Tag Archives: Judges

You have a right to Life, Liberty and whatever Lee Bright thinks is moral?

So much for the separation of powers in Lee Bright’s mind. He thinks Congress should be able to control two branches, both the legislative and the judiciary.

I don’t want to choose how other people live their lives and don’t want them pushing their choices on me. Lee Bright, however, wants to tell you how to live your life and feels he should be able to impeach any Supreme Court jurist who doesn’t agree with him. I never knew it was the role of The Supreme Court to decide the morality of a person’s lifestyle. I just thought it was their job to interpret law.

“Congress ought to stand up and do its job and impeach one of these federal judges. And I think when you do that, being a federal judge is a pretty good gig, and I think if you’ll impeach just one, the rest of them will do the right thing. And they’ll do it out of necessity, because self-preservation is an instinct that so many folks have.” Lee Bright at a TEA Party Express meeting in Utah.

Is Sen. Bright saying the Supreme Court needs to be the judge of morality? Whose morality? Even Christ forbade such a judgement. “Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.” Matthew 7:1-2

So, where does all this legislating morality come from? According to his bio he was on the Board of Directors of Palmetto Family Council, an offshoot of James Dobson’s Focus on the Family. In Dobson’s book, Dare to discipline, “he places a needed emphasis on discipline by structure,” but he draws from a Skinnerian ideology; i.e., “according to Dobson, a child is to be ‘trained’ as one would train his dog …The presupposition (not stated, but underlying the book) is that man is but another animal,” Excerpted from The Big Umbrella by Jay Adams, pp. 130-131.

I guess this explains also why Bright is a fan of Common Core. School Choice is the back door for common core to infiltrate all education, including private and home schooling. According to Charlotte Iserbyte, “Communist Core is NOT the issue. Those fighting Communist Core better wake up and realize that even if they kill Communist Core, if they do NOT oppose ALL forms of tax-supported School Choice and Charter Schools, they will wake up one day and find that their children in their favorite tax-supported choice private school are required by federal law (regulations) to take the Communist Core assessment (test) they thought they had killed! Why? Because when an education entity (private or public) accepts one penny of federal money it MUST adhere to federal regulations regarding curriculum, testing, hiring, etc., etc. And that is as it should be.”

School Choice is part of Agenda 21. Which begs the question, “Why would Bright sponsor anti-Agenda 21 legislation when he is also sponsoring UN Agendas?” Is it there to keep you from noticing what he is really working for?

Noted by me in a previous article was his attempt to make the office of State Superintendent of Education an appointed office and remove the people’s right to elect same.  He has introduced bills, S 0197 & S 0200, that takes the choice of Administrative Law court judges, Supreme Court justices, Appeals court judges and Circuit Court judges out of the hands of the people and make them appointed offices. Looks like an attempt to remove anyone who doesn’t agree with Bright’s agenda or the agenda of his handlers.

I think it is a question that deserves an answer, Is he just that naïve or is he really working toward implementing Agenda 21 while at the same time decrying it?



I love it when law enforcement puts its own foot in its mouth. OK, the sheriff told me he was a Constitutionalist but yet he enforces unconstitutional laws, or more correctly, allows his deputies to do so.  Maybe I am being to hard on the guy. Maybe he doesn’t understand the whole concept of due process. But wait a minute, isn’t it his duty to understand what he has sworn an oath to uphold ?

The other day at the Kershaw County Court House I was told by a deputy that he would defend every part of the Constitution but in the same conversation he told me that if I was so naive as to think I could walk into a court room and exercise a Constitutional right and the judge was to say, “contempt” this same officer would incarcerate me without due process. What ? Wait a minute. Am I missing something here ?

OK, I guess I should explain due process. It starts with an injured victim who then files a complaint. Once ‘probable cause’ (You know, the accused probably caused the injury) is determined a warrent is issued (A warrant attested to by the accuser). Oh yeah, then comes search and seizure, not before. Then there is that whole speedy trial by jury of your peers thing. Then, and only then, if the jury (People who today have their 13th Amendment rights trashed and are threatened if they wish to refrain from involuntary servitude) finds you guilty you can be incarcerated. Well, only if the offense warrants jail.

So, the question is, “What gives a judge the right to subvert the Constitutional right of due process and put you in jail ?”. Well uh, nothing. He is not above the law. So how did we, and especially this officer who “will defend the Constitution to the letter” get conned into thinking he is ? Good question.

“The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” Miller v. U.S. Hey, the sheriff told me if the Supreme Court said it he would abide by it. The jury is definately still out on this one.

So, if you find yourself being forced into involuntary servitude and asked to convict someone of an unConstitutional law you may want to practice jury nullification. If a law is unConstitutional you cannot find someone guilty of it as it cannot exist. “Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law” Marbury v. Madison, 5 us 137.

%d bloggers like this: