William King Books

In his book Judicial Tyranny: The New Kings of America, Mark Sutherland has assembled a wonderful cast of Christian attorneys, jurists, political scientists, and clergy who offer a rather perceptive analysis of judicial tyranny and our hope and means of restraining an overactive judiciary. Contributors include James Dobson, former U.S. Attorney General Edward Meese, former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, Don Feder, David Gibbs, Howard Phillips, Rev. Rick Scarborough, Phyllis Schlafly, and Herbert Titus among others. For too long, Congress has been complacent in the face of an overreaching, activist judiciary that has been out-of-step with the will of the great majority of the American people, and the judiciary has overstepped the bounds of its constitutional authority time and time again. Herein, the issue of an activist U.S. Supreme Court and federal judiciary is confronted with painstaking precision in manner intelligible to even the lay person. Meanwhile, solutions to overcome the tyranny of these black-robed deities are presented with amazing clarity. As Edmund Burke once declared, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Complacency and ignorance will only allow the judicial oligarchy to become more entrenched and continue to foist its will upon us that is so frequently out-of-touch with the sensibilities of the American people.

The framers of our Constitution hoped to establish an independent federal judiciary; however they by no means hoped to establish some new and peculiar government that might be termed an archonocracy-a national domination of judges. As John Randolph of Roanoke, in observing the activism and usurpation of power by the federal judiciary in his time quipped that "I can never forget that the Book of Judges is followed by the Book of Kings." Thomas Jefferson opined, "...to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy." Alexander Hamilton considered the judiciary to be the "least dangerous branch" of the federal government because it had neither the sword of the Presidency nor did it control the purse-strings like the legislative branch. In our time, the appellation of "least dangerous branch" to describe the federal judiciary seems rather far-fetched in light of twentieth-century history. While Hamilton made some compelling arguments about the virtues of an independent judiciary, he did not perceive the judicial tyranny that looms over us today. On the hand, Thomas Jefferson and George Mason were very weary of an overactive judiciary and they offered prophetic insight that has bore bitter fruit. George Mason warned that if unchecked the federal judiciary would destroy the state judiciaries, and encroach upon their jurisdictions. In his twilight years, Jefferson remarked that the "federal judiciary" was an object of "fear" declaring, "That body, like gravity, ever acting with noiseless foot and unalarming advance, gaining ground step by step and holding what it gains, is engulfing insidiously the special governments into the jaws of that which feeds them." As John Taylor of Caroline opined, "A jurisdiction, limited by its own will, is an unlimited jurisdiction." The States coupled with the horizontal checks and balances within the federal government itself were intended as a bulwark against usurpation by any branch. As Madison has declared, "ambition must be made to counter ambition." Yet Congress remains complacent in moving against an overactive judiciary by any "ambition" of it's own and the States have been rendered impotent. The Executive branch generally refuses to interpose against encroachments against the Constitution by the judiciary, though it is sometimes committing its own usurpations. Alexander Hamilton reminds us that, "It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments." Andrew Jackson encapsulated the power of the executive to interpose, in declaring, "The Supreme Court has made it's decision, now let them enforce it." Jackson, of course, had no intent of give their judgment efficacy. Interposition, of course, should be utilized to uphold the rule of law.

Some of the most powerful changes in civil society came not from the Congress but from an overactive judiciary. Justice Scalia in one of his famous dissents lamented that the Supreme Court had assumed the role of "a sort of junior-varsity Congress" in contravention of the constitutional design of the framers. While Hamilton's assertion that the judiciary is the "least dangerous branch" have proven erroneous in our time, in Federalist #78 Hamilton declared, "The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body." Since FDR's court-stacking in the mid-1930s and the activist push of the Warren Court in the 1950s, American conservatives have grown steadily more concerned about a judiciary gone awry. The U.S. Supreme Court in our time has sanctioned the removal of the Ten Commandments and prayer from public places, diminished local community standards of obscenity, trampled upon the sanctity of life in legalizing abortion throughout all fifty states with Roe v. Wade in 1973, and mor recently the court has trampled property rights by sanctioning eminent domain abuse for private politically-connected interests in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Judicial fiat now trumps the rule of law, and we have supplanted the law with the rule of men. The agenda of social liberalism is foisted on society most successfully by an overactive federal judiciary. With the most absurd and twisted reasoning, the Supreme Court made a steady, unforeseen move towards the legalization of abortion, such as the case of Grizwold v. Connecticut the court discovered an unenumerated right of privacy in the "penumbras, formed by the emanations," of the Bill of Rights. Ancillary to that right of privacy was a concomitant right to infanticide. Justice Goldberg boldly state that such unenumerated rights were "rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people," to give a locus of legitimacy to the court's arbitrary whelm.

George Mason, Thomas Jefferson and John Taylor of Caroline feared that the federal judiciary would devour the jurisdiction of the states, and become activist. Nonetheless, Congress has the constitutional means to counter an overactive judiciary by impeachment and by circumscribing the jurisdiction of the federal courts including the U.S. Supreme Court. Hamilton reminds us that it has been long-standing Anglo-American tradition that judges only hold their tenure in "good behavior" and this was a barrier to the "encroachments and oppressions of the representative body. And it is the best expedient which can be devised in any government to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws." Yet Impeachment is hardly even considered to reign in on judicial tyranny. Phyliss Schlafly perceptively notes, "The Founding Fathers did not write a Constitution that set up a judicial oligarchy. They gave us a government based on the Separation of Powers. The mighty power of government was divided among three branches of government, and each is supposed to restrain the others by an interlacing network of checks and balances. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution justifies judicial supremacy." Nonetheless, in our time, the design of the federal republic has unraveled, and judicial usurpation has made the assault on the Constitution all the more egregious. Justice Antonin Scalia has sardonically referred to his colleagues as "black-robed masters" who manipulate and distort the Constitution, and abysmally conflate their powers. "Within the last 20 years, we have found... the right to abortion, which was so little rooted in the traditions of the American people that it was criminal for 200 years [and] the right to homosexual sodomy, which was so little rooted in the traditions of the American people that it was criminal for 200 years."

Judge Roy Moore makes it clear that all federal laws are not "the supreme law of the land" or by implication "constitutional law" merely because it was effectuated by a federal court ruling, but only those laws made "in pursuance thereof" to the Constitution as per Article VI. Even sitting Justice Scalia has expressed his disdain at his activist colleagues on the High Court: "So it is literally true... that the court has essentially liberated itself from the text of the Constitution, from the text and even from the traditions of the American people... and the Constitution is not a living organism, for Pete's sake. It's a legal document. And like all legal documents, it says some things and it doesn't say other things." There are even recent precedents that show Congress has willingness to act against the judiciary's mischief, but the hope of conservative Christian evangelicals is that the Congress would do more and abate the judiciary's raw grab for power. In 2004, both House and the Senate passed the Marriage Protection Act, which became public law, which had the effect of circumscribing the jurisdiction of the federal courts and the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court-effectively barring those courts from hearing questions related to marriage. This was seen as a welcomed preemptive move by evangelicals to prevent a landmark ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court legalizing gay marriage throughout the United States while usurping the authority of the States and legislatures on the matter. Liberals in a knee-jerk reaction muttered that such legislation was unconstitutional; however, the Constitution vests Congress with the authority of circumscribing the jurisdiction of the federal courts and of abolishing and reconstituting those courts in a manner it sees fit. Mark Sutherland thoughtfully notes, "Congress has the power to limit what areas the judicial branch can rule in. Under authority granted to Congress in Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress can place regulations and exceptions on the judicial branch that would prohibit the courts from ruling on certain issues and in certain areas. These areas could be religious freedom, the definition of marriage, or any other area that Congress chose to declare off-limits to the courts." Moreover, at the impetus of our Republic, the U.S. Supreme Court possessed a much limited jurisdiction. Essentially, it was confined to cases where it exercised original jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction as per Article III, Section 2, "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;-to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;-to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;-to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;-to controversies between two or more states;-between a state and citizens of another state;-between citizens of different states;-between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects." Essentially, as per the Constitution, the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary was extremely limited. For example, two citizens of the same state could not be litigants in a federal suit since diversity of citizenship is lacking, and the federal jurisdiction only extends to cases where the plaintiff and defendant parties come from different states. The federal judiciary exercised jurisdiction over disputes between the states. Essentially, there are two main sources of the cases coming before the federal courts: "federal question" jurisdiction, and "diversity" jurisdiction. Earlier in the nineteenth-century, the jurisdiction of cases properly arising within under the authority of the States was considered inviolable and there was no higher court of appeal in cases originating in a state court than the Supreme Court of the respective State. This has, of course, changed as respect for states' rights and the Tenth Amendment has been greatly diminished, but it is within the power of Congress to circumscribe the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary to a manner commensurate with original intent. While the judiciary has usurped the powers of Congress and the States time and time again, it is within Congress' power to reign in on an overactive judiciary while preserving the benefits of an independent judiciary. We must activate Congress and communicate to our lawmakers that the American people are tired and alarmed by a judiciary whose edicts are seldom amenable to the more conservative sobriety of the American people. If Congress does not actively impeach overactive judges that subvert the Constitution, it can greatly curtail federal court jurisdiction.

All things considered, Mark Sutherland has brought together a provocative corps of respected scholars and legal thinkers who collectively offer an incisive critique of a judiciary gone awry while they offer constructive solutions for reform. They make it abundantly clear that we the American people do not have to be slaves to the edicts of these black-robed deities. Their adroit assessment of the federal judiciary is intelligent, rooted in a principled esteem for the rule of law and constitutional popular rule, and their solutions are constitutional defensible, practical and tenable. One thing is resoundingly clear, we must stand up to these demigods in block robes that contravene the design of our federal republic and offer outlandish decisions at odds with the will of the vast majority of the people. It is paramount that the American people awaken and voice their discontent to their elected representatives in Congress if we are to abate judicial tyranny. Mark Sutherland's Judicial Tyranny is destined to be a classic, and unlike similar well-written books by Mark Levin and Pat Robertson, Sutherland's book is unique: it is hard-hitting and much more multi-faceted on the issues it covers. Additionally, it represents a profound cooperative effort by a potentate of conservative luminaries from James Dobson to Roy Moore.

"The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body."
-Alexander Hamilton

This is an excellent book, with lots of important information about our three branches of government and how it was originally set up to operate. Lots of great info with which to arm ourselves to urge congress to recall some of the radical judges.

graphic shakespear,its a rare apportunity to find such life in some way playfull play .lovely.

First off, King Lear has always been my favorite play, followed closely by Othello and After The Fall. I like comic books, but I'm skeptical of the "Illustrated Classics" approach. So I was a bit leery buying this (pun unintended, but not bad).

It's fantastic. The art is lovely and has a timeless, surreal quality. The stylizations only enhance it. Especially watch the Fool: he's always been one of the best of Shakespeare's characters, and the capering, size-changing, conjuring presence Ian Pollock has granted him lifts him above and beyond. This artist knows what he's doing and is worth watching.

As for the writer: well, I know he's got name-recognition, but people often wonder if he's any good. But this Shakespeare guy, I think he's got potential. I mean, the slant rhyme and Jedi syntax bugs me sometimes, but otherwise, he has skills worthy of his art.

I LOVE love love these books. This one on King Lear is excellent and makes this play very approachable and readable.

Years ago when my husband's father, a farmer for many years, first saw large round-style hay bales, he wept with joy because, since these new bales could not be lifted by hand, he knew farmworkers would no longer need to risk the heavy, injurious previous work of stacking and transporting their hay.

I know how he felt. It nearly brought tears to my eyes to first experience reading a No Fear Shakespeare. I cannot overstate the ease this text brings to the pleasure and excitement of a Shakespeare play. If you have wanted to read Shakespeare but found the language too archaic to understand, if you have enjoyed reading Shakespeare but not the time it took to plow through the footnotes and concordances, if you have been assigned to read Shakespeare plays for a class and want to know which edition to use, if you have always meant to read Shakespeare to find out for yourself what "all the fuss" is about - this is the version to read.

As for the play King Lear itself, it is a beautiful, painful, truthful story of a human being in all his prideful flaws, who learns to understand himself and his relations with others, even though paying the ultimate tragic price. Shakespeare's genius is telling a story that we all can relate to, and part of you will be right there on the heath in the storm raging with Lear.

A friend bought me a copy of this book and caused me to lose the better part of a day's sleep because I didn't want to put it down. It's not only a biography of one of America's icons, but a glimpse into an America that has been bulldozed under, leaving us all poorer. Richard's stories, even those about his childhood and his stint as poppa Lee's crewchief absolutely make the book, but the racing memories are fantastic also.

IF YOU'RE A NASCAR FAN OR BETTER YET A RICHARD PETTY FAN, THIS IS A MUST-READ BOOK. IT CONTAINS MOST OF THE HISTORY OF THIS NASCAR LEGEND. IT'S CONTENTS LEADS YOU THROUGH HIS CHILDHOOD ON INTO HIS ADULT RACING LIFE. HE SHARES HIS FAMILY AND RACING ASPIRATIONS WITH US AND LEAVES YOU WANTING FOR MORE. THIS BOOK OFFERS YOU HUMOR AND HEARTFELT EMOTIONS THAT ENTICE YOU TO FOLLOW ALONG WITH HIM IN HIS EXCITING CAREER OF BECOMING A LEGEND IN NASCAR RACING.

The actors in this production are superb. Stella Gonet as Lady Anne is exceptional. Even without seeing the play, it is easy to understand because the actors read with such expression that the listener becomes totally immersed in the story. I loved it.

The Naxos recording is an excellent rendition of RIII. The characterization is rich and well done. Full of passion and rage, you don't need to see the actors to "see" the play. The scene with Anne is particularly good.

This is my favorite of the King's Quest games, up to and including The Mask of Eternity. Good game play, good character quotes, ease of movement around the world and yet still challenging!

King's Quest started it all. Back in its day Sierra was the leader in computer gaming. Based originally in California if I remember they moved their headquarters to Bellevue, Washington (I was born in Seattle just across Lake Washington). Sierra Online as they called themselves in those days created a game series more well known that I can perhaps possible comprehend. I originally recieved this game when my dad first got a CD-ROM Drive back when it was 1x in a time around 1992. (Yes, I'm that old, 19) It came in a small box, that was filled with other trinkets, something akin to a box of future memories. When we got the drive installed and Windows 3.1 up and running my dad let me play some of the software that came with the system. I first got King's Quest and was puzzled, this game was really hard, I couldnt' figure out what to do. A year or so later when I was older, my cousin Brent came over to our new house in Lacey, Washington and helped me out with the game. He got a lot father than I had. I asked him, "How did you do that?" He then showed me. I was amazed. I then tried as hard as I could, got a long ways and started to figure out all the amazing puzzles, mysteries, and logic related complexities of the game. Now that I look back, this simplistic game, with what at the time were state of the art graphics and 2D animations, it had real life voice overs and everything. To me, now and then amazing for the limitations of technology. I later discovered the game guide from my friend, Ian, who let my mom photocopy the guide for this spectacular game. I had my manual and game guide and was able over the course of many hours to beat it. It's an amazing blend of heroics, fantasy, and epic adventure blending past fantasies from Greece/Crete to "Alice Though the Looking Glass" or "Alice in Wonderland" with the red queen and white queen played by chess pieces, to the Creten Minitor myth, to flying peoples of ancient Greece. It possesses blending of ancient kingdoms of mythilogical significance. Arabia, Europe, and even some of the Orient all blended perfectly together into a fanciful tale of heroism. Alexander our young prince must endevour to save his beloved princess Casima, and save her lands from darkness. It takes off where the previous stories leave us. Alexander being desperatly in love with his beloved Casima and wanting nothing more than to see her again. However, evil is affoot in the lands of the green isle. Alexander must do amazing things, and break puzzle after puzzle, communicate with people, remember facts, and defeat and evil menace that hopes to gain control of the Land of the Green Ilse.

This game is a mix of the most amazing things. Myself as an Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Student and future game designer look at games such as this with honor. It not only forces the child to think in new and productive ways, how do I overcome this obstical, asks them both riddels and character related questions, what do I say to this character, give to them to show that who and what I say is true, but it enriches them in a story built out of fiction and fantasy, from the epics of Greece to fairytales from the middle ages such as Beauty and the Beast, to such modern masterpieces as "Alice Though the Looking Glass" or "Alice in Wonderland." It helped spur my interest in many areas, who creating a unique bond to the story and characters. I've always been a fan of the game every since I played it. And continually find comfort in spending hours once ever blue moon taking it out of it's package, plugging it into an Old PC with windows 98 and playing this amazing game. It I can say is the reason gaming became what it is today, because games such as this created such loyal fans. And why I think we as game designers need to look back and cherish the games that have gone before and look to them for inspuration, because they give us something so wonderful in such a simple little package. Be you a game designer, Electrical Engineer and Computer Science Major, Write, Historian, Parent, or child, I would beyond words recommend this game to you. Be it so humble, it may only be built in the days of DOS, Windows 3.1, or later Windows 95 & 98, have only 2D graphics (Which to me show a display of creativity lacking in many modern games) and limited sound quality it makes up for in flying colors though the amazing story it tells, the acting which for me is excellent, since I know for instance the narrator of King's Quest is well known and he does or did many of the narrations for the History Channel for many years. Other than this I can say that the game makes up for the limitations of the day in so many ways you will be astounded, just pick it up, go into a quiet spot, and begin to play. You will not be sorry. I assure you...

Winter, the only British chess champion ever to be arrested and imprisoned for sedition, was one of the more colourful characters of the British chess menagerie - an international master and chess correspondent both for the Manchester Guardian and the Daily Worker. He combined his revolutionary views away from the game with a fine clear writing style and impeccably classical strategies over the board.

winter was a chess master who was once-incredibly-jailed for sedition.he personally knew lasker ,capablanca, alekhine, euwe and botvinnik and here he covers their key world title contests and most important games from them.many personal touches and insights make this a fascinating read!

I grew up with Sierra games. The Kings Quest triology being some of the best challenging games I played as a child. I recomend any of the series. It will make you think no matter what age you are.

Recently I've been thinking back . . . about the good ole days of video-games on the old Nintendo Entertainment System and what games struck me as absolutely fun and memorable. Here's one of them!

What I remember most about Kings Quest V was how different it was from other games at that time and how well it was made. The puzzles were certainly challenging at times, but also fun. There was one particular puzzle where you have to find a desert oasis and I actually got out some scratch paper and drew a primitive map of where I had travelled in this desert to find this oasis.

There is a great deal of variety in this game. You make your character walk through screens and interact with objects that he sees. Some of the locales I remember are a village, a cave, a desert, and a foreboding castle.

Another testament to this game's greatness is that I once got stuck on a puzzle that had to do with a witch that lived by a tree. I asked some friends at school, and, even though they had played this game YEARS ago, they still remembered enough about it to help me with that puzzle.

Overall, this was a great game, and if I still had my old NES, I think I wouldn't mind at all popping the cartridge in just to play it again.

My 4 year old daughter and I can spend up to 20 minutes thinking of silly "I love you untils...". This is a great book and we go back to it often. I cannot recommend it highly enough!

This is a wonderful book. I have 3 kids 7, 4, and 2. They all love this book. Often at night when I put them to bed I might say I love you until fish can fly and one of my son's might say I love you until noses can talk. It goes on and on. It's wonderful for them to use there imagination trying to think of something that will never happen. Even if we haven't read the book for a couple of days they always remember it and want to "Love you until".

Macbeth has always been one of Shakespeare's most popular plays. It is vivid, has blood & murder, magic, visions, treachery, and just deserts. I mean, what is not to love? The play moves along quickly and isn't one of the longer plays. For all these reasons and more, audiences love it.

But there is a lot more to the play than the plot outline might suggest. Shakespeare brilliantly works out the subtleties of character through the action, interactions, and self-discussions in the play. It isn't a simple "action" play, it is also a masterwork of revealing the character of the characters even when they are themselves unaware of the trap they are leaping into.

I am partial to the Arden editions because I trust the text, love the extensive notes, and the introductory and additional material that helps give the play context and talks about sources Shakespeare almost certainly used. In this case Holinshed's "Chronicles of Scotland". Throughout this edition there are also discussions of the textural problems of this play: where some things seem to be missing, what might be interpolations, and so forth.

This is a very useful edition of a great play.

William Shakespeare's tragedy "Macbeth" was performed at the Globe Theater in 1605-06. The "Scottish" play was a calculated to be pleasing to James I, who took the throne of England after the death of Elizabeth Tudor in 1603. It was not simply that the play was set in the homeland of the Stuarts, but also that when Banquo's royal descendants are envisioned the last of them is the new King. (Note: Shakespeare does a similar sort of tribute to Queen Elizabeth when in the final act of "Henry VIII" the the Archbishop prophesizes great things for the infant Elizabeth. However, not only is there doubt that Shakespeare was the sole author of that particular history, it was not produced until 1612-13, ten years after Elizabeth's death.)

The play chronicles Macbeth's seizing the Scottish throne and his subsequent downfall, both aspects the result of blind ambition. However, one of the interesting aspects of "Macbeth" for me has always been its take on prophecy, which is decidedly different from the classical tradition. In the Greek myths there is no escaping your fate; in fact, one of the points of the story of Oedipus as told by Sophocles is that trying to resist your fate only makes things worse (the original prophecy was that Oedipus would slay his father; it was only after Jocasta sought to have her son killed to save her husband that the prophecy given Oedipus was that he would slay his father and marry his mother). In the Norse tradition prophecy is simply fate and manhood demands you simply resign yourself to what must happen.

But in "Macbeth" there is a different notion of prophecy that is compatible with what is found in the Bible: specifically, the idea that human beings simply cannot understand God's predictions. This is the case both with those who failed to understand the prophecies that foretold the birth of the Christ but also the book of Revelations, where the fate of the world is detailed in complex and essentially uncomprehensible symbolism. When Macbeth is presented with the first set of prophecies by the three witches, he is understandably dubious: he will become thane of Cawdor and then King, while Banquo will beget kings. However, when the first prophecy comes true, Macbeth begins to believe that the rest of the prophecy may come true. His fatal error, at least in the Greek tradition, is that he does not allow fate to bring him the crown, he takes active steps by slaying King Duncan. He compounds this error by projecting his ambitions onto Banquo; although Macbeth has Banquo killed, his son escapes to keep the prophecy intact.

Now the witches's prophecies are deceptively clear: no man born of woman may harm him and he is secure until trees start walking. Macbeth, who now believes in the inevitability of prophecy, fails to understand the fatal concept of loopholes. Thus, the nature of prophecy becomes an integral part of the play's dynamic.