Judges, Not Terrorists, are the Biggest Threat to America

The Oxford modern dictionary defines a judge as an appointed official.  Notice that it didn't say "an elected official."  Therefore, a judge has to be appointed by an elected official, such as, the President, the Governor or the Mayor.  Someone, please tell me why are some judges are listed on our voting ballot?  As appointed officials, it should be illegal for them to be placed of our voting ballot.  I appeal to the ballot organizers to take note and make sure that judges’ names never appear on the voting ballots again.  The judges sitting on the highest court in the land, the US Supreme Court, all are appointed by Presidents of the United States.  Only elected officials have the power to make law or rescind law.  Why are our elected officials just standing by and letting these appointed judges step out of their scope and purview and attack our judicious laws with unlawful rulings, which have plunged our country into turmoil and unnecessary unhappiness?

Now let me enumerate some of these unlawful rulings: 

In Texas, where two homosexuals were caught in the very act of sodomy, were arrested and convicted; they appealed their case, and some Texas judge ruled that the law that stated that sodomy was a felony, which was enacted by elected officials, was unconstitutional, bringing these entire homosexual "sickies" out of the closet from all over America. 

How about that dumb ruling in 2003 when this San Francisco's judge ruled that, "Ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional," bringing thousands of these sad, sick individuals (homosexuals) from all over the United States to get married.  

What about the most recently asinine ruling by that Fulton County Superior Court judge, in Atlanta Georgia, where she said that the 76% of the Georgia voters, banning same-sex marriage, is "unconstitutional"; the identical thing happened in the State of California a few months ago.  Unbelievable!

It is my sincere wish that the media cease and desist in sugar coating these judges as activist judges; instead of, correctly, describe them as who they really are--homosexual judges!  Don't get me wrong, there are judges who are activist judges; such as those who were involved in "Rhode vs. Wade"; "Women right to vote”; etc.  An activist judge is a judge who believes in a reasonable controversial movement and espouses to help bring justice to the victims.  Conversely, the homosexual judge believes in the illogical, "far-out" movement of a group of people who are fighting for special rights and privileges to do their own thing no matter what the cost or what the majority of society thinks, or who they hurt.

Before going further, I want to qualify myself.  I am not an attorney, paralegal nor studied any form of law.  The statement that I make in this writing is totally based upon my own logical and orderly thinking.  As I stated outright at the beginning of this writing, that the Berkley second edition, July 2001 Oxford dictionary defines a judge as, "an appointed official."  In my honest judgment, however, this being the case, these judges' rulings do not affect any law that is put before them, because they only have authority to interpret and apply that law to the issues that are before them; they don't have the authority to restrain, amend or set aside any law; only Congress has that authority!

Appointed judges make rulings (their opinions); and our elected officials make laws!  Now, the sixty-four dollar question is, why haven't our lawmakers stepped forward and blasted these rulings (judge's opinions) as meaningless and have no affect on enacted laws whatsoever?  This would've avoided all that chaos and optimistic bedlam.  Congress is the only entity that can amend, rescind or make a new law to encompass a judge's ruling.  I hold our esteem lawmakers responsible for allowing these judges to turn our country upside down and inside and out with their meaningless rulings.  I'm not certain that, "Rhode vs. Wade" or "Separation of Church and State," is a law or a ruling.  If they are only rulings, then, abortion is still illegal and mixing church and state is still legal. To all you fancy lawyers out there, would you please answer these questions?