Imprisoned Creationist Faces New Federal Charges. Life Behind Bars

The federal government has always played hardball with Kent Hovind, and that spanned Republican and Democrat administrations alike. But this latest charge is especially outlandish. I'm fairly certain the mail fraud statute was not enacted for this purpose. They are trying to break Kent Hovind and make an example of him. christiannews.net/2015/02/04/kent-hovind-imprisoned-evolutionary-foe-now-facing-new-charges-life-behind-bars/

Ex-gays Outnumber Current Gays

There are more ex-homosexuals than current homosexuals. This is a much more serious concern for coercive Sodomites than any alleged injustices suffered at the hands of homophobes. High attrition rates sap the strength of the Gay movement and, therefore, of the Democratic party. Thus the urgency of marginalizing, discrediting and criminalizing conversion therapy, in which a reluctant homosexual seeks assistance (therapy) in converting to his preferred sexual identity. If ACLU types (like Ruth Bader Ginsburg) really were devoted to individual sexual autonomy, they would be outraged by any attempt to deprive men and women of the right to seek therapy for this painful sexual affliction.  www.redflagnews.com/headlines/identical-twin-studies-prove-homosexuality-is-not-genetic

State's High Court Resists Federal Judicial Frolic

You don't need Law In the Catacombs to update you on the Alabama showdown over jurisdiction and homosexual marriage. That news is in all the major media, albeit slanted in favor of the homosexuals and their confederates on the federal bench. One notable exception is WORLD magazine, which has done a superb job (below) of explaining this rapidly developing story in Alabama and elsewhere in the states.

Before I address the controversy, I would like to point out something that you may have missed: Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, who launched this story when he ordered his state's probate judges not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples despite a federal district judge's order that they do so, recused himself from the Alabama Supreme Court proceedings that led to today's order.

Go ahead and look "recuse" up, whether in a generic dictionary or a specialized legal dictionary. And when you find it, please make a photocopy for President Obama's appointees on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Section 455(b)(3) of Title 28 of the U.S. Code states that judges must disqualify themselves in cases where they have “served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser, or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case or controversy.”

Justice Elena Kagan, whom emails establish was deeply involved in Obamacare strategy sessions while she was solicitor general (perfectly proper, by the way) should have recused herself from the Supreme Court's deliberations and vote on Obamacare after she joined the court. It was, in fact, mandatory under Section 455(b)(3). That she didn't can only be described as lawlessness.

Hats off to Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore who holds passionate views on the subject matter of this legal controversy but felt ethically obligated to recuse himself from participation as an impartial jurist.

Now to the controversy at hand: federal district judges are not viceroys. Constitutionally, their courts are established and can be abolished by Congress. Have you heard anything out of the Federal District Court for the Panama Canal Zone lately? Congress can limit or remove their jurisdiction (and should seriously consider doing so, to restrain the recent judicial frolics that imposed Sodomite marriage despite direct legislation to the contrary).

So it is not heedless of the Rule of Law for state courts to dispute federal district judges' authority to impose their extralegal social experiments on unwilling sovereign states. It is perfectly reasonable and, in my view, long overdue.

Neither does the Alabama order defy the U.S. Supreme Court, which had an opportunity to decide the Alabama homosexual marriage issue but declined to take it up. Its members can hardly complain now when the state courts adjudicate it. It (the U.S. Supreme Court) can't delegate its authority to a frisky federal district judge in Montgomery, and there's no indication that it tried to do so.

Enjoy this WORLD article, a rose among the thorns.

Alabama Supreme Court: Stop issuing same-sex marriage licenses

MARRIAGE

By THE EDITORS

Posted March 3, 2015, 08:45 p.m.

The Alabama Supreme Court is taking on the federal judiciary, ordering the state’s probate judges to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

In January, a federal judge struck down the state constitutional amendment approved by voters in 2006 that defines marriage as between one man and one woman. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to issue an emergency stay of that ruling, allowing same-sex marriage to begin on Feb. 9.

But Alabama Chief Court Justice Roy Moore ordered the state’s probate judges not to follow the federal court order, declaring it did not have the authority to overturn a state law. Most judges followed Moore’s order until another federal judge said they didn't have to.

Amid the confusion, the Alabama Policy Institute and the Alabama Citizens Action Program asked the state’s Supreme Court to step in. In tonight’s ruling, from which Moore recused himself, the justices said the U.S. Constitution couldn’t alter the judges’ duty to administer state law. It also accused the federal court, based in Mobile, of using “sleight of hand” to legalize same-sex marriage against voters’ wishes.

The confrontation in Alabama will end up at the U.S. Supreme Court, where the nation’s top justices already are scheduled to hear another set of same-sex marriage cases later this year. So far the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is the only federal court to uphold state marriage laws, although several cases are moving through other appeals districts that might also end up siding with the states.

The state of marriage

Until 2003, same-sex marriage was illegal in all 50 states. But a lot has changed in the last decade. After the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a portion of the federal Defense of Marriage Act in 2013, judges have followed suit by overturning state laws protecting marriage between one man and one woman. Cases challenging those laws have been filed in all states that have them.

The map below shows the state of marriage in each state, with more details about each one listed below.

• Alabama—Voters approved constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman in 2006; a federal judge struck it down in January 2015. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to extend a two-week stay, and counties began issuing marriage licenses Feb. 9. State Supreme Court ordered judges to stop issuing marriage licenses on March 3.

• Alaska—Passed the first voter-approved constitutional marriage amendment in 1998, which a federal judge overturned in October 2014.
• Arizona—Marriage amendment passed in 2008; federal judge overturned it in October 2014.
• Arkansas—Marriage amendment passed in 2004; county circuit judge overturned it in May 2014. State Supreme Court stayed the ruling pending appeal. Federal court overturned amendment in November 2014.
• California—Marriage amendment, called Proposition 8, passed in 2008; federal judge overturned it in 2010. Ruling did not go into effect until the Supreme Court upheld it in 2013.
• Colorado—Marriage amendment passed in 2006; state judge struck it down in July 2014. A federal judge followed suit later that same month.
• Connecticut—State Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in 2008.
• Delaware—State statute legalized same-sex marriage in 2013.
• Florida—Marriage amendment passed in 2008. Circuit judge ruled in 2014 same-sex couples could marry in the Florida Keys. Another circuit judge issued a similar ruling for Miami–Dade County. Then a federal judge struck down the amendment, and the Supreme Court denied a request for an emergency stay.
• Georgia—Marriage amendment passed in 2004; it still stands.
• Hawaii—State statute passed in 2013 legalized same-sex marriage.
• Idaho—Marriage amendment passed in 2006; federal judge overturned it in May 2014. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the decision.
• Illinois—State statute passed in 2013 legalized same-sex marriage.
• Indiana—Marriage law passed in 2007; federal judge overturned it. Federal appeals court upheldthe ruling in September 2014.
• Iowa—State statute legalized same-sex marriage in 2009.
• Kansas—Marriage amendment passed in 2005; it still stands. Judge rules state must allow same-sex marriages while federal case is pending; Supreme Court upheld that ruling.
• Kentucky—Marriage amendment passed in 2004; federal judge overturned it in July 2014, but the law was upheld on appeal.
• Louisiana—Marriage amendment passed in 2004; federal judge upheld it in September 2014.
• Maine—Voter referendum in 2012 legalized same-sex marriage.
• Maryland—Voter referendum in 2012 legalized same-sex marriage.
• Massachusetts—In 2003, became the first state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples after a state Supreme Court ruling.
• Michigan—Marriage amendment passed in 2004; federal judge overturned it in March 2014, but it was upheld on appeal. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed in January to hear the case, and until then, the state agreed to recognize roughly 300 marriages conducted after the traditional marriage law was briefly overturned.
• Minnesota—State statute passed in 2013 legalized same-sex marriage
• Mississippi—Marriage amendment passed in 2004; overturned by federal judge in November 2014.
• Missouri—Marriage amendment passed in 2004; one county judge has ruled it is unconstitutional, and another county judge has ordered state to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.
• Montana—Marriage amendment passed in 2004; federal judge overturned it in November 2014.
• Nebraska—Marriage amendment passed in 2000; overturned by a federal judge in March, 2015.
• Nevada—Marriage amendment passed in 2002; federal judge upheld it, but the 9th Circuitoverturned it.
• New Hampshire— State statute passed in 2009 legalized same-sex marriage.
• New Jersey—State judge’s ruling legalized same-sex marriage in 2013.
• New Mexico—State Supreme Court ruling legalized same-sex marriage in 2013.
• New York—State statute passed in 2011 legalized same-sex marriage.
• North Carolina—Marriage amendment passed in 2012; federal judge overturned it in October 2014.
• North Dakota—Marriage amendment passed in 2004; it still stands.
• Ohio—Marriage amendment passed in 2004. Judge ordered state to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states in April 2014, but that decision was overturned on appeal.
• Oklahoma—Marriage amendment passed in 2004; federal judge overturned it in January 2014. Ruling upheld by federal appeals court.
• Oregon—Marriage amendment passed in 2004; federal judge overturned it in May 2014.
• Pennsylvania—Marriage law passed by state legislature in 1997; federal judge overturned it in May 2014.
• Rhode Island—State statute legalized same-sex marriage in 2013.
• South Carolina—Marriage amendment passed in 2006. Federal judge overturned it in November 2014. Attorney general appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court but the state began issuing marriages licenses on Nov. 19.
• South Dakota—Marriage amendment passed in 2006; federal judge overturned it in January 2015 but stayed the ruling pending appeal.
• Tennessee—Marriage amendment passed in 2006; it still stands. A federal appeals court overruled a lower court judge’s order that the state must recognize three same-sex marriages performed in other states.
• Texas—Marriage amendment passed in 2005; federal judge overturned it in February 2014. Ruling stayed by the Supreme Court pending appeal.
• Utah—Marriage amendment passed in 2004; federal judge overturned it in December 2013. Ruling upheld on appeal.
• Vermont—State statute passed in 2009 legalizing same-sex marriage.
• Virginia—Marriage amendment passed in 2006; federal judge overturned it in February 2014. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling.
• Washington—Voter referendum legalized same-sex marriage in 2012.
• West Virginia—Marriage law passed by state legislature in 2000. Same-sex marriage became legal in October 2014 following the state attorney general’s decision to stop defending the law after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review an appeals court decision in support of gay marriage.
• Wisconsin—Marriage amendment passed in 2006; federal judge overturned it in June 2014.
• Wyoming—Marriage law passed by state legislature in 1977; federal judge overturned it in October 2014.

Interactive Anti-Christian Bigotry Map

The American Family Association recently posted a free interactive resource mapping organized U.S. anti-Christian bigotry in multiple categories.  The connecting thread is that each of the 200+ groups or organizations "openly display bigotry toward the Christian faith."

The home page of the site lists four of the faith's more notorious antagonists - the Southern Poverty Law Center, Freedom From Religion Foundation, Human Rights Campaign and GLSEN - followed by a brief summary of each group's modus operandi.

The map can be accessed directly by mouse click, or searched by state. It can also be filtered by one of four group categories: Atheist, Humanist, Anti-Christian and Homosexual Agenda.

We recommend it for Christian activists, for citizens who want background on organizations in the news, and for home-schoolers. We hope AFA will update it frequently and in fact, "Anti-Christian Bigotry Reports" are linked from the home page, four since Jan. 16. We have high hopes for this resource.

Interactive Anti-Christian Bigotry Map

Ninth Circuit: Take Down That Cross

FRC Calls Mt. Soledad Cross Ruling an Affront to Religious Liberty, American Tradition
Urges Full Ninth Circuit to Consider War Memorial Case

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Family Research Council (FRC) today called on the full Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to take up the Mt. Soledad Cross case, Trunk v. San Diego. Yesterday, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled that the Mt. Soledad war memorial is unconstitutional.

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins made the following comments:

"This decision by a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit displays hostility toward religious imagery in the public square that ignores these essential aspects of religious liberty and American tradition.

"In 2001, when militants set out to bomb two colossal Buddhist statues that had stood untouched in Afghanistan for more than a thousand years, the global community rightly condemned the actions as religious barbarism. Like the statues, the Mt. Soledad Cross is a monument to America 's cultural history, a symbol of our Christian heritage and a tribute to brave Americans who laid down their lives in our nation's cause. Their memories should not be besmirched.

"This is the latest sad chapter in a decades-long fight over the Mt. Soledad cross. A Ninth Circuit panel glossed over several important aspects of this complicated case, failing to fully consider their legal importance, and then went on to apply the wrong test to decide this case. With all due respect to the panel, the full Ninth Circuit should now take the case to clean up this mess. If they refuse to do so, then the U.S. Supreme Court must right this wrong. The Mt. Soledad cross is fully constitutional."

Crude, Profane Lesbian With Supportive Boss Harassed Employees With Impunity at Historically Black Alabama College

State Rep. John Knight, Alabama State University's second in command, says a lawsuit contending that three female university employees suffered repeated sexual and racial harassment that was condoned by ASU supervisors and officials is frivolous and possibly the handiwork of a disgruntled former university trustee.

The federal court suit contends that a female supervisor subjected one current and two former university employees to a wide variety of racial and sexual harassment, ranging from verbal harassment to inappropriate touching, and that ASU officials not only did little to correct the situation but retaliated against the employees who reported it.

But Knight, who is the executive vice president and chief operating officer at ASU, said it is political season and accused former university board member Joe Reed and the Alabama Education Association of using the lawsuit to fight progress at the university.

"There are people who served on the board in the past who do not like progress and are basically committed to fund any lawyers that want to have a lawsuit against Alabama State University," Knight said. "That is AEA and Joe Reed."

In the lawsuit, the three women contend that Lavonette Bartley, an associate executive director at the university, who at one time served as their supervisor, repeatedly harassed them -- even to the point of giving one of the women revealing clothing that she wanted her to wear to the office.

The women allege in the suit that they complained to at least three members of ASU's board of trustees, and Reed wasn't one of them. The complaints of harassment and discrimination go back to March 2008, and continue beyond the time Reed was forced to relinquish his seat on the board in September 2008.

Reed said none of the women ever made their complaints known to him while he was on the board.

Cynthia Williams, Jacqueline Weatherly and Lydia Burkhalter allege that Knight and other ASU supervisors not only condoned but also encouraged and sometimes participated in these abuses. Burkhalter alleges that Bartley made overt and Knight more subtle sexual advances toward her.


The women filed the lawsuit against the university on March 4 and are seeking compensation that includes back pay.

The suit contends that instead of trying to resolve complaints that were made in good faith concerning the problems, Knight and Bartley repeatedly retaliated against the plaintiffs. The suit also contends ASU's conduct was so "pervasive as to create a racially and sexually hostile working environment."

Candis McGowan, attorney for the three women, said they have a federally protected right to report discrimination and should not have been retaliated against for doing so.

Knight, who told the Montgomery Advertiser he was speaking on behalf of himself and not the university, said the lawsuit was frivolous and he was "shocked at some of the allegations that are in there."

Most of the allegations are aimed at Bartley, who is alleged to have regularly used the N-word when referring to the plaintiffs, other employees and even students. It also is alleged that Bartley routinely referred to female employees as "bitches," and often made sexually suggestive comments about their anatomy. She is even accused of inappropriately rubbing her breasts against Burkhalter.

According to the suit, Bartley allegedly once complained about employees' work performance, saying, "Y'all n******s gon' learn I ain't nothing to play with. When I need y'all bitches you better be there."

The Montgomery Advertiser, through Kenneth Mullinax Jr., director of public information and media relations, requested interviews with Knight, Bartley and President William Harris. Knight was the only official from ASU to respond.

Burkhalter alleges in court documents that on different occasions Knight made advances that she perceived as sexual in nature, and he once allegedly asked her to "dance for me" and promised that he could take her to parties she'd otherwise never get to attend.

In specifically addressing the allegations against him, Knight said they are "absolutely false. There is no validity to it at all."


"If anybody ever felt that was happening, then they were certainly dreaming," Knight said. He said he has tried his best during his professional career to treat employees with respect and dignity.

Knight said Williams and Burkhalter were terminated and are disgruntled employees. The lawsuit alleges that Williams and Burkhalter were both fired without cause as retaliation for reporting Bartley's alleged behavior.

When asked if he ever witnessed any improper behavior by Bartley, Knight said "absolutely not."

Knight said he became aware of the allegations when Weatherly filed her complaint with the university. He said the university encourages employees to report complaints about sexual harassment or a hostile work environment, as Weatherly did.

He said the university took the appropriate actions. The plaintiffs dispute Knight's recollection of events, alleging that attempts to transfer to other departments or to reach out to other officials were often thwarted by Knight. They also say it was nearly impossible for them to file additional complaints against Bartley and that they were told not to take their complaints further.

But Knight said the university followed procedures when Weatherly filed her complaint. He said after four days of testimony, the committee did not find any sexual harassment, but recommended sensitivity training for Bartley. He said he insisted she go to sensitivity training, that she has attended one session and that she is supposed to attend more training.

The lawsuit alleges that Bartley had not attended any training as of May 2009, which is the same month that Burkhalter was fired for allegedly abandoning her position.

In documents acquired by the Montgomery Advertiser about EEOC complaints against Bartley that were investigated by the university, the human resources director wrote in August 2008 that "Mrs. Bartley's intense involvement with various personnel was humiliating, condescending, intimidating and unwelcome behavior. This type behavior does and will interfere with one's work performance."

The EEOC committee at the university recommended, according to the August memo, giving Bartley a written reprimand "from her immediate supervisor."

Harris approved the recommendation in September 2008. The suit alleges that it took nearly eight months for Knight to act on the committee's recommendation, and when he did write the recommended reprimand, he allegedly wrote that it "does not result from my belief that you have created a hostile work environment within the context of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

Knight said Bartley, whom he said he's known "a long time," continues to work under his supervision, but in a different position. He said she no longer supervises employees.

Pro-Abortion Scofflaws Fudge State Senate Votes on Bill to Outlaw Forced Abortions

This is the kind of monkey business that Liberals feel entitled to use to sabotage the legislative process. Obviously, they have no respect for democratic self-government. We are to accept without question the dictates of the Leftist savants from on high. Any attempt by ordinary Virginians to govern themselves without first getting the anointed cultural elites' approval is seen as effrontery, unworthy of deference just because we won a vote in the Legislature.

[Virginia] pro-life advocates experienced a significant victory earlier this month: SB504, a bill "patroned" by Sen. Ralph Smith (R-22, Roanoke) that would criminalize coerced or forced abortion was referred to the full (Senate) Courts committee with a positive recommendation on a vote of 4-2 out of the Criminal subcommittee.

Currently, if a boyfriend or other impregnator physically threatens his pregnant girlfriend and forces her to have an abortion against her will, this form of domestic violence cannot be criminally prosecuted. SB504 would fix that.

That success is the furthest pro-life advocates have been legislatively with this topic. Never before has the bill been given a positive report out of any committee or subcommittee because the bill was always improperly placed in Senate Education and Health committee, (known as “the committee of death” because of the committee's reputation for killing all pro-life measures). This year was the first time the legislation was treated akin to all other bills that address civil or criminal penalties and was placed in the appropriate committee, Courts of Justice.

Knowledge of the players and the process suggests that if the bill gets a favorable report in the Courts of Justice committee and moves to the floor, it would likely win in the Senate. Since the House of Delegates has already voted favorably on this legislation in years past, we believe the House would pass it, sending it to the Governor. We are within inches of a major win!

To ensure that the bill would not get "brought back" and the result changed after we left the subcommittee room, an ally of The Family Foundation stayed in the room and kept watch on the subcommittee until it ended. Nothing happened.

However, when one of our lobbyists checked the bill's status online at the close of business, something was not right. The bill was listed as being referred to the Senate Education and Health committee, not the Courts of Justice committee as was voted on earlier in subcommittee! We have a video of the subcommittee vote on our blog as proof!

If the bill was legitimately referred to Senate Education and Health, its status online should still list the bill's history in Courts committee, and the corresponding votes. However, the way the bill's status appears now, it appears as if the bill was never even heard in the Senate Courts subcommittee! Thankfully we have a dedicated intern who was able to catch this on film or else it would appear online as if it had never occurred!

What the Family Foundation wants to know is this: is this a clerical error or is this an attempt to tamper with a pro-life bill that has seen unexpected success in the Senate? Pro-family advocates have seen numerous victories already this session, so is this an attempt to derail the train?