DERBY (AP) — A Derby woman who has never held political office and has filed several high-profile lawsuits says she will run in the Republican primary for governor.
Joan Heffington said she believes the nation’s failure to put God first in all things breeds corruption and is directly tied to the state’s economic troubles.
The 54-year-old Heffington will run against U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback in the GOP primary.
Heffington currently operates the Association for Honest Attorneys, which she says highlights illegal and unethical practices of many attorneys. She has filed lawsuits against President George W. Bush and the U.S. Department of Defense, among others.
The state’s attorney general’s office has sued Heffington, alleging she gave legal advice without a law license.
uranidiot (anonymous) says...
Sounds like she's got it all together. Not a screw loose anywhere. Anybody know where I can look up the outcomes of those lawsuits?
March 22, 2010 at 2:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
WOWWWWWW!
Brownback never looked so good.
This woman is the definition of a wingnut if the above posts are true.
March 22, 2010 at 2:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
There is no requirement now for the seperation of " faith and state " only the seperation of " church and state " .
Which is worse, a Nation of individual faiths and beliefs or a " Nation of Christianity ", just as there is a " Nation of Islam " ?
I for one, certainly do not want any Government, dictating to me when, where, how and what to devote my faith to or who or what or who to worship !
Nor will I support nor vote for anyone proposing such a Government.
Even God nor Jesus did not force anyone to heed his/their law(s), teachings or even faith through government rule ! The choice was entirely man' s and still should be, without interference or force from anyone, religion, church, religious zealot, radical or religion or government.
This type of government would be even worse than what we have now and would undoubtly require a whole new set of laws, bill of rights, and Constitution .
March 22, 2010 at 3:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodjoss (anonymous) says...
Wow - I guess it's all a matter of perspective. What a great play by the GOP. This makes Sam look like a centrist.
I really don't know how Kansas Dems hope to top this play. Game, Set, Match! Slam dunk for Brownback!
Too bad they didn't write KU's gameplan. : )
March 22, 2010 at 3:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
uranidiot (anonymous) says...
Go check out her website
http://www.assocforhonestattys.com/ht...
Read the http://www.assocforhonestattys.com/ht...
She's a couple pickles shy of a full barrell.
March 22, 2010 at 3:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
wildcatnurse (anonymous) says...
Ugh...here we go again with the religious political crap.
What part of SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE do people not understand???
Religion has no place in government and vice versa.
March 22, 2010 at 11:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Not much difference between her and Brownback, she is just open about her views. As a registered republican she'll get my vote in the primary and Holland will get a check from me for his campaign.
If I wanted a religious kook running the government, I would move to Iran.
March 23, 2010 at 6:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
What I would like to know !
1. Does saying you are a Christian, actually make you a Christian ?
2. Does going to an established Church to Worship, make you a Christian ?
3.Does one have to be a Christian, in order to have Faith ?
5. Does forcing anyone to believe as you believe or have the same religion or faith you have, mean you are a Christian ?
I ask these questions, as to my minds eye, there are many who profess to be Christian, who actually do not know what being a Christian and Christianity really is.
wildcatnurse, you are absolutely right in your statement. However the line and what is meant by " Seperation of Church and State " has been severly blurred or erased entirely . And, as long as religion and it various Churches and followers are allowed to continue to influence politics, politicians,become politicians themselves, dicitate government policy, legislation, lawmaking, etc. and Government, in various ways and by any means open to them .. religion and certain church influence will continue to be present in Government, in this and other countries.
Is this not the problem that has prevailed between Jewish Israel and the Muslim Palestinians and the rest of the Muslim community in the world for many decades now ?
I don' t like discussing Religion, etc. any more than anyone else, but the topic seems to come up no matter what the topic of discussion happens to be .
March 23, 2010 at 8:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
The devil exists and its name is Joan Heffington. I know this because the man in the sky told me. He tells me if you vote for this woman you will burn in Hell forever and your children will have really bad gas (the frrrrrpttt! kind) their entire lives. What's that, you don't believe a man in the sky really talks to me? Blasphemy! Prove me wrong, non-believers!
The man in the sky is more powerful than Joan's god. I know this because I watched them duel on a snowy mountain top and Joan's god was defeated soundly. Then Joan's god said, "I've been bested, so you shouldn't follow me. The man in the sky is all powerful! All hail the man in the sky!" I saw these things with my own eyes, and I'm gonna write a book about it. I'll call the book "The Bibel". I'll pass these books out like candy and force everyone to believe the things I wrote. Even though I have no proof to substantiate my claims... The man in the sky commands it!
Sounds crazy, right? Yep, that's religion for you. The only difference between my outlandish story and Joan's is when the work of fiction was originally written. Don't let naive religious kooks into our government; they'll only act in THEIR own personal interests. Government officials should represent the interests of ALL citizens.
'enry
March 23, 2010 at 9:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
'enry
"Government officials should represent the interests of ALL citizens."
You don't even believe this. You believe, as pretty much everybody who has posted on here , that if you have Christian beliefs, your interests should not be represented. I don't think that "separation of church and state" was meant to be used as a weapon against Christians to suppress their beliefs in the society in which they live as most of you apparently do.
If a Christians has a particular view on an issue that is influenced by their belief, what are they supposed to do? Vote contrary to their belief because of "separation of church and state"? How should they vote? Should there be an atheist assigned to every believer to tell them how to vote to make sure their is no religious influence? Should there be cloth crosses sewn to the arm of Christians clothes so they can easily be identified? Perhaps "camps" in which they can be sequestered from society to ensure the "separation of church and state". To what extent will your mission to eliminate religion from society go? This is a question for all of you.
March 23, 2010 at 10:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
seriouslyfolks,
You know by now that henry loves to get your goat on the religious issues.
I would like to make clear that I have NO mission to eliminate religion from society. Religions will always have a place in a civilized society. I do have a problem when that religious belief is the sole source of ones political agenda. THINK IRAN or IRAQ.
After reviewing Brownbacks and Heffingtons views on the role of religion in government I would be uncomfortable in voting for them. I don't fault them for their beliefs, more power to them. I just don't want to be governed by them. And don't you think that Ms. Heffington is just a wee bit kookie?
March 23, 2010 at 10:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
Seriouslyfolks,
No... you misunderstand me, friend. A Christian citizen's interests (not beliefs) should indeed be represented, but done so according to the law of the land (created by "we the people") and NOT the alleged rules of an elusive deity. If I were an elected official, I would make sure Christians had the freedom to practice their religion however they please as long as it wasn't impacting others. What you want to do with YOUR life is fine with me. When you bring religion into politics, however, YOUR way of life certainly impacts others. In other words, you'd be forcing your religious views on others. For example, a religious official might say, "We shouldn't allow abortion because God says so." Well, a lot of citizens don't believe in this same god, so why should they follow his rules? If you are against abortion, you better find some non-religiously motivated reasons for being opposed to it. You can't force your religious beliefs on the citizens you are supposed to be serving. What's next? Will these religious kooks introduce a law that'll make it a crime not to go to church on Sunday? You can't just vote on something because you THINK it's wrong or right according to your religious values, you must have a logical reason for thinking that based on how it will impact the citizens you represent. Why is it good/bad for the people? If your answer has something to do with God, you should try again. Here are a few examples:
Buying beer on Sunday? Bad because God doesn't like it. INCORRECT!
Abortion? Bad because God doesn't like it. INCORRECT!
Drinking and driving? Bad because it could harm other citizens. CORRECT!
Smoking in public places? Bad because it could harm other citizens. CORRECT!
You see? As a public official, you must make your decisions based on what is best for the public; not what is best for your religion. I agree with Steve in that religion has its place in society. It just doesn't have a place in politics.
'enry
March 23, 2010 at 11:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Steve,
I wasn't defending or promoting this lady in anyway. It just seems that when someone like her pops up the attacks start and the mortar shells hit a little too close(to me) for comfort. People want to believe that they can make decisions and vote a way that is imparshal and is "best for everyone" but this is just false. Everyone has biases and that is what influences them to do what they do or vote the way they do. That is why it is impossible for people to set aside their beliefs and vote contrary to them.
March 23, 2010 at 12:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
danmartinez (anonymous) says...
wildcatnurse/seriouslyfloks( reply)
Ms. Heffington “said faith and state “on her interview with the Capital journal, if you recall. If not, read it again.
She did not say “church and state”. Would you like to try again? I think the people really want to know the deference.
Privatecitzen
March 23, 2010 at 12:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
danmartinez(anonymous)
I'm not sure I understand what you want me to try again.
March 23, 2010 at 12:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
uranidiot (anonymous) says...
Perhaps people would take her seriously if she didn't sound so bat ass crazy on her AHA website. After reading about her "lawsuits" and all the conspiracy theories she has about the Federal Legal system I don't think I'm going to vote for her. It use to be that the crazies wore sandwich boards and yelled things on the street corner, now they do it on the Internet.
March 23, 2010 at 1:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
seriouslyfolks,
I agree with you , everyone has their own beliefs, and bias, it's human nature.
However our country was founded by settlers who fled from a government mandated religion and the constitution forbids the establishment of a state run religion, or laws based on any one certain religion. On the other hand we have the motto, "In God We Trust"
So where is the line? A very hard question.
I guess what I am trying to say is I know religion plays an important part in your life, and if that is how you want to live, far be it from me, henry, or any other person to say you can't, or shouldn't. In the same vein it doesn't matter to me if the elected official representing me is religious or not, as long as they vote their conscience and don't try to force their beliefs on me.
Consider the Muslim religion and the governments operating under it's theocracy . Now switch it to Christian, Jewish, Hinduism, or even agnosticism.
Would you want a few in government to decide what God you worship?
Let us leave it to individual preference, and elect the people who want to keep it that way.
That is why I will vote against Heffington and Brownback in the upcoming election.
They scare me.
March 24, 2010 at 7:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
My stentiments, exactly, Steve, my friend. I learned about the different religions, what they mean, what they are, what the beliefs and practices of the various religions entail, when I was in college from a course I took, called, " Religions of the World .
This is why, I have " Faith " in my own way, " Worship/Pray " in my own way .. let others do the same and also believe that religious beliefs and the forcing of those beliefs upon others, is and has been the core of the worlds problems since before the recording of the events of man .
March 24, 2010 at 8:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
Steve, Hilter went with his conscience (or lack of), do you think it is possible in todays world to find those that think "of the people, for the people"? Yes, we NEED new blood representing us, the people, both state and national but have we gotten so very corrupt that,that is truly possible? I have my doubts.
March 24, 2010 at 8:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Steve and methusla,
I see what you are saying and agree that we should not live in a theocracy where one particular religion is the only one allowed. What makes me uncomfortable is when people start trying to blame all the worlds woes on religion. It's easy for people to fall into the trap of finding one convenient scape goat and blaming everything on that and then they go to the government to "protect" them from it. I wish I could think of a recent example... hmmm ... oh yeah, the smoking ban. Remember that one? There definitely seems to be a trend lately of people demanding that the government smite those who they perceive to be "the bad guy". A big reason so many people want hrc is to punish the evil capitalist pig dog insurance companies( because in some peoples minds they became something other than human beings trying, as we all are, to live the American dream). I can see this easily happening with religion since a lot of people are convinced that all their problems are caused by "the religious kooks."
I have a question. Aren't we all kooks in a way? If being a kook is determined by someone elses opinion of what is kooky aren't the odds pretty good that somebody is going to find something kooky about pretty much everybody? Just a thought.
March 24, 2010 at 9:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
Seriously, you've got it!!!! Sanity or "normal" is in the eyes of the beholder.
Yet, just because you like cats and not dogs, I would still call you "normal", weird
but normal!!!!!!!!!!! :-)
March 24, 2010 at 9:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
live the American Dream, is another phrase used by many people. I wonder how many people who use this phrase really know what is meant by it.
I believe the following is a good example of what is meant by " The American Dream " .
What is the American Dream?
The term was first used by James Truslow Adams in his book The Epic of America which was written in 1931. He states: "The American Dream is "that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement. It is a difficult dream for the European upper classes to interpret adequately, and too many of us ourselves have grown weary and mistrustful of it. It is not a dream of motor cars and high wages merely, but a dream of social order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and be recognized by others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position."
http://memory.loc.gov/learn/lessons/9...
March 24, 2010 at 9:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USXJrv...
:-)
March 24, 2010 at 9:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
seriouslyfolks
Great video. I have cats and they at times they are better than a circus or T.V. and are very lovable and affectionate
. If it weren' t for my furry friends my day would be very boring and lonely indeed.
Thanks.
March 24, 2010 at 12:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
OK, seriously, cute! Did you watch the one concerning a cat and prayer? ?
March 24, 2010 at 1:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
That cat had an excuse for everything. I didn't see any real remorse for her sins. ;-)
March 24, 2010 at 1:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
seriously, Now,now, we shouldn't judge!!!!
Guess "Mama" didn't teach you very well or you chose not to learn. :-) Believe it is the latter!!!!!Remember, where a dog is open and above board, a cat will sneak and get you when you least expect it.
March 24, 2010 at 2:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )