Not all the Cominus’ picks have solid credentials. Some are lesser of evils. So, this year, we have begun a star rating system. 5 stars means the candidate is at least 90% solid; 4 stars, at least 80%; 3 stars, at least 70%, 2 stars, at least 50%, 1 star is less than 50%, but better than the opponent. If we are not sure, but the candidate is favored over the other evil, we will guesstimate a 2 or 3 star rating. Hope this is helpful.

Please feel free to leave comments if you believe I am in error or you may have additional information. All comments are moderated. The moderation is to prevent wacko-attacks and vulgar postings. However, if you leave out all the cuss words and unwarranted defamation attacks on candidates, I will authorize your comment, whether you agree with me or not.

STATE OF WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT, POS 1 – COMINUS’ PICK: JIM JOHNSON (5 star)

In his campaign material, Jim Johnson states, “I promised to uphold our state constitution as written and to never legislate from the bench.” In 2002, Judicial Forum endorsed him for his hard work on Initiative 601, car tabs and such and the fact he had done much to reduce the size of civil government and uphold the rights of the citizen. Two years later, he was elected to the Supreme Court. He has not failed his mission and we continue to endorse him.

Jim Johnson’s campaign website is http://jimjohnsonforjustice.com

Running against Jim Johnson is Stan Rumbaugh. Stan is a board member of Planned Parenthood and a board member of the globalist World Affairs Council, which is indoctrinating our school children and “dedicated to providing everyone opportunities to practice global citizenship.” He is proud of endorsements from environmentalists and claims to have fought cases for “legitimate” [not all] property rights and equal benefits for domestic partners. He is a champion of social justice and all other feel-goodisms. “He found his passion in applying the law as he believes it was intended — to help every day people and build a more fair and just society.”

Stan Rumbaugh’s website is http://rumbaughforjustice.com

STATE OF WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT, POS 6 – COMINUS’ PICK: RICHARD SANDERS (5 star)

Richard Sanders is the champion of liberty on the high court. In the days when Judicial Forum was reviewing cases and rating them, his percentage of PASS was 93% for 57 cases reviewed. He is libertarian and pro-life.

One of his most popular quotes is, “Appropriate constitutional analysis begins with the text and, for most purposes, should end there as well.” [Malyon v. Pierce County] In Island County vs. State, Justice Sanders wrote, “While the majority may justly claim the Legislature speaks for the people,’ it is the [C]onstitution, and only the [C]onstitution, through which the people speak for themselves. Their voice is fundamental, and it is only by their consent that we are governed.” A vote for Richard Sanders is a vote for our State and Federal constitutions and a vote for liberty.

Richard Sanders’ website is http://friendsofjustice.com

Running against Sanders is Bryan Chushcoff who claims to be “a guardian of the law, the rights of the people and of the Constitution.” Yet upon deeper examination of his words, you will discover subjective matter will always trump objective observation – it is more important to uphold feelings rather than the law. He states on his website, “Legal scholarship is important to correctly apply the law. But with experience one learns that more than legal scholarship is required. Good judgment and an understanding and empathy for the human condition are essential. Also required is thoughtful consideration of the practical implications of how the rule of law will impact people and trial courts.  It’s important that judges remember that the decisions of any court are made for flesh and blood people for whom the outcome will often have a profound and lasting effect.” He is not the worst liberal to come down the pike, but he does lack any grasp of what is the rule of law and somehow thinks it has something to do with people’s feelings.

Chushcoff’s website is http://chushcoff4justice.com

Also running against Sanders is the more experienced than Chushcoff, more liberal than Chushcoff and more dangerous than Chushcoff, Charlie Wiggins. He is a former appellate court judge. He claims to have “helped to establish the nonpartisan award-winning web site votingforjudges.org.” Voteforjudges.org purports to be a non-partisan, non-biased endeavor and they give no endorsements to candidates, however, the only outside information and analysis they do include are from liberal newspapers and other liberal organizations; of course, favoring liberal candidates. Call it what it is – it is a liberal website disguised as centrist and educational.

He claims to be active in his Presbyterian church and is also proud of his high rating from Q Law, the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender bar association. In Harland Maylon v Pierce County, he ruled against allowing voluntary chaplains in police and fire departments. Fortunately, he was overturned by the Supreme Court. His legal foundation and his religious foundation are worlds apart.

Charlie Wiggins’ website is http://charliewigginsforjustice.com

COURT OF APPEALS, DIV 2, DIST 3, POS 2 – COMINUS’ PICK: JOSEPH DAGGY (3 star)

Joe Daggy is an attorney with thirty years experience. He is running against Jill Johanson, who has been in the legal profession for twenty-four years, eight years as a judge.

In an interview with the Daily News, he was asked, “As a court of appeals judge, would you be willing to overturn a case where it was clear the trial court had erred significantly, but you knew a dangerous defendant would be freed into the community?”

Joe Daggy answered, “I’d have to. It’s not a matter of if I would be willing to. That’s the job of the appellate court.”

Jill Johanson answered, “If it was a significant error, then yes, absolutely. Those are probably some of the most difficult questions. That’s where personally you might feel that morally or personally you don’t want him in the community, but the law requires it. And as a judge, we’ve taken an oath to uphold the law.”

Joe Daggy understands the rule of law. Jill Johanson prefers the law of men and how they feel – or the law of women. She demonstrates she would have to wrestle with hard questions and depending upon which side the political pressure came from, feeling could trump the law.

Another question by the Daily News: “Should judicial candidates discuss specific issues such as gun control and abortion?”

Joe Daggy replied, “The judicial code of conduct discusses the ‘need to protect the voters from people campaigning by selling ideas.’ It’s ‘entirely inappropriate’ for a candidate to promise to make specific changes to the law if elected. But the rules don’t prohibit a candidate from talking about their beliefs. . .  That would interfere with the only method voters have of getting to know the candidate.”

Jill Johanson replied, “I don’t think it’s appropriate for us to be discussing our personal opinions. Personal opinion is not relevant, because we can’t use our personal opinion when we’re on the bench. It could give the appearance of impropriety, that I might lean one way or the other if I were to express my personal opinion.”

Joe understands all judges have opinions and they don’t need to hide them. Voters have a right to know the foundational beliefs of whom they elect, regardless how that translates into decisions. Jill believes a judge should pretend he does not have any opinions, that way nobody can accuse him of bias. Jill is a deceived liberal who is bound by feelings and cannot see the law.

Joe Daggy’s website is http://joedaggy.org – not working at the time of this writing.

Jill Johanson’s website is judgejohanson.com

COURT OF APPEALS, DIV 3, DIST 1, POS 1 – COMINUS’ PICK: HARVEY DUNHAM (5 star)

Harvey is a solid, pro-life conservative. He has practiced law for over thirty years; been a district court judge for two years and a judge pro-tem for seven.

Harvey says, “I believe in old-fashioned justice. I believe that a judge should not make new law. I believe that the legislative branch should make new law. I believe a judge should follow the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Washington and not ignore them. I believe in the right of the people to keep and bear arms. I believe in the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. I believe that no person should be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. I believe that private property should not be taken for public use without just compensation. I believe that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused should enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial.”

Harvey Dunham’s website is http://votedunham.com

Running against Harvey is the very liberal, Laurel Siddoway. She was appointed in May by Governor Gregoire so she could run as an incumbent. She is endorsed by all the liberal judges.

She withheld critical information and correspondence to the City before recommending the Spokane City Council settle with the developers in the Riverside Park Square parking garage dispute. She duped the council into making a very expensive settlement – a huge cost to the taxpayers – against the advice of other attorneys on the case by not allowing their voices to be heard and representing herself as consensus – as the liberals always do.

She led the fight against the badly needed Lincoln Street Bridge because of a potential to block a view of the Spokane Falls from a certain direction. Feelings (of a few liberals) are more important than the needs of people, transportation and commerce.

Laurel’s website is http://retainjudgesiddoway.com

KING COUNTY DISTRICT COURT, SHORELINE, POS 2 – COMINUS’ PICK: DENNIS MCCURDY (3 star)

Dennis McCurdy has been a King County Deputy Prosecutor for seventeen years, now a Senior Deputy Prosecutor.

His website is http://mccurdy4judge.com

Marcine Anderson is running against him to keep her seat. She is a former King County Deputy Prosecutor. She was appointed by Metropolitan King County Council, on 22 February, so she could run as an incumbent. She has affiliations with minority organizations and capitalizes on her Asian descent. She is endorsed by liberal judges and rated highly by Q Law, the Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender bar association.

Her website is http://marcineanderson.com

KING COUNTY DISTRICT COURT NE, POS 6 – COMINUS’ PICK: JOHN L O’BRIEN (2 star)

John O’Brien has been an attorney since 1981. He is endorsed by the moderately liberal Citizens for Judicial Excellence.

“O’Brien endorses the philosophy that the District Court upholds the current law and holds individuals accountable for their actions. He has seen the glow of pride in a defendant who has successfully completed a probationary counseling program, but has also sentenced defendants to maximum confinement for failed efforts at personal reform.” – as told to Citizens for Judicial Excellence

John’s business website is http://obrienlawfirm.net/team_jobrien.html

Michael Finkle was appointed to the bench on 22 February so he could run as an incumbent. He, also, has been an attorney since 1981. He has worked on the Seattle-King County Racial Disparity Work Group and is endorsed by liberal judges, officials and Democratic Party organizations. He is rated well to exceptionally well by King County Bar Association, the minority bars and Q Law, the Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender bar association.

Finkle’s website is http://retainjudgefinkle.com

KING COUNTY DISTRICT COURT SW, POS 2 – COMINUS’ PICK: SUSAN MAHONEY (1 star)

Susan Mahoney is an Assistant Des Moines City Attorney, Judge Pro Tem and former prosecutor. She is endorsed by Democrats and liberals.

Her website is http://mahoneyforjudge.com

Judith Eiler is the incumbent and has served on various courts since 1992. Prior to being elected to the bench Judge Eiler practiced law in Federal Way for 12 years. She is known to be “rude, impatient, undignified and intimidating treatment” of attorneys and people representing themselves.

We could not locate a website for this candidate.

KING COUNTY DISTRICT COURT SE, POS 2 – COMINUS’ PICK: DARRELL E PHILLIPSON (2 star)

Darrell Phillipson has spent twenty-seven years on the bench. He is involved at his Lutheran church and endorsed by Democrats and liberal judges.

Phillipson’s website is http://darrellphillipson.com

His opponent is David Meyer, who has been practicing law for twenty-five years. He is endorsed by Democratic Party organizations and the SEIU. He is rated well to exceptionally well by King County Bar Association, the minority bars and Q Law (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender).

David Meyer’s website is http://davidmeyerforjudge.com

KING COUNTY DISTRICT COURT SE, POS 6 – COMINUS’ PICK: DAVID TRACY (2 star)

David Tracy has been a Municipal Court Judge for six years and served three years as a District Court Magistrate. He has thirty years legal experience. He is the Dean of Washington State Judicial College. Although he is a member of Diversity Task Force for Kent School District, he is also a volunteer at Second Harvest. David is endorsed by liberal judges and Democratic Party organizations.

His website is http://electdavidtracyjudge.com

His opponent is Matt Williams, who has twenty-seven years experience as an attorney, prosecutor, defense attorney and arbitrator. He is a program director for National Institute for Trial Advocacy, which means he gets paid while advancing his skills (rather than having to pay for the instruction). He states his reason for running is, “I want to give back to the community in which my wife and I raised our daughters by keeping our neighbors and our community safe.” That said from a man who does little without remuneration. He, also, is endorsed by liberal judges and Democratic Party organizations.

Matt’s website is http://electmattwilliams.com

KING / SNOHOMISH COUNTY, NE JUSTICE COURT, POS 7 – COMINUS’ PICK: LARRY MITCHELL (2 star)

Larry Mitchell has spent the last sixteen years as the City of Redmond Prosecuting Attorney. He is endorsed by King County Democrats and highly rated by the King County Bar Association and Washington Women Lawyers.

His website is http://electlarrymitchelljudge.com

Larry has two opponents. Donna Tucker is rated well to exceptionally well by King County Bar Association, the minority bar associations and Q Law, the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender bar association.

Her website is http://donnatuckerforjudge.com

Ketu Shah is the other opponent and is an immigrant from India. He wants to make the judiciary “more engaged with our entire community.” Does he mean the judiciary should step aside from the practice of law and begin a dialogue with criminals and gangs? Liberals are so dependant on what sounds good and forget the rule of law. Mr. Shah has fifteen years experience in immigration and civil issues. He is rated well to exceptionally well by King County Bar Association, the minority bars and Q Law, the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender bar association.

His website is http://k2forjudge.com

KLICKITAT COUNTY EAST DISTRICT COURT – COMINUS’ PICK TIM O’NEILL (2 star)

Tim O’Neill has been practicing law since 1978; part of that time as an elected prosecuting attorney. In 2002, O’Neill and Gwendolyn Grundei ran against each other for the position of county prosecuting attorney. O’Neill won that contest. An incidental fact: His wife kept her maiden name.

We could not find a website for this candidate.

Running against him again, but for a different position, is Gwendolyn L Grundei. She has been both a prosecutor (deputy?) and a defense attorney.

We could not find a website for this candidate.

Rick Hansen is the third candidate in this race. He has twenty-five years in law practice and is a public defender.

We could not find a website for this candidate.

PIERCE COUNTY DISTRICT COURT, POS 2 – COMINUS’ PICK: KEVIN MCCANN (2 star)

Kevin McCann is a Pierce County Deputy Prosecutor. He has raised almost as much money as Sussman with limited personal funds and loans. He is running because, “Pierce County has suffered too many embarrassments by public officials whose behavior has resulted in admonishments, a loss of the public’s faith and even criminal charges” True – this seems to be a decades old, perennial problem. He is endorsed by Democratic Party organizations and unions.

Kevin’s website is http://electkevinmccann.com

Claire Sussman has raised the most money in this race, but that includes over thirty thousand dollars of her own money. That has to be worrisome when someone is willing to buy the office. Formerly, she spent six years as a prosecutor in the Pierce County Prosecutor’s Office and seven years as a pro-tempore judge. She is endorsed by Democratic Party organizations as well as Brian Sonntag and Rob McKenna.

Claire’s website is http://clairesussmanforjudge.org

Karl Williams is the former president and vice president Pierce County Minority Bar Association. He spent the last twenty years practicing law; fourteen years as a pro-tem judge. Aside from working to further minority interests, we know very little about Karl. He appears to have the energy for the position but we think it will be tainted by his minority pursuits as opposed to his interest in law.

Karl’s website is http://karlwilliamsforjudge.com

Finally, Lance Hester has his own private practice, the Hester Law Group. He volunteers with Young Life and Chapel Hill Church. However, he takes no stand on any issue and a perusal of cases seems to indicate that most his clients are cop killers, wife beaters and rapists. Sorry if I got this wrong.

Lance’s website is http://electlancehester.com

SEATTLE MUNICIPAL COURT, POS 1 – COMINUS’ PICK: ED MCKENNA (1 star)

Ed McKenna has spent more than twenty years as an Assistant City Attorney for Seattle; now as a Senior Assistant. He is endorsed by Democratic Party organizations. He is running because, “In the 2010 King County Bar Association survey, [the incumbent, Edsonya] Charles ranked last – 47 of 47 judges rated.  She received lowest ratings in the Demeanor, Temperament, and Communication category, which includes being attentive to court proceedings, treating people with courtesy and respect, acting with patience and self-control and using clear oral communications. It’s time for new leadership on the Municipal Court.”

Ed’s website is http://edmckennaforjudge.com

Edsonya Charles is the incumbent and has been a Seattle Municipal Court Judge since 2004, appointed by the very liberal Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels. She was formerly a deputy legal council to Seattle Mayor Nichols and his senior policy advisor on public safety. Before that, she was a federal prosecutor specializing in fraud cases. She states, “My proudest achievements including receiving the United States Department of Justice Special Achievement Award and twice receiving Al Gore’s Government Reinvention Hammer Award for my work in prosecuting criminals who lied and stole from working people.”

Her website is http://reelectjudgeedsonyacharles.com but it is not active.

SEATTLE MUNICIPAL COURT, POS 6 – COMINUS’ PICK: KAREN DONOHUE (1 star)

Karen Donohue has twenty-five years in private practice. She has been general counsel to an international telecommunications firm, assistant city attorney and judge pro tem for the past 16 years. She is endorsed by Democratic Party organizations. She states the reason she is running is because, “Judge Michael Hurtado, received average ratings of ‘acceptable.’ His legal decision making skills were rated between ‘poor’ and ‘acceptable.’ In addition, Judge Hurtado has been admonished twice by the commission on judicial conduct, most recently for failing to treat attorneys with patience, courtesy and dignity.”

Her website is http://karendonohueforjudge.com

Michael Salvador Hurtado has been twice disciplined by the Commission on Judicial Conduct. In both cases, the facts were agreed upon by all parties.

CJC No. 3790-F-100 (October 4, 2002) Receiving and acting upon improper ex parte (one side of the case) communications while serving as a judge pro tempore of the Des Moines Municipal Court. Judge Hurtado received ex parte information from one of the parties’ counsel and witness, and acted on it without hearing from the other side, vacating the order entered earlier. This is no small travesty and the Commission only admonished the judge.

CJC No. 5775-F-141 (December 5, 2008) He failed to treat two different attorneys with patience, dignity and courtesy. As soon as the Commission brought this matter to Respondent’s attention, he openly acknowledged the acts occurred and recognized their impropriety. The Commission admonished the judge.

To his credit, he has received numerous community service awards.

We could not find a website for this candidate.

SPOKANE COUNTY DISTRICT COURT, POS 6 – COMINUS’ PICK: TIMOTHY NOTE (3 star)

Timothy Note is a criminal defense attorney with seven years experience. [Update 16 July] “I own my own law office and am running on a work ethic platform.  District Court Judges make $141,700 plus benefits, they owe it to the people they serve to show up as required for work and put in a full day when they get there. Beyond that they need to treat all parties with dignity and fairness without prejudging individuals or cases.  I will do that. Unlike the the current bench, I vow to make my attendance record a matter of public record, that way the the public will know they are getting what they are paying for.  I am widely endorsed by the people who actually practice law in Spokane County as well by David Stevens and Frank Malone, candidates for Spokane County Prosecutor.  I think this shows that I have support from both sides of the ideological spectrum. I believe that District Court should be where Rising Stars in the legal community go to hone their judicial chops in preparation for greater service, rather than operating as a pasture where mediocre attorneys wait out their retirement at public expense.”

His website is http://noteforjudge.com

Debra Hayes is the incumbent and a former deputy prosecutor. However, she lacks focus on the law. On her Facebook fan page she posted several Spokane Review news stories of various crimes – cases in her court, giving the impression she had determined the guilt or innocence based upon the story. She demonstrates lack of discretion by posting the articles of interest; these are not her adventures, she is responsible to judge these cases on their merits, not the drama. Furthermore, two years ago, her son was arrested on drug charges. Maybe her fault, maybe not; we will give her the benefit of the doubt as kids from good homes sometimes go bad.

We could not find a website for this candidate.

YAKIMA COUNTY DISTRICT COURT, POS 2 – COMINUS’ PICK: GLEN WARREN (5 star)

You gotta love this guy, Glen Warren. He describes himself as a “lifelong taxpaying resident of Yakima county.” He has over thirty-two years of experience in criminal, traffic, civil, and other cases. He is a member of Grandview Christian Church and an “advocate of 2nd Amendment rights” He is endorsed by scores of businessmen and police. “Glen’s decades of experience, local Christian values, and upbringing will contribute to his responsible running of this office funded with taxpayer money.”

Glen’s website is http://warrenforjudge.com

Brian Sanderson is running for this position also. He has been a Selah Municipal Court Judge since 2004 and was a former Washington State Assistant Attorney General. He has all the establishment endorsements.

Brian’s website is http://sandersonforjudge.com

YAKIMA COUNTY DISTRICT COURT, POS 3 – COMINUS’ PICK: DONALD ENGEL (3 star)

Donald Engel is the incumbent and appears to be an acceptable judge.

We could not find a website for this candidate.

Steve Keller is opposing him and has twenty-eight years experience as a deputy prosecuting attorney.

Steve’s website is http://stevenrkeller.com

YAKIMA COUNTY DISTRICT COURT, POS 4 – COMINUS’ PICK: BRONSON FAUL (3 star)

Bronson Faul is a Yakima assistant city attorney and formerly a deputy prosecuting attorney with the county. He appears to be a standup guy with a respect for law and is endorsed by Washington State Patrol Troopers Association and GOP politicians.

Bronson’s website is http://bronsonforjudge.com

Michael L Everett would be our second choice and has been practicing law since 1974 including six years judge at Wapato District Court. He is an unhappy looking fellow but very patriotic. Regarding his previous stint on the bench, he states, “During my time on the bench I never lost sight of the fact that each individual who came before me was a person worthy of respect who deserves to be heard and that the community deserved everyone be held accountable for their actions”

Michael’s website is http://everettforjudge.com

Doug Federspiel is the hands-on establishment favorite. But that is disturbing, because he appears to be the most liberal in a conservative area. He has been practicing law since 1989. He has done some mountain climbing and at age thirty-five took a month long trip in the Himalayas. In liberal fashion, he has a feel-good vision, “Make sure everybody feels like they’ve had their day in court, that they know the judge listened to their arguments and worked hard. That’s what people expect from somebody on the bench.” When I go to court, I want to know justice was administered according to the law – not feel like I had my day in court. If we are going to “make sure everybody feels like they had their day in court,” what do we do with the losers?

His website is http://dougfederspiel.com

This is the end of the report. I hope you find it helpful and useful. Feel free to pass this on with credit back to the source.

- cominus

Is God interested in nations or only in individuals?

In a great many evangelical churches in recent years there has been a wholesale abandonment of the idea that God works within nations in particular ways. In those churches, it is all about evangelism and any sense of discipling the nation has been lost. In some churches it has become so severe they no longer even allow voter registration in the church. The question I am asking is what does God thinks about that?

We have a generation of church leaders who have adopted a multicultural model rather than a national model. In doing so, they have abandoned centuries of Christian thought. Indeed, they have abandoned centuries of Christian thought in America. My concern is that such leaders could never have produced a nation such as America had they not been born into it. They are coasting on a previous generation’s energy and investment. Like the prodigal, they are progressively cashing in their inheritance and will leave nothing behind for the next generation. By their omissions, Pastors are diminishing America.

In this message, I want to establish three things:
FIRST, that God designed the concept of a holy nation in the Old Testament.

SECOND, that it was retained in the New Testament.

THIRD, that American Christians and America’s founders envisioned America as a fulfillment of that concept for our nation.

I want to begin with the Apostle Peter’s audience in 1 Peter 1. He begins his epistle like this:
“Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To God’s elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood….”

He was writing to Christians who were chosen for obedience to Jesus Christ. This was no longer Judaism. This was Christianity. This was no longer Old Testament. This was New Testament Christianity. He gets down to it in chapter two when he writes in 1 Peter 2:9-17:
But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.
Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy. Dear friends, I urge you, as aliens and strangers in the world, to abstain from sinful desires, which war against your soul. Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us. Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king.

In this passage, it is clear that Peter is building the New Testament church squarely on the Old Testament concepts. Who are the chosen people? The Jews. Yet Peter uses that language for the church. Who was the holy nation? It was Israel. Yet now Peter uses that language to apply to members of the Roman Empire who happened to be Christians. He deals with them on a personal level. That would be verses 11-12.

After dealing with personal morality, Peter starts talking about government. He defines the role of government in rewarding good and punishing evil. I would point out that an Apostle is defining the role of government. It is not other people, secular people, defining government. The spiritual leader is saying what government should do. I suppose some would say that Church leaders should not be involved in politics. Yet Peter here, and Paul in Romans 13, define the role of government. Paul even goes so far as to say that government authorities are God’s servants.[1] We sometimes call ministers “God’s servants” but Paul uses that term for government.

I would ask my fellow preachers and church leaders a few questions:
1. Does your theology include government?
2. Do you inform government what it should do? Peter and Paul did.
3. If you adopt the idea that as a church leader you are only going to be concerned with saving souls and are not going to get involved in politics, do you see that you are not following the Apostolic pattern?

I think there is biblical evidence that both Paul and John were politically active. I have a chapter on that in my book The Revenge of Ephesus. In America today, the most fundamental debate is over the role of government. The Apostles spoke to that issue in their day, why shouldn’t church leaders do the same in our day?

Peter also defines the Christian’s relationship to government. He says that we are to submit to the government as part of our testimony. We put pagans and foolish people to silence by that relationship. We like to say that they will know we are Christians by our love but Peter here says they will know we are Christians also by our relationship to the government. Peter would not accept the idea that it is better not to be involved in politics and just concentrate on loving people and leading them to the Lord.

Let’s take this passage out of Peter and put it back into its Old Testament context. Peter sounds a lot like God at Mt. Sinai before the law was given.
“Then Moses went up to God, and the LORD called to him from the mountain and said, “This is what you are to say to the house of Jacob and what you are to tell the people of Israel: ‘You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites.” (Exodus 19:3-6)

In a world of nations, God wanted Israel to be a holy nation. There was to be something special about that nation. They were to be obedient to God. For his part God promised economic blessings and defined borders.
“The LORD will establish you as his holy people, as he promised you on oath, if you keep the commands of the LORD your God and walk in his ways. Then all the peoples on earth will see that you are called by the name of the LORD, and they will fear you. The LORD will grant you abundant prosperity – in the fruit of your womb, the young of your livestock and the crops of your ground – in the land he swore to your forefathers to give you.” (Deut 28:9-11)

In the Old Testament, when God said Israel would be a holy nation, he had in mind their economy, their land, and their governance. In short, it would be all the things that define a nation. This wasn’t just a spiritual kingdom of the heart. This was to be an actual kingdom with a particular relationship with God. They would be a nation among the nations.

Peter described New Testament Christians as being “… a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.”

He was incorporating by reference, the Old Testament concepts. This is not replacement theology. Rather it is continuity with the past. It is God bringing the same concepts forward into the church.

We have covered the first two points. First, that God designed the concept of a holy nation in the Old Testament. Second, that it was retained in the New Testament.

Now I want to turn to the third idea, that American Christians and America’s founders envisioned America as a fulfillment of that concept for our nation.

You see it from the very beginning. The Pilgrims were quite explicit in their goals in the Virginia Charter. “Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia …”

The connection between God and Country was deep. Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount, “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid. Nor do men light a lamp and put it under a bushel, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.”

The echo of that is found in the words of the Pilgrim leader John Winthrop in 1630. Aboard the Arbella he said, “For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill, the eyes of all people are upon us; so that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall shame the faces of many of God’s worthy servants, and cause their prayers to be turned into curses …”
That vision has been a mainstay in America since the beginning right up to the present moment. Ronald Reagan said it. “America is a shining city upon a hill whose beacon light guides freedom-loving people everywhere.”

In his farewell address to add to it for emphasis “‘I’ve spoken of the Shining City all my political life … In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That’s how I saw it, and see it still.’

Promised Land imagery figured prominently in shaping English colonial thought. The pilgrims identified themselves with the ancient Hebrews. They viewed the New World as the New Canaan. They were God’s chosen people headed for the Promised Land. Other colonists believed they, too, had been divinely called. The settlers in Virginia were, as John Rolf said, “a peculiar people, marked and chosen by the finger of God.”

This self-image of being God’s Chosen People called to establish the New Israel became an integral theme in America’s self-interpretation. During the revolutionary period, it emerged with new force.
“We cannot but acknowledge that God hath graciously patronized our cause and taken us under his special care, as he did his ancient covenant people,” Samuel Langdon preached at Concord, New Hampshire in 1788.

George Washington was the “American Joshua,” and “Never was the possession of arms used with more glory, or in a better cause, since the days of Joshua, the son of Nun,” Ezra Stiles urged in Connecticut in 1783.
In 1776, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson wanted Promised Land images for the new nation’s Great Seal. Franklin proposed Moses dividing the Red Sea with Pharaoh’s army being overwhelmed by the closing waters. Jefferson urged a representation of the Israelites being led in the wilderness by the pillar of fire by night and the cloud by day. Later, in his second inaugural address (1805), Jefferson again recalled the Promised Land. “I shall need…the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our fathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessities and comforts of life.” [2]

When America was founded as a country, the preachers of America were aflame with that idea. They showed they had learned the lesson of the nation Israel who wanted a king like other nations. They created the motto of the American Revolution “No King but Jesus.”

Yale historian Harry S. Stout wrote an article in Christian History magazine titled, “Christianity and the American Revolution”. Here is what he said about America at the time of the Revolution:

“Over the span of the colonial era, American ministers delivered approximately 8 million sermons, each lasting one to one-and-a-half hours. The average 70-year-old colonial churchgoer would have listened to some 7,000 sermons in his or her lifetime, totaling nearly 10,000 hours of concentrated listening. This is the number of classroom hours it would take to receive ten separate undergraduate degrees in a modern university, without ever repeating the same course!”

Events were perceived not from the mundane, human vantage point but from God’s. The vast majority of colonists were Reformed or Calvinist, to whom things were not as they might appear at ground level: all events, no matter how mundane or seemingly random, were parts of a larger pattern of meaning, part of God’s providential design. The outlines of this pattern were contained in Scripture and interpreted by discerning pastors.
“[Today] taxation and representation are political and constitutional issues, having nothing to do with religion. But to eighteenth-century ears, attuned to lifetimes of preaching, the issues were inevitably religious as well. When understood in its own times, the American Revolution was first and foremost a religious event.” [3]

The idea of the expansion of America to the west was a religiously inspired idea. In 1845, an article in the Democratic Review, declared that expansion represented “the fulfillment of our manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions.”

In various ways, the people who put America together were people who believed in the concept of a holy nation. Because they believed we were a nation with a particular destiny given to us by God, they sought for God’s will to be accomplished. They were not ashamed of the laws required by the Bible.

When you see that giant American flag in this sanctuary, you are feeling a motivation of every generation of Americans. Indeed, Christians from the beginning have wanted to create societies that were more than just personally Christian. They longed for that holy nation. Today we are in a low ebb of that dream partly because we need a revival in our hearts and partly because church leaders have abandoned the historic vision for America. Indeed, most have little vision for America. An effete church does not give birth to a nation.

We are in times like those of Nehemiah. We must have both the tools of building and the weapons of warfare. “From that day on, half of my men did the work, while the other half were equipped with spears, shields, bows and armor … Those who carried materials did their work with one hand and held a weapon in the other, and each of the builders wore his sword at his side as he worked.” [Nehemiah 4:16-18]

————————————————-

[1] Rom 13:6-7 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing.

[2] Conrad Cherry (ed.), God’s New Israel: Religious Interpretations of American Destiny (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1971). The quotations are from this book: Winthrop p. 43; Whitaker p. 33; Rolf p. 26; Langdon p. 99 ; Stiles p. 88; and Jefferson p. 65. The information about the Great Seal is found on p. 65. See also, Joseph Gaer and Ben Siegal, The Puritan Heritage: American Roots in the Bible (New York: A Mentor Book/The New American Library, 1964).

[3] Elesha Coffman, editor of Christian History Magazine, quoting from Vol. 50 of that publication.

Dr. Joseph B. Fuiten is the senior pastor of Cedar Park Church in Bothell, Washington, and he is the former president of Washington Evangelicals for Responsible Government and the Positive Christian Agenda. Currently, Pastor Fuiten is a founding member of the Family Policy Institute of Washington, an associate organization of Focus on the Family.

In his article for the Monroe Weekly entitled, CONSERVATIVES: MAKE EVERY VOTE COUNT, Paul Elvig wrote:

“Ralph Reed, the former executive director of the Christian Coalition (1989-97), asserted in the June 12th issue of the New York Times that, ‘If the pro-family movement bolts the Republican Party, they will become the cultural equivalent of a Perot movement. They will enter a no man’s land in which they lose influence and lose the ability to use a major political party as a vehicle to highlight their issues and their agenda and their concerns.’”

Mr. Elvig continues, “The liberal community with its family-hostile agenda would get their biggest break in twenty years if even five percent of pro-life/pro-family Republicans leave the party for a third, forth, or fifth political party this year.

“To lose Republican majorities we now have in Congress, would mean that the successful July 23rd House override of the President’s veto on the late-term abortion ban would never have happened. It would mean an obstacle-free path for the homosexual agenda . . .” and he goes on to describe horrors and statistics that await our nation because of the actions of disgruntled conservatives.

You see, conservatives, especially Christian conservatives, have been the scapegoat of the GOP whether within or without the Party. When we were in the Party, it was our ideals that alienated the Republicans from the voters. And now that we are gone, it is our fault they have lost their voting base.

Those who believe that the political process will be the salvation of our nation would like to have it both ways. But we know better, don’t we. We know that God alone raises kings and deposes them. Our strategies have neither won elections nor lost them.

Remember the story of Joshua in Joshua chapter five. As the Israelites were preparing to take the city of Jericho, Joshua saw a man with a drawn sword and he asked if he was for them or their enemies. And the commander of the Lord’s army told him that he was for neither and it was Joshua’s responsibility to submit to God’s authority.

The same holds true today: God does not fight for us because we are the American Heritage Party. No – we are called to submit to His laws and look to Him for victory. And for those of us who have read the end of the Book, we know that God will have His victory!
If one could presuppose that human strategy was ever responsible for an election victory, they may choose the election of 1994 – the “Republican Revolution” brought in by the “Contract With America.” That was the year it appeared that principle was more important than winning. The GOP had a vision to win the hearts of the American people and the people responded.

But the vision was short lived and the “Contract With America” became the “Contract On America”. No longer was the vision to raise the flag and wave it. Instead, they exchanged the flag for strategies and they substituted leadership for approval.

When I was chairman of the Snohomish County GOP in the early nineties, I wrestled with Party leadership because I could see they had no intention of winning; and if they should win, they had no intention of leading. Their only concern was protecting their seat at the table. Be that as it may, many people saw the 1994 election victory as the salvation of our nation.

But what did we receive? Instead of rolling back civil government:
•    bureaucracies have increased;
•    funding for obscenity and abortion have increased;
•    federal authority over education has increased;
•    many crimes have been reclassified as federal crimes;
•    we have multiplied treaties and increased the rise of globalism;
•    mandates have been sent to the States impeding our first and second amendment rights;
•    environmental restrictions have increased, impeding property and inheritance rights;
•    Executive Orders have increased in exponential fashion and have gone unchecked;
•    Posse Comitatus has been ignored as federal agencies have engaged in police and sheriff work with the aid of military forces;
•    Our Republicans representatives have given us national ID cards;
•    and this list could go on.

Did the Republican Congress finally balance the budget? Or did they strip Ninety-Five Billion dollars from the Social Security trust account to appear to “balance” an over-weening general budget that they did not have the intestinal fortitude to grab hold of. And then, to boot, the returned Five Billion back to the account to give us the impression they were rescuing it! God save us – they are no different than the Democrats!!

What about our problems in Washington State? Some time ago, I was reading an account in the Seattle Times and my heart went out to Dale Foreman, the fearless leader of the State GOP – or rather, the fearful leader of the State GOP. He related his problem to the reporter: He will receive a letter from a liberal, or moderate, member of the Party and then he receives a letter from a conservative member and he has to give the same deference to both. How troubling life can be.

His problem is not the diversity of opinion within the Party. His problem is that Dale Foreman, the Harvard graduate, the man of letters cannot, or will not, lead. He lacks conviction because he has no guiding principles. How can you expect him to lead us out of socialism when he has no principles to lead with?

Clyde Ballard, the Republican Co-Speaker of the House: That is a safe position to be in and much more comfortable than when he was Speaker because now he has authority and notoriety but no accountability – he can always blame the bad results on his co-Democrats. When he was the Speaker, he would not lead. He would facilitate, blend, mix and serve up something palatable for his liberal detractors and the media. The closest he came to leading was to beat conservative representatives into submission. Therefore, our conservative bills would go down to defeat but he looked good.

It was under his guidance and leadership that the Partial Birth Abortion ban destroyed as he orchestrated the removal of the referendum clause and then the final gutting of the bill altogether and finally defeat. He has put compromise ahead of principle. He has put public perception ahead of principle. How can he lead us out of socialism when he has no principle to lead with?

I fought long and hard for a principled platform within the Republican Party. The battle grew tougher every year as leadership determined to make the tent wider and wider. The GOP wants to include everyone so that there is no room for principle and the big tent becomes a three-ring circus.

But lack of principle serves a two-fold purpose: Not only can the leadership claim they are making a bigger tent, but they remove the benchmark. There is no longer a standard by which to judge the candidates and evaluate their actions. And they become like the Democrats. How can the Party lead us out of socialism when it has no principle to lead with?

Now we come to the question: Are you throwing away your vote by voting for a third party candidate?

Remember the story of Joshua: Our strategy and our power will not win elections – we must submit to God’s law and His authority. In the book of Daniel we are told that God alone raises kings and deposes them.

Speaking against unGodly alliances, God tells us in 2Ch 16:9 “For the eyes of the LORD range throughout the earth to strengthen those whose hearts are fully committed to him.” This was God’s rebuke to King Asa for doing a foolish thing by trusting in his alliance with the king of Aram. God does not need coalitions and Repbulicans to accomplish His plan. For that matter, He doesn’t need the AHP. He only needs a remnant whose hearts are fully committed to Him – and He will have it!

A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil. If you are willing to compromise your principle for the sake of winning, don’t be surprised when the candidate you voted for compromises his.

Many so-called conservative candidates would have you believe they must vote for bad bills in order to win re-election to save us from candidates who would vote for the same bills. What is happening is most politicians are swayed by campaign finances, global interests and their pensions – they are looking for a seat at the table.

The GOP wants you to believe they are the saviors of the nation, or in the alternative, they are necessary for conservative Christians to have a voice in the political arena. Don’t be fooled, unless they return to principle, they will go the way of the Whig Party before them. But do not gloat, keep a sober mind – the American Heritage Party will go the same way when they lose their principle as well. We must remain vigilant – and we must pass our vigilance on to the next generation.

Principle – attending to the laws of God, must be the absolute goal. Our convictions dictate that we cannot win using the same strategies as the moderates, liberals, Democrats and neo-conservatives.

We are not commanded to win. Throughout Scripture, we are commanded to stand firm. And the Apostle Paul tells us in Ephesians chapter six that after we have done everything to stand our ground, we are to stand and stand firm.

We must raise the standard:
•    the troops will rally; and
•    the voters will have something to hale to.

If God is willing we will have victory in the election of candidates. Nonetheless, our victory is not in winning elections – our victory is in changing the hearts of the people and we can only do that by standing firm.

We must be willing to lead while yet a minority if we expect to lead as a majority. This is the Achilles heal of the Republican Party – they never expected to lead!

If we never become the majority, don’t minimize for a second what a “leading” minority can accomplish. Remember our Founding Fathers were not in the majority, they had less then a third of the people on their side. Yet they were not discouraged, they didn’t succumb to building coalitions and making bigger tents. They were victorious because they stood firmly for principle and they were willing to lead – even if it cost them their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. They did this with a firm reliance upon God, their Creator and Lawgiver.

If you want to return our nation to our Common Law, constitutional foundation;
If you want laws that are just;
If you want to reduce civil government intrusion into our lives,
Then you must be willing to stand for Biblical principle.

What is the conclusion? Are we wasting our vote by voting for a third party, specifically the American Heritage Party?

We have enough facilitators to drag our nation to hell itself. We have plenty of kinder, gentler politicians who are self absorbed in their own well-being and public appearance. Our nation is void of leadership. God has given you a vision – Raise the standard, wave the flag and lead!!

God save our nation,
Dean Isaacson
27 March 1999
Snohomish County American Heritage Party Convention

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.

http://www.postbulletin.com/newsmanager/templates/localnews_story.asp?z=12&a=452763

Are we concerned about the right things?

The Arizona immigration law appears to have raised concerns. But ironically, the concerns are not for our fellow U.S. citizens in Arizona. Instead, the concerns are focused on how the law will impact the individuals who have crossed into the United States illegally, as well as the impact it might have on illegal labor, and the impact it might have on the Mexican economy should those same workers fail to send back their earnings to their relatives in Mexico.

Along the same lines, many concerns have been raised regarding how this law might be enforced. But surprisingly little discussion is focused on addressing how to best resolve the illegal immigration issue.

Now Rep. Steve Drazkowski of Mazeppa has introduced immigration enforcement legislation here in Minnesota, prompting us to have the conversation on a local level. Because this measure was introduced so late in the session, it will most likely be shelved until next year. That gives us time to examine the issue and tell our representatives how we would like to see the legislation shaped to enact effective, moral, and reasonable immigration enforcement methods. Ideally, it should be in a manner that considers the human rights of all people, and places the rights of the U.S. citizens at the heart of the dialogue.

Thankfully, this debate is also helping to force federal engagement on the issue, which is ultimately necessary to resolve the national-level equities at stake. Disappointingly, initial comments from our president and from many of our elected representatives on both sides of the aisle have more to do with acknowledging Mexico’s concern regarding enforcement, than how to protect U.S. equities and U.S. citizens.

In any real debate, everyone must have an advocate; however, it would appear as if both the U.S. and Mexican leaders are planning to advocate for Mexican migration plans. These plans, if put in place, will help to manage the flow of illegal workers by legalizing their ability to work in the U.S.

So far, it appears they will do nothing to address the cost of educating, policing, or reducing the large numbers of illegal immigrants living in the United States, or ease the burden of the taxpayer in Arizona or any other border state. If politicians or their constituents oppose this Arizona legislation that enforces existing law, then they must design viable new immigration legislation that fixes the illegal immigration issue, addresses the associated fiscal impacts, and meets the needs of our citizens. Simply disagreeing with proposed methods of enforcement does not address the issue or resolve the challenge, and that is what we must do as a country.

Before we here in Minnesota leap in on one side or another of the issue, perhaps it would be good to remember the following:

• It is natural to have empathy for the people who are crossing into the country illegally because they live in a desperate situation. Many are hard-working people who clearly believe it is the best option for them and for their families. That empathy, however, does not require condoning any illegal actions that accompany their decisions.

• Illegal immigration is not just a Mexican issue, but given the number of illegal immigrants who are Mexican, it is a logical place to start the dialogue. Clearly any good legislation will address all illegal immigration originating from any country.

• There is a moral imperative to deal justly and humanly with all people, so we must find ways to enforce our laws in such a manner. Ignoring the law or not enforcing it because it “makes us look heartless” is dodging our responsibilities to uphold the law and find solutions to the problem.

• Saying we need illegal immigrants to work here because “Americans won’t take those jobs anyway” is neither accurate, nor just. Americans have a long history of rolling up their sleeves and taking the work that is available. In actuality, it is the employer who benefits from exploiting the undocumented worker. Why would we support or promote that practice?

• There is indeed a legal border and a legal means to enter this country. Many people have worked hard to enter the country legally and many, many more still hope to do so in the future. Whatever we do regarding this issue, we should remember them and their dreams of U.S. citizenship are part of what makes up the diversity we enjoy in this country.

Perhaps if we can remember these things as we discuss the challenges we face regarding this issue, we can then talk about how we can help the citizens of the United States as well as Mexican citizens in a manner that is legal, moral, and economically viable.

Senate Bill 6452 was a direct attack on Washington’s faith-run Crisis Pregnancy Centers by pro-abortion advocates diametrically opposed to their mission.  The bill was an
out-and-out assault on both freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

As many of you know, CPCs are non-profit pregnancy resource centers generally associated with a religious community. They offer advice and support that encourages pregnant women to choose life – that is, to keep their baby or give it up for adoption rather than to abort it.

Senate Bill 6452 required Crisis Pregnancy Centers to submit to a series of state regulations that would completely undermine this mission. The regulations would define CPC’s as “Limited Service” Pregnancy Centers.

All “Limited Service” Pregnancy Centers must:

1. Offer “medically and scientifically accurate” reproductive health information. (They would not be able to teach abstinence only.)
2. Deliver pregnancy test results immediately without any counseling or intervention. (Essentially silencing any efforts to offer abortion alternatives.)
3. Protect any medical information, including pregnancy test results (no parents can be notified).
4. Post notices in at least 30 pt. type in English and Spanish explaining that the center does not provide medical care, abortion or comprehensive birth control services. The notices must be posted on entry doors, inside the building at the registration desk and on the Web site and any advertisement for the CPC.
5. Be subject to the Consumer Protection Act. That means anyone who is “injured” under this Act can bring a lawsuit to prevent future violations and recover actual damages, including the cost of the lawsuit and attorney’s fees. The court can also award triple punitive damages up to $25,000. One successful lawsuit would shut down the average CPC.

The Crisis Pregnancy Centers have always aimed to reduce the need and desire for abortion by encouraging women to consider the long-term ramifications of continuing a pregnancy or ending it…to think more deeply about what’s at stake. They show new mothers that their pregnancy is not just a collection of cells, as some believe, but a living human being.

CPCs provide an alternative to abortion-centric Planned Parenthood. It’s clear their mission is succeeding if abortion proponents are willing to introduce legislation this malignant.

SB 6452 was introduced quickly, under the radar, at the instigation of the National Abortion Rights Action League and Planned Parenthood. These agencies aim to force the above regulations on CPCs, but specifically exempt themselves on the basis of their willingness to provide abortion services. Since CPCs are largely affiliated with religious organizations, it is unlikely that they could, in good conscience, accept these regulations.

This bill was an assault on religious liberty, which is absolutely protected by Article 1, Section 11 of our state Constitution and freedom of speech, the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Thankfully, the Crisis Pregnancy Centers learned of the bill early and hundreds of CPC supporters showed up to the hearing, clearly shocking the Democrat committee chair who expected to sneak this bill through committee unchallenged.

Sen. Joe Zarelli, R-Ridgefield, testified eloquently against it. You can hear his testimony by clicking on his photo. It’s well worth a listen.

Because of this avalanche of opposition, the bill died in committee.

If this malicious legislation had become law, it would have shut down the efforts of religious organizations to encourage women to choose an alternative to abortion. Then how long would it take before another bill was introduced to muzzle what can be taught at church-related events, and later, in our churches?

It is unlikely that we have seen the last of this bill. I expect it to surface again in 2011, but this time we’ll be ready.

Please commit to speaking out against legislation like this, even if it means coming to Olympia to register your displeasure in person.

Sincerely,

WHEREAS,  on April 17, 1952, the Congress of the United States approved the Joint Resolution to provide for setting aside an appropriate day as a National Day of Prayer (Public Law 82-324; 66 Stat. 64); and

WHEREAS, the history of our nation is indelibly marked with the role that prayer has played in the lives of individuals and the nation; and

WHEREAS, historically our greatest leaders have turned to prayer in times of crisis and thanksgiving; and

WHEREAS, the virtues of prayer reflect a common bond: hopes and aspirations, sorrows and fears, remorse and renewed resolve, thanks, joyful praise, and love;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Christine O. Gregoire, Governor of the State of Washington, do hereby proclaim May 6, 2010, as the DAY OF PRAYER in Washington State, in keeping with the wishes of Congress, and I invite Washington residents to join me in this special observance.

Signed this 22nd day of April, 2010
Governor Christine O. Gregoire

It is that time of year again when the wildlife and other things start STIRRING around these parts.

I mentioned a while back about the two egg suckin’ dogs that killed one of the hens -  had another dream last night about the one that ran under my van and I couldn’t get a shot at it.  I had dreamt of dogs getting the chickens the night or so before the dead chicken act so I am on high alert for any *noise* outside right now.

We have also had signs of a coon making itself at home here at night.  We set up the large coon trap (and, no, AKA didn’t go for the bait) and I baited it night before last -  hmm  bait gone but door didn’t trip to catch it….. and, the entire trap was relocated about 4 feet and on it’s side that morning.  So, I figures we got us a smarter than average coon to deal with.

Last night I put the bait in one of those long produce plastic bags, cut a few holes to let the smell get out and then dripped some fish oil over it all.  I then put it in the trap and wove the ends thru the cage bottom and side – making that coon have to work for the bait and hopefully set off the trigger for the door.  My next trick was to make sure that coon couldn’t kick the trap over like it had the night before.  I took one of the picnic benches and set it over the top of the trap making it hard to move it.  AHA, says I last night -  I’ve got that coon now for sure.

Woke up this morning and looked out the window to see the trap obviously had been moved -  too far to see if there was anything in the trap.  So got my shoes on and went out there..  trap not tripped – bait gone (found the remains of the sack in between some hay rounds) and the trap was moved about a foot with the bench still on it.

Well I have to outsmart that coon – and I will   -  Tonight is another coon trappin’ night….  Now you see how I spend my evenings  :)   Days watching for egg suckin’ dogs and night for strong and smart coons.

I came in for some coffee and email – heard Chester and a hen (Chester is the beautiful Wellsummer Rooster) making all sorts of racket.  Thinking it might be those dogs I jumped up and  ran out with gun in hand -  hmm  no dogs – all looks fine – so back inside.  Then I happened to look out the office window to see one of the older male calves on this side of the fence – chomping away on all that nice grass.  Ok -  grab the broom and the cattle rattle paddle and out I go to herd him back towards the feed pen.  He is pretty good sized and isn’t scared of me and my *herding tools* -  he charges at me and I holler at him, shaking the herding *tools*.  He stops for a bit and then starts running down to the pond -   NO NO NO NO NO  I do not want to walk thru the growing hay (thinking  SNAKES) to go after him.  But I put my fear aside as I am now on a MISSION to get that bull calf back up to the *yard* so I can herd him to the gate.  Finally got him back up and went to open the big gate to herd him thru but by this time all the commotion has the rest of the herd heading to the feed pen thinking I am going to give them some grain.  Can’t open the gate now because I’ll have the entire herd in the yard and the Bossman would NOT be happy about that.

I tried calling the Bossman – no answer.  So, I am out of breath – tired of playing Cowgirl without a horse and rope – and have decided that as long as that calf stays up here he can stay out until the Bossman returns later.

That is my morning – so far…..    and I still have all that backed up email to try to get thru.

oh forgot to mention -  the nice cool weather I have been enjoying is no more — – 80′s + are to be the norm from here to next winter I am told.  Since I am not a Hot Weather girl I am going to have to get used to the A/C – which I am not crazy about but I wouldn’t survive in Texas without it.

Just thought I would share my morning with readers -  I do a lot more than sit in front of this computer….    Oh, I also transplanted about 7 starts from pink grapefruit seeds.  If you haven’t grown a grapefruit plant from seeds you are missing some fun.  They make great houseplants and they do get BIG.   Had one in Centralia that the previous owners left because it was too big to move.  Another fun plant is from a sweet potato -  it will vine all over the place -  cheap and easy house plants.

Jackie Juntti
Living in OCCUPIED AMERICA under the rule of lunatics who were let out of the asylums.

ARLINGTON, WASHINGTON – 22 MARCH 2010

The federal takeover of 1/6th of the U.S. economy won’t fix health care, it will harm it. A majority of the American people have made it clear that they strongly oppose a government healthcare takeover. Rife with partisan backroom deals, the process leading up to the passage of this socialized medicine bill has violated every rule of good statesmanship and sound economics.

The indifference and arrogant dismissal of the legitimate concerns of millions of Americans by President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and my opponent, the incumbent Rick Larsen, is unacceptable at best. If my campaign for the United States Congress is successful, I will do everything within my power to repeal this legislation and work to advance free market solutions that increase choice and accessibility to Health Care.

John Koster, Candidate
2nd Congressional District