Protect America from Judicial Tyranny — June 2004

The Supremacists is a dramatic, page-turning account of what the judges have done to America in areas of religion, patriotism, marriage, schools, pornography, law enforcement, history, national identity, and even our right to self-government. We don’t have to put up with this any longer. The Supremacists explains the problem in language everyone can understand and includes a plan of action to free Americans from the Rule of Judges.

This is a book about the fundamentals of American constitutional government – and how we can shake loose the arrogant, arbitrary rule of judges before it is too late. This book has never-before-told facts about how the judges grabbed such immense power, and how we can put judges back in their proper role.

President Bush has laid down the challenge. But you and I must carry on the battle. In this election year, we must support only candidates who promise to support all necessary legislation to stop the activist judges from imposing their mischief on us. My book provides everything you need to debate this issue, to confront your public officials and candidates, and to make this a vital topic in the media.

Here is a bird’s eye view of the important insights explained in The Supremacists: 

• Who are the people that we call supremacists
• Why judges should be like baseball umpires
• How the Supreme Court invented new rights without any constitutional basis
• The true meaning of “the supreme law of the land”
• The claim that the Supreme Court can “rewrite our future history”
• Scary evidence that the judges use a “wildcard” to create new law
• “Evolution” doesn’t just refer to the origin of species – it means that the supremacists “evolve” the Constitution into approving their own social policies
• The shocking fact about how many current Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republicans
• The real reasons why liberals like activist judges
• The Supreme Court is “busy designing a Constitution for a country I do not recognize,” according to one justice
• Buzzwords that identify an activist court ruling

• The five ways that the acknowledgment of God is part of our culture and history
• One judge called atheism “the default religion protected by the First Amendment”
• Where did “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance come from?
• What Congress did – and didn’t do – to support “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance
• The atheists brought the Pledge of Allegiance case because they thought the time was ripe to get the Supreme Court to ban “under God”
• Why the Ten Commandments can’t be displayed in public school classrooms
• A picture window with a waterfall in the background made one judicial supremacist conclude that a Ten Commandments monument is an endorsement of Christianity
• A judicial supremacist has gone so far as to rule that displaying the Ten Commandments in a public building turns America into a theocracy
• Judge Roy Moore would still be a state supreme court justice if he lived in the Fifth or Eighth Circuit instead of in the Eleventh Circuit
• It wasn’t even a Christian prayer that the Supreme Court banned from the public schools in 1962
• The Supreme Court has “an active hostility to religion and religious institutions” according to one justice
• Judges use the “Lemon” test to squeeze religion out of schools and public places
• Once upon a time, the Supreme Court declared that the United States “is a religious nation.” How did the Court get off the track?

• Two state courts ordered the issuing of same-sex marriage licenses before Massachusetts did, but the public didn’t hear about those rulings
• The absurdity that the Massachusetts constitution, written by John Adams and adopted in 1780 and still in effect, could require the state to issue same-sex marriage licenses
• Why the Equal Rights Amendment, if ratified, would have required same-sex marriage licenses
• Proof that the Supreme Court has taken sides in the culture war
• The Supreme Court decision that knocked out Texas’s anti-sodomy law was based on “emerging awareness” about sex instead of on the U.S. Constitution
• The gays’ “equal protection” argument is totally phony because all Americans — straight and gay — are equally prohibited from marrying four types of persons
• The arrogance of judicial supremacists who say that marriage of a man and woman has no “rational basis”

• Six of the nine Supreme Court justices have cited foreign sources for their views
• One Supreme Court justice said that our U.S. Constitution should “fit into the governing documents of other nations”
• One Supreme Court justice said we should consider court decisions in Zimbabwe
• One Supreme Court justice cited European courts and briefs to change U.S. laws about sex crimes
• One Supreme Court justice spoke disparagingly about references to Western Civilization and Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards
• A United Nations treaty was used by the Supreme Court to justify a decision approving racial preferences in university admissions
• One Supreme Court justice spoke disdainfully about the “Lone Ranger” mentality, a metaphor with a hidden meaning
• One Supreme Court justice predicted that the Court will “rely increasingly” on international and foreign courts in interpreting U.S. law
• The courts of a foreign country influenced the Massachusetts same-sex marriage decision
• A European court ruled that prisoners must be allowed to vote
• The fakery of international law
• The danger to our GIs from the International Criminal Court even though President Bush unsigned it
• Whether unsafe, unhealthy Mexican trucks will soon be roaming U.S. highways may be decided by a NAFTA tribunal instead of by U.S. law

• Never-before-revealed information about how the Supreme Court destroyed U.S. laws against obscenity
• How the Court did this by 34 short anonymous decisions that concealed the gross obscenity the justices were wrapping in the First Amendment
• The semantic trick by which clever pornography lawyers changed U.S. laws about obscenity
• The Supreme Court decision that legalized the torrent of pornography on Americans

• The plot to legalize abortion in Roe v. Wade
• How the Supreme Court’s “legitimacy” rests on an illegitimate decision
• The Supreme Court justice who said that the position of American women was like that of the slaves, and that U.S. society puts women “not on a pedestal, but in a cage”
• One Supreme Court justice wants to censor all male nouns and pronouns out of our laws because they allegedly discriminate against women
• One Supreme Court justice says that anyone who believes there are inherent differences between men and women is “close-minded”
• One Supreme Court justice has close ties with the ACLU and NOW
• One Supreme Court justice was an advocate of repealing all laws that exempt women from military combat
• A lack of any consistent respect for the constitutional separation of powers enables one Supreme Court justice to win the praise of the media for being the swing vote in 5-to-4 decisions
• One judicial supremacist openly declares that the Supreme Court is “invested with the authority before all others” to be the sole interpreter of the Constitution

• The Supreme Court rewrote the Constitution on capital punishment
• One Supreme Court justice based his decision about criminal law on “polling data” instead of the Constitution
• One Supreme Court justice suggested that diagnosis of the legalities in a criminal case could be based on MRI scans
• The judicial supremacists are so carried away with their importance that one judge declared a federal law unconstitutional because it called on judges to give information to Congress that might cause judges to be criticized

• The Supreme Court plunged into a “political thicket” that courts are not supposed to enter
• Why state legislatures can’t have their two legislative Houses structured like Congress, with one House based on population and one on geography
• One judicial supremacist proclaimed that the Supreme Court is “the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution,” but the American people have never approved this concept
• Judicial supremacists on the Florida supreme court almost got by with their attempt to throw the 2000 presidential election to Al Gore by inventing a new post-election procedure to count ballots
• Judicial supremacists in California almost got by with intervening to save Governor Gray Davis from recall by trying to cancel the election after ballots had started coming in
• Judicial supremacists in New Jersey did get by with rewriting New Jersey election law in order to elect a Democrat to the U.S. Senate

• The federal courts imposed taxes even though the Constitution clearly says taxes are a legislative prerogative
• Courts think they can ignore federal and state constitutions about which branch of government is permitted to impose taxes

• The judges acquired their unconstitutional powers by spreading a big lie about the famous case of Marbury v. Madison
• The first judicial supremacist decision was the famous Dred Scott case, but judges don’t like to admit that because it’s too embarrassing
• Abraham Lincoln completely understood the proper role of the Supreme Court and why we must not accept Court decisions as “the law of the land”

• The Supreme Court chief justice who staked out the claims of judicial supremacy 50 years ago
• And how he got to be chief justice as part of a crude political deal
• The little-known case in which the Supreme Court first boldly and specifically asserted its claim of judicial supremacy
• The 15 pro-Communist decisions of the Warren Court on what was called “Red Monday after Red Monday”
• The Warren Court’s new assertion of judicial supremacy over (a) criminal procedure, (b) prayer in school, (c) internal security, (d) obscenity, (e) legislative reapportionment, and (f) micromanagement of schools
• One Supreme Court justice accused his fellow justices of “amending” the Constitution instead of interpreting it

• It’s the American people’s job to expunge the un-American and unconstitutional myths that the Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is
• All the tools to terminate the rule of judicial supremacists are now available in our existing Constitution
• Confirming all President Bush’s good judicial nominees won’t solve the danger from the judicial supremacists
• There is a way to get around Tom Daschle’s use of the 60-vote rule to prevent votes on Bush’s judicial nominees
• Brace yourself for a constitutional fact that the legal establishment keeps hidden from the American people: Congress has the constitutional right to tell the federal courts what cases to hear and not hear
• Congress can prevent the courts from banning our acknowledgment of God in the Pledge of Allegiance, the Ten Commandments, our motto, and our National Anthem
• Congress can protect the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) from being struck down by the courts
• Congress should prevent judges from citing foreign law to change U.S. laws and customs
• Congress can stop the abuse of letting a single federal judge overturn the votes of five million Americans in a statewide referendum
• Americans should reject the notion that a 5-4 or a 4-3 decision by judicial supremacists can become “the law of the land” and overturn centuries of American law, culture and custom
• Congress should make better use of its constitutional power to impeach supremacist judges
• Congress should stop the judges from micromanaging schools
• Try to guess how much money the ACLU and other leftwing groups made out of the Alabama Ten Commandments case . . . and out of the Boy Scouts case
• Congress should stop the racket of making states, cities, counties and schools pay the attorney’s fees when they file suit against Ten Commandments monuments or the Pledge of Allegiance. Thousands of school districts and local entities of government are pots of gold for the ACLU, which plans to collect attorney’s fees for all its lawsuits to ban God from every public place and school.
• Congressional investigations and public debate are helpful in curbing the Imperial Judiciary

Questions to ask every candidate for the U.S. Congress: 
Will you pledge to support: 

1. Legislation to deny the federal courts the power to hear any lawsuit claiming that the acknowledgment of God by public officials or on public property violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
2. Legislation to deny the federal courts the power to hear any challenge to either section of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) or any state DOMA.
3. Legislation to repeal the Watergate-era law that allows the ACLU to get attorney’s fees from suits against the Ten Commandments and the Pledge of Allegiance.
4. Legislation to impeach any judge who purports to change U.S. law because of foreign court decisions or legal briefs.
5. Legislation to stipulate that a statewide referendum cannot be voided except by the ruling of a three-judge court.
6. Legislation to deny taxpayer funding to enforce any court order against the Ten Commandments or the Pledge of Allegiance.
7. Legislation to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act by denying marital benefits (such as joint income tax returns) to all couples married in any state where the legal definition of marriage is no longer the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife.
8. Legislation to forbid any consent decree against a governmental entity that requires court supervision for more than a year.
9. Ongoing Congressional investigations about all aspects of judicial activism and proposed remedies.
10. A promise to speak out against the unconstitutional notion that “the Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is.”
11. A promise to read Phyllis Schlafly’s book The Supremacists and discuss it with constituents.
12. A statement of a specific plan to carry out President Bush’s challenge that “We will not stand for judges who undermine democracy by legislating from the bench and try to remake the culture of America by court order.”

Question to ask every U.S. Senate candidate (in addition to the above): 
Will you vote to change the Senate’s filibuster rule from three-fifths of all Senators to three-fifths of Senators present? That new rule, which can be adopted by a simple majority vote on Jan. 3, 2005, would prevent a handful of liberal Democrats from obstructing President Bush’s nominees to the federal courts.