Same -Sex "Marriage"- PLEASE PRAY WITH ME (every day untill the decision is revealed around mid-June) THAT THE SUPREME COURT WILL VOTE TO UPHOLD THE 2 LAWS REVIEWED SUPPORTING A TRADITIONAL DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.. PRAY that the Court will resist any pressure to MAKE new law based on "cultural trends." PRAY as though the very future of the institution of the family is at stake because it is. PRAY! - for the sake of possibly millions of children, and for our country if it is to continue to be shown any more favor by our Heavenly Father, who I promise you will be very displeased if homosexual marriage is legalized; "GOD IS NOT [TO BE] MOCKED..." - (Gal. 6:7) - Stan [Be sure to check out my brief essay at post #478.] SPECIAL NOTE: This week's message of "Truth That Transforms" - to be found at (www.truthinaction.org) speaks of the Biblical basis for marriage and the threat posed to the oldest of institutions in society by the so-called same-sex "marraige" effort. It also includes a feature that looks at the problem of fatherless homes in America. Don’t miss another great broadcast!
PASTOR SAEED (Iranian-born AMERICAN pastor) who months ago started an 8 year sentence for helping the underground churches in Iran)// LATEST Update: 'Pastor Saeed Abedini ’Glowing With Joy,’ Prayers Making a Difference, Says Report ," May 15, 2013) http://www.presidentialprayerteam.com/Prayerwatch?pw=1434 \ [NOTE: I find it interesting that just recently in my prayers, I felt led by God to pray that Pastor Saeed would experience JOY during his incarceration. It felt like a stretch but I obeyed. Is it a coincidence that I read Psalm 16 yesterday that says in v.11 which says "...you will fill me with JOY (my emphasis) in your presence,.."? No, it would to have been a God-thing. - Stan]
"More good news concerning U.S. Pastor Saeed Abedini has followed his release from solitary confinement last week, as reports have suggested the global support he has been receiving while in prison in Tehran, Iran, are helping him find joy and peace. Despite his suffering, Pastor Saeed’s faith continues to keep him alive.Other prisoners reportedly told Saeed’s family that when Pastor Saeed was released from solitary confinement, ’he was glowing,’ and that miraculously he ’was filled with more joy and peace after solitary’ than he was before solitary," the American Center for Law and Justice said in a statement."His release from solitary is a direct result of the multitudes praying," said the pastor’s wife, Naghmeh Abedini. "I am relieved my husband is out of solitary, but still am deeply concerned about Saeed’s health. While this is a small victory, I am still demanding justice be done and that Saeed be released." She added in the latest update that her husband’s improved spirits are due to the thousands of people around the world who continue to pray for him." (Sources: Christian Post, Global Dispatch)
PRAY that Pastor Saeed might finally receive the medical treatment he needs. PRAY that God would reveal himself to the pastor's tormenters and turn them to Christ. PRAY that his family, esp. his children, will experience His strength and special presence during this time. And finally, PRAY that , when God has accomplished His will in Pastor Abedini's suffering, he will finally be released 2) More than 550,000 people from 180 countries have signed the petition to Save Saeed. Your voice has moved the U.S., the European Union, and many others to call for his release. If you have not already, please join over 500,000! who have signed the petition for Pastor Saeed's release and tell your friends about it. http://aclj.org/iran/save-american-pastor-from-iranian-prison-sentence ALSO, go to Save Saeed.org and add your name to those sending letters to him.
Over the past week, the Obama Administration has been hit with scandal after scandal. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) apologized for targeting conservative organizations, the State Department covered up its reaction to Benghazi, the Department of Justice (DOJ) secretly seized phone records of AP reporters, and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) asked health industry officials for contributions to implement the Affordable Care Act.
With these scandals arising, the question becomes, “Is President Obama responsible?” As of right now, there has been no link identified between the White House and these situations, nor is there evidence that Obama had any direct knowledge of the alleged wrongdoing. Does this mean that he is not responsible?
Nobody is remotely suggesting that, absent his direct involvement, the President should be prosecuted for the misdeeds of those who work in the executive branch. It is interesting to note, however — by way of analogy only — that under the DOJ’s standard of “responsibility,” if President Obama were the head of a corporation, he would be responsible and could be prosecuted.
The Responsible Corporate Officer Doctrine allows federal prosecutors to criminally prosecute business owners and officers for the criminal activity of their businesses, regardless of whether they had knowledge of the illegal activity. The only requirement for criminal liability is “some relationship between the executive’s supervisory responsibilities and the underlying misconduct.” Put another way, in order to obtain a conviction, the government need only prove (1) illegal conduct occurred, and (2) the corporate officer had authority to exercise control over the activity.
The DOJ has used the Responsible Corporate Officer Doctrine to make criminals out of many well-meaning business people. In United States v. Park, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prosecuted the president of a corporation under the theory that his subordinates committed violations of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act that the president had the ability to prevent or correct. Park, the company president, had delegated responsibility to correct the violations to one of his employees, who, regrettably for Park, did not follow through on his responsibilities. Park was convicted for FDA violations that he did not commit, order committed, or conspire to commit.
Just to be clear, there is no evidence in the recent Obama Administration scandals that criminal behavior took place, but the executive branch should stick to one definition of “responsible.” The DOJ definition of “responsible” is especially troubling in the context of a criminal prosecution where a person’s individual liberty is at stake—not just news stories that make the President look bad. As Paul J. Larkin Jr. has written:
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
With these scandals arising, the question becomes, “Is President Obama responsible?” As of right now, there has been no link identified between the White House and these situations, nor is there evidence that Obama had any direct knowledge of the alleged wrongdoing. Does this mean that he is not responsible?
Nobody is remotely suggesting that, absent his direct involvement, the President should be prosecuted for the misdeeds of those who work in the executive branch. It is interesting to note, however — by way of analogy only — that under the DOJ’s standard of “responsibility,” if President Obama were the head of a corporation, he would be responsible and could be prosecuted.
The Responsible Corporate Officer Doctrine allows federal prosecutors to criminally prosecute business owners and officers for the criminal activity of their businesses, regardless of whether they had knowledge of the illegal activity. The only requirement for criminal liability is “some relationship between the executive’s supervisory responsibilities and the underlying misconduct.” Put another way, in order to obtain a conviction, the government need only prove (1) illegal conduct occurred, and (2) the corporate officer had authority to exercise control over the activity.
The DOJ has used the Responsible Corporate Officer Doctrine to make criminals out of many well-meaning business people. In United States v. Park, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prosecuted the president of a corporation under the theory that his subordinates committed violations of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act that the president had the ability to prevent or correct. Park, the company president, had delegated responsibility to correct the violations to one of his employees, who, regrettably for Park, did not follow through on his responsibilities. Park was convicted for FDA violations that he did not commit, order committed, or conspire to commit.
Just to be clear, there is no evidence in the recent Obama Administration scandals that criminal behavior took place, but the executive branch should stick to one definition of “responsible.” The DOJ definition of “responsible” is especially troubling in the context of a criminal prosecution where a person’s individual liberty is at stake—not just news stories that make the President look bad. As Paul J. Larkin Jr. has written:
"The point is not that courts should be eager to hold senior federal officials vicariously liable for the criminal actions of subordinates.… Courts should refuse to adopt novel readings of criminal statutes which expand criminal liability to reach conduct that they find immoral or unethical and that they fear otherwise will go unpunished. Courts might be willing to hesitate before expanding the breadth of federal criminal laws, and to force Congress to define crimes with precision and specificity, if they looked at the issue from the perspective of the government officials’ own liability. After all, sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander."The Responsible Corporate Officer Doctrine turns our notion of fairness on its head. People should be liable for crimes they commit—not crimes committed by others without their knowledge. The Responsible Corporate Officer Doctrine and thousands of criminal statutes and regulations are turning ordinary citizens into criminals.If the President is not responsible for the wrongdoings of executive branch employees because the federal government is “too vast” for him to know everything that goes on in the various agencies, business owners and officers should be afforded the same excuse in criminal prosecutions.
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
