2008 California Election Forum

U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf's comments on a lawsuit brought by Massachusetts parents who object to their 5-year-old son being taught in kindergarten to approve of homosexuality:

“Almost all moral education is indoctrination. It's the reason we have public schools.”

In past issues of Reality Alert, we covered and asked prayer for the Elsinore Christian Center.

The church had been denied permits by the city and the city refused to issue a land use permit that would allow the church to purchase a commercial building for a new sanctuary.

All across America, churches spend hundreds of thousands of dollars (sometimes over $1 million, like Rolling Hills Covenant Church) to government agencies for expansion or building approvals.

This is money that should go to ministry, not city obstacles to allowing a new church or church growth.

Because so many churches have been discriminated against and denied their 1st Amendment rights, Congress unanimously passed RLUIPA (The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act) in 2000.

Attorney Bob Tyler and the Advocates for Faith and Freedom filed suit under RLUIPA in behalf of the Elsinore Church.

The case took seven years and amazingly-by God's grace-the liberal court ruled in favor of the church. The city then settled with the church, awarding it $1,205,000 in damages.

This is exciting and the body of Christ owes Bob Tyler and his group thanks for their efforts to defend the church and set a precedent that will impact the church nationwide as cities discover they can't get away with denying churches their constitutional rights.

We should also thank the church for defending itself-and all American churches-against unconstitutional city rulings. Many churches have blindly accepted city decisions and refused to stand up for their rights, hurting other churches in the process.

I encourage you to make a donation to Advocates for Faith and Freedom to help them in their next battle.

Click here to donate, or click here to find out more about this important organization.

If you have been to the Mojave National Preserve, you may have seen the 8-foot cross erected 73 years ago to honor World War I vets.

The ACLU attacked the cross with a lawsuit. Congress then agreed to a land trade with the Veterans of Foreign Wars—the acre of land containing the cross for five acres owned by the VFW, so the cross wouldn't be on government property.

Now, shockingly, the liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the land transfer.

Now, shockingly, the liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the land transfer...Get the full story. Sign up for a FREE all-access membership by clicking here.

We are glad to report that the United States Supreme Court has again overturned the liberal activist judges' ruling from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

This was the 6th time out of 8 where the Supreme Court reversed the 9th Circuit Court. In this case, a man was sentenced to death for murder. The accused murderer appealed, but a federal judge rejected the appeal.

The man appealed again, but a 3-month appellate panel also rejected his appeal. But then the liberal, antideath penalty judges on the 9th Circuit agreed with the murderer's complaint.

This is another example of the critical importance of appointed and elected judges who wish to uphold the law, not legislating from the bench.

If you're interested in judicial issues, visit our website JudgeVoterGuide.com.

The California Supreme Court has refused to review two lawsuits challenging the $3 billion stem cell initiatives passed by votes with Proposition 71.

The decision was largely political by the activist judges. The suits claimed inadequate state supervision of Proposition 71 and that taxpayers would be harmed by the conflict of interest that will enrich a few at the expense of the taxpayers.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the policy decision at a California library that made meeting rooms available to the public, but denied them for use for Christian services.

Thus, religious free speech is less protected than secular speech—an outrageous affront to a free society.

Across America, the ACLU is using a little-known law that allows them to be awarded enormous attorney's fees from states, cities and school districts.

Here are a few examples:

• $950,000 from the city of San Diego to settle removing the Boy Scout meetings from the city's Balboa Park
• $500,000 in the "Ten Commandments Case" in Atlanta
• $90,000 from the Chicago Unified School District to settle a lawsuit from the Boy Scouts to ban them from using schools for gatherings
• $63,000 from the lawsuit to destroy the Mojave Desert World War I Veterans Memorial
• $1,000,000 (yes, 1 million) in the Intelligent Design case against the Dove, Pennsylvania, school board.

Here is what the ACLU does:

• Threatens a lawsuit if the government doesn't comply. The government understands if it loses (like with a cross or Boy Scouts), it will pay an obscene legal fine. Most government bodies cave in.
• If the government doesn't comply and they settle later, they will pay a huge fine.
• If they fight the ACLU's demands and lose, they suffer a huge fine.

Just the threat of a suit is helping the ACLU win. And if they win in court, they grow rich.

How can this outrage stop? Only if enough Christians go to the public to help stop their war on Christianity.

We need:

1. City, county and state officials who will resist the ACLU. That means Christians must be willing to run for office—and vote in local elections.
2. U.S. Congressmembers and Senators who will change this law. Senator Sam Brownback has a bill in Congress that would stop this.

It's called The Public Expressions of Religion Act. Click here to read Senator Brownback's offcial press release on the bill.

The difference between a strict constructionalist who interprets the constitution and a liberal judicial activist is clearly seen in the judicial philosophy of Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer.

Breyer, in his book Active Liberty, wrote "Since law is connected to life, judges, in applying a test in light of its purpose, should look to consequences, including contemporary conditions, social, industrial and political of the community to be affected."

In other words, interpreting the Constitution and the framers intent is not a judge's standard. Other considerations are taken into account, based on the subject of political philosophy of the judges.

Breyer has said, "I tend to explore purpose and consequences, other-emphasis language, a more liberal tending of the text, history and tradition."

Here is how this plays out:

A Texas religious monument on display for many years without complaint was constitutional. But the display at a Kentucky courthouse that was newer and more likely to stir complaint was unconstitutional. Totally subjective.

This is really the court subjectively legislating, not interpreting, the law. Weighting the law's impact on the community is what the legislator is for, not judges. Breyer and other judicial activists became unelected, unaccountable, unpredictable dictators, instead of judges.

Or take the 1st Amendment and free speech. Breyer voted to uphold the McCain-Feingold-Cochran Campaign Reform Bill that tramples free speech.

His justification was purely political and subjective speculation, "We have to do something to make that playing field a little more level in terms of money."

In other words, it's okay to suppress free speech and trample the 1st Amendment to ensure all speech is equally protected. This is his opinion being imposed on us, not constitutional interpretation.

This is why we need to replace judicial activists with strict constructionalists.

We have warned that out-of-control liberal judges are legislating and overriding propositions and elected officials.

Here are two new cases:

• Proposition 83, Jessica’s Law, which was passed with 70% of the vote, was stopped by an activist judge.
• The city of Escondido passed an ordinance to stop landlords from renting to those violating our immigration laws. But now an activist judge has stopped the enforcement of the law. The federal judge seemed to agree with the law's opponents and the ACLU. Once again, one individual subverts electoral and legislative decisions and imposes his own beliefs.

Our courts are out of control. That’s why we created a new website, www.Judgevoterguide.com. Please visit it for updates and information.

Come January, Democratic Senator Charles Schumer of New York will become the chairman of the Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts.

He says he will reject any conservative President Bush nominates. His committee must approve every nominee.

With more than 50 federal judicial vacancies, President Bush has been nominating men and women who believe it is their judicial job to interpret the constitution, not legislate from the bench. According to Schumer, “There will be no more right wing judges.”

Superior Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito are considered “right wing” by the Senator because they are judicial activists.