by John Price
“Well….yes, in fact….I do. My attorney guessed that you would come to this office, the media in tow, arrest me, handcuff me and ‘perp walk’ me out of my church, taking me to jail. Why are you giving me the option to just show up at the federal building?”
“Your attorney’s guess very nearly happened, as I understand it, Pastor. But, sir, just to be frank, somebody in the government, at some level, I don’t have any details on who or what level, decided that it might not look so good for a Pastor to be perp walked out of a church, so the plans were changed at the last minute. Off the record, our regional office much prefers this approach. We know you’re not a flight threat.”
“Gentlemen, I appreciate your kindness. I do. My lawyer and I will be at the federal building Thursday at 9 AM, the Lord willing.”
“Whoa, wait a minute, Pastor….what does that mean? The Lord what? Is that some kind of code? Are you showing up or….”
“Agent Feltman, Christians use that phrase routinely when we talk about the future. My plan is to be at the federal building in three days, just as you requested; or demanded or whatever. The phrase, ‘the Lord willing’ simply means I know that I can make all the plans I want to make, but as scripture says, the Lord directs my steps.”
“So you’re not saying you may later get some divine inspiration to fly to Mexico or Belize or…..”
“Of course not. We’ll be there Thursday.” What Jack Madison didn’t know when he made his promise was that someone in the federal government, upon learning that no pastor perp walk was going to take place, changed the plan.
5
17 W. 16th St., Manhattan
New York City
The Margaret Sanger Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau operated out of a three-story brick townhouse located at 17 West 16th Street in New York City for forty years, until 1973. Twenty years later, in 1993, Congress designated it a national historic site. Margaret Sanger advocated the use of birth control, in part, in order to control the number of children born to racial groups she considered inferior or “unfit.” She was an early supporter of Eugenics, a policy under which African-Americans and others considered “unfit” or “feeble-minded” were encouraged to abort their children. It was this location at which the President announced his new policy on mandated abortion coverage under the nation’s health care laws. He was joined on the stage erected in front of the Manhattan townhouse by leaders of several women’s reproductive rights organizations, as well as four female United States Senators known for their outspoken support of the abortion movement.
“Ladies and gentlemen, and my fellow Americans, we are gathered at this historic site today, not only to honor Margaret Sanger for her pioneering work on behalf of women’s health, but also to announce a new breakthrough in women’s health coverage in America. Today I am pleased to announce that I will sign an Executive Order, here at this hallowed location, reversing an Executive Order which many construed as being against women’s health, an Executive Order that was compelled by the House, as many will recall. As we all know, our Supreme Court has now upheld the right of the federal government to require all employers to provide contraception coverage to America’s women. The obvious next step is to ensure that America’s women will now be provided full abortion coverage for unwanted pregnancies or for any other reason. That coverage, following the Supreme Court’s precedent, and under my new regulation announced here today, will be provided by all of our nation’s employers, including its religious employers and their insurance providers, by federal mandate.
“When the initial contraception coverage mandate was issued, there were some in the religious community, including many Catholic Bishops, and others, who opposed my efforts to protect women who needed contraception coverage. That is now settled law. Based on that past history of political partisanship, which has no place in the Church, I might add, I expect more of the same opposition by religious organizations against this new policy, this expanded right for women to be able to control their own bodies.
“Let me just say this to America about the religious organizations which I expect to assail our policy. We should not forget that domestic policy in this country is set by the people who elect those of us who hold public office, not by appointed religious leaders. In America we have the right to worship inside the church, mosque or synagogue, but we don’t have the right to tell others what to do outside of those religious buildings. Anyone who thinks otherwise is out of step with this Administration and we won’t abide such thinking. Not on my watch.”
Within forty-eight hours, several lawsuits had been filed challenging the President’s newly announced abortion coverage mandate. None of the law firms preparing and filing their briefs, however, gave their clients any hope that the Supreme Court would reverse the President’s mandate requiring religious institutions to provide abortion coverage to their employees. Thus, America entered a new era of denial of religious rights, promulgated by the executive branch, ignored by the legislative branch and affirmed by the judicial branch; all very legal and all very wrong.
6
Home of John and Debbie Madison
Tyler, Texas
It was now three weeks since John Madison’s announcement as a candidate for Governor of the Republic of Texas. The early response to the announcement was overwhelming. The Madisons’ family room table was buried under newspaper and magazine articles sent to them from friends and supporters across the nation, even from around the world. John’s promise to remove Texas from the union captured widespread attention. Their favorite was an article from a newspaper in Japan sent to them by Debbie’s niece who was a missionary outside Tokyo. The paper featured a color front page picture of the couple making their Austin announcement, though the words were in Japanese.
John and Debbie had just finished dinner when the phone call came from Chuck Webster, John’s long-time friend and attorney who had helped him make it through his testimony before the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States Senate. Chuck asked if John and Debbie were available for him to drop over and “chat”. They were. Both liked and admired Chuck, not only for his legal knowledge, but his courage in taking on institutions that abused Christians in the workplace.
Once Chuck Webster had arrived at the Madisons’ home, he wasted no time in telling them why he had dropped by to chat. “Debbie. John. I take no pleasure in what I’m about to share with you….”
“Oh,” Debbie asked, “is everything alright at home? With Dianna?”
“No, it’s nothing like that. I’m here to talk about the two of you…..You probably don’t know it, but I’m quite close to a federal agent with whom I attended college. We played soccer together. He was best man at our wedding. A good guy.”
John inquired, “Do you mind if I ask which agency?”
“I wish I could say, but, as you’ll soon understand, I just can’t divulge where he’s currently working. His offices are in DC. He’s close to the top of his division within his agency. One of only a small handful of law enforcement types at his level in the federal government. That’s really about all I can say. Sorry.”
“Wow, Chuck, you’re making this sound serious. What’s up?”
“Serious is an understatement. My friend was in a room in DC last week when you and your candidacy came up and both were extensively discussed.”
“Got their attention, huh? It’s about time. They certainly got my attention when they arrested me here at my home and then locked me up in a federal pen in Oregon. Hours away from Debbie.”
“Technically, John it wasn’t a penitentiary, it was a minimum security facility. But, we’re digressing. You were mistreated. No question, John, but what the government has in mind for you now is significantly worse than what you were put through then.”
“Worse than arrest and imprisonment? How could that be, Chuck?”
“Try death, John.”
Debbie cried out, “Chuck, what are you saying?”
“Here’s what I learne
d. My friend has told me that not only were you discussed and your candidacy extensively evaluated, but a solution was agreed to for what they called the Madison Problem.”
“Chuck,” John asked, “Exactly what is the Madison Problem.?”
“The agency’s polling in Texas shows that you will likely win the GOP nomination and be elected Governor of Texas. They also believe that you will be able to persuade both Houses of the Texas Legislature, a majority of the 150 members of the House and the 31 members of the Texas Senate. The agency is certain, within a reasonable degree of political certainty, that is, that Texas, under your leadership, will actively seek to withdraw from the union.”
“So, that’s great news….right, Debbie?….They even know in Washington that I can win this race.”
“John….Stop….You need to hear the rest before you raise your hand to take the oath of office. The people in the room, at the meeting that my friend attended, arrived at a decision. Seceding from the union has a bit of a taint to it, especially in the capital city of that union. South Carolina in December, 1860 withdrew formally from the union, beginning a trend that ended in the Civil War. They’re not going to allow you to lead Texas to secede from the union.”
“Well, then, let them run a candidate for Governor who runs on a platform to keep Texas in the union….then….we’ll see who wins.”
“John. John. Don’t you get it yet? They can’t take a chance of Texas seceding, or even getting close to it, because it will almost certainly lead to a bloody war. Think of a second Civil War. The government in Washington must defend the union, as did Lincoln, and it will do it with all of its massive military resources. The Texas National Guard, John, is no match for….”
“I get that, Chuck, but this isn’t the 1860’s, after all. It’s….”
“John….the agency decided that to keep you from even coming close to leading Texas towards secession that you will be taken out. Their view? The choice is one death….yours….or maybe hundreds of thousands. Look how many died in the Civil War.”
John Madison was quiet, contemplative; then scared; then angry, livid even. “Chuck, I assume that you were sent here by the un-named agency where your buddy works, to try and intimidate me, to scare me. The scared part worked, briefly, but I’m not intimidated….You can tell your friend that I said to tell them to….”
“Wait, John, you haven’t heard it all. I was told that if you’re still a candidate in thirty days, you, and Debbie, will be killed in such a way that it appears to be an accident. These people are good at what they do, John. They know how to remove people from the earth. Did I mention that they are very good at what they do?”
“Debbie? Why Debbie? I’ll fight them forever, but Debbie? I can’t belie….”
“Don’t you think they know that you’ve got more guts than the average gutty guy? I’ve thought about what I was told. I’m sure that the threat to take Debbie’s life was developed because they concluded that without it you would continue as a candidate. They would rather see you withdraw from the race than to have to kill the two of you, but my friend assures me that the decision has been made. It will happen, unless you bow out of the race. You pick the date and the withdrawal words, as long as you do it within the next month.”
Debbie, reaching over and holding John’s hand, said, “Chuck, we value your friendship. We know you came to us to try and save us from harm. Thanks so much, Chuck….Is there anything else you haven’t told us?
“One more thing….Kind of important….My friend was indescribably upset to learn that his government, the institution he has served for over twenty five years, planned to kill Americans. No charges. No judge. No jury. Just death. Next month, about the time you withdraw as a candidate, which I’m sure you will do, he’s going to take early retirement. He won’t be a part of any government that plans to take out its own people. So, there are still some good people in DC, I just don’t know how many, any more.”
7
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
WASHINGTON, DC
In 2005 a large piece of marble weighing approximately 172 pounds fell four stories from the west façade of the Supreme Court building. The stone had been part of the parapet above the word "under" in the phrase "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW" engraved on the front of the building facing the U.S. Capitol. (CNN, 11/28/05)
Today’s joint news conference by Justices Scanlon and Thomson similarly sent shock waves through the Supreme Court building, official Washington and eventually the world. The two robed Justices were seated in the Court’s august Courtroom, but not behind the bench they normally occupied. A table used by Counsel appearing before the Court was moved to the center of the room. Behind the table were two chairs, leaving sufficient room in front of the table for the assembled media, who had been told to expect a major announcement. Indeed it was.
Justice Scanlon cleared his throat, indicating he was about to begin. The CBS reporter who covered the high Court leaned over to her counterpart with CNN and whispered, “What the heck is this, anyway? They’re not up behind their bench. There’s no case opinion that’s been handed down, I just checked the docket. No news release. Where are the other Justices? In my thirteen years here I’ve never seen anything like this.”
Scanning the packed chamber, Justice Scanlon swallowed hard then said, “Members of the media, on behalf of Justice Thomson and myself, we want to thank you for coming today to cover our joint statement. We don’t have a written news release as we preferred to hold this matter close to our vests, so to speak, without any pre-leaks…..We’ve asked you to join us today for two reasons. First, we want to add our condolences and expressions of sympathy to the family of Justice Fineberg. She was a fine lady and a diligent Justice who will be sorely missed.”
The CNN reporter leaned back to his CBS friend, quietly saying, “What? The two most conservative Justices brought us in here just to tell us how much they mourn the death of the Court’s most liberal Justice? Sure they do….they miss her like….”
“We know that the re-elected President of the United States will soon name Justice Fineberg’s replacement. We have no illusions as to the political beliefs and predispositions of the new Justice, who will undoubtedly continue Justice Fineberg’s ideological approach to the cases that come before this Court.”
CNN said to ABC, “OK, finally some news. The Justices usually restrict their criticisms of other Justices to written dissents in case opinions, but not in public statements. What are they up to?”
“We likewise are under no delusion that in this President’s second term he will, in addition to naming Justice Fineberg’s replacement, nominate two, possibly three, or maybe even four new Justices, simply as a function of the ages of those of us now serving. The two youngest Justices on this Court are two of the Court’s most liberal members. It is no stretch to conclude that this Court will be 7-2, some would say even 8-1, liberal versus conservative in the very near future. We see that as an ominous development, not just because we tend to be in the conservative wing of the Court, but because for many decades this Court has generally been balanced between liberal and conservative. Now, however, and soon, the Court will no longer enjoy such a balance, as the Court will be re-constructed to lean heavily towards the liberal political philosophy of the occupant of the White House.”
CBS whispered to CNN, “This is unbelievable. Members of the Court never talk like this….at least in public. Something’s up. They’re going to do more than just criticize their fellow Justices.”
CNN replied, “Yeah, but do what?”
Questioning media didn’t have to wait long to find out what Justices Scanlon and Thomson had in mind. Justice Scanlon was known for being much more vocal than Justice Thomson, who rarely spoke from the bench during oral argument of counsel. Justice Scanlon continued his statement, “All of this to say that we, Justice Thomson and I, have arrived at a decision….We are each….tendering….our respective….resignations as Associate Justices of the Supreme Court�
�.effective immediately….that is, today.”
Bedlam quickly ensued in the chambers of the nation’s highest Court, as several of the gathered media ran from the room to make cell calls. Those remaining competed to get the Justices’ attention for their shouted questions. The clamor was so rancorous that the Justices couldn’t make out a single intelligible question.
Justice Thomson, with his deep, sonorous voice boomed into the melee finally managing to restore some semblance of order, “Quiet….Quiet….You’re all going to have to quiet down, so Justice Scanlon can finish our statement. Then….and only then….we’ll try and answer your questions. Alright? Justice Scanlon, please proceed.”
“Justice Thomson and I are fully aware that many Americans will not understand why we would resign from the Court at this time. We’ll briefly summarize the steps that led us to make this decision. First, the Court is about to change, due to age and the other issues I just mentioned. It’s not a question of whether the Court is about to become off-balanced, in our view, to the liberal side, but only when that will occur. The American people made that decision with their recent re-election of the President.
“Secondly, we hasten to note the fact that this Court did not see fit to overrule the law adopted by the legislative branch creating the most massive federal government interference with the private sector ever devised by the mind of man. We speak of the government takeover of the medical industry, fully one-sixth of the nation’s economy. This Court ignored the obvious Constitutional violations in the barely-adopted bill, finding that the new law amounted to a tax, though that word was nowhere used in the bill, and never by the bill’s sponsors, including the White House. Our Chief Justice, whom we hold in high regard, was the deciding vote in upholding this sweeping law. What is the relevance to our decision to step down from the Court? Simply this, if this Court, while generally balanced ideologically, would not stop the headlong march to socialize the American free enterprise system, then with more liberal Justices why would we not expect this Court to put its stamp of judicial approval on virtually anything that this Administration enacts into law, either in Congress or by executive fiat?
