According the the Wichita beagle today, Judge Clark Owens has been selected as the new judge to hear the case of George Tiller.  The Wichita paper also says that:

1. Owens "questioned" the ruling of Roe (note: the beagle quoted a pro-life group NOT Owens) typical drive-by liberal hackness

2. Quotes Mark Geitzen  former county Republican Chairman as saying that Owens will be a "fair" choice, "very well liked, very respected."

3. Then they state that Owens shared a ticket with Tiller's main Attorney Lee Thompson (a hideous leach who has profited greatly from the blood of innocent children)

4. The beagle reports that Owens "bridged a chasm between hard-line social conservatives and more moderate elements of the party."  In other words, innocent babies will continue to be slaughtered but maybe we can pass legislation to kill them in more antiseptic clinic conditions.

5. Tiller's other attorney, Monet (another man who has no problem profiting from the blood of innocent children and was recently appointed to the Kansas Sentencing Commission by Kansas Governor Kathleen Sibelius (Sibelius is owned by Tiller)), Monet said, "he thinks Owens will be "perfectly capable of fairly hearing the case."  There is ALL you need to know.  Tiller's attorney's say Owens is a good choice.

OWENS, BY ACTION, IS COMPLETELY PRO-ABORTION.  OWENS WILL NEVER MAKE ANY DIFFICULT OR CONTROVERSIAL DECISION ON THE BEHALF OF INNOCENT CHILDREN IN THE WOMB.

6. As the beagle correctly pointed out, in 2005, 12 gentle saints of the Lord, walked on to Tiller's property to lay their lives down for the children about to be taken AGAINST their will to be killed.  In our district court case, the City of Wichita (who by Rebenstorf (City Attorney and Dickgraff - and Foulston (District Attorney) are hell bent on protecting Tiller, filed a pre trial motion against us; 1. That we could not "present any testimony or evidence that our actions were necessary to save the life of a child".  So much for that "fair and impartial trial by a jury of our peers' stuff.   Never mind that that was EXACTLY AND PRECISELY THE ENTIRE REASON THAT WE WERE THERE.  see Jn. 15:13, Pr. 24:10-12.  2. That we could not tell the jury about jury nullification (by the way, it was jury nullification that gave us the right to freedom of the press).

It was Owens who ruled on the pre-trial motion against us.  The beagle quoted us in quoting Owens opening response.  I have the transcript of the motion before me right now and here is some of Owens' exact quotes from the hearing.  After showing Owens the video the Hard Truth, a video of the bodies of innocent children who through a premeditated act of violence are killed, a video that shows the little hands, little arms, little legs, little eyes of murdered children, and the blood buckets of blood, after seeing it for himself first hand what the act of "abortion" really is, he stated, "The evidence that's been presented here today, the photographs and the videos, are very compelling evidence that relates to the issue of the legality and morality of the act of abortion.  These items, I think, are very relevant to a Court if it were deciding the Rope v. Wade decision.  And I wonder  f the United States Supreme Court had this before them when they had the opportunity to make that decision of Roe v. Wade, if hey did, in fact, consider all of this."

Owens next word was, "BUT."  After acknowledging that abortion is MURDER, HE THEN PROMPTLY and without the least bit of concern or remorse ruled in favor of the Cities motion in limine and against us, thus by judicial fiat, denied us our right to a fair trial, to present relevant evidence, and let a jury decide.  He ripped, just as the abortionist does, all rights from the unborn child all their rights to life, EVEN THOUGH HE KNOWS...ADMITTED IT'S WRONG!

Owens also said, (again after viewing some of the most gruesome footage one can stand) that, "I could go either way on the issue, I don't really have a strong opinion."  HOW DEAD DOES ONE'S SOUL HAVE TO BE TO SEE WHAT HE JUST SAW AND THEN HAVE THE AUDACITY TO MAKE SUCH A PC STATEMENT?

Owens said, "But, the fact is that the United States Supreme Court has spoken on it and the lower courts have no alternative but to follow the United States Supreme Court." 

OWENS WOULD HAVE NEVER RULED AGAINST DRED SCOTT OR ON BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION.  NO MATTER HOW WRONG THE LAW IS OWENS WILL NEVER MAKE ANY DECISION THAT IS EVEN REMOTELY PRO-LIFE.

There are many more things that I could directly quote Owens in from the case but this will suffice for now.