I’ve just returned from a ceremony . . . the swearing in of a Washington State Supreme Court Justice, in this case, my friend and fellow Bainbridge Islander Charlie Wiggins. . . At least one thing is certain – Charlie is a humble and approachable man of the highest integrity. The theme of his career is expressed in the book of Amos: “Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever flowing stream.”

This justice he speaks of, according to my previous conversation with Charlie Wiggins, a professing Christian and elder at his Presbyterian Church, is nothing short of social justice. Typical of a left leaning liberal talking about justice, Mr. Hays goes on to describe his feelings – not the solid foundation of law:

This was a gratifying experience because what I heard were the voices of real people with real lives, real families and genuine passions . . . I came away feeling that our courts are to a very high degree in good hands, that they’re vital to the protection of our liberty and our cherished unalienable rights as Americans and members of the human race.

Going into the elections of 2010, Charlie Wiggins sent me an email hoping to point out errors in my comparisons of him and his opponent, Justice Richard Sanders. He wrote, “I’d like to give you an opportunity to consider the truth.  I hope you’ll reconsider and endorse me, but whatever you decide, I know you will want to make your decision based on truths, not on untruths. . .” So, what are the truths Charlie Wiggins presented?

First, he attacked my position on VotingForJudges.org, defending it as a non-partisan website, when the truth of the matter is, although they do not directly endorse candidates, they largely publish endorsements by liberal organizations, thus affirming the endorsements for liberal candidates. In this example, in his arguments in the email, he relies upon changing the intent of words and meanings to give himself, and the organization he helped found, the appearance of neutrality, when, in fact, they are promoting liberal candidates.

Second, he said he was not proud of his endorsements from QLaw (the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender bar association) and only published the rating “because it was the lowest rating they could give me. . .” When in fact, the Cominus review of this candidate pointed out on his website and on QLaw’s website he did, in fact, have a High Rating. In this example, he outright lied – no hedge, just lies.

Third, in the Cominus review, we pointed out he had written a decision against the voluntary services of chaplains in municipal police and fire departments. Charlie Wiggins stated in his email rebuttal, “There’s a big difference between saying that I ruled against allowing voluntary chaplains and saying that such programs may be constitutional but further facts must be presented before we can tell.  That isn’t a holding against the chaplaincy program.”  And, in another email he wrote, “As for Malyon, I took an oath to follow the constitution and it would have been wrong for me not to make sure that the constitution wasn’t being violated by the chaplaincy program.  I did as much as I could in interpreting the constitution to allow the program to continue.” He may couch the decision in indecision, and give pretense to the Constitution and so justify himself to Christian friends, on the one hand, and liberal supporters, on the other. But the fact of the matter is that his decision struck a death blow to the volunteer services of the chaplains. Fortunately, he was reversed at the Supreme Court level and it was Justice Sanders who wrote the decision. As I pointed out to Charlie, “According to your argument defending Maylon, you prefer the Lawrence Tribe version of the Constitution over the plain wording. One reason I find Sanders fascinating is he thinks the Constitution has meaning of its own without the assistance of revision by those who would neuter it.” ["Appropriate constitutional analysis begins with the text and, for most purposes should end there as well." - Sanders' actual quote in the Maylon decision.]

Fourth, when bringing up his history of decisions based upon social justice rather than upon a foundation in law, Charlie replied, “My vision of social justice is shaped by Jesus’ example of healing the sick, and feeding the hungry. . .” And, in another email, “Brothers in Christ have disagreed since the disciples came to Jesus and complained about someone casting out devils in Jesus’ name.  As I recall, Jesus’ response was not to condemn them, but to respond that those who are not against us are for us.” Don’t ask me how this fits, unless by a faint possibility he means to infer that Christians working toward justice in law and Christians working toward equalization of results are both working for the kingdom of God. Charlie, there is no truth in having it both ways – either what God said about justice in Scripture is wrong, or the equal distribution of results is wrong.

No one can claim to seek justice while denying the clear wording of the law given in the word of God. No one can claim to seek constitutional intent while neutering the very words of the documents. Charlie Wiggins claims to be a Christian and he claims to seek truth. But in reality, he has worked hard to please man while tipping his hat to God.

If it is true, as his friend John Hays wrote in his letter to the editor, the theme of his career is expressed Amos 5:24, ‘Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever flowing stream,’ maybe we should look at the verse in context. The chapter is a warning from God. He is going to destroy the nation of Judah because they have trampled on His justice and have denied truth and righteousness in the courts. The metaphors of justice rolling like waters, and such are the prophecy of God’s hand destroying the nation that would not listen. Charlie, you may think you have some fuzzy, feel-good life verse that seems to apply to your career; but you have chosen a Scripture which proclaims if we refuse to uphold God’s justice and righteousness in the courts, His hand will roll down upon us in destruction.

So, for Charlie Wiggins and other professing Christians who would twist the law to their own selfish ends, consider verses 14 and 15, “Seek good [righteousness - not outcomes], not evil, that you may live. Then the LORD God Almighty will be with you, just as you say He is. Hate evil, love good; maintain justice in the courts.” Charlie Wiggins, this is your opportunity to make a difference.

IRONICALLY, Washington Supreme Court Justice Richard Sanders has been unfairly targeted for simply stating the fact that a disproportionate representation of African Americans in our prison population is (obviously) the result of a disproportionate rate of criminal convictions.

I say “ironically” because Justice Sanders has done more than any sitting justice to bring fairness to our criminal-justice system, and he has done more to defend the rights of the accused regardless of race than any of his colleagues.

As a practicing lawyer acutely concerned by such matters, I was personally inspired by Sanders’ stirring dissent in a case involving an African-American motorist who was pulled over and arrested by Spokane police for an illegal lane change. By the time the police were done with him, he was sent to the hospital rather than jail because he was so badly beaten. Then he was charged with assaulting an officer.

His defense was that he was entitled to use reasonable force to resist an illegal arrest since an improper lane change is a civil infraction, not an arrestable crime. Nevertheless the trial court refused to instruct the jury as requested. Sanders wrote a wonderful dissent (State v. Valentine) pointing out that this instruction was required by hundreds of years of common law as adopted by this jurisdiction.

Nevertheless the majority overruled all these cases, and left Sanders standing nearly alone for the rights of this African American.

In another case he stood alone for the rights of an African American who was sentenced to life without possibility of parole for stealing $300 from an espresso stand armed with a finger in his pocket. (State v. Rivers) Sanders pointed out that such a sentence was unconstitutionally cruel because it was so disproportional.

And yes, African Americans are disproportionally represented in the ranks of those serving a similar sentence. Sanders took a lot of heat for this dissent. Later he visited the man three times in prison because he felt this was such a grave injustice. The man is still in prison. Sanders says he thinks of him often and hopes for clemency.

Sanders signed a dissent that would have reversed a conviction obtained by a prosecutor who excused the only African American from the jury in a case where the defendant was also African American. He would have put the burden on the prosecution to justify this decision for nonracial reasons. He did what he could, but he didn’t have the votes.

Responding to a rash of malpractice judgments against public defenders for not properly representing their clients, Sanders fought for three years, sometimes alone, to persuade the court to adopt a rule that would require trial court judges to only appoint lawyers for indigent criminal defendants (many of whom are African Americans) who meet minimum qualifications of experience and have adequate financial resources to get the job done. Ultimately he was successful, notwithstanding opposition from many prosecutors.

Justice Sanders is not afraid to tell the truth even when the truth is not popular or may be politically incorrect. He is deeply committed to our justice system and deeply cares about the legal rights of those who come to court.

As far as I’m concerned, he is an asset to the African-American community, and everyone else. Let’s be fair to this man who courageously fights for the rights of the unpopular and powerless.

Lem Howell is a civil-rights and personal-injury attorney in Seattle.

God save our nation.

Columbus, OH – May 27, 2010 – On May 26, 2010 the Ohio Senate’s Health, Human Services and Aging Committee chaired by Sen. Steve Buehrer (R-Delta) passed Sub SB 243 – a ban on Human Animal Hybrids.  The Ohio Christian Alliance, lead by the strong leadership of Chris Long, brought together pro-life leaders from around the state to oppose the abhorrent practice of human-animal hybrids.  Dr. David Prentice was also on hand at the Ohio Statehouse to present expert testimony.

Read an excerpt from Mark Harrington’s testimony below:

You [this committee] have heard testimony from a couple of Ohio research institutions about how this ban would hurt Ohio in its ability to attract some of the brightest minds in the scientific community.

Human-animal hybrid research is unethical and there is no need to use animal embryos or eggs in this manner to advance science and research.  We can proceed with medical advances and respect human life at the same time.

Nothing could be further from the truth.  Unfortunately today, most of the debates over medical ethics center on the “how” instead of the “why.”

The right or wrong of a particular practice or the means by which we conduct our research is often passed by in pursuit of the ends.

Let me be clear – We all want to see treatments for sickness.  We all want to see cures for disease.  But the question is at what price?

I am becoming more and more convinced when it comes to emerging bio technologies like human-animal hybrids that many of these researchers do not believe in ANY limits on research as long as it has the possibility to produce an economic end that suits their agenda.

The bottom line is human-animal hybrids are immoral.  And an immoral means can never be justified to bring about a moral end.  In other words “we cannot do evil to bring about a good.”

CBR is urging our Ohio membership to call their State Senators and ask for them to support S.B.243 with a vote on the Senate Floor.  Currently the states of Louisiana and Arizona have a ban on human-animal hybrids.

Action Item – If you live in Ohio call your State Senator and tell them to vote for the S.B.243 Ban on Human – Animal research! Go to: http://www.ohiosenate.gov/directory.html

Mark Harrington is the Executive Director of CBR Midwest, and President of the Pro-Life Institute.

King Herod and mere puppet for Caesar considered himself to be a god and did not silence the people when they worshiped him. The Bible tells us, in chapter twelve of Acts, when he accepted the praise of man and failed to give glory to God, he was struck down and immediately eaten by worms and died.

In America, the land of the free and home of the brave, we have become overrun by bureaucrats. Many of them believe themselves to be gods. In fact, they hold the power of God over a man’s life and business. Even many bureaucrats who profess to be Christian, have no fear of God but continue to build empires and despise their brothers’ freedoms.

Last April, speaking in Turkey, President Obama declared to his audience and the whole world that America, whose foundation is firmly rooted in the laws of the Bible, is no longer Christian. There are many Christians who agree with him, claiming we live in a post-Christian age. My friend, this is a myth. For never in the history of the United States of America has the population been truly Christian. What determines whether we are a Christian nation are our founding documents. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States (as written) has not changed. By that measure, we are still firmly Christian.

What Obama actually told the world was, “We do not consider ourselves Christian.” Here is the leader of our nation, presumably speaking for the American people and affirming we are no longer Christian. Granted, by polling, it appears those who claim to be Christian is down to somewhere in the high sixty to low seventy percentile. Even though the majority of our nation are not true Christian, yet still the majority claims to be. So, how is it he can say this and get away with it? Even more, declaring we are the largest Muslim nation in the world, thus changing our national religion in the space of one speech?

On 07 May, President Obama refused to acknowledge the National Day of Prayer – an honor to God. But a few weeks later, he reserved an entire month for the celebration of Gay and Lesbian Pride – a dishonor to God. Within days of this event, Newsweek editor Evan Thomas declared on MSNBC Obama was above the people, above the world – he was a god. Actually worse. He said, “he’s sort of God.” Not just a god, or a man-god as were the early kings. Now he is on equal footing with God, Himself.

The early kings believed they were above the law and above the church. From the time of Christ, there was never a secular document to refute this until 15 June 1215 when the nobles of England confronted King John and forces him to acknowledge the law and God-given rights. This document, the Magna Charta, underwent much misinterpretation and abuse by kings that followed, much as our Constitution does today. But the document was never forgotten and it was used at many times to raise up the law and/or the people to curb tyranny, be it ever so temporary.

It was the Calvinists that firmly delineated the separation of the king’s law and the supremacy of God’s law. This is the heritage that followed most the early settlers, save the Puritans who clung to the state church. This is our heritage: the rightly dividing of the Word of Truth to understand that God reigns above all and that His church does not submit to any government, including any 501(C)(3). We are losing that heritage because our ministers will not stand up to the king. They long for the praise of men and they have thrown off doctrine and replaced it with tolerance and therapy.

Now we have a president, who is king, who is god.

My late friend, Otto Scott, wrote a book entitled “The Great Christian Revolution” (1994). He recounts a similar time to today in England. It was during the reign of King James, in the early sixteen hundreds.

“The King,” James said, “is above the law.” He asserted that kings were not only God’s “lieutenants upon earth, and sit upon God’s throne, but even by God himself are called gods.”

James relied on the Church of England to protect these claims, which reflected the politics of Spain, France and the Vatican. He did not understand that in England the common law competed against ecclesiastical law, and had done so for centuries. [Ed note: King James was raised in Scotland and was King James VI of Scotland before becoming King James I of England.]

Sir Edward Coke, Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, did not believe that the courts of the Church should have greater power than the Common Courts of England. Therefore, when an appeal from a High Commission [Ed note: Church Court] ruling came before him, he decided that Parliament could review the High Commission’s behavior.

Although cowardly and depraved, James I was not stupid. As a child of the Scots revolution, he knew what could happen to a monarch whose agents were overruled. In early 1609, Coke’s habit of issuing “prohibitions” against High Commission rulings, fines and imprisonments led to a confrontation between the king, his bishops and the Chief Justice.

Coke cited the Magna Carta which, he said, gave the Courts of Common Law the right to provide justice “from highest to the lowest.”

James replied angrily that if he chose, he could dispense justice himself, because he “had reason and could judge.” Coke said the king could reason, but didn’t know the law. He also added the king was “under God and the law.”

At that James flew into a rage. The issue he thought buried forever, drilled into him by Buchanan, [Ed note: Buchanan was James' tutor] that had led his mother to death, had risen inside England and the citadels of his power.

Coke apologized; the bishops soothed the monarch, the meeting ended but nothing changed. The Court of Common Pleas continued to clip the High Commission; underground presses continued Puritan arguments and even irreligious men began to chafe at the presumption of a body legally charged with controlling their faith – and their minds.

This struggle has often been described in purely political terms. Yet the argument that the king is under the law was presented to the people of James’ time by the Calvinist Buchanan and his associates. It was a religious argument that marked the difference between Calvinists and Arminianism and Lutheranism, among others.

The struggle to determine who will rule over man – God or man, iis the same struggle that has been going on from the beginning. Lord Acton said “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” This is even played out in the American experiment. There is always a reason for a new law and every new law means a legion of new bureaucrats. With legions of bureaucrats, our new president is not only attempting to rule our nation but even the whole world. He presumes by his oratory confidence and declarations that what he says will be so. He will tell us what we believe.

The media trumpets his decrees. The politicians cower before him. “Hail, Obama!”

Only one man will stand. The Christian who is committed to tolerance or therapy, or government solutions to mans’ problems will not stand against a tyrant. Only the man who stands on the word of God and fearlessly proclaims “the Most High is sovereign over the kingdoms of men.” [Dan 4:25]

History repeats itself and it is repeating itself today. Where will you stand?

May the LORD cut off all flattering lips and every boastful tongue that says, “We will triumph with our tongues; we own our lips — who is our master?”

“Because of the oppression of the weak and the groaning of the needy,
I will now arise,” says the LORD. “I will protect them from those who malign them.”

And the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver refined in a furnace of clay, purified seven times.

O LORD, you will keep us safe and protect us from such people forever.
The wicked freely strut about when what is vile is honored among men. [Psa 12:1-8 NIV]

When we look at our nation and the world today, it is easy to become discouraged. President Obama was elected to office on a whirlwind of praise from the media. After his first one-hundred days he can still do no wrong, regardless the appointments of those who favor to impose abortion and homosexuality upon our culture. He campaigned on the mantras of “Change” and “Hope” and what the people understood was that previous administrations had kept close strings on the public piggy bank and now he was going to open that piggy bank and disperse it back to the people it belonged to. What he did was stuff an empty vessel full of IOUs that even our grandchildren will be paying.

Our times mirror David’s observations: Everyone lies to his neighbor and refuses to acknowledge the truth. We have reclassified sin as a civil right, murder as a privacy issue and now we deceive ourselves that we can spend our way into prosperity. And the people believe we have found our messiah – the praises will never end and his blunders will be ignored. We hail the mantras of “Change” and “Hope” – our words and positive thoughts will make it so and we ignore the truth. On the pretense of relieving the poor, we will impoverish the masses and future generations.

Our leaders, bureaucrats and lawyers have worked hard to remove Jesus Christ from every inch of our culture. And the wicked have become emboldened to impose their perversions upon our children. But God tells us His word will stand. Even when it looks like evil is winning, we are not to become disheartened because God is still in control – and He is watching over us.

This week I was reading an article about the secularization of the Epsicopal Church USA. William Murchison, a longtime member, has written about this in his book, “Mortal Follies: Episcopalians and the Crisis of Mainline Christianity.” But he is not discouraged. He said, “I happen to think this is a wonderful time for evangelism. I’m too old, at 67, to be a pessimist; I’m more of an optimist. And I believe that God’s in charge — and he will take us through the trials of today, and he will bring his people where he wants them to be.”

God is still in control. No matter what is going on in your life – no matter what you see going on around you, God will bring you where He wants you to be. Amen.

“In the past, whenever I was worried about my husband because of his challenges against tyranny, he would often console me by saying…that if one day he would be persecuted because of his ideals and sense of justice, the people in the world who believe in justice would stand by him and support him. I know that he would still harbor this light and hope in his heart while enduring various torments in prison!”

– Geng He’s open letter to the U.S. Congress asking for Congress to intervene on behalf of her husband Gao Zhisheng. Read full letter.