Holy mackerel: Judicial tyranny, much?

So, with a name like Judge Joe Dale Walker and a state like Mississippi, you think, "How bad can it be?"

Bad.

So: this is a judicial tyranny / All Your Kids Are Belong to Us Alert, in three... two... one....

CLICK

A local blogger who is potentially affected by this exercise of judicial tyranny provides more details.

HSLDA reports:

In an order filed today, the Supreme Court of Mississippi stayed all proceedings in the case involving the disclosure of the identities of homeschoolers in the Thirteenth District. Further, the court ordered Judge Joe Dale Walker to respond by April 18, 2011, and explain by what authority he issued his order of March 23, 2011, which gave rise to this controversy.

At this time it is uncertain how the Supreme Court will proceed after receiving Judge Walker’s response. It may simply issue an order disposing of the case or may require legal briefs and/or oral argument before issuing a final decision. In any event, we will keep members advised of the status of the case

For framing, see here.

But hey — he's from the government. Expert! Surely he's here to help us, right? And who better to make sure our kids are being raised and educated than someone who's at least 26 years old and has been a practicing attorney for at least five years, right?

I'm sure the MSM will be all over this. Any second now. Yep, any... second... now....

TSA's grope-'n'-porn: your experiences, plans, proposals?

I may have miscalculated the ratio of President Obama's political self-interest vs. his breathtaking arrogance.

It seemed a sure-thing to me that he'd decree that TSA agents in airport terminals stop sexually assaulting and taking nudie pictures of citizens, surely in advance of the Thankgiving travel surge. Yet so far, he has just doubled down against the will and horror of the American people, as he did in nationalizing a couple of private industries. Similarly, the gentleman in charge over the TSA has repeatedly said that they would not cease assaulting the innocent in the name of pursuing the (wannabe) guilty.

In fact, TSA head John Pistole has declared that, if passengers will not submit to humiliation at the hands of the government, they do not have the right to fly. Yep, you heard that correctly.

Meanwhile, apparently all the "rights" belong to TSA porn-directors. They apparently

• have the "right" to pull down the pants of septuagenarians who've had knee replacement surgery
• have the "right" to strip-search, cuff and arrest a woman for carrying on applesauce (which she'd cleared in advance) to feed to her disabled, 90+-year-old mother
• have the "right" to force breast-cancer victims to remove their prostheses and prove they are missing a breast
• have the "right" to graphically and thoroughly feel up mothers while government goons mind their babies
• have the "right" to grope three-year-olds as they scream "Don't touch me"
• have the "right" to leave aged bladder-cancer sufferers to travel soaked in their own urine

This is the liberal's dream-world, where the State has all the "rights," and the serfs have none. Police officers have to have reasonable cause; TSA agents do not.

So what do you plan to do? Let me be more specific:

1. If you have a flight, are you going through with it?
2. You husbands, in particular: it's our job to protect our wives, to guard their modesty and honor. This isn't a medical situation, and these are not actions undertaken with our permission. Should it OK with us for strangers of either sex to feel up our wives' breasts, groin, rear end? Is it okay for strangers — anywhere — to look at nude pictures of our wives? If it isn't our duty to assure our wives that we'll stand up for them and protect them, then whose is it?
3. HSAT, what do we do? Cancel, with a call to the airlines? Call ahead to assure that it isn't going to happen? Submit, while complaining in a calm yet audible voice? Take the names of everyone performing the grope?

I remind you of what I pointed out after our last disastrous Presidential election: the "king" in America is the Constitution. We should submit to it insofar as we are able.

And so (to say the least) should the government, including TSA.

So you have to wonder: where is the ACLU? What is being done about this? There are some signs of action here and there, which is encouraging.

Meanwhile, though it sounds cliched to say so, the terrorists have scored massive victories. Conditioned by state re-education agencies to see the State as our benevolent, omnicompetent overlords, thousands of sheep simply queue up and submit to the indignities, convincing themselves that Big Brother knows best.

As the terrorists laugh and chalk up cheap, sweeping victories with barely a shot fired.

UPDATE: here's one fellow with time on his hands who claimed to get through without getting groped or death-rayed.

Renegade judge to mom: Your homeschooled daughter is doing great, but she's too Christian

We'll bring our manic, multi-posting Monday to a close with this.

So here's a homeschooled young lady. She's ten years old, she's been homeschooled since first grade, and she's:

• Excelling in her studies
• Using recognized and approved curricula
• Routinely taking standardized tests
• Well-rounded in social skills
• Participating in public school activities, including extra-curricular sports
  
• In sum: “well liked, social and interactive with her peers, academically promising, and intellectually at or superior to grade level”
  

What could be the problem? Oh, one more thing:

• She heartily reflects her mother's Christian faith.

In fact, so heartily that she made a "vigorous defense of her religious beliefs to [her] counselor" (who. we surmise, had attacked them), and even "tried to witness to the counselor and appeared 'visibly upset' when the counselor purposefully did not pay attention."

Oh, dear.

Well, yes, of course. Can't have her upsetting counselors. She must be shipped right off to the local Government Reeducation Facility.

And so ordered Judge Lucinda V. Sadler. No, no joking, no "scary future under Obama" imagining. This is the scary present under Obama. In fact, the ruling is worth quoting in part, for the sheer, breathtaking imperious audacity of the court:

"Despite Ms. Voydath's insistence that Amanda's choice to share her mother's religious beliefs is a free choice, it would be remarkable if a ten year old child who spends her school time with her mtoher and the vast majority of all of her other time with her mother would seriously consider adopting any other religious point of view. Amanda's vigorous defense of her religious beliefs to the counselor suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view."

Crowning irony: this is in New Hampshire. You know, the "Live Free or Die" state.

The case is in court because the child's parents are divorced, and the father does not want the child influenced by the mother's Christian faith. He thinks government reeducation camps would nicely remedy the problem he's having. Amanda (the child) says her father "constantly bombards" her about her faith. So there is the apparent cause — a not-unfamiliar scenario.

By the way, don't miss this as well: in the mind of the judge and the counselor AND the father, what's the best antidote to firm Christian faith in a child?

Government reeducation camps.