U.S. court rendered such a decision. >>Chuck Colson said about it: >> >>In other words now it's nobody's business but yours >>if you want to put a gun to your >>head. With Planned Parenthood v. Casey, >>the Supreme Court opened a Pandora's >>Box, something Justice Antonin Scalia recognized >>in his dissent. Scalia warned, >>"Liberty defined under Casey could include >>'homosexual sodomy, polygamy, adult >>incest and suicide.'" Scalia was being optimistic. >>Theoretically, under Casey, a citizen could marry >>his toaster if he wanted to. There's no limit >>to what someone could deem essential to his >>personal sense of "dignity" and "autonomy". That's why >>Casey is a recipe for chaos. It effectively >>tells people that they have a right to shake >>their fist at the law and say, don't tell me what >>to do. As Catholic University's Russel >>Hittenger put it, Casey granted citizens a >>"private franchise over matters of life and >>death." We need to help our neighbors understand >>why the Casey decision has taken >>us far beyond the issue of abortion. With this >>ruling the Supreme Court has created a >>judicial Tyrannosaurus Rex -- one that threatens >>to consume our very ability to govern ourselves. 6 >> >>Nearly 3,000 years ago, King Solomon warned >>those who substituted their own puny >>interpretations and judgment for ancient >>eternal truths. He wrote, "There is a way that >>seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof >>are the ways of death" (Proverbs 14:12, >>KJV), and "The way of a fool is right in his >>own eyes" (Proverbs 12:15, KJV). To >>understand the fallout from Planned Parenthood >>v. Casey, one need only look at >>subsequent judicial rulings. It should have >>been anticipated that lower courts would jump on >>the new-age interpretation of individual liberty, >>and indeed, that's just what they did. Earlier >>this spring, two federal appellate courts also >>found written in the 14th Amendment a right >>for doctors to kill their patients. On March 6, >> the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San >>Francisco struck down by an 8-3 vote a Washington >> state law forbidding doctors to "assist" >>terminally ill patients in their suicide. >> 7 The Casey decision was cited in the ruling. >>On April 2, the 2nd District Court of Appeals >>reached the same conclusion. 8 Judge Stephen >>Reinhardt, author of the majority opinion in >>the Ninth Circuit, created a constitutional right >>never before recognized. And he knew what he >>was doing. In an interview with The Wall >>Street Journal -- which described the judge as >>"a crafty advocate for his left-leaning >>views" -- Reinhardt called the decision >>"my best ever". 9 >> >>How rapidly we are tumbling down the slippery >>slope now. In a single day, the Ninth >>Circuit took us where people in the Netherlands >>required 20 years to travel. Euthanasia is >>widely practiced there, with an estimated >>2,300 cases each year and no end in sight. 10 The >>Dutch Supreme Court has gone so far as to rule >>that a doctor may assist in the suicide of a >>patient not even suffering physical pain, let >>alone terminal illness. In another case, the >>court acquitted a doctor who assisted in the >>death of a woman who wasn't even ill. 11 >> >>Furthermore, as many as 1,000 Dutch citizens >>die each year of "involuntary euthanasia" >>(also known as murder) at the hands of their >>physicians. 12 In these cases, the patient has >>not requested assistance in dying; the doctor >>has acted on his own initiative or at the >>prompting of a family member. Last year, a >>physician in the Netherlands was acquitted >>after killing a spina bifida infant at the >>parent's request. 13 >> >>Could this "involuntary euthanasia" become >>commonplace in North America? That seems >>to be where we are headed. In a footnote to >>their decision, the justices on the Ninth Circuit >>make clear that a "decision of a duly appointed >>surrogate decision maker is for all legal >>purposes the decision of the patient himself." >>14 They also refused to condemn the practice >>of killing those who are unable or unwilling >>to request assistance in dying -- even to the >>point of inviting legal challenges to the current >>law. 15 This, dear reader, is what awaits us >>at the bottom of the mountain. As in Holland, >>sick, disabled or demented Americans and >>many other classes of human beings will one day >> have no choice about dying. The >>temptation for others to choose death on their >> behalf will be too great to resist, especially in >>an economy that is hard-pressed for health-care >> funds! Thus, the slippery slop slides into >>our own backyard. >> >>There have been numerous other examples of >>judicial imperialism in recent rulings, >>including the Supreme Court's reversal of >>Colorado's Amendment 2 (discussed later) and >>the federal appeal court's overturning of >>the new law designed to protect children from >>indecency on the Internet. It would sicken >>you to see what 10-year-olds will continue to >>encounter on their computer screens as a result >>of this ruling. Nevertheless, the decision by >>our elected representatives in Congress and >>the president was set aside by a panel of three >>powerful judges. 16 >> >>There is another decision about to be handed >> down which represents, I believe, an >>enormous threat to our democracy. All eyes >>are on a trial court in Hawaii which will soon >>decide whether homosexuals have the right >>to marry under that state's constitution. The >>Hawaii State Supreme Court has already set >>the ground rules: in order to deny same-sex >>couples the right to marry, the state must >>demonstrate a "compelling interest" to do so. This >>is the most difficult of all legal standards >> and raising the high jump bar to this level has >>made the outcome nearly a foregone conclusion. >>If Hawaii approves same-sex marriage, it >>will do so for the rest of the nation because >>a same-sex marriage license is valid in every >>state that has not passed laws to prohibit >>them. Gays from Kentucky could marry in >>Hawaii, return home and demand full legal >>privileges. And once again, if the court approves >>same-sex marriage, it will do so against the >>clear wishes of the majority of American >>citizens. 17 (A bill currently in Congress, >>called the "Defense of Marriage Act", is designed >>to counteract the homosexual marriage issue in Hawaii.) >> >>In these cases and many others, the courts >>are radically changing the nature of our >>democratic process. In his dissent against >>the Ninth Circuit's deadly constitutional >>creativity, Judge Andrew Kleinfeld wrote, >>"The founding fathers did not establish the >>United States as a democratic republic so that >>elected officials would decide trivia, while >>all great questions would be decided by the >>judiciary." 18 In fact, our Founders feared >>the day when the judiciary would become, >>according to Thomas Jefferson, "a despotic branch" >>of government. 19. He explained how this tyranny >>might happen: >> >>To consider judges as the ultimate arbiters of >>all constitutional questions [is] a very >>dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which >>would place us under the despotism of an >>oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other \ >>men and not more so. They have, with others, >>the same passions for party, for power, and >>the privilege of their corps...[A]nd their power >> is all the more dangerous as they are in office >>for life and not responsible...to the elective control. 20 >> >>How clearly Jefferson perceived our present judicial >> crisis. The Supreme Court is becoming "a despotic >>branch of government", consumed with power and >> accountable to no one. There are only three solid >> conservative justices remaining -- Rehnquist, Thomas >> and Scalia. Three other Republic appointees, >> Souter, O'Connor and Kennedy, have consistently >>joined with the liberal wing to create "rights" >>never imagined by the framers of the >>Constitution. Together, these six people possess the >> authority to destroy our freedom unless >>they are confronted within the democratic process. >> >>Does the U.S. Constitution provide a remedy for >>today's imperialistic court? Well, in fact, it >>does. My friend Paul Weyrich, president of the Free >>Congress Foundation and CEO of National Empowerment >>Television, discussed that provision recently in a >>statement to his television audience. His words are >>worth considering: >> >>In the history of nations, there comes a time >>when a crossroads is reached. Down one road >>is the slippery slope to perdition. It is >>the easier road, but at the end civilization >>lies in ruins. Historians are left to chronicle >>the demise of the nation. Up the other road >>is the narrow, difficult path to the recovery >>of the sovereignty of the people. This way >>is fraught with peril and many turn back along >>the way. But for those who make it, the possibility >>of passing on the heritage of the nation is made >>possible. >> >>I believe we have reached such a crossroads >>with the Supreme Court's decision...which >>struck down Amendment 2 of the Colorado Constitution. >>This sweeping declaration by the court, now being >>celebrated, if you will pardon the term, >>with gay abandon by those in the society who >>seek to undo all civilized restraints, will >>take us down the road to the ultimate destruction >>of our society. >> >>Not only does the court again invent a new >>right under the Constitution never contemplated >>by the founding fathers, nor ever given the >>Court by any vote of the legislature or referendum >>of the people, but the Supreme Court has now struck >>down, it would seem for all time, the one weapon >>citizens thought they had to preserve their society. >> >>The issue was simple enough. The people of Colorado >>voted to instruct their own legislative bodies that >>none of them was to give any special rights to >>homosexuals. No rights were taken away. Only rights >>not enjoyed by other groups in society were enjoined. >>The State of Colorado presented several arguments to >>meet the reasonableness test which the Court imposes >>in consideration of such issues. >> >>But six Supreme Court justices rejected all those >>arguments and told the people of >>Colorado: You have lied to us. We here know that >>the reason you voted as you did is >>because you are bigoted against homosexuals. So >>we will thwart your will. We will void your sovereignty. >>We, the elite, will overturn your decision and we >>will open the door to anyone who feels he has been >>defeated by the democratic process to seek our >>protection from the people. This is only the beginning, >>as various homosexual rights groups gleefully proclaim. >>This decision paves the way for the complete >>acceptance and sanction by this society for a lifestyle >>which is openly condemned in the Bible more times than >>any other specific sin. "An abomination unto the >>Lord" can now receive privileged treatment from >>legislative bodies. >> >>If this decision is allowed to stand, historians >>will look back upon this time as the critical >>turning point in our society. So what is to >>be done? In the past I would exhort >>you to elect a president who would appoint >>justices who would adhere to the Constitution. >>That was the cry of Richard Nixon in the 1968 >>presidential election. He did not appoint >>such Justices. Nor, as it turned out did >>Gerald Ford or Ronald Reagan >>or George Bush [in every instance], or, >>of course, Bill Clinton. Each of them >>contributed justices who constituted >>the 6-3 majority of the court on the Colorado >>decision. It is also clear that no matter >>what protective statutes they pass, this Court >>will declare them unconstitutional. >>The Defense of Marriage Act is making its way >>through the Congress right now. By the standard >>of this court, declaring that homosexuals can't >>marry constitutes bigotry. It is also clear >>that a vote of the people in the so-called >>sovereign states means nothing to this court >>as it demonstrated not only in this case but >>in the recent case on term limits as well. >> >>So there remains but one option for citizens >>who wish to protect themselves from the >>tyranny of the majority on this Supreme >>Court. This is not a course I recommend >>lightly. In the early 1960s when the John >>Birch Society was pushing to impeach Earl >>Warren, I didn't buy into the idea, even >>though I detested the decisions of the >>Warren court. In the mid 1960s when then >>Congressman Gerald Ford first raised the >>possibility of impeaching Justice William >>O. Douglas, I opposed the idea in a radio >>editorial, even though I found Douglas and >>his views reprehensible. But this time it is >>different. We are out of remedies. Impeachment >>is our only hope of bringing a court >>which is out of control, back under control. >> >>I would remind you that Alexander Hamilton, >>in the Federalist paper number 61, >>wrote of the "important constitutional >>check which the power of instituting >>impeachments...would give to (Congress) >>upon members of the judicial department. >>This is alone a complete security. There >>can never be danger that the judges, by a >>series of deliberate usurpations on the >>authority of the legislature, would hazard the >>united resentment of the body entrusted with it." >> >>Indeed the National Legal Foundation has >>compiled a history of impeachments >>which shows that in the early part of >>our nation's history, the legislature was far >>more ready to act upon impeachment of >>judges, yes even a Justice of the Supreme >>Court, than we are today. That time was >>closer to the intent of our founding fathers. >> >>As to the argument that impeachment >>can only be initiated for matters such as >>embezzlement or bribery, let me cite what >>then Minority Leader Gerald Ford said in >>1970 during his drive to impeach Justice >>Douglas. "When, then, is an impeachable >>offense? The only honest answer is that >>an impeachable offense is whatever a >>majority of the House of Representatives >>considers it to be at a given moment in >>history; conviction results from whatever >>offense or offenses two-thirds of the other >>body considers to be sufficiently serious >>to require removal of the accused from >>office." >> >>As Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote in >>his opinion in Rochin vs. California, justices >>who do not restrain themselves are >>subject to only two remedies. A constitutional >>amendment or impeachment. >> >>I understand the implications of what I am >>recommending. I have no illusions thatthe Senate >>would remove these Justices from office. But the >>mere act of initiating impeachment would finally >>focus the attention of this nation on the enormity >>of the crimes which this Court has committed >>against our constitutional form of government. >> >> Rather than stand aside and watch this nation >>slide further down the [slippery slope] >>to ultimate destruction, I hope and pray >>that citizens will petition their representatives >>to impeach the majority of this court and in doing >>so will employ the one remaining remedy they have >>to save the nation. 21 >> >>Whether or not we should seek to impeach offending >>justices of the Supreme Court, we certainly concur >>with Paul Weyrich that the present liberal >>majority poses a serious threat >>to the future of this nation. That danger is >>not new, of course. Our founding fathers were >>also greatly concerned about future generations >>forgetting the principles on which the >>country was based. They understood the >>implications of a secularized society in which God >>had no part. The following warnings from these >>early leaders reverberate from across the >>centuries and speak to the excesses of our present day: >> >>"...the Christian religion, in its purity, >>is the basis or rather the source of all genuine >>freedom in government...(A)nd I am persuaded >>that no civil government of a republican form >>can exist and be durable, in which the principles >>of that religion have not a controlling influence." >> --Noah Webster, no year given 22 >> >>"Religion and liberty are the meat and drink >>of the body politic. Withdraw one of them and it >>languishes, consumes and dies...Without religion >> we may possibly retain the freedom of savages, >>bears, and wolves, but not the freedom of New >>England. If our religion were gone, our state >>of society would perish with it, and nothing >>would be left." >> --Timothy Dwight, President of Yale, 1798 23 >> >>"Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall >>be overthrown, our present Republican forms >>of government, and all the blessings which >>flow from them, must fall with them." >> --Jebediah Morse, Father of Samuel F.B.Morse, inventor of the >>telegraph, 1799 24 >> >>"Without morals a republic cannot subsist any >>length of time: they therefore who are decrying >>the Christian religion, whose morality is so >>sublime and pure...are undermining the solid >>foundation of morals, the best security for >>the duration of free governments." >> --James McHenry, Secretary of War under Presidents George Washington >>and John >> Adams, 1800 25 >> >>"Moral habits...cannot be safely be trusted on >>any other foundation than religious principle, >>nor any government be secure which is not supported >>by moral habits." >> --Daniel Webster, 1820 26 >> >> "It is impossible to mentally or socially enslave a Bible-reading >>people." >> --Horace Greeley, 1852 27 >> >>"I've lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer >>I live, the more convincing proofs I see of >>this truth -- That God governs in the affairs >>of men. If a sparrow cannot fall to the >>ground without His notice, is it probable >>that an empire can rise without His aid? We >>have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, >>that 'except the Lord build the House >>they labor in vain who build it.' I firmly >>believe this, and I also believe that without >>His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this >>political building no better than the >> builders of Babel" 28 >> --Benjamin Franklin, 1787 >> >>These stern warnings by our founding >>fathers have validity for us because >>they reflect the admonitions of Jehovah, Himself, >> as recorded in the book of Deuteronomy and quoted >>below. Though He was addressing the nation of >>Israel, His words reveal an immutable >>standard of righteousness which applies >>of all generations. >> >>You may say to yourself, "My power and the >>strength of my hands have produced >>this wealth for me." But remember the Lord >>your God, for it is he who gives you the >>ability to produce wealth, and so confirms >>his covenant, which he swore to your >>forefathers, as it is today. If you ever >>forget the Lord your God and follow other >>gods and worship and bow down to them, >>I testify against you today that you will >>surely be destroyed. Like the nations the >>Lord destroyed before you, so you will be >>destroyed for not obeying the Lord your God." >> --Deuteronomy 8:17-20, NIV >> >>It is folly to assume that those sobering words >>have no relevance to the day in which we >>live. Although they were spoken more than >>4,000 years ago, the parallel to our affluent, >>arrogant nation is striking. Furthermore, >>we find similar New Testament passages that >>warn of evil and apostasy. For example, the >>apostle Paul said, "The wrath of God is being >>revealed from heaven against all the godlessness >> and wickedness of men who suppress the >>truth by their wickedness" (Romans 1:18, NIV). >>Later in the book of Romans he wrote, >>"For the wages of sin is death, but the >>gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" >>(Romans 6:23, NIV). >> >>If God's judgement befalls wicked nations >>as well as disobedient individuals, as Scripture >>clearly indicates, how can our own country >> escape His wrath -- a land wherein 30 percent >>of our children are born out of wedlock, where >>1.5 million defenseless babies are killed in >>the womb, where crime and violence have >>become a way of life, where heterosexual and >>homosexual promiscuity are flaunted and >>celebrated as in the days of Sodom and >>Gomorrah, where child abuse is rampant >>and where God is mocked and His name defiled >>in that which we call "entertainment"? We have >>forgotten the moral and spiritual principles >>with which we began and now we stand, as Paul >>Weyrich wrote, at the most important >>crossroads in our history. One road leads to >>continued rebellion and defiance of the Holy >>One of Israel. Traveling further down that >>slippery slope will lead, I believe, to the >>destruction of the social order as we have >>known it. The other road brings us to >>repentance, forgiveness, obedience, wholeness >>and health as a nation. King David tells us, >>"Blessed are the people whose God is the >>Lord" (Psalms 144:15, NIV). Everything >>depends, therefore, on the choices we will >>make at this critical juncture. Nothing short >>of a sweeping spiritual revival will save >>us from our own foolishness. >> >>That is the conclusion drawn by our board >>of directors during a recent two-day meeting >>devoted to our nation, its heritage and its >>future. Specifically, we addressed the question, >>"What is the role of this Christian ministry >>in a post-Christian world?" For six hours we >>pondered the implications of this subject >>and ended late that evening in a time of fervent >>prayer for the Lord's guidance. It was a >>defining moment in the 19-year history of Focus on >>the Family. >> >>The mission of this ministry was confirmed and >>sharpened during that wonderful time >>together as a board. We agreed to devote more >>of our energies and resources to spreading >>the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which is the >>only source of light in an increasingly dark and >>sinful world. Those who follow our broadcasts >>and publications in coming months will hear >>more about this emphasis and how it will be >>implemented. We also plan to redouble our >>efforts to secure what has been called >>"the defense of righteousness" in the culture. >>Spiritual renewal must be translated into >>social action, as those who are transformed by the >>Gospel of Jesus Christ then begin to influence >>the moral fiber of the nation. In effect, the >>scriptural principles which our founding fathers >>incorporated must again be brought to bear >>on every aspect of life, including education, >> government and law. We have asked the Lord >>to make this ministry a beacon of light in a >>culture, and in a world, that is quickly forgetting >>the fundamentals of the Christian heritage. >>We will do our best to be faithful to that calling. >> >>Thank you for standing with us as we seek to >>carry out this mission. Our resources are >>stretched to the limit during these summer >>months when people are away from home and >>thinking about other things. If we could hear >>from you at this time, it would be most >>encouraging to me and the staff of Focus on >>the Family. Blessings to you all. We are >>partners in this effort to preserve the >>things that matter most. >> >>Sincerely, >> >>James C. Dobson, Ph.D. >>President > > > ======================================================================== Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. ======================================================================== [This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail