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

>>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
>>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
>>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
>>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 
>>                           --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. 
>>James C. Dobson, Ph.D.

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