John Fielding
On Saturday, June 20, 2009, the local Democratic Committee pushed the envelope further by voting to support hard-left Senator Daylin Leach's proposed legislation legalizing marriage for gays:
"The following resolution was passed on 6/20/2009 by the Berks County Democratic Committee:
Whereas Senator Daylin Leach recently introduced legislation that would make Pennsylvania the 7th state to legalize marriage equality;
Whereas at the same time, 13 Pennsylvania State Senators, including 2 Democrats, have signed on to John Eichelberger's bill to ban marriage equality;
Whereas both bills, the bill for equality and the bill for discrimination, are seeking more co-sponsors,
We, the members of the Berks County Democratic Committee, urge our State Senators to do two things:
1) Co-sponsor The Marriage Equality Bill (SB 935), and
2) Say no to discrimination and bigotry by refusing to co-sponsor the bill to ban marriage equality.
We, urge our State Senators to co-sponsor Senate Bill 935, a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage in Pennsylvania. S.B. 935 would allow our state to join ranks with our neighbors in Maine, Vermont, Iowa, New Hampshire, Connecticut and Massachusetts by offering full and equal marriage rights to same-sex couples in Pennsylvania.
S.B. 935 would not require religious institutions to perform any marriage ceremonies or recognize any marriages that they do not wish to sanction. The legislation would dissolve all of the barriers to building families that gay and lesbian couples currently face, both at the state and federal level.
We also strongly urge our Senators to refuse to co-sponsor Senator Eichelberger's attempt to ban marriage equality and insert discrimination into the Pennsylvania Constitution."
Sorry, life is about discrimination. In fact, "discrimination" is just another word for "choice," another word near and dear to far left extremists, at least with regard to one issue.
Because left-wing extemists are the most anti-choice people in existence. Laws limit choice by definition, and left-wingers are the most legislation and litigation-happy groups I can think of. Every time their knickers get in a bunch about some social cause, nothing must do but that we must pass another law telling some individual or group that they may not choose to do something that is on the current list of liberal no-no's. Only once, in the case of the murder of unborn children, do they suddenly discover a "right-to-choose."
Law legislates morality and, therefore, regulates choice. In this case, it's just a question of whose morality: America's or Sodom's. The Berks Democrats have shown us whose morality they back.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Palin Proves Conservatives Can Fight Pop Culture and Win
Gary Bauer
Posted 06/19/2009 ET
In the Age of Obama, many conservatives are consoling themselves with this thought: Conservatism wins on the issues. Polls show majorities of Americans want less government and fewer and lower taxes; they want leaders who will stand up to our enemies; they are skeptical about the science of global warming; they want public policy to show respect for human life at all stages, and, yes, most Americans still believe marriage should remain between a man and a woman.
A Gallup poll this week showed 40 percent of Americans interviewed describe their political views as conservative, while just 21 percent self identify as liberal.
Though conservative values remain popular among Americans overall, they have never been embraced by the popular culture. Hollywood, the music industry, sports and the fashion world are all overwhelmingly liberal. In these sectors of American society, conservative positions almost always lose.
These realities make the recent Sarah Palin-David Letterman dust-up quite interesting. For decades conservatives have engaged the popular culture at their peril. Whenever conservatives pushed back against the excesses of the pop culture, they risked getting labeled bigoted, ignorant or, worst of all, prudish.
But Sarah Palin has proved that conservatives can fight the pop culture and win. That’s because while many Americans consume the entertainment of people like David Letterman, they embrace the values of people like Sarah Palin.
The controversy surrounds comments made more than a week ago by the "Late Show" host. Letterman joked that Palin, who was in New York City to attend an autism event, had bought makeup from Bloomingdale’s to update her “slutty flight attendant” look. He later added that Palin had attended a New York Yankees baseball game, and that during the seventh inning stretch Palin’s daughter had been “knocked up” by Yankees’ libidinous third baseman Alex Rodriguez.
Letterman claims he was referring to Palin’s 18-year-old daughter, Bristol, but only Palin’s 14-year-old daughter, Willow, attended the game with her mother. So Letterman ended up joking about statutory rape.
Initially, Letterman did not apologize. While jokes that sexualize kids are “crude, sexist, perverted,” as Palin stated in response to Letterman, they have sadly become a comedic staple. Watch the most popular comedians and you’ll find many jokes are intended to humiliate, demean and tear down. Throw in some disgusting sexual references and you have a perfect recipe for big laughs in today’s popular culture. And if the target of the comedian’s demeaning sexual jokes is a conservative politician, so much the better.
There is an obvious double standard. What would have happened had Letterman made the same joke about Barack Obama and his family? We know. Letterman would have been forced into early retirement, and perhaps prosecuted under some “hate crimes” statute.
Letterman then offered a snarky non-apology apology in which he insisted he had meant to suggest that Bristol, not Willow, had been “knocked up” by A-Rod. While there is a significant legal difference, only according to our cultural elites could the addition of four years transform a beyond-the-pale insinuation into an acceptable punch-line. The target of his cruel insinuations remained a young girl who, through no fault of her own, is the daughter of a political figure.
Finally, after a week, Letterman offered something closer to a legitimate apology, which Palin graciously accepted. I doubt Letterman would have apologized had he not been forced to do so. But his jokes caused a huge backlash among his viewers, some of whom formed a campaign to urge CBS to fire him.
Viewers were so irate that one "Late Show" advertiser pulled its sponsorship. Letterman was slammed by women’s groups across the ideological spectrum. Even the National Organization for Women denounced him for “snicker[ing] about men having sex with teenage girls (or women) less than half their age…”
Despite the strong backlash, some conservatives argued that Palin was wrong to call out Letterman for his outrageous remarks. One commentator predicted that critiques of Letterman would lead to a form of censorship, while a former GOP advisor said going after Letterman made Republicans look small, and insisted the entire episode was a “win-win for Letterman.”
Letterman has enjoyed a temporary ratings boost, but there’s deeper meaning in the incident. The cultural left lampoons Palin because her values and life are completely foreign to them. They find it bizarre that she hunts, prays and says things like “you betcha.’” They can’t fathom that she brought a child with Down syndrome to term and that she didn’t pressure her daughter into aborting an unexpected pregnancy.
Letterman may not know anyone who would vote for Palin or a family that looks like hers. But his Palin joke backfired in part because scores of millions of Americans are living lives that more closely resemble Palin’s life than Letterman’s. Like Palin, they pray in churches, hunt and fish and raise imperfect families with unconditional love. They are more than uneasy about the culture’s sexualization of children and its infantilization of adults.
The cultural left mocks Palin’s values, but its taunts often fail to gain traction, because Palin’s politics and principles are much more main-stream than those of her critics. Sarah Palin is a false target for the popular culture. It can’t resist the temptation to ridicule and lampoon her, but she offers too much common sense and inspiration to make for good jokes.
In the Age of Obama, pop culture elites may be excused for their over-the-top bashing of conservatives. Liberals have always controlled the popular culture, and now they control government too. They probably assume most of the country has shifted leftward and come round to their view of the world. But it hasn’t. Just ask David Letterman.
Former presidential candidate Mr. Gary Bauer is president of American Values and chairman of the Campaign for Working Families.
Copyright © 2009 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.
Posted 06/19/2009 ET
In the Age of Obama, many conservatives are consoling themselves with this thought: Conservatism wins on the issues. Polls show majorities of Americans want less government and fewer and lower taxes; they want leaders who will stand up to our enemies; they are skeptical about the science of global warming; they want public policy to show respect for human life at all stages, and, yes, most Americans still believe marriage should remain between a man and a woman.
A Gallup poll this week showed 40 percent of Americans interviewed describe their political views as conservative, while just 21 percent self identify as liberal.
Though conservative values remain popular among Americans overall, they have never been embraced by the popular culture. Hollywood, the music industry, sports and the fashion world are all overwhelmingly liberal. In these sectors of American society, conservative positions almost always lose.
These realities make the recent Sarah Palin-David Letterman dust-up quite interesting. For decades conservatives have engaged the popular culture at their peril. Whenever conservatives pushed back against the excesses of the pop culture, they risked getting labeled bigoted, ignorant or, worst of all, prudish.
But Sarah Palin has proved that conservatives can fight the pop culture and win. That’s because while many Americans consume the entertainment of people like David Letterman, they embrace the values of people like Sarah Palin.
The controversy surrounds comments made more than a week ago by the "Late Show" host. Letterman joked that Palin, who was in New York City to attend an autism event, had bought makeup from Bloomingdale’s to update her “slutty flight attendant” look. He later added that Palin had attended a New York Yankees baseball game, and that during the seventh inning stretch Palin’s daughter had been “knocked up” by Yankees’ libidinous third baseman Alex Rodriguez.
Letterman claims he was referring to Palin’s 18-year-old daughter, Bristol, but only Palin’s 14-year-old daughter, Willow, attended the game with her mother. So Letterman ended up joking about statutory rape.
Initially, Letterman did not apologize. While jokes that sexualize kids are “crude, sexist, perverted,” as Palin stated in response to Letterman, they have sadly become a comedic staple. Watch the most popular comedians and you’ll find many jokes are intended to humiliate, demean and tear down. Throw in some disgusting sexual references and you have a perfect recipe for big laughs in today’s popular culture. And if the target of the comedian’s demeaning sexual jokes is a conservative politician, so much the better.
There is an obvious double standard. What would have happened had Letterman made the same joke about Barack Obama and his family? We know. Letterman would have been forced into early retirement, and perhaps prosecuted under some “hate crimes” statute.
Letterman then offered a snarky non-apology apology in which he insisted he had meant to suggest that Bristol, not Willow, had been “knocked up” by A-Rod. While there is a significant legal difference, only according to our cultural elites could the addition of four years transform a beyond-the-pale insinuation into an acceptable punch-line. The target of his cruel insinuations remained a young girl who, through no fault of her own, is the daughter of a political figure.
Finally, after a week, Letterman offered something closer to a legitimate apology, which Palin graciously accepted. I doubt Letterman would have apologized had he not been forced to do so. But his jokes caused a huge backlash among his viewers, some of whom formed a campaign to urge CBS to fire him.
Viewers were so irate that one "Late Show" advertiser pulled its sponsorship. Letterman was slammed by women’s groups across the ideological spectrum. Even the National Organization for Women denounced him for “snicker[ing] about men having sex with teenage girls (or women) less than half their age…”
Despite the strong backlash, some conservatives argued that Palin was wrong to call out Letterman for his outrageous remarks. One commentator predicted that critiques of Letterman would lead to a form of censorship, while a former GOP advisor said going after Letterman made Republicans look small, and insisted the entire episode was a “win-win for Letterman.”
Letterman has enjoyed a temporary ratings boost, but there’s deeper meaning in the incident. The cultural left lampoons Palin because her values and life are completely foreign to them. They find it bizarre that she hunts, prays and says things like “you betcha.’” They can’t fathom that she brought a child with Down syndrome to term and that she didn’t pressure her daughter into aborting an unexpected pregnancy.
Letterman may not know anyone who would vote for Palin or a family that looks like hers. But his Palin joke backfired in part because scores of millions of Americans are living lives that more closely resemble Palin’s life than Letterman’s. Like Palin, they pray in churches, hunt and fish and raise imperfect families with unconditional love. They are more than uneasy about the culture’s sexualization of children and its infantilization of adults.
The cultural left mocks Palin’s values, but its taunts often fail to gain traction, because Palin’s politics and principles are much more main-stream than those of her critics. Sarah Palin is a false target for the popular culture. It can’t resist the temptation to ridicule and lampoon her, but she offers too much common sense and inspiration to make for good jokes.
In the Age of Obama, pop culture elites may be excused for their over-the-top bashing of conservatives. Liberals have always controlled the popular culture, and now they control government too. They probably assume most of the country has shifted leftward and come round to their view of the world. But it hasn’t. Just ask David Letterman.
Former presidential candidate Mr. Gary Bauer is president of American Values and chairman of the Campaign for Working Families.
Copyright © 2009 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.
Friday, June 19, 2009
The Real Importance of the Sotomayor Fight
June 18, 2009
By Richard A. Viguerie
The confirmation fight over Judge Sonia Sotomayor shouldn't be approached as merely about filling a vacancy on the Supreme Court. Even as important as that is, this confirmation fight is bigger than that. It is a fight about whether the Constitution any longer constrains the power of government by and according to its terms. It is about President Obama's view of government power versus the view held by most Americans.
President Obama's nomination of Judge Sotomayor has so far managed to unite all wings of the conservative movement -- economic, foreign policy, social, traditional and libertarian -- in a way we haven't seen since the early Clinton years. How the various wings of conservatism define and contrast our constitutionalist views against the president's could literally determine the fate of his entire political agenda.
Conservatives are for limited government because the Constitution was set up in a way to counteract the natural predilections of man to abuse the power of government. It is government that can most systematically and egregiously limit life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Our Constitution, properly construed, protects the people and allows the greatest exercise of man's capacities. Improperly construed, we are weaker and less free. Obama wants it improperly construed.
The enumeration and separation of powers, rights reserved to the people and the states, freedoms of conscience, limits on government intrusion into our property, the right to bear arms, etc. are the distinctions of the United States that account for America's unique place in history. They, not the federal government itself nor the individuals who run it, enable our greatness as a nation.
In those regards, the Sotomayor confirmation fight is bigger than all other policy matters such as deficit spending to rejuvenate the welfare state, nationalized health care, national security, etc. Those who see this confirmation battle as about just Judge Sotomayor miss the larger point. This is really about President Obama's harmful and dangerous view of government power.
President Obama wants to remake and thereby weaken America by avoiding the constraints in the Constitution and its structure for political accountability. He is faced with circumstances that make that possible: (1) economic turmoil, (2) a sycophantic press, (2) a passive and sympathetic Congress, and (4) a judiciary that too often refuses to insist that the other two branches act within their enumerated powers. He has taken advantage of those circumstances to expedite his government power grab at a dizzying pace. If Americans had time to absorb what he was doing and the freedoms they were losing, he would not succeed.
We are distracted by Obama's blitz because we have too many attacks on our system to confront effectively at once. That is why it is important for conservatives to focus foremost on the Sotomayor confirmation fight. Within that one fight alone we can address the very reasons why, as polls show consistently, conservatism is twice as popular as liberalism. This confirmation fight can weaken Obama's march to a form of government inconsistent with the Constitution if conservatives grasp the challenge.
The official confirmation battle rests in the hands of Senate Republicans. Collectively, they have not always been friends of conservatives or our causes. However, Judiciary Committee ranking minority member Jeff Sessions is not only a reliably principled conservative, he seems to understand what's at stake in the Sotomayor confirmation.
Senator Sessions will need the help of his colleagues, but given their numerical status, their performance will need to be exceptional. Grassroots conservatives must therefore remind them daily what's at stake, which is a long and bleak minority status for Republicans, and a change for the worse in our entire system of government.
The quality, intelligence and competence of how Senate Republicans deal with the Obama view of the judiciary and the Constitution itself can only be effective if they show passion, resolve and principle. How they perform will determine whether they are testaments to our heritage, or its goats.
If Senate Republicans fail to understand what's at stake, not only might the next election be the last for many of them, history will point a mercilessly unforgiving finger at them. Conservatives at the national, state and local levels therefore need to emphasize those consequences. We cannot wait for, nor depend on, Senate Republicans to define President Obama. We must do that.
We now have a president who does not believe he needs authority provided in Article II or in authorizing legislation before he can buy and run American businesses, appoint czars overseeing the private sector without Senate confirmation or legal authority, unlawfully fire inspector generals attempting to prevent abuse in how taxpayer dollars are spent, or act on nearly any other matter and often using his power for political patronage.
Justice Robert Jackson's concurring opinion in the 1952 case barring President Harry Truman from nationalizing the steel industry during a wartime emergency says about presidential power unrestrained by the Constitution:
"Such power either has no beginning or it has no end. If it exists, it need submit to no legal restraint. I am not alarmed it would plunge us straightway into dictatorship, but it is at least a step in that wrong direction."
America is on a precipice. The Sotomayor confirmation battle is the best chance for conservatives to articulate our constitutional view of governing and define Obama's attempt to alter our democracy. It is about whether he will make us a lesser nation, and who will stand up against him.
Richard A. Viguerie was called "one of the creators of the modern conservative movement" (The Nation), and one of the 13 "conservatives of the century" (The Washington Times).
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/the_real_importance_of_the_sot_1.html at June 19, 2009 - 08:13:23 AM EDT
By Richard A. Viguerie
The confirmation fight over Judge Sonia Sotomayor shouldn't be approached as merely about filling a vacancy on the Supreme Court. Even as important as that is, this confirmation fight is bigger than that. It is a fight about whether the Constitution any longer constrains the power of government by and according to its terms. It is about President Obama's view of government power versus the view held by most Americans.
President Obama's nomination of Judge Sotomayor has so far managed to unite all wings of the conservative movement -- economic, foreign policy, social, traditional and libertarian -- in a way we haven't seen since the early Clinton years. How the various wings of conservatism define and contrast our constitutionalist views against the president's could literally determine the fate of his entire political agenda.
Conservatives are for limited government because the Constitution was set up in a way to counteract the natural predilections of man to abuse the power of government. It is government that can most systematically and egregiously limit life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Our Constitution, properly construed, protects the people and allows the greatest exercise of man's capacities. Improperly construed, we are weaker and less free. Obama wants it improperly construed.
The enumeration and separation of powers, rights reserved to the people and the states, freedoms of conscience, limits on government intrusion into our property, the right to bear arms, etc. are the distinctions of the United States that account for America's unique place in history. They, not the federal government itself nor the individuals who run it, enable our greatness as a nation.
In those regards, the Sotomayor confirmation fight is bigger than all other policy matters such as deficit spending to rejuvenate the welfare state, nationalized health care, national security, etc. Those who see this confirmation battle as about just Judge Sotomayor miss the larger point. This is really about President Obama's harmful and dangerous view of government power.
President Obama wants to remake and thereby weaken America by avoiding the constraints in the Constitution and its structure for political accountability. He is faced with circumstances that make that possible: (1) economic turmoil, (2) a sycophantic press, (2) a passive and sympathetic Congress, and (4) a judiciary that too often refuses to insist that the other two branches act within their enumerated powers. He has taken advantage of those circumstances to expedite his government power grab at a dizzying pace. If Americans had time to absorb what he was doing and the freedoms they were losing, he would not succeed.
We are distracted by Obama's blitz because we have too many attacks on our system to confront effectively at once. That is why it is important for conservatives to focus foremost on the Sotomayor confirmation fight. Within that one fight alone we can address the very reasons why, as polls show consistently, conservatism is twice as popular as liberalism. This confirmation fight can weaken Obama's march to a form of government inconsistent with the Constitution if conservatives grasp the challenge.
The official confirmation battle rests in the hands of Senate Republicans. Collectively, they have not always been friends of conservatives or our causes. However, Judiciary Committee ranking minority member Jeff Sessions is not only a reliably principled conservative, he seems to understand what's at stake in the Sotomayor confirmation.
Senator Sessions will need the help of his colleagues, but given their numerical status, their performance will need to be exceptional. Grassroots conservatives must therefore remind them daily what's at stake, which is a long and bleak minority status for Republicans, and a change for the worse in our entire system of government.
The quality, intelligence and competence of how Senate Republicans deal with the Obama view of the judiciary and the Constitution itself can only be effective if they show passion, resolve and principle. How they perform will determine whether they are testaments to our heritage, or its goats.
If Senate Republicans fail to understand what's at stake, not only might the next election be the last for many of them, history will point a mercilessly unforgiving finger at them. Conservatives at the national, state and local levels therefore need to emphasize those consequences. We cannot wait for, nor depend on, Senate Republicans to define President Obama. We must do that.
We now have a president who does not believe he needs authority provided in Article II or in authorizing legislation before he can buy and run American businesses, appoint czars overseeing the private sector without Senate confirmation or legal authority, unlawfully fire inspector generals attempting to prevent abuse in how taxpayer dollars are spent, or act on nearly any other matter and often using his power for political patronage.
Justice Robert Jackson's concurring opinion in the 1952 case barring President Harry Truman from nationalizing the steel industry during a wartime emergency says about presidential power unrestrained by the Constitution:
"Such power either has no beginning or it has no end. If it exists, it need submit to no legal restraint. I am not alarmed it would plunge us straightway into dictatorship, but it is at least a step in that wrong direction."
America is on a precipice. The Sotomayor confirmation battle is the best chance for conservatives to articulate our constitutional view of governing and define Obama's attempt to alter our democracy. It is about whether he will make us a lesser nation, and who will stand up against him.
Richard A. Viguerie was called "one of the creators of the modern conservative movement" (The Nation), and one of the 13 "conservatives of the century" (The Washington Times).
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/the_real_importance_of_the_sot_1.html at June 19, 2009 - 08:13:23 AM EDT
Thursday, June 4, 2009
49 Million to Five
by Ann Coulter
Posted 06/03/2009 ET
Updated 06/03/2009 ET
In the wake of the shooting of late-term abortionist George Tiller, President Barack Obama sent out a welcome message that this nation would not tolerate attacks on pro-lifers or any other Americans because of their religion or beliefs.
Ha ha! Just kidding. That was the lead sentence -- with minor edits -- of a New York Times editorial warning about theoretical hate crimes against Muslims published eight months after 9/11. Can pro-lifers get a hate crimes bill passed and oceans of ink devoted to assuring Americans that "most pro-lifers are peaceful"?
For years, we've had to hear about the grave threat that Americans might overreact to a terrorist attack committed by 19 Muslims shouting "Allahu akbar" as they flew commercial jets into American skyscrapers. That would be the equivalent of 19 pro-lifers shouting "Abortion kills a beating heart!" as they gunned down thousands of innocent citizens in Wichita, Kan.
Why aren't liberals rushing to assure us this time that "most pro-lifers are peaceful"? Unlike Muslims, pro-lifers actually are peaceful.
According to recent polling, a majority of Americans oppose abortion -- which is consistent with liberals' hysterical refusal to allow us to vote on the subject. In a country with approximately 150 million pro-lifers, five abortionists have been killed since Roe v. Wade.
In that same 36 years, more than 49 million babies have been killed by abortionists. Let's recap that halftime score, sports fans: 49 million to five.
Meanwhile, fewer than 2 million Muslims live in America and, while Muslims are less murderous than abortionists, I'm fairly certain they've killed more than five people in the United States in the last 36 years. For some reason, the number "3,000" keeps popping into my head.
So in a country that is more than 50 percent pro-life -- and 80 percent opposed to the late-term abortions of the sort performed by Tiller -- only five abortionists have been killed. And in a country that is less than 0.5 percent Muslim, several dozen Muslims have killed thousands of Americans.
But the killing of about one abortionist per decade leads liberals to condemn the entire pro-life movement as "domestic terrorists." At least liberals have finally found some terrorists they'd like to send to Guantanamo.
Tiller bragged about performing 60,000 abortions, including abortions of viable babies, able to survive outside the mother's womb. He made millions of dollars performing late-term abortions so gruesome that only two other abortionists -- not a squeamish bunch -- in the entire country would perform them.
Kansas law allows late-term abortions only to save the mother's life or to prevent "irreversible physical damage" to the mother. But Tiller was more than happy to kill viable babies, provided the mothers: (1) forked over $5,000; and (2) mentioned "substantial and irreversible conditions," which, in Tiller's view, apparently included not being able to go to concerts or rodeos or being "temporarily depressed" on account of their pregnancies.
In return for blood money from Tiller's profitable abattoir, Democrats ran a political protection racket for the late-term abortionist.
In 1997, The Washington Post reported that Tiller attended one of Bill Clinton's White House coffees for major campaign contributors. In addition to a $25,000 donation to Clinton, Tiller wanted to thank him personally for 30 months of U.S. Marshals' protection paid for by the U.S. taxpayer.
Kansas Democrats who received hundreds of thousands of campaign dollars from Tiller repeatedly intervened to block any interference with Tiller's abortion mill.
Kathleen Sebelius, who was the governor of Kansas until Obama made her Health and Human Services Secretary, received hundreds of thousands of campaign dollars from Tiller. Sebelius vetoed one bill restricting late-term abortions and another one that would have required Tiller to turn over his records pertaining to "substantial and irreversible conditions" justifying his late-term abortions.
Kansas Attorney General Paul Morrison also got elected with the help of Tiller's blood money, replacing a Republican attorney general who was in the middle of an investigation of Tiller for various crimes including his failure to report statutory rapes, despite performing abortions on pregnant girls as young as 11.
But soon after Morrison replaced the Republican attorney general, the charges against Tiller were reduced and, in short order, he was acquitted of a few misdemeanors. In what is a not uncommon cost of doing business with Democrats, Morrison is now gone, having been forced to resign when his mistress charged him with sexual harassment and corruption.
Tiller was protected not only by a praetorian guard of elected Democrats, but also by the protective coloration of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America -- coincidentally, the same church belonged to by Tiller's fellow Wichita executioner, the BTK killer.
The official Web page of the ELCA instructs: "A developing life in the womb does not have an absolute right to be born." As long as we're deciding who does and doesn't have an "absolute right to be born," who's to say late-term abortionists have an "absolute right" to live?
I wouldn't kill an abortionist myself, but I wouldn't want to impose my moral values on others. No one is for shooting abortionists. But how will criminalizing men making difficult, often tragic, decisions be an effective means of achieving the goal of reducing the shootings of abortionists?
Following the moral precepts of liberals, I believe the correct position is: If you don't believe in shooting abortionists, then don't shoot one.
Copyright © 2009 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.
Posted 06/03/2009 ET
Updated 06/03/2009 ET
In the wake of the shooting of late-term abortionist George Tiller, President Barack Obama sent out a welcome message that this nation would not tolerate attacks on pro-lifers or any other Americans because of their religion or beliefs.
Ha ha! Just kidding. That was the lead sentence -- with minor edits -- of a New York Times editorial warning about theoretical hate crimes against Muslims published eight months after 9/11. Can pro-lifers get a hate crimes bill passed and oceans of ink devoted to assuring Americans that "most pro-lifers are peaceful"?
For years, we've had to hear about the grave threat that Americans might overreact to a terrorist attack committed by 19 Muslims shouting "Allahu akbar" as they flew commercial jets into American skyscrapers. That would be the equivalent of 19 pro-lifers shouting "Abortion kills a beating heart!" as they gunned down thousands of innocent citizens in Wichita, Kan.
Why aren't liberals rushing to assure us this time that "most pro-lifers are peaceful"? Unlike Muslims, pro-lifers actually are peaceful.
According to recent polling, a majority of Americans oppose abortion -- which is consistent with liberals' hysterical refusal to allow us to vote on the subject. In a country with approximately 150 million pro-lifers, five abortionists have been killed since Roe v. Wade.
In that same 36 years, more than 49 million babies have been killed by abortionists. Let's recap that halftime score, sports fans: 49 million to five.
Meanwhile, fewer than 2 million Muslims live in America and, while Muslims are less murderous than abortionists, I'm fairly certain they've killed more than five people in the United States in the last 36 years. For some reason, the number "3,000" keeps popping into my head.
So in a country that is more than 50 percent pro-life -- and 80 percent opposed to the late-term abortions of the sort performed by Tiller -- only five abortionists have been killed. And in a country that is less than 0.5 percent Muslim, several dozen Muslims have killed thousands of Americans.
But the killing of about one abortionist per decade leads liberals to condemn the entire pro-life movement as "domestic terrorists." At least liberals have finally found some terrorists they'd like to send to Guantanamo.
Tiller bragged about performing 60,000 abortions, including abortions of viable babies, able to survive outside the mother's womb. He made millions of dollars performing late-term abortions so gruesome that only two other abortionists -- not a squeamish bunch -- in the entire country would perform them.
Kansas law allows late-term abortions only to save the mother's life or to prevent "irreversible physical damage" to the mother. But Tiller was more than happy to kill viable babies, provided the mothers: (1) forked over $5,000; and (2) mentioned "substantial and irreversible conditions," which, in Tiller's view, apparently included not being able to go to concerts or rodeos or being "temporarily depressed" on account of their pregnancies.
In return for blood money from Tiller's profitable abattoir, Democrats ran a political protection racket for the late-term abortionist.
In 1997, The Washington Post reported that Tiller attended one of Bill Clinton's White House coffees for major campaign contributors. In addition to a $25,000 donation to Clinton, Tiller wanted to thank him personally for 30 months of U.S. Marshals' protection paid for by the U.S. taxpayer.
Kansas Democrats who received hundreds of thousands of campaign dollars from Tiller repeatedly intervened to block any interference with Tiller's abortion mill.
Kathleen Sebelius, who was the governor of Kansas until Obama made her Health and Human Services Secretary, received hundreds of thousands of campaign dollars from Tiller. Sebelius vetoed one bill restricting late-term abortions and another one that would have required Tiller to turn over his records pertaining to "substantial and irreversible conditions" justifying his late-term abortions.
Kansas Attorney General Paul Morrison also got elected with the help of Tiller's blood money, replacing a Republican attorney general who was in the middle of an investigation of Tiller for various crimes including his failure to report statutory rapes, despite performing abortions on pregnant girls as young as 11.
But soon after Morrison replaced the Republican attorney general, the charges against Tiller were reduced and, in short order, he was acquitted of a few misdemeanors. In what is a not uncommon cost of doing business with Democrats, Morrison is now gone, having been forced to resign when his mistress charged him with sexual harassment and corruption.
Tiller was protected not only by a praetorian guard of elected Democrats, but also by the protective coloration of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America -- coincidentally, the same church belonged to by Tiller's fellow Wichita executioner, the BTK killer.
The official Web page of the ELCA instructs: "A developing life in the womb does not have an absolute right to be born." As long as we're deciding who does and doesn't have an "absolute right to be born," who's to say late-term abortionists have an "absolute right" to live?
I wouldn't kill an abortionist myself, but I wouldn't want to impose my moral values on others. No one is for shooting abortionists. But how will criminalizing men making difficult, often tragic, decisions be an effective means of achieving the goal of reducing the shootings of abortionists?
Following the moral precepts of liberals, I believe the correct position is: If you don't believe in shooting abortionists, then don't shoot one.
Copyright © 2009 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
American capitalism gone with a whimper
Reprinted from Pravda
27.04.2009 Source: Pravda.Ru URL: english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/107459-american_capitalism-0
It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.
True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists.
Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.
First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas then the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their "right" to choke down a McDonalds burger or a BurgerKing burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our "democracy". Pride blind the foolish.
Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different "branches and denominations" were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the "winning" side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the "winning" side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America.
The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.
These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, loses and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs look little more then ordinary street thugs, in comparison. Yes, the Americans have beat our own thieves in the shear volumes. Should we congratulate them?
These men, of course, are not an elected panel but made up of appointees picked from the very financial oligarchs and their henchmen who are now gorging themselves on trillions of American dollars, in one bailout after another. They are also usurping the rights, duties and powers of the American congress (parliament). Again, congress has put up little more then a whimper to their masters.
Then came Barack Obama's command that GM's (General Motor) president step down from leadership of his company. That is correct, dear reader, in the land of "pure" free markets, the American president now has the power, the self given power, to fire CEOs and we can assume other employees of private companies, at will. Come hither, go dither, the centurion commands his minions.
So it should be no surprise, that the American president has followed this up with a "bold" move of declaring that he and another group of unelected, chosen stooges will now redesign the entire automotive industry and will even be the guarantee of automobile policies. I am sure that if given the chance, they would happily try and redesign it for the whole of the world, too. Prime Minister Putin, less then two months ago, warned Obama and UK's Blair, not to follow the path to Marxism, it only leads to disaster. Apparently, even though we suffered 70 years of this Western sponsored horror show, we know nothing, as foolish, drunken Russians, so let our "wise" Anglo-Saxon fools find out the folly of their own pride.
Again, the American public has taken this with barely a whimper...but a "freeman" whimper.
So, should it be any surprise to discover that the Democratically controlled Congress of America is working on passing a new regulation that would give the American Treasury department the power to set "fair" maximum salaries, evaluate performance and control how private companies give out pay raises and bonuses? Senator Barney Franks, a social pervert basking in his homosexuality (of course, amongst the modern, enlightened American societal norm, as well as that of the general West, homosexuality is not only not a looked down upon life choice, but is often praised as a virtue) and his Marxist enlightenment, has led this effort. He stresses that this only affects companies that receive government monies, but it is retroactive and taken to a logical extreme, this would include any company or industry that has ever received a tax break or incentive.
The Russian owners of American companies and industries should look thoughtfully at this and the option of closing their facilities down and fleeing the land of the Red as fast as possible. In other words, divest while there is still value left.
The proud American will go down into his slavery with out a fight, beating his chest and proclaiming to the world, how free he really is. The world will only snicker.
Stanislav Mishin
The article has been reprinted with the kind permission from the author and originally appears on his blog, Mat Rodina
© 1999-2009. «PRAVDA.Ru». When reproducing our materials in whole or in part, hyperlink to PRAVDA.Ru should be made. The opinions and views of the authors do not always coincide with the point of view of PRAVDA.Ru's editors.
27.04.2009 Source: Pravda.Ru URL: english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/107459-american_capitalism-0
It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.
True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists.
Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.
First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas then the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their "right" to choke down a McDonalds burger or a BurgerKing burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our "democracy". Pride blind the foolish.
Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different "branches and denominations" were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the "winning" side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the "winning" side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America.
The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.
These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, loses and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs look little more then ordinary street thugs, in comparison. Yes, the Americans have beat our own thieves in the shear volumes. Should we congratulate them?
These men, of course, are not an elected panel but made up of appointees picked from the very financial oligarchs and their henchmen who are now gorging themselves on trillions of American dollars, in one bailout after another. They are also usurping the rights, duties and powers of the American congress (parliament). Again, congress has put up little more then a whimper to their masters.
Then came Barack Obama's command that GM's (General Motor) president step down from leadership of his company. That is correct, dear reader, in the land of "pure" free markets, the American president now has the power, the self given power, to fire CEOs and we can assume other employees of private companies, at will. Come hither, go dither, the centurion commands his minions.
So it should be no surprise, that the American president has followed this up with a "bold" move of declaring that he and another group of unelected, chosen stooges will now redesign the entire automotive industry and will even be the guarantee of automobile policies. I am sure that if given the chance, they would happily try and redesign it for the whole of the world, too. Prime Minister Putin, less then two months ago, warned Obama and UK's Blair, not to follow the path to Marxism, it only leads to disaster. Apparently, even though we suffered 70 years of this Western sponsored horror show, we know nothing, as foolish, drunken Russians, so let our "wise" Anglo-Saxon fools find out the folly of their own pride.
Again, the American public has taken this with barely a whimper...but a "freeman" whimper.
So, should it be any surprise to discover that the Democratically controlled Congress of America is working on passing a new regulation that would give the American Treasury department the power to set "fair" maximum salaries, evaluate performance and control how private companies give out pay raises and bonuses? Senator Barney Franks, a social pervert basking in his homosexuality (of course, amongst the modern, enlightened American societal norm, as well as that of the general West, homosexuality is not only not a looked down upon life choice, but is often praised as a virtue) and his Marxist enlightenment, has led this effort. He stresses that this only affects companies that receive government monies, but it is retroactive and taken to a logical extreme, this would include any company or industry that has ever received a tax break or incentive.
The Russian owners of American companies and industries should look thoughtfully at this and the option of closing their facilities down and fleeing the land of the Red as fast as possible. In other words, divest while there is still value left.
The proud American will go down into his slavery with out a fight, beating his chest and proclaiming to the world, how free he really is. The world will only snicker.
Stanislav Mishin
The article has been reprinted with the kind permission from the author and originally appears on his blog, Mat Rodina
© 1999-2009. «PRAVDA.Ru». When reproducing our materials in whole or in part, hyperlink to PRAVDA.Ru should be made. The opinions and views of the authors do not always coincide with the point of view of PRAVDA.Ru's editors.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Empathy v. Impartiality
Jonah Goldberg
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Why make this complicated?
President Obama prefers Supreme Court justices who will violate their oath of office. And he hopes Sonia Sotomayor is the right Hispanic woman for the job. Here's the oath Supreme Court justices must take:
"I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as (title) under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."
Contrast that with Obama's insistence that the "quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles" is the key qualification for a Supreme Court justice. According to White House talking points, Judge Sotomayor's "American story" of humble origins -- she was raised in the South Bronx -- best prepares her for the high court because it shows "she understands that upholding the rule of law means going beyond legal theory to ensure consistent, fair, common-sense application of the law to real-world facts."
Obama says law and precedent should determine rulings in "95 percent of the cases." But in the really hard and important cases, justices should go with their heart. "In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy."
Now, keep in mind that 5 percent of Supreme Court cases isn't everything, but it's nearly 100 percent of what we argue about as a country. For the hard cases Americans care most about, Obama says empathy should rule.
So, what's wrong with empathy?
Well, nothing. Empathy is a fine thing, and all decent people should employ it, including Supreme Court justices.
But Obama has something specific in mind when he talks about empathy. He wants the justice's oath to in effect be rewritten. Judges must administer justice with respect to persons, they must be partial to the poor, and so on.
I don't think this is open to much debate. When Obama voted against Chief Justice John Roberts' confirmation, he said that Roberts didn't have the "heart" to vote the right way in those 5 percent of cases. Rather than Roberts the Cruel, Obama explained, "we need somebody who's got the heart -- the empathy -- to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old -- and that's the criteria by which I'll be selecting my judges." Cue Sotomayor the Empathic.
The reasoning here is a riot of dubious assumptions. Obama and Sotomayor both assume that a firsthand understanding of the plight of the poor or the African-American or the gay or the old will automatically result in justices voting a certain (liberal) way. "I would hope," Sotomayor said in 2001, "that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." This is not only deeply offensive, it is also nonsense on stilts. Clarence Thomas understands what it is like to be poor and black better than any justice who has ever sat on the bench. How's that working out for liberals?
Of course, liberals say that if you don't agree with their policy prescriptions on, say, racial quotas or abortion, it's because you don't care as much as they do about minorities or women. Which is why they've demonized Thomas as a villainous race-traitor. This, too, is aggressively stupid. But even if it were true, why are we talking about policy preferences and the courts? Judges aren't supposed to have policy preferences, despite Ms. Sotomayor's insistence that the courts are "where policy is made."
More important, who says conservatives are against judicial empathy? I, for one, am all for it. I'm for empathy for the party most deserving of justice before the Supreme Court, within the bounds of the law and Constitution. If that means siding with a poor black man, great. If that means siding with a rich white one, that's great too. The same holds for gays and gun owners, single mothers and media conglomerates. We should all rejoice when justices fulfill their oaths and give everyone a fair hearing, even if that's now out of fashion in the age of Obama.
Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Why make this complicated?
President Obama prefers Supreme Court justices who will violate their oath of office. And he hopes Sonia Sotomayor is the right Hispanic woman for the job. Here's the oath Supreme Court justices must take:
"I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as (title) under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."
Contrast that with Obama's insistence that the "quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles" is the key qualification for a Supreme Court justice. According to White House talking points, Judge Sotomayor's "American story" of humble origins -- she was raised in the South Bronx -- best prepares her for the high court because it shows "she understands that upholding the rule of law means going beyond legal theory to ensure consistent, fair, common-sense application of the law to real-world facts."
Obama says law and precedent should determine rulings in "95 percent of the cases." But in the really hard and important cases, justices should go with their heart. "In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy."
Now, keep in mind that 5 percent of Supreme Court cases isn't everything, but it's nearly 100 percent of what we argue about as a country. For the hard cases Americans care most about, Obama says empathy should rule.
So, what's wrong with empathy?
Well, nothing. Empathy is a fine thing, and all decent people should employ it, including Supreme Court justices.
But Obama has something specific in mind when he talks about empathy. He wants the justice's oath to in effect be rewritten. Judges must administer justice with respect to persons, they must be partial to the poor, and so on.
I don't think this is open to much debate. When Obama voted against Chief Justice John Roberts' confirmation, he said that Roberts didn't have the "heart" to vote the right way in those 5 percent of cases. Rather than Roberts the Cruel, Obama explained, "we need somebody who's got the heart -- the empathy -- to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old -- and that's the criteria by which I'll be selecting my judges." Cue Sotomayor the Empathic.
The reasoning here is a riot of dubious assumptions. Obama and Sotomayor both assume that a firsthand understanding of the plight of the poor or the African-American or the gay or the old will automatically result in justices voting a certain (liberal) way. "I would hope," Sotomayor said in 2001, "that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." This is not only deeply offensive, it is also nonsense on stilts. Clarence Thomas understands what it is like to be poor and black better than any justice who has ever sat on the bench. How's that working out for liberals?
Of course, liberals say that if you don't agree with their policy prescriptions on, say, racial quotas or abortion, it's because you don't care as much as they do about minorities or women. Which is why they've demonized Thomas as a villainous race-traitor. This, too, is aggressively stupid. But even if it were true, why are we talking about policy preferences and the courts? Judges aren't supposed to have policy preferences, despite Ms. Sotomayor's insistence that the courts are "where policy is made."
More important, who says conservatives are against judicial empathy? I, for one, am all for it. I'm for empathy for the party most deserving of justice before the Supreme Court, within the bounds of the law and Constitution. If that means siding with a poor black man, great. If that means siding with a rich white one, that's great too. The same holds for gays and gun owners, single mothers and media conglomerates. We should all rejoice when justices fulfill their oaths and give everyone a fair hearing, even if that's now out of fashion in the age of Obama.
Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
