The Day After Hobby Lobby Decision, Supreme Court Rules For Another Corporation Challenging the HHS Mandate

The day after its ruling in Hobby Lobby, the US Supreme Court granted review of the Thomas More Law Center’s petition on behalf of Eden Foods and its president Michael Potter, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case back to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals for further consideration in light of the Hobby Lobby decision.

Click Here for Supreme Court Order

The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, MI, filed Eden Food’s initial challenge to the HHS Mandate in March 2013. After being denied a temporary injunction preventing enforcement of the HHS Mandate by a federal district court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, TMLC filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court.  That petition had been held in abeyance pending the decision in the Hobby Lobby case.

Eden Foods, co-founded by Potter in the late 1960s, is the oldest natural food company in North America and the largest independent manufacturer of dry grocery organic foods.  In 2009, Eden Foods was selected as the best food company in the world by Better World Shopping Guide, which also acknowledged the company’s outstanding record in social and environmental responsibility. The company employs 150 employees.

For years, Michael Potter, a Roman Catholic, President and sole shareholder of Eden Foods Corporation, for religious reasons, had arranged for the Blue Cross/Blue Shield insurance coverage he designed for his employees to specifically exclude coverage for contraception and abortifacients.  In accordance with his Catholic faith, Potter believes that any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation, whether as an end or means”—including abortifacients and contraception—is wrong.

The HHS Mandate forced Potter to make a choice between violating a foremost tenet of his faith or face fines up to $4.5 million per year.

Potter brought the lawsuit because he cannot compartmentalize his faith and his business practices.

Mr. Potter said in a statement, “We are grateful for the Hobby Lobby decision and look forward to further developments.”

TMLC Senior Trial Counsel Erin Mersino

Erin Mersino, TMLC’s Senior Trial Counsel who is handling the Eden Foods case commented on yesterday’s Supreme Court order, “The Supreme Court’s ruling in Hobby Lobby preserves the religious freedom we are guaranteed under the Constitution.  The HHS mandate required business owners to directly violate their faith.  The Supreme Court relied upon the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which was signed into law by President Clinton and passed in a bipartisan effort to protect our First Amendment rights, to strike down the mandate.  Under RFRA, the government has to establish a basis for substantially burdening one’s religious faith.  Here, the government failed to do so.”

Mersino continued, “Justice Ginsburg’s dissent and proposed parade of horribles has no basis in reality.  No flood gates have been opened.  The truth is that the Supreme Court struck down an unjust law.”

Live Report and Commentary From Miami: Defending Florida’s Marriage Amendment in Court By John Stemberger

I was in Miami yesterday afternoon and evening to attend the court hearing where six same-sex couples are suing the Miami Dade Clerk of Court asking the judge to strike down Florida’s Marriage Amendment which was passed by just under 5 million voters in 2008 when 62% of Floridians defined marriage between one man and one woman.

The courtroom was an older but beautifully ornate room that has been totally restored and is actually the same courtroom Al Capone was tried in years ago.   The courtroom was packed with about 60% supporters of marriage and about 40% gay rights activists.  There was an overflow courtroom with about another 150 people watching by video who were mostly our supporters.  Marriage supporters wore small signs saying “Respect my Vote”.

I appeared on behalf of Florida Family Action as “Amicus” (friend of the court) and Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel represented us.  I also presented an affidavit to the court which gave a very personal and detailed account of my motivation for leading the four year effort to pass the amendment.  The “Stemberger affidavit” was referred to several times during the hearing.

Overall, the legal arguments presented for same sex marriage were surprisingly weak.  After the first short legal argument, the other lawyers arguing spent a lot of time reading stories, citing antidotal evidence, misrepresenting the impact of multiple cases, and generally dispensing an assortment of inappropriate political rhetoric before the court.  In contrast, Mat Staver had a command of the law, the Constitution, legal procedure and the social science research.  His case was compelling and clear.  Not surprisingly, none of the plaintiff’s gay-rights lawyers ever cited let alone mentioned the only clear and controlling legal precedent before the court – Florida’s Constitution and its marriage definition.

One of the lawyers for the Plaintiff’s made the stunning statement that when we as voters amended the constitution to define marriage that this represented the “tyranny of the majority”. Seriously?  Amending the constitution is tyranny?  It was hard not to just LOL.

He then claimed that studies show “two parents are better than one” and that “gay people and straight people make equally good parents”.  But that is not the issue.  The comparison is not the mere quantityof parents — one vs two.  The issue is whether a mom and a dad are superior to two moms and what isbest for children.  And an enormous body of social science research is crystal clear.  Having both a mother and a father produces the highest levels of human flourishing for children.  And the absence of a mom or a dad produces significantly increased levels of social maladies.  This exposes the real weakness and problem with same sex marriage.  Their position devalues the uniqueness and importance of gender in the rearing of children.  Their Position has to be that two moms are just as good as a mom and a dad– and this is empirically false.  With all due respect to Mr. Mackelmore, (the white rapper) the love of a father is not the “same love” as a mother.  And law and policy should reflect the opportunity for children to have the best chance of having both a mom and a dad.

I was very thankful that the Attorney General’s office moved to intervene in the case and had a lawyer appear in person.  But it was disappointing that the lawyer only made one point in a couple of minutes and then quickly sat down.  Much was made by the other lawyers and the judge about the inadequacy of the AG lawyer’s response in the case but it was still good that they asserted the rights of states (through the people) to define marriage.

Lawyers for the Dade County Clerk of the Court who were sued as the Defendant stated that they were “neutral” in the matter and not taking a position.  But then in the next breath they reminded the court that Florida marriage license applications have the words “husband” and “wife” and asked the judge to tell them what to do if the court enters an order and same-sex couples go to get licenses with forms that are not “gender neutral”.  Neutral?  Not so much.

Even Orlando’s Mayor Buddy Dyer had a lawyer representing the City Council (using our local tax dollars) saying that they were in support of homosexuals marrying.  They argued that because Florida was an “anti-gay” state that we were losing “millions and millions” of dollars a year in revenue from same sex couples who might otherwise get married in Florida.  Between Disney “Gay Days”, Key West’s year round gay celebrations, no less than 25 gay-pride weeks and parades all over the state and the “gay-friendly everything” that goes on in Dade and Broward Counties, it was honestly hard for me to not just burst out in open court with laughter hearing this all argued with a straight face.  Anti-gay Florida?  The left plays fast and loose with the facts and indeed with reality itself.

After the hearing there was a heated demonstration outside on the steps of the courthouse. Check out this video to the left linked into the image which shows the back and forth between the crowd.  The natural marriage supporters clearly out numbered and even dwarfed the homosexual rights protesters.  With the crowds shouting in the background I also did several TV and radio interviews and made statements in a press conference with Mat Staver.  The crowds were shouting back and forth to each other and were divided between yellow caution tape.  It was quite a circus and both emotions and security were high.

The high point of the whole day for me occurred after my last TV interview.  A young, neatly dressed reporter asked me several insightful questions and unusually inquisitive follow-up questions.  I did my best and gave him the most honest and sincere responses I could.  After the interview he pulled me aside and asked to speak with me privately.  He said, “Listen, I am an openly gay man.  But I want you to know how much I appreciate the answers you just gave to me and how respectful you were in talking about gay persons not even knowing that I am one of them.” Wow– Thank God for whatever grace he has given me to be able to make that kind of an impression on this young reporter.  Please pray for this man.

The judge did not rule from the bench after the hearing and it is unclear when she will rule.  The real concern here is that if the judge were to rule against our position (finding some new right of marriage out of thin air, defying the highest law of the land-Florida’s Constitution) then the six same sex couples could immediately run down to the courthouse and get marriage licenses.  Unless the Attorney General’s office files a motion to stay (halt) the judge’s order until the federal lawsuits are heard then the couples could be granted illegitimate marriage licenses based on a single judges opinion before any appeal and final hearing of the matter.

The judge sounded unapologetically warm and inviting to the plaintiff’s pro-gay rights positions.  Honestly, she sounded so biased it felt like she was coaching the oppositions attorneys and helping them to not forget certain points, etc… I was really taken back by how comfortable she felt just coddling the other side’s arguments in an open and public court.  Sadly, from my perspective she did not even try and attempt to appear neutral in her demeanor and questioning.  At this point we can only pray that she does the right thing.

But the bottom line is this–if the judge does her job and follows the law in Florida we will prevail.  If she ignores the constitution and ignores the will of the people, then she could rule against us and with a stroke of a pen strike down the vote and intentions of millions of Floridians.

Please continue to pray for us and for this case and follow us on Twitter and check out all of the photos of the hearing and rally on our Facebook page.  Stay tuned for further updates and news on this historic and developing story.  Thanks again for your faithful support of our mission to fight for life, marriage, family and liberty.

RELATED VIDEO: WSVN-TV – 7 NEWS Miami Ft. Lauderdale News

In Their Own Words: Amendment 2’s Attorney Says Pot Could be Recommended for Throat Pain, Trouble Sleeping & Problems Eating

The proponents of Amendment 2 have frequently defended their Amendment by citing the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling on the ballot summary language; but, the Vote No on 2 Campaign today revealed that during oral arguments, Amendment 2’s constitutional lawyer, Jon Mills, said that pot could be recommended for other conditions, specifically citing throat pain, trouble sleeping and problems eating.

During his oral argument in front of the Florida Supreme Court on December 5, 2013, Mills was asked to explain the broad catchall of “other conditions,” to which he gave an example of an individual having a conversation with their doctor.  During this hypothetical conversation, Mills stated that if the patient says: “I have throat pain, I can’t sleep, I’m having a problem eating…” that medical marijuana would then be an option for a doctor to recommend to someone with those issues.

To view the video clip of Mills’ statements, click the below video clip:

“The proponents of Amendment 2 have gone to great lengths to make Florida voters believe it would truly only be for those suffering from ‘debilitating diseases,’” said Constitutional Attorney Susan Kelsey.  “In fact, you don’t have to look any further than their misleading ballot title – Use of Marijuana for Certain Medical Conditions.”

“Yet by the Amendment 2 attorney’s own admission, during oral arguments in front of the Florida Supreme Court no less, doctors may be able to recommend pot to someone who suffers from ‘other conditions,’ such as throat pain, trouble sleeping and problems eating,” continued Kelsey.

The title and summary is all that most voters will see on the ballot, but if they wanted more information they would have to delve deeper to see that the authors defined a “debilitating medical condition” to include cancer, glaucoma, positive status for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), hepatitis C, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), Crohn’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis or other conditions.

“Nowhere in the ballot title, summary or the definition of ‘debilitating medical condition’ do the authors list things like throat pain, trouble sleeping or problems eating.  Why?  Because they are trying to trick Florida voters into believing that pot will only be used for the list of truly terrible diseases that they list in the definitions.  But their own attorney affirms what we’ve been saying all along – this Amendment with the qualifier ‘or other conditions’ is pot for any purpose,” concluded Kelsey.


For more information on the Vote No on 2 Campaign, please visit, follow us @saynoamendment2 and like us

Why Florida does not need a Constitutional Amendment Legalizing Marijuana for Medical Use

Cathy and Robert Jordan were panel members at a pro-marijuana forum held in Manatee County, Florida. At this forum Robert Jordan handed out a letter from Ed Brodsky’s Office, the State Attorney, Twelfth Circuit of Florida dated April 2, 2013. The letter was to the Manatee County Sheriff’s Office about Robert P. Jordan who was arrested for manufacturing (cultivating) marijuana.

The letter, signed by Brian A. Iten, Division Chief, states:

In Florida, the doctrine of medical necessity provides an absolute defense to a cultivation of cannabis prosecution when the following are established:

1) That the defendant did not intentionally bring about the circumstances which precipitated the unlawful act;

2) That the defendant could not accomplish the same objective using a less offensive alternative available to the defendant; and

3) That the evil sought to be avoided was more heinous than the unlawful unlawful act perpetrated to avoid it.

Itan cites Jenks v. State, 582 So. 2nd 676 (Fla 1st DCA). The 1st District Court reversed the conviction of Defendants Kenneth L. Jenks  and Barbara J. Jenks, who were convicted in the Circuit Court, Bay County, Clinton Foster, J., of cultivating cannabis and possession of drug paraphernalia. The District Court of Appeal, Ervin, J., held that: (1) statute defining cannabis as Schedule I substance did not preclude defense of medical necessity, and (2) defendants established [a] medical necessity defense.

Sadly, Cathy Jordan suffers from Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) commonly known as Lou Gehrig’s Disease. According to the Mayo Clinic website on treatment for ALS, “The drug riluzole (Rilutek) is the only medication approved by the Food and Drug Administration for ALS. The drug appears to slow the disease’s progression in some people, perhaps by reducing levels of a chemical messenger in the brain (glutamate) that’s often present in higher levels in people with ALS. Riluzole may cause side effects such as dizziness, gastrointestinal conditions and liver function changes.” According to the Mayo Clinic and the FDA there is a “less offensive alternative to using marijuana.”

Robert Jordan is using the “decline to prosecute” by State Attorney Brodsky to promote and support passage of constitutional Amendment 2, which will legalize marijuana.

Each case is unique and State Attorney Brodsky did his job as did the Manatee County Sheriff in determining the facts and circumstances surrounding the case of Robert P. Jordan.

QUESTION: What “medical necessity” is there to creating a constitutional amendment given the legal precedent in Florida for growing marijuana for certain purposes so long as certain criteria are met?

The Jacksonville Times-Union in an editorial titled “Amendment is not needed for medical marijuana” states, “If Floridians want a way to obtain medical marijuana safely and responsibly, they have one now. The Florida Legislature passed and Gov. Rick Scott signed a bill that will provide marijuana in a safe and effective form. Charlotte’s Web, a marijuana strain low in the compound THC that gets users high, has been shown to curb seizures in children with intractable epilepsy not controlled by traditional medication. Senate Bill 1030, introduced by Sen. Rob Bradley of Clay County and others, is designed to provide compassionate use of marijuana under regulated conditions.”

The obvious question, given that State Attorney Brodsky’s office declined to prosecute and passage of SB 1030, is: Why does Florida need to amend its constitution to legalize the use of marijuana in Florida? Watch the below video “The Devil is in the Details” to understand the the language of Amendment 2 is the most lenient in the United States and in fact legalizes marijuana, period.

Florida in fact has de facto marijuana for medical use laws and a court case protecting those who manufacture it for medical purposes. Governor Rick Scott, law enforcement, State Attorneys like Ed Brodsky and the Florida legislature know it. But do Floridians know it?

Jessica Spencer Ed.D., CAP, CPP, Statewide Coalition Director for states, “We know that Amendment 2 is simply a guise to legalize pot smoking in Florida and our goal is to point out the loopholes in the proposed Amendment.” Watch this short eight minute video on Amendment 2:

We agree with the Jacksonville Times-Union editorial board that “[T]he constitutional amendment is the wrong solution for a legitimate medical need.”

Therefore we ask Florida voters to vote NO on Amendment 2.

RELATED ARTICLE: 10 things to know about draft medical marijuana regulations — Orlando Business Journal

Contempt Case against University of South Florida Jihadist Professor Sami Al-Arian Dropped, Clearing way for Deportation

After years of denial, Sami Al-Arian pleaded guilty to a charge of “conspiracy to make or receive contributions of funds to or for the benefit of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a Specially Designated Terrorist” organization. He agreed to accept deportation. In his 2002 defense of Al-Arian, Eric Boehlert wrote: “The al-Arian story reveals what happens when journalists, abandoning their role as unbiased observers, lead an ignorant, alarmist crusade against suspicious foreigners who in a time of war don’t have the power of the press or public sympathy to fight back.” Reality is just the opposite. The al-Arian story reveals what happens when Leftist journalists and academics, abandoning any pretense to being unbiased observers, lead an ignorant, alarmist crusade against patriotic Americans who in a time of war try to defend our country from those whose politics make them the darlings of the Leftist media and academic establishment.

Even all these years later, Josh Gerstein of Politico indulges in some of the same relentlessly biased reporting: “After the September 11, 2001 attacks, Al-Arian was involved in a highly-publicized, confrontational interview with Fox News host Bill O’Reilly, who accused the professor of making anti-Israel statements and again raised questions about his think tank’s alleged ties to terror. Al-Arian received death threats after the on-air exchange and was suspended from the university.” This portrays al-Arian — even so many years after he pleaded guilty to being part of Palestinian Islamic Jihad — as the victim: the poor lamb received death threats (although Gerstein has never deigned to notice the huge numbers of death threats that counter-jihadists receive). And Gerstein says that O’Reilly accused al-Arian of making anti-Israel statements while declining to inform his hapless readers that al-Arian is on tape shrieking, “Death to America, death to Israel, jihad, jihad, jihad!”

“Feds drop Sami Al-Arian prosecution,” by Josh Gerstein, Politico, June 27, 2014:

The Justice Department has dropped a long-stalled second criminal prosecution of a former college professor who pleaded guilty to aiding a terrorist group following a high-profile trial in Florida that ended with a muddled verdict almost a decade ago.

Federal prosecutors in Alexandria, Va., filed a motion Friday seeking to dismiss a criminal contempt indictment brought in 2008 against former University of South Florida mechanical engineering professor Sami Al-Arian, who was born in Kuwait to Palestinian parents.

In the new filing, prosecutors said they decided to give up on the contempt case after delays precipitated by U.S. District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema sitting for years on a critical motion in the case without ruling one way or another.

In light of the passage of time without resolution, the United States has decided that the best available course of action is to move to dismiss the indictment so that action can be taken to remove the defendant from the United States,” prosecutor Gordon Kromberg wrote.

In a statement released through Al-Arian’s attorney, the 56-year-old former professor’s family hailed the dismissal of the charges.

“We are glad that the government has finally decided to drop the charges against Sami Al-Arian. It has been a long and difficult 11 years for our family in what has ultimately been shown to be a political case. We are relieved that this ordeal finally appears to be at an end,” the family members said. “We hope that today’s events bring to a conclusion the government’s pursuit of Dr. Al-Arian and that he can finally be able to resume his life with his family in freedom.”

During the 1990s, Al-Arian came under suspicion in Florida over possible ties between a think tank he headed and figures in Palestinian Islamic Jihad. In a response to a Tampa Tribune series examining the issue, he denied any connection. After Jewish groups pressed for his removal at USF, professors’ groups complained that his academic freedom was being infringed.

After the September 11, 2001 attacks, Al-Arian was involved in a highly-publicized, confrontational interview with Fox News host Bill O’Reilly, who accused the professor of making anti-Israel statements and again raised questions about his think tank’s alleged ties to terror. Al-Arian received death threats after the on-air exchange and was suspended from the university.

In 2003, Al-Arian was indicted in Tampa on a wide array of charges, including racketeering, material support for terrorism and obstruction of justice. Prosecutors accused him of being the American head of Palestinian Islamic Jihad and said they had been able to bring the case only because legal changes in the Patriot Act allowed them to share intelligence information with criminal investigators.

His trial (and that of three co-defendants) was repeatedly delayed. It took place over a six-month period in 2005 and ended in acquittals on eight counts and a hung jury on nine other counts.

After prosecutors threatened a re-trial, the former professor pleaded guilty to one felony count of aiding a designated terrorist group and was sentenced to 57 months in prison. He had already served most of that time in custody awaiting trial and thereafter. The plea deal also called for him to be deported from the U.S.

However, before Al-Arian was deported, federal prosecutors in Alexandria, Va., served him with a subpoena calling him before a grand jury to testify about Muslim groups in Virginia and their alleged ties to terrorism. Al-Arian said the subpoena was at odds with his plea deal in the Florida case, but prosecutors and the courts did not agree. He spent most of 2007 in jail on a civil contempt citation.

RELATED ARTICLEConnecting the dots of the boiling Arab Street

The Only Thing Dumber than Speaker Boehner Suing President Obama is a Republican Who Thinks it’s a Good Idea

This foolish political stunt undermines Republican political philosophy, convolutes Constitutional principles, and hands Obama and the Democrats a public relations victory… on a silver platter.

The DCCC sent out an email today stating, “We just found out that we’re within reach of breaking the record for our best online June EVER! Boehner certainly wasn’t bargaining for that when he announced his big plan to SUE President Obama last week. As of 9am, we’re 33,988 donations away from making grassroots history in our campaign to defeat Boehner’s Tea Party majority.”

Actually, Speaker Boehner should SUE HIMSELF, which is logically more consistent as it is HE who is the solution to the intent of his asinine lawsuit. All Boehner and the spineless majority Republicans in the House of Representatives have to do is SHUT THE DAMN MONEY FAUCET OFF TO OBAMA!



QUESTION: Where are Republicans who still believe in classic Republican political theory… and still want to live by those principles?


Conservative Legend Slams GOP as ‘Party of Stupid’
Obama ignores Boehner’s lawsuit threat: ‘I’ll keep taking actions on my own’ – Washington Times
Egos And Infighting: The GOP’s Biggest Opponent In November
Karl Rove Silent on Mississippi Race Tactics
How Thad Cochran Won

How to End Racism in America: Stop “Black Privilege” in the White House

Want to stop racism in America? I have a simple yet bold suggestion. Time to end “black privilege” in the White House!


Gun Crimes Plummet Even as Gun Sales Rise

A majority of Americans say they think gun crime has increased over the past 20 years, even though it has actually fallen dramatically, a recent Pew Research Center survey shows.

Sources: DOJ, ATF AFMER & USITC, Pew Research Center, National Safety Council, Gallup

For more information visit:


BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules Abortion Buffer Zone Unconstitutional — Thomas More Law Center Welcomes Decision

The U.S. Supreme Court this morning released its unanimous decision in McCullen v Coakley ruling that the Massachusetts law which established 35- foot “buffer zones” around abortion clinics violates First Amendment free speech rights.  Chief Justice John Roberts writing for the court held that, “The buffer zones burden substantially more speech than necessary to achieve the Commonwealth’s asserted interests.” Justice Scalia joined by justices Kennedy and Thomas wrote a concurring opinion.

buffer zone lead attorney

Lead Attorney Mark Rienzi, who successfully argued the case before the US Supreme Court stands with the lead plaintiff, Eleanor McCullen. [MassResistance photo]

Today’s court decision is welcome news for the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan which has a pending case in the Maine Federal District Court challenging the City of Portland, Maine’s ordinance that sets up a 39-foot buffer zone around that City’s  sole abortion facility.  Violation of the ordinance subjects the offenders to a minimum fine of $100 dollars.

Just a week ago, Thursday, June 19, 2014, U.S. District Court Judge Nancy Torresen heard oral arguments from TMLC attorney Erin Kuenzig on a motion filed by TMLC seeking a preliminary injunction of the Portland Buffer Zone ordinance.   During Thursday’s arguments, Judge Torresen suggested that the outcome of the case as well as the motion for preliminary injunction likely hinged upon the Supreme Court’s decision in McCullen.

Responding to today’s Supreme Court decision in Coakley, Kuenzig commented, “This is a clear message to other states and municipalities that they may not take the extreme step of closing a substantial portion of a traditional public forum to all speakers simply because this extreme step would be easier than enforcing other less restrictive laws that already exist. The First Amendment deserves greater protection.”

Since November 18, 2013, when the Portland City Council enacted the 39-foot no-entry “buffer zone” around the abortion facility, pro-life sidewalk counseling has been effectively curtailed because pro-life advocates, including TMLC’s plaintiffs Leslie Sneddon and Marguerite Fitzgerald and her family, are forced to stand across the street from the abortion facility, separated from anyone entering the clinic by busy traffic.

Kuenzig continued, “With today’s Supreme Court decision, I am confident that Ms. Sneddon and the Fitzgeralds will soon be able to continue their loving message with information and counseling about abortion alternatives, without fear of being fined, to women who may be contemplating abortion.”

RELATED STORY: McCullen says clinic protests are about “surrounding women with love”

Florida Attorney General Files Motions to Intervene in Homosexual so-called “Marriage” Lawsuits!

MIAMI, FL – After months of hard work, the Christian Family Coalition Florida (CFCF) announced today a stunning turn of events as Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi filed motions to intervene in two seditious state lawsuits that are trying to overthrow Florida’s voter-approved constitution which respects marriage as the union of one man, one woman.

As other attorneys general, most recently in Oregon and Pennsylvania, are abandoning their states voters by refusing to intervene, such as in Oregon, or appeal decisions against voter-approved state constitutional amendments, such as in Pennsylvania; General Bondi is on the right side of history and the law by faithfully upholding her sworn duty to uphold the laws of the land.

As she recently stated in a piece written for the Gainesville Sun, “Defending the wishes of the voters who enacted Florida’s marriage amendment necessarily requires me to make good faith legal arguments. Anything less than the best defense of our voters’ policy preferences would disenfranchise the electorate, and undermine the judicial process, this court should ‘exercise great caution when asked to take sides in an ongoing public policy debate’ and leave Florida’s important policy determinations to Florida’s citizens.”

In 2008, approximately 5 million Florida voters approved our state’s constitution respecting marriage as the union of one man, one woman, by a whopping 62% – 38% margin. Approval numbers among Hispanic and African-American voters were even higher, 62% and 71% respectively!

Christian Family Coalition Florida (CFCF) issued the following statement:

“We commend Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi for her courageous decision to uphold her oath of office and protect Florida voters right to amend their own state constitution respecting marriage as the union of one man, one woman. As the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled in Windsor, this is a question of public policy, not the constitution, as homosexual extremists who are trying to overthrow the will of the people falsely claim.”

About the Christian Family Coalition (CFC)

The Christian Family Coalition (CFC) is a widely acclaimed human rights and social justice advocacy organization serving Florida’s children and families for over 10 years. Through its daily community outreach, political education programs, and voter registration, CFC effectively mobilizes thousands of fair-minded voters across the state and actively works with municipal, county, state, and federal elected officials to advance common sense, family-friendly, non-discriminatory values and public policies. The CFC is highly respected for its sought-after, educational voter guides consulted by thousands of houses of worship and their voters all across Florida.

Open letter to Petty Officer Matthew Hindes US Navy Submarine Fleet

TO: Petty Officer Matthew Hindes
US Navy Submarine Force Pacific

Thank you for your brave and courageous service in the United States Navy submarine forces currently deployed in the Pacific aboard a ballistic missile submarine. When you return to port you will get this email from me to you shipmate.

Today I called Governor Rick Snyder of Michigan.  I’m friends  with many people and I get things done shipmate.


Margaret Noe, Lenawee County Circuit Court judge.

I spoke to his personal aid (517) 373-3400 regarding your problem with the dishonorable and egregious acts perpetrated against you by Judge Margaret Noe sitting in the Lenawee County Michigan District I court house. Governor Snyder and his legal team are now fully informed and up to speed on the illegal and harassing ruling by Judge Noe.  So in the words of Master Chief Billy Sunday in Men of Honor… disregard her Cookie, paraphrasing of course.

Governor Rick  Snyder is now looking into your case and so is half the retired U.S. Navy Chief’s canoe club.  We will not let you fall, we will not let you be beat down and trod on.  When you get back to Seattle (this date is classified I understand) but if you have an arrest warrant waiting for you call me at 850-313-1893. I will fly to Seattle and we will both together have a face off with the head judge.  I will have members of Governor Rick Snyder’s legal staff, Fox News and others in tow.

Do not fear shipmate you will be OK.  To Sheriff Jack Walsh of Lenawee County Michigan, if Judge Margaret Noe signs an arrest warrant for Petty Officer Matthew Hindes I ask that you to disregard it.  Judge Noe has violated the rights of Petty Officer Hindes and his daughter under the Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act which is federal law. So under the color of law she has committed a felony pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 242.  Judge Noe by inflicting an illegal statute on Petty Hindes, which can be  pursued under 18 U.S.C. § 241. Judge Noe is also subject to civil liability for all damages flowing from such an act pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 which, at the minimum, would include attorney fees necessitated by such acts.

Since Judge Noe appears to have committed a felony, she is now subject to arrest and prosecution. When a judge violates a right made specific by statutes, rules or settled interpretations of them, the judge has violated 18 U.S.C. § 242. See U.S. v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259, 267 (1997).

Judge Noe should be arrested and removed  from the bench for cause if she attempts to harm to Petty Officer Hindes. To quote from the movie Men of Honor released in the year 2000.

“Carl Brashear:

Forgive me sir, but to me, the Navy isn’t a business. It’s an organization of people who represent the finest aspects of our nation. We have many traditions. In my career, I have encountered most of them. Some are good, some not so good. I would, however not be here today were it not for our greatest tradition of all.

Captain Hanks:

And what would that be, Chief Brashear?”

Carl Brashear:

“Honor, sir”

Governor Rick Scott Makes History Signing 5 Pro-gun Bills

On, Friday, June 20, 2014, Florida Governor Rick Scott signed 5 pro-gun bills into law.  A strong supporter of the Second Amendment, Governor Rick Scott has now signed more pro-gun bills into law — in one term — than any other Governor in Florida history.

The bills are as follows:

HB-89 Threatened Use of Force
  by Rep. Neil Combee/Rep. Katie Edwards and Sen. Greg Evers

SB-424 To Stop Insurance Discrimination Against Gun Owners
  by Sen. Tom Lee and Rep. Matt Gaetz

HB-7029  Zero Tolerance/Pop Tart Bill
  by Rep. Dennis Baxley and Sen. Greg Evers

HB-523 Concealed Weapon/Firearms Licenses Fast Track
  by Rep. James Grant and Sen. Wilton Simpson

HB-525 Protection of Concealed Weapons/Firearms License Holder Information
 by Rep. James Grant and Sen. Wilton Simpson

A news article on titled Florida governor signs five pro-gun measures into law, including “Pop Tart” and “Warning Shot” bills by Chris Eger on June 21, discusses these bills.  To read this article, please click here.

According to NRA/ILA:

It was a great session, marred only by the defeat of  SB-296/HB-209 by Sen. Jeff Brandes and Rep. Heather Fitzenhagen. This was the bill to allow law-abiding citizens to carry their firearms with them during a mandatory evacuation under a declared state of emergency, rather than leave them in their homes for theft by looters or destruction by hurricanes or other disasters. However, the Florida Sheriffs Association and numerous anti-gun sheriffs fought to kill the bill. They were not successful in their efforts in the House, because Representatives put your safety and your rights above anti-gun sheriffs who didn’t support the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

However, in the Senate, Sen. Jack Latvala became the champion of the Florida Sheriffs Association and supported their efforts to kill this gun owner protection bill.  Sen. Latvala pulled together a coalition of Republican Senators who were willing to sacrifice your rights and to pander to anti-gun sheriffs and help kill the bill.

Remember these names. Some are up for re-election this year. Some are not up for re-election until 2016.  Do not forget them.

Sen. Jack Latvala (R)  SD-20
Sen. Charlie Dean (R) SD-5
Sen. Nancy Detert (R) SD-28
Sen. Miguel Diaz de la Portilla (R) SD-40
Sen. Rene Garcia (R) 38
Sen. Denise Grimsley (R) SD-21
Sen. Alan Hays (R) SD-11
Sen. John Legg (R) SD-17
Sen. Garrett Richter (R) SD-23

How Covering up Minority Crime Leads to Gun Control

Commenting recently on the Elliot Rodger killings, arch-leftist Michael Moore wrote that while “other countries have more violent pasts…more guns per capita in their homes… and the kids in most other countries watch the same violent movies and play the same violent video games that our kids play, no one even comes close to killing as many of its own citizens on a daily basis as we do….” From a man who used to take the simple-minded gun-control position “fewer guns=less homicide,” it was surprising evidence of growth. After making his point, however, Moore made a mistake in following up with, “and yet we don’t seem to want to ask ourselves this simple question: “Why us? What is it about US?” It’s not, however, that we don’t want to ask the question.

It’s that we don’t want to hear the answer.

We can begin seeking it by asking another question: Why is it that Vermont, with approximately the same rate of gun ownership as Louisiana, has less than one-eighth the murder rate? Even more strikingly, why does New Hampshire have both a far higher gun ownership rate and a lower murder rate than England, Piers Morgan’s favorite poster-boy nation for gun control?

Professor Thomas Sowell provided more of these seeming contradictions in 2012, writing:

When it comes to the rate of gun ownership, that is higher in rural areas than in urban areas, but the murder rate is higher in urban areas. The rate of gun ownership is higher among whites than among blacks, but the murder rate is higher among blacks.

… [There are also] countries with stronger gun control laws than the United States, such as Russia, Brazil and Mexico. All of these countries have higher murder rates than the United States.

You could compare other sets of countries and get similar results. Gun ownership has been three times as high in Switzerland as in Germany, but the Swiss have had lower murder rates. Other countries with high rates of gun ownership and low murder rates include Israel, New Zealand, and Finland.

So what’s the answer we don’t want to hear? The critical difference among these regions and nations is explained right in Sowell’s title: it’s “not guns.”

“It’s people.”

What “people” differences are relevant? Let’s start with race and ethnicity. In the cases of homicide in 2012 in which the races of the perpetrators were known, 55 percent were committed by blacks, 62 percent of whom were under 30 years of age. Black youths are 16 percent of the youth population, but constitute 52 percent of those arrested for juvenile violent crime.

The statistics for Hispanics are more difficult to ferret out because, unbeknownst to many, law enforcement agencies tend to lump them in with whites in crime statistics (the FBI has announced that it will finally categorize Hispanic crime — in its report on 2013). However, there is some information available. Examiner’s Ken LaRive tells us that “Hispanics commit three times more violent crimes than whites,” but that the disparity could be even greater because of their often being classified as white.

The National Youth Gang Survey Analysis reports that gang members are approximately 49 percent Hispanic, 35 percent black and 10 percent white. And while whites are 35 percent of NYC’s population, blacks and Hispanics commit 96 percent of all crime in the Big Apple and 98 percent of all gun crime.

Another good indicator is international crime statistics. Hispanic countries dominate the homicide-rate rankings, with Honduras topping the list with a rate eight times as high as that of our worst state,Louisiana. Also note that there are no European/European descent nations in the top 20 and not one Western-tradition nation in the top 30 (Russia and Moldova are 24 and 28, respectively).

And what can we say about these “people” differences? It’s much as with the question of why men are more likely to be drunkards than women. You could explore whether the differences were attributable to nature, nurture or both. But it would be silly to wonder if the answer lay in men having greater access to bars, alcohol or shot glasses.

This brings us to why covering up minority criminality encourages gun control:

Americans won’t understand that the critical factor is people differences if they aren’t told about the people differences.

They will then — especially since most citizens aren’t even aware that there are nations with more firearms but less murder — be much more likely to blame guns. Of course, this is precisely what you want if you’re a left-wing media propagandist.

There is a question that could now be posed by the other side: if the main difference in criminality is demographics, why not outlaw guns? After all, it won’t make a difference one way or the other, right? I’ll offer a couple of answers to this question.

First, for a people to maintain just liberties, a freedom must always be considered innocent until proven guilty; the burden of proof is not on those who would retain it, but on those who would take it away.

Second, while private gun ownership and just law enforcement can’t turn barbarians into civilized people any more than excellent schools can transform dunces into geniuses, they can act as mitigating factors that minimize criminality as much as possible given the “raw material” with which the particular society has to work. It’s much as how you can maximize your personal safety: you may be safer in a great neighborhood with no martial arts training than in a terrible one with that training. Nonetheless, it allows you to be safer than you would be otherwise whatever neighborhood you choose.

And what do the stats show in our fair to middling USA neighborhood? Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck reported that guns are used by good citizens 2.2 to 2.5 million times per year to deter crime. That likely saves many more innocent lives than are lost in massacres every year, but these unseen non-victims don’t make headlines the way Sandy Hook tragedies do. That’s why I like to say, using a twist on a Frédéric Bastiat line, a bad social analyst observes only what can be seen. A good social analyst observes what can be seen — and what must be foreseen.

Lastly, one more truth becomes evident upon recognizing that demographics are the main factor in criminality: even if you do believe in gun control, imposing it federally and applying a one-size fits all standard is ridiculous. In terms of people and crime, there’s a world of difference between towns in New Hampshire or Vermont, with their England-level murder rates, and cities such as East St. Louis, IL, or Detroit, which rival El Salvador in citizen lethality. You can make gun control the same everywhere, but you can’t change the fact that people will be very, very different.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to

Marine Combat Veteran Arrested for Anti-Obama Facebook Post

People are getting arrested for posting non-violent criticisms of President Barack Obama. In the case you’re about to see, one Marine veteran was sent to psychiatric training and diagnosed with ODD (Oppositional Defiance Disorder) for his criticism of the way government is being run.



RELATED STORY: South Dakota Republican Party calls for Obama impeachment

Justina’s Release Shows Power of Citizen Outrage Against Government Force

1. Justina Pelletier is finally released! Shows the power of citizen outrage against government force. But is this nightmare our future? Can we stop it?

The Justina case had such national appeal because the average person was simply awestruck. No one could believe the barbaric behavior of a government agency against a defenseless family from another state. Nor could they fathom the sheer arrogance of government bureaucrats, the judiciary, and even elected legislators in the face of any decency or even common sense. More

2. Answering the lie of “gay marriage and the wrong side of history” – Boston Globe column by Jeff Jacoby.

By now we’ve probably all heard propaganda sound bite from the homosexual movement, that “gay marriage” throughout America is “inevitable” and that if you don’t get on board you’re “on the wrong side of history.” Jeff Jacoby has written a rebuttal to that. More

For all recent posts see our website.

Coming up in next: Report from Boston “Gay Pride Parade”