As of yet, there are no retirements on this court.
Yahoo Article
The other news is the Ten Commandments cases. There were too cases, and the Supreme Court came down on the side of... it's hard to tell.
My Way News Article
"The Supreme Court struggled in a pair of 5-4 rulings Monday to define how much blending of church and state is constitutionally permissible, allowing the Ten Commandments to be displayed outside the Texas state Capitol but not inside Kentucky courthouses."
Millions across the nation were poised as the Highest Court in the land was at last going to decide things for the nation. We owe them are heartfelt thanks for clearing this one up.
As usual, one of the conservative justices is thinking most clearly. "Justice Antonin Scalia released a stinging dissent in the courthouse case, declaring, "What distinguishes the rule of law from the dictatorship of a shifting Supreme Court majority is the absolutely indispensable requirement that judicial opinions be grounded in consistently applied principle."
Oh, and just to clarify, the first amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
There is no explicit seperation of church and state. That comes from a letter Jefferson wrote to a clergyman--if memory serves me correctly. We certainly like to abide by the deist's position on organized religion. Too bad we don't agree with the man's positions on everything else.
If the ruling went against the Commandments I wouldn't be thrilled, but I wouldn't be surprised. The Constitution has been misinterpreted, especially in regard to religious rights, for so long that it's hardly worth mentioning.
What is worth mentioning is this absurd notion that depending on where something is, it can mean different things. When the Constitution is ignored, there is no standard to judge any of this. Inconsistent rulings should become even more commonplace.
Here's hoping someone retires and the court can get another judge who actually follows the Consititution as Scalia--the medicinal marijuana case not withstanding--does.
Lately most of them have just been making stuff up.
Monday, June 27, 2005
Sunday, June 26, 2005
The Chinese Elephant in the Living Room
China is in the news again. Tran Sient has one story:
Tran Sient's Watch
Essentially, China may purchase Unocal Corp., which is only the ninth largest oil and gas company here in the U.S.
For those who aren't worried that a Communist Regime may control a good part of our energy, Bill Gertz may change your mind:
Bill Gertz
"China is building its military forces faster than U.S. intelligence and military analysts expected, prompting fears that Beijing will attack Taiwan in the next two years, according to Pentagon officials.
U.S. defense and intelligence officials say all the signs point in one troubling direction: Beijing then will be forced to go to war with the United States, which has vowed to defend Taiwan against a Chinese attack."
I know many of us just love Walmart's low prices, but it seems America's dependence on China for cheap goods has been fueling their economy quite nicely. The trade deficit of 160 billion is one big reason that the Chinese economy has been growing for 10% a year for the last ten years.
More from Gertz:
"For China, Taiwan is not the only issue behind the buildup of military forces. Beijing also is facing a major energy shortage that, according to one Pentagon study, could lead it to use military force to seize territory with oil and gas resources.
The report produced for the Office of Net Assessment, which conducts assessments of future threats, was made public in January and warned that China's need for oil, gas and other energy resources is driving the country toward becoming an expansionist power."
So are we going to give them Unocal so that they don't attach Taiwain. I don't think it's so simple, though certainly fears of China have rendered Americans a bit gunshy on this one. Talking ill of Saddam and Osama is cupcakes compared to dealing with the red power from the East. Still, appeasement didn't work for Chamberlin. We'll see how it goes this time around.
Essentially then, China will need to be confronted. I'm certainly no war hawk, but we have agreements with both Japan and Taiwan in case China goes to war with them. We need to act soon to avoid a showdown with China, that, quite frankly, will be a bloody mess that severs the life of this Republic.
"Richard Fisher, vice president of the International Assessment and Strategy Center, said that in 10 years, the Chinese army has shifted from a defensive force to an advanced military soon capable of operations ranging from space warfare to global non-nuclear cruise-missile strikes.
"Let's all wake up. The post-Cold War peace is over," Mr. Fisher said. "We are now in an arms race with a new superpower whose goal is to contain and overtake the United States.""
Indeed we need to wake up. Let's equalize this trade deficit, keep our energy companies in the hands of Americans, and do something to prevent war with China.
At the very least we need to formalize this nation's policy on China. The time for tepidity has long passed.
Tran Sient's Watch
Essentially, China may purchase Unocal Corp., which is only the ninth largest oil and gas company here in the U.S.
For those who aren't worried that a Communist Regime may control a good part of our energy, Bill Gertz may change your mind:
Bill Gertz
"China is building its military forces faster than U.S. intelligence and military analysts expected, prompting fears that Beijing will attack Taiwan in the next two years, according to Pentagon officials.
U.S. defense and intelligence officials say all the signs point in one troubling direction: Beijing then will be forced to go to war with the United States, which has vowed to defend Taiwan against a Chinese attack."
I know many of us just love Walmart's low prices, but it seems America's dependence on China for cheap goods has been fueling their economy quite nicely. The trade deficit of 160 billion is one big reason that the Chinese economy has been growing for 10% a year for the last ten years.
More from Gertz:
"For China, Taiwan is not the only issue behind the buildup of military forces. Beijing also is facing a major energy shortage that, according to one Pentagon study, could lead it to use military force to seize territory with oil and gas resources.
The report produced for the Office of Net Assessment, which conducts assessments of future threats, was made public in January and warned that China's need for oil, gas and other energy resources is driving the country toward becoming an expansionist power."
So are we going to give them Unocal so that they don't attach Taiwain. I don't think it's so simple, though certainly fears of China have rendered Americans a bit gunshy on this one. Talking ill of Saddam and Osama is cupcakes compared to dealing with the red power from the East. Still, appeasement didn't work for Chamberlin. We'll see how it goes this time around.
Essentially then, China will need to be confronted. I'm certainly no war hawk, but we have agreements with both Japan and Taiwan in case China goes to war with them. We need to act soon to avoid a showdown with China, that, quite frankly, will be a bloody mess that severs the life of this Republic.
"Richard Fisher, vice president of the International Assessment and Strategy Center, said that in 10 years, the Chinese army has shifted from a defensive force to an advanced military soon capable of operations ranging from space warfare to global non-nuclear cruise-missile strikes.
"Let's all wake up. The post-Cold War peace is over," Mr. Fisher said. "We are now in an arms race with a new superpower whose goal is to contain and overtake the United States.""
Indeed we need to wake up. Let's equalize this trade deficit, keep our energy companies in the hands of Americans, and do something to prevent war with China.
At the very least we need to formalize this nation's policy on China. The time for tepidity has long passed.
Saturday, June 25, 2005
Same-sex Nonsense (and NFP Too)
Those who have read any of my writings know that I am quite conservative. My viewpoints, which once constituted reasonable thought amongst a majority of men and women, are now clutched to my a distinctly small minority in this country. Buchanan bemoans this very thing: “Nietzsche called this the transvaluation of all values; the old virtues become sin and the old sins become virtues.” I will not dwell on the social factors that have led to this, but will rather outline and back up my belief system.
One of the biggest misunderstandings raging in America concerns human sexuality. Once deemed abhorrent, homosexuality is now considered acceptable by a growing number of Americans. Contraception, which was at one point rejected by every major Christian faith, is now defended against by only the Roman Catholic Church and a decided minority of her members. In fact, surveys put the number of married American Catholics who do not practice some form of birth control—other than the Church accepted Natural Family Planning—at about 4 percent.
In order to understand why homosexuality and contraception are wrong, I must lay out the Catholic views on sex. In 1968, Pope Paul VI came out with the encyclical Humanae Vitae confirming the Church's position on human sexuality. According to the Roman Catholic Church, sex had two purposes: unity, and procreation.
The first purpose is pretty obvious. Sex is a powerful act and the two participants are drawn closer together because of it. It is, partly because of this power, that the Church has consecrated sex only for marriage, but more on that later.
The second purpose is rather evident. Without procreation, the human race would cease to be. God has provided for, in sex, the vehicle through which humans will be disseminated. “God blessed them, saying: 'Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on the earth.'” (Genesis 1:28) By telling us to be fertile and multiply God is giving a stamp of approval on sex, when used for the procreative purpose it was intended for.
Isn't there another purpose though? Sex is pleasurable, and many may argue that this too is a purpose. To which I would ask: “What is the purpose of eating?” or “What is the purpose of sleeping?” Eating and sleeping are necessary if humans are to continue to exist. Eating provides nourishment and sleeping provides rest. Sleeping, eating and sex are all pleasurable because God, in his wisdom, made them this way. If they were not enjoyable we would not have done them, and the human race would be consequently extinct.
Pleasure is a kind side affect, but it is no more the reason for eating and sleeping than it is for having sex. After all, if all we did all day was eat and sleep, we wouldn't be very healthy. Sex, too, has natural consequences built into it, namely pregnancy. Humans could not have sex all the time unless they wished to have children. Birth control has minimized, though not eliminated this risk, but sex still has consequences, which I shall address a bit later.
One could infer from my analogy, that since if we do not eat and sleep we will die, if we do not have sex we will die. Thus, abstinence is unhealthy and birth control allows us to have sex, as necessary to life as eating and sleeping. It is true that if one goes without eating and/or sleeping one will die. Likewise, without sex, human life will cease, so we need it to live, although I am unaware of anyone who has died as a result of abstaining from sex. Furthermore, abstinence is not sexual repression, but acceptance of God's gift of sex and His desire for it's use in the correct context of marriage.
Marriage was instituted by God to provide for mankind the best way to perpetuate itself. “The Lord God said: 'It is not good for man to be alone. I will make a suitable partner for him.' The man gave names to all the cattle, all the birds of the air, and all the wild animals; but none proved to be a suitable partner for the man.” (Genesis 2:18, 20) Thus God created the woman, Eve, to be a partner for the man, Adam. “He said in reply, 'Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?” (Matthew 19:4-5)
This is all well and good for those who believe in the Judeo-Christian creator God, but it should be just as apparent to non-believers as well. As procreation takes a man and a woman and unity is enhanced through sex, marriage between man and woman is a natural institution.
What good then does it do for two homosexuals to become married? The sexual act will of course unify the two, but without the ability for procreation, the act is intrinsically infertile. Thus, if the purpose of sex is procreative, homosexual sex is both impractical and immoral.
It is important to draw a distinction between homosexuals and homosexual behavior. Christians are called to obey the two greatest commandments, “He said in reply, 'You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your being, with all your strength, and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.'” (Luke 10:27) Jesus calls His followers to love everyone unconditionally as He did.
Unconditional love does not mean acceptance of immoral behavior. When Jesus caught the woman in adultery, He did love her, but he didn't allow her to go on her way without improving. Under Jewish law, she was to be stoned to death for he sin. “Then Jesus straightened up and said to her, 'Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?' She replied, 'No one sir.' Then Jesus said, 'Neither do I condemn you. Go, and from now on do not sin any more.'” (John 8:10-11)
Some may say that because Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, it must not be sinful. This is an absurd argument. He never mentioned abortion either, although Jesus would of course be very much against abortion. There are chastisements of sexual immorality in the Bible. “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination. Everyone who does any of these abominations shall be cut off from among his people.” (Leviticus 18:22,29)
The New Testament mentions homosexual behavior as well. “Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolators nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will ever inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10) “[Or] do you not know that anyone who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For 'the two', it says, 'will become one flesh.' (1 Corinthians 6:16) “Let marriage be honored among all of and the marriage bed be kept undefiled, for God will judge the immoral and adulterers.” (Hebrews 13:4) “Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own person the due penalty for their perversity.” (Romans 1:26-27)
It is readily apparent that St. Paul was against sex outside of marriage especially homosexual relations. Still, should the fact that Jesus did not mention this sway us? Of course not. Jesus spoke to Jews who were familiar with Jewish law, which clearly prohibits homosexual behavior. The Corinthians and the Romans were not familiar with Jewish law and because of this, Paul had to enlighten them.
Those who curse homosexuals and urge God's wrath upon them are doing all of us a disservice. The only consistent Christian position on homosexuality is one of disdain for the act. However, this must be coupled with a love for the people. After all, if homosexuality is a serious sin—and indeed it is—how much more are practicing homosexuals in need of our love and prayers?
In today's world, it is increasingly considered intolerant to deem certain behavior immoral. Christians may be told to follow Jesus' advice and “Stop judging, that you may not be judged.” (Matthew 7:1) Yet if homosexuality is indeed a sin and sodomites will not inherit the kingdom of God, it is surely worse not to speak up. Our love for others compels us to help our brothers and sisters to reach God's kingdom. As Christians we cannot watch idly as our neighbors falter.
Close in connection with homosexuality, is contraception. Both are immoral because they render, or at least attempt to render, the sexual act infertile. Fertility is a gift from God. Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist, was barren for a long time before she conceived John. “'So has the Lord done for me at a time when he has seen fit to take away my disgrace before others.'” (Luke 1:25) At the time, it was believed—falsely—that the reason a woman was infertile was that she or her husband had sinned against God. Conversely, woman who were fertile were seen to be good. Children were correctly understood to be a gift from God.
Society has certainly turned this one on it's head. Children are now considered secondary to having a job. Since women desire to work, and yet still want to have sex, the pill has seemed like an immense gift. The pill allows women the “freedom” to put off having children until it is convenient. This freedom comes at a great price however. Contraceptive sex makes an emphatic no to God's will. “Do you think it right to say, 'I am just rather than God?'” (Job 35:2) For that is what contraception does.
Contraception says to God, I want the unity and the pleasure but not the procreation. God is not invited because He is wrong. We reason that sex should be for our pleasure and we do not need Him. God brings pregnancy which only complicates our lives. We will have children when we want to. After all, we cannot afford to have twelve children. Although I do find it hard to believe that the richest nation on earth cannot afford to raise its children, the point, though presented in an extreme form, is a valid one.
There are two replies I wish to make to those who argue that for personal reasons contraception is acceptable. First, have you no faith in God? Surely He will not bless a couple with so many pregnancies that the children will starve. Also, if a couple does not wish to have kids, why would you have sex?
This should be practical and logical, but is seen as archaically oppressive instead. Self-discipline, once honored as a virtue is now deplored as not needed. Yet, if I cannot swim, I do not jump into the sea. Why do we have sex if pregnancy is not wanted? I can't possibly be so callous as to wish to prohibit all sex within a marriage can I? No, and again, God has provided an answer. Catholics call it natural family planning, or NFP.
The way NFP works is that it determines when a woman is likely to be pregnant and when she will not be fertile. The specifics involve the mucus surrounding the woman's reproductive organ and may be researched if that is wished. The obvious benefit of NFP is that if a husband and a wife cannot have a child at the moment—according to Pope Pius XII, for “medical, eugenical, economic, and social order” reasons—the couple may abstain from sex during those times where the wife is fertile. They can still, in good conscience participate in sex during the infertile times of the month.
What is the difference though? If contraception is immoral because it renders the act infertile how come it is okay to participate in sex during the infertile times without damage to the soul? The difference is simple. With contraception, humans are playing God and choosing to render the act infertile on their own. With NFP, couples are abstaining when God has blessed the woman with fertility. God has provided, through the natural rhythms of a woman's cycle, time for a couple to engage in sex without procreation. He realized that it would be stupid to expect two people who love each other from having sex for all of eternity. Sex is a powerful binding force and God wishes husband and wife to be unified in Him.
That being said, it is clear that NFP is meant only for extreme matters. A couple should not abuse this in order to actually plan their family. The role of NFP is to provide a means for unity and a protection from insanity and irritability if it will be too difficult for the couple to have a child at the present time. In faith, a married couple should trust God to give them as many children as they can handle in accordance with his plan.
Part of the reason birth control has become so acceptable is that certain people—Malthus and Ehrlich—predicted that the world population was becoming too large. Our food supply could not keep up with the population boom and mass starvation was ahead. Malthus and Ehrlich were wrong, of course, but their advice was heeded. No longer are large families the norm, as most couples have one to three children in America and the Western world. Even Catholic Italy has a birth rate below that of replacement level—a birth rate 2.1 children per couple is needed to sustain population.
While this was undertaken in some respects for a good reason—no one wants mass starvation—it againg showed the lack of faith we have in God. What kind of God would allow His people to be fertile and multiply and then allow them to perish by starvation? “'Do not worry about tomorrow; tomorrow will take care of itself.'” (Matthew 6:34) If that is not evidence that God is looking out for us, then nothing is.
Another claim people make regarding NFP is that it is unreliable. Fortunately, they are wrong. This is not your grandmother's “rhythm method”. NFP has a .004% failure rate. This is not only not unreliable, but actually more reliable than conventional birth control. The failure rate is statistically insignificant. God does indeed know best.
Perhaps it will be acknowledged that I was thorough in my defense of the Catholic faith, but I did use Scripture to do it. This is to help my fellow Christians, but what about agnostics and atheists? This circular logic will probably not hold much weight with them. The only meaningful argument is that NFP is more reliable than birth control. Yet I doubt that will sway many. The major draw of birth control is that it allows us to have what we want when we want it. NFP offers no such luxury.
I'm not going to confront atheists and agnostics. My arguments against homosexual conduct and use of birth control are primarily of a moral nature. While atheists and agnostics often have a moral guide, it is impossible for me to formulate an argument for every possible value system. Instead, I offer the Judeo-Christian tradition as my background and defend from there. As a majority of Americans are Christians, this should have some affect upon them. Of course, all too often, our pursuit of God rings just as hollow as our lifestyles.
Inherent in the Christian religion is the belief that God's will is more important than ours. We serve Him first. “Yet I live, no longer I, but Chirst lives in me.” (Galatians 2:20) If we are living for God, we should have no trouble accepting children in marriage. It is only when we are selfish that we reject God's plan. It is time Christians stopped neglecting God and turned to Him. Out country and our children need Him more than ever.
Taking a Stand
The readers of my blog know that I'm a libertarian minded fellow who likes to hold the Republicans feet to my pathetic little fire when they stray from the ideals of conservatism. Conservatism seems misconstrued. True, conservatism should not be a reactionary habit, but rather a progressive one. The government should not conserve tradition if tradition is a bad thing. Put another way, if things are running poorly in Washington—as almost everyone I am sure would agree—changes should be made to make them run more smoothly. Keeping the status quo is a stance for gutless cowards. It came as a surprise that I too was a gutless coward, by my own standard.
I still have no political clout. I have a vote, and may influence, however lightly, the votes of a few others, but I cannot as yet change the political clime. Without power, I thus have little responsibility. If I am not a hypocrite politically, what then could I be talking about?
I am a Catholic Christian. I don't often write concerning social considerations, but I think it is obvious that I am not socially liberal. In truth, I support my Church in all her majestic teaching. No, I do not have a lot of power on the religious front, I cannot yet defrock and excommunicate pedophile priests, but I can still shout loudly. This is my statement to a move to be more vocal on the religious front.
My reasons for this are twofold. First, if I am going to criticize the Republicans for being wimps, I cannot be one as well. If I am as adamant about my Catholic faith as I am about my dedication to conservatism, I must back it up.
The other reason is that religious considerations are infinitely more important and needed more desperately. If our leaders continue to reject the wisdom of the founders, we will either end up in a socialist mess, a corporate controlled fiasco, or an amalgamated cacophony of the two. This is clearly regrettable, and I am doing what
I can—however little that may be—to try to prevent that from happening. If this country continues its slide into moral decadence and complete relativism, the consequences will be much more dire. Believing as I do, in the existence of a hell, the squandering of our freedom by bureaucrats seems almost insignificant. It is my duty then, to preach what I believe.
I can almost hear the groaning now. I don't think I have gone off the deep end here. I shall continue to use reason and tact to make my points. It has been my experience that the American public has a terribly false view of Christian, and especially Catholic ideology. Falwell's heart may be in the right place—and again it may not be—but I am not sure where on earth his head is sometimes. I will try to fill what I see as a void in my limited scope in this, the blogosphere.
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
The Last Straw?
I haven’t posted in some time. I have been busy at home and my internet access is quite limited. I have had some matters to write about—the Newsweek thing of course, where I felt not enough blame was being put on the rioters, and my state’s misinformed idea to raise the minimum wage, to name just two—but I didn’t want to post unless I could do so at a rate to make it worth my reader’s (such as they are) time. Breaking with this tradition, there is a matter upon which I felt I need to post. It is quite lengthy, though I tried to keep it succint. Hopefully it will be as thought provoking to all of you to read as it was aggravating for me to write.
Dr. James Dobson is the leader of Focus on the Family, a powerful organization among the “religious right”. He is stark-raving mad about the recent capitulation on behalf of “moderate” Republicans on the so-called nuclear option. And rightfully so. Though the Republican party has a majority of 55 Senators to the Democratic party’s 44—there is one independent—the Republicans have “compromised”.
Compromise is too nice a word. They have sold out. This may finally bring awareness to loyal members of the party base, that, no, your voice does not matter. Seven Senate Republicans have decided that fighting for federal pro-life judges is not worth the political risk. It’s time the religious right made them regret their remarks.
The compromise being so highly tauted in certain circles—MoveOn.org thought is was great, which should say something—means that getting a pro-life justice appointed to the Supreme Court will be extremely difficult. In exchange for conformation votes on Owens, Brown and Pryor to federal courts, the Democrats promise not to filibuster except in “extraordinary” circumstances. The price to pay for the Republicans is that they may not use the “nuclear option” to force a vote on nominees.
The implications will be far-reaching. When Rhenquist steps down, Bush will nominate a conservative judge in the tradition of the current chief justice. Invariably, the Democrats will filibuster to oppose this radical (read: pro-life) candidate as this is surely an “extraordinary” circumstance. The Republicans will then be like a fish out of water. If they try to force a vote, they will have broken a promise. Bush will be forced to give in and nominate a judge who is not pro-life.
After all, that is the one isssue which the Democrats find reprehensible. The pro-choice crowd has become a voting bloc much like the pro-lifers are to the Republicans. The differene, of course, is that the Democrats work for their constituents, not against them. While Republicans have allowed pro-choice judges to ascend to the Supreme Court, the current Senate Democrats will not be as considerate.
Consider for a moment, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. In 1993 there was an opening on the Supreme Court. Bill Clinton nominated Miss Ginsburg, an extremist. The proof: as a member of the ACLU she favored lowering the age of consent to twelve years.
Eliminate the phrase ‘carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife, who has not attained the age of 16 years’ and substitute a federal sex-neutral definition of the offense… A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person… [and] the other person is, in fact, less than 12 years old.
If Ginsburg was in charge of writing all of our laws, one could say goodbye to most cases of statutory rape. Yet this radical was not filibustered by the Republicans. Bob Dole even voted for her nomination.
If Ruth Bader Ginsburg is allowed through, why not pro-life judges, too? Opposing abortion is not nearly as extreme as endorcing sexual relations between 13 year-olds and adults of any age.
What is so extreme about the pro-life position? After all, the Constitution doesn’t mention abortion at all. Shouldn’t the regulation of abortion fall to the states under the 10th Amendment? Of course it should, which is why the Democrats are so scared of pro-life judges. A court decision abolishing abortion is no more radical than the Warren court’s landmark Roe v. Wade decision.
Why is it so revolutionary to be against abortion? And why is it not equally as radical to oppose all restrictions on abortion? Surely, the liberal who wants state-funded abortion is just as radical as the conservative who wants abortion allowed only if the life of the mother is in danger. Yet they are not portrayed as equally extreme.
Furthermore, compromise on this issue is quite possible. The partial birth abortion ban passed recently—until, in a burst of true radicalism, a judge deemed it unconstitutional—was such a compromise. The fact that most Democrats voted against this and former president Clinton vetoed it twice shows who is extreme on abortion. Reasonable people should be able to agree that if there is to be abortion—for the sake of the argument—provisions should be undertaken to make it as infrequent as possible and to provide restrictions in extreme cases. Partial birth abortions are fortunately quite rare and there is little doubt that the “fetus” is caused great pain. Yet the Democrats refuse to limit such an abhorent practice.
The reason this is so important is simple. Pat Buchanan has called the Supreme Court a “battering ram for social revolution”. Indeed, it has been so. What the Democrats have been unable to accomplish through the traditional legislative process, they have done so through the High Court. Abortion was never voted on by the people, but was instead forced upon them. Citing a “right to prviacy” found in the “penumbra of the Constitution” the court deemed restriction on abortion illegal.
The “right to privacy” is all well and good, except that the Constitution now applies to the States, something it was never intended to do. Of the thirteen original colonies, all had passed laws making sodomy illegal. In some states it was even punishable by death. Yet, the Supreme Court decided that a Texas law prohibiting sodomy was itself Unconstitutional. How wise our court must be, to know the intentions of the Founder’s document better then the Founder’s themselves.
An unfettered right to privacy disallows the federal government from brandishing most activities immoral. Under this logic, all drugs should be legal. In fact, one is hard-pressed to come up with any law that does not affect, in at least some small way, the privacy of the citizens of this country.
There are two problems with Roe v. Wade. First, the court ignored the 10th Amendment in it’s decision. The correct interpretation of the Constitution gives the states the right to regulate and legislate on abortion, as was done prior to Roe.
The greater consideration is this: a right to privacy is only honored if it doesn’t infringe on another citizen’s rights. A man’s freedom to extend his fist is prevented by another man’s face. The Court took into no account the other entity involved in abortion.
This is where the whole dilemma lies. The religious Republicans consider the beating heart and detectable brain waves signs of a human being alive in the mother’s womb. They feel that taking the life an unborn fetus at any age would be murder as the life is a human life all the way from conception.
Pro-choicers disagree. The fetus becomes a baby when it is born and no sooner. This is a slightly curious argument as the baby may come quite early and survive the pregnancy nonetheless. There is also little logic offered to combat the evidence of brain waves and the beating of another human heart.
My point is not to prove pro-choicers wrong. While it is true I am ardently pro-life and believe that they are, the issue here is much bigger than my personal preference on abortion. This is about the Democrats stubborness in confirming a pro-life justice, whose only extremeness lies in the fact that he or she dares to believe that the fetus is indeed a human being and consequently should be protected.
It is Democrats who are acting not only against precedent, but actually unconstitutionally. Article Six of the U.S. Constitution reads: “[N]o religious test shall ever be required as a qualification of any office or public trust under the United States.” When it comes down to it, the Democrats are doing nothing but performing a religious test on candidates. Rather than call them out on it, Republicans have let this behaviour slide.
Make no mistake about it, seven ill-advised Republicans prevented a pro-life justice from being nominated to the Supreme Court. Rhenquist will step down this term, and others may as well. In the near future, the Republicans will have a hard time confirming any pro-life judge as the Democrats have now set a new precedent. The time had come to put up or shut up, and the Republicans have decided to let the majority’s voice not be heard.
For too long has the Republican party taken for granted the religious conservative vote. After all, in a two-party system, who else will pro-lifers vote for? Surely not the Democrats. Yet the votes will not keep coming forever. Republicans turned out in droves to re-elect Bush in 2004, for though, for all his faults, he is a socially conservative gentleman. Will they turn out to elect someone who holds the pro-life cause in as low esteem as John McCain?
To all those who believe that the fetus in the womb is actually an unborn baby: are you tired of a Republican party that had done nothing to combat the greatest injustice currently being perpetuated in this country? Are you sick of moderates controlling the party’s social agenda? Do you wish for an end to abortion in America? Write your congressmen and women as well as your senator. Let it be known where you stand.
In the off-year elections of 2006 the Religious Right should no longer support “moderate” Republicans. We must let the Republican party know that the pro-life voice cannot be taken for granted. Some may argue that doing so will allow Democrats to achieve more power. This is true, but what have the Republicans gained from power? Controlling both houses of Congress and the Presidency has put this country no closer to ending the evil of abortion.
If the Republicans are shaken up enough, they will listen to their base. It is possible that in 2008 conservatives will be able to nominate a candidate who is serious about ending abortion at all costs. The time has come to take charge of the party before it strays from all it has long stood for. If we waver in this moment, all will be lost. If we stand strong, we may, at long last, be able to turn the tide and end the court’s social revolution.
Dr. James Dobson is the leader of Focus on the Family, a powerful organization among the “religious right”. He is stark-raving mad about the recent capitulation on behalf of “moderate” Republicans on the so-called nuclear option. And rightfully so. Though the Republican party has a majority of 55 Senators to the Democratic party’s 44—there is one independent—the Republicans have “compromised”.
Compromise is too nice a word. They have sold out. This may finally bring awareness to loyal members of the party base, that, no, your voice does not matter. Seven Senate Republicans have decided that fighting for federal pro-life judges is not worth the political risk. It’s time the religious right made them regret their remarks.
The compromise being so highly tauted in certain circles—MoveOn.org thought is was great, which should say something—means that getting a pro-life justice appointed to the Supreme Court will be extremely difficult. In exchange for conformation votes on Owens, Brown and Pryor to federal courts, the Democrats promise not to filibuster except in “extraordinary” circumstances. The price to pay for the Republicans is that they may not use the “nuclear option” to force a vote on nominees.
The implications will be far-reaching. When Rhenquist steps down, Bush will nominate a conservative judge in the tradition of the current chief justice. Invariably, the Democrats will filibuster to oppose this radical (read: pro-life) candidate as this is surely an “extraordinary” circumstance. The Republicans will then be like a fish out of water. If they try to force a vote, they will have broken a promise. Bush will be forced to give in and nominate a judge who is not pro-life.
After all, that is the one isssue which the Democrats find reprehensible. The pro-choice crowd has become a voting bloc much like the pro-lifers are to the Republicans. The differene, of course, is that the Democrats work for their constituents, not against them. While Republicans have allowed pro-choice judges to ascend to the Supreme Court, the current Senate Democrats will not be as considerate.
Consider for a moment, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. In 1993 there was an opening on the Supreme Court. Bill Clinton nominated Miss Ginsburg, an extremist. The proof: as a member of the ACLU she favored lowering the age of consent to twelve years.
Eliminate the phrase ‘carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife, who has not attained the age of 16 years’ and substitute a federal sex-neutral definition of the offense… A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person… [and] the other person is, in fact, less than 12 years old.
If Ginsburg was in charge of writing all of our laws, one could say goodbye to most cases of statutory rape. Yet this radical was not filibustered by the Republicans. Bob Dole even voted for her nomination.
If Ruth Bader Ginsburg is allowed through, why not pro-life judges, too? Opposing abortion is not nearly as extreme as endorcing sexual relations between 13 year-olds and adults of any age.
What is so extreme about the pro-life position? After all, the Constitution doesn’t mention abortion at all. Shouldn’t the regulation of abortion fall to the states under the 10th Amendment? Of course it should, which is why the Democrats are so scared of pro-life judges. A court decision abolishing abortion is no more radical than the Warren court’s landmark Roe v. Wade decision.
Why is it so revolutionary to be against abortion? And why is it not equally as radical to oppose all restrictions on abortion? Surely, the liberal who wants state-funded abortion is just as radical as the conservative who wants abortion allowed only if the life of the mother is in danger. Yet they are not portrayed as equally extreme.
Furthermore, compromise on this issue is quite possible. The partial birth abortion ban passed recently—until, in a burst of true radicalism, a judge deemed it unconstitutional—was such a compromise. The fact that most Democrats voted against this and former president Clinton vetoed it twice shows who is extreme on abortion. Reasonable people should be able to agree that if there is to be abortion—for the sake of the argument—provisions should be undertaken to make it as infrequent as possible and to provide restrictions in extreme cases. Partial birth abortions are fortunately quite rare and there is little doubt that the “fetus” is caused great pain. Yet the Democrats refuse to limit such an abhorent practice.
The reason this is so important is simple. Pat Buchanan has called the Supreme Court a “battering ram for social revolution”. Indeed, it has been so. What the Democrats have been unable to accomplish through the traditional legislative process, they have done so through the High Court. Abortion was never voted on by the people, but was instead forced upon them. Citing a “right to prviacy” found in the “penumbra of the Constitution” the court deemed restriction on abortion illegal.
The “right to privacy” is all well and good, except that the Constitution now applies to the States, something it was never intended to do. Of the thirteen original colonies, all had passed laws making sodomy illegal. In some states it was even punishable by death. Yet, the Supreme Court decided that a Texas law prohibiting sodomy was itself Unconstitutional. How wise our court must be, to know the intentions of the Founder’s document better then the Founder’s themselves.
An unfettered right to privacy disallows the federal government from brandishing most activities immoral. Under this logic, all drugs should be legal. In fact, one is hard-pressed to come up with any law that does not affect, in at least some small way, the privacy of the citizens of this country.
There are two problems with Roe v. Wade. First, the court ignored the 10th Amendment in it’s decision. The correct interpretation of the Constitution gives the states the right to regulate and legislate on abortion, as was done prior to Roe.
The greater consideration is this: a right to privacy is only honored if it doesn’t infringe on another citizen’s rights. A man’s freedom to extend his fist is prevented by another man’s face. The Court took into no account the other entity involved in abortion.
This is where the whole dilemma lies. The religious Republicans consider the beating heart and detectable brain waves signs of a human being alive in the mother’s womb. They feel that taking the life an unborn fetus at any age would be murder as the life is a human life all the way from conception.
Pro-choicers disagree. The fetus becomes a baby when it is born and no sooner. This is a slightly curious argument as the baby may come quite early and survive the pregnancy nonetheless. There is also little logic offered to combat the evidence of brain waves and the beating of another human heart.
My point is not to prove pro-choicers wrong. While it is true I am ardently pro-life and believe that they are, the issue here is much bigger than my personal preference on abortion. This is about the Democrats stubborness in confirming a pro-life justice, whose only extremeness lies in the fact that he or she dares to believe that the fetus is indeed a human being and consequently should be protected.
It is Democrats who are acting not only against precedent, but actually unconstitutionally. Article Six of the U.S. Constitution reads: “[N]o religious test shall ever be required as a qualification of any office or public trust under the United States.” When it comes down to it, the Democrats are doing nothing but performing a religious test on candidates. Rather than call them out on it, Republicans have let this behaviour slide.
Make no mistake about it, seven ill-advised Republicans prevented a pro-life justice from being nominated to the Supreme Court. Rhenquist will step down this term, and others may as well. In the near future, the Republicans will have a hard time confirming any pro-life judge as the Democrats have now set a new precedent. The time had come to put up or shut up, and the Republicans have decided to let the majority’s voice not be heard.
For too long has the Republican party taken for granted the religious conservative vote. After all, in a two-party system, who else will pro-lifers vote for? Surely not the Democrats. Yet the votes will not keep coming forever. Republicans turned out in droves to re-elect Bush in 2004, for though, for all his faults, he is a socially conservative gentleman. Will they turn out to elect someone who holds the pro-life cause in as low esteem as John McCain?
To all those who believe that the fetus in the womb is actually an unborn baby: are you tired of a Republican party that had done nothing to combat the greatest injustice currently being perpetuated in this country? Are you sick of moderates controlling the party’s social agenda? Do you wish for an end to abortion in America? Write your congressmen and women as well as your senator. Let it be known where you stand.
In the off-year elections of 2006 the Religious Right should no longer support “moderate” Republicans. We must let the Republican party know that the pro-life voice cannot be taken for granted. Some may argue that doing so will allow Democrats to achieve more power. This is true, but what have the Republicans gained from power? Controlling both houses of Congress and the Presidency has put this country no closer to ending the evil of abortion.
If the Republicans are shaken up enough, they will listen to their base. It is possible that in 2008 conservatives will be able to nominate a candidate who is serious about ending abortion at all costs. The time has come to take charge of the party before it strays from all it has long stood for. If we waver in this moment, all will be lost. If we stand strong, we may, at long last, be able to turn the tide and end the court’s social revolution.
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
Abu Ghraib... Still With Us
Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass) made a very eloquent and compelling speech concerning U.S. human rights abuses in Iraq and Afghanistan, on this, the one year anniversary of Abu Ghraib.
Drudge has the full context of his speech.
Essentially, Kennedy indicts the administration dealing with this scandal, and the war at large. He further blames the Republican Congress for abdicating their responsibility to hold the Executive branch accountable. He then calls for an independent commission to get to the bottom of this.
It is a very well-written speeach. Rarely do I find myself agreeing with Kennedy, though, his motives aside, he puts to the forefront an issue we must deal with.
Let the spin and political fallout begin.
Drudge has the full context of his speech.
Essentially, Kennedy indicts the administration dealing with this scandal, and the war at large. He further blames the Republican Congress for abdicating their responsibility to hold the Executive branch accountable. He then calls for an independent commission to get to the bottom of this.
It is a very well-written speeach. Rarely do I find myself agreeing with Kennedy, though, his motives aside, he puts to the forefront an issue we must deal with.
Let the spin and political fallout begin.
DeLay
House Majority Leader Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TEX) has been under scrutiny from the mainstream press for some shady dealings with lobbyists. I have not yet commented on this, because I didn't see how this was a story.
All of Congress is in bed with special interest. We all know that. For skeptics: CBS News Article
"The PoliticalMoneyLine study reviewed 5,410 trips taken by 605 members of the House and Senate. Democratic lawmakers had the edge, taking 3,025 trips, to 2,375 trips for GOP members.
The No. 1 trip-taker in dollar terms was Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., chairman of the
House Judiciary Committee. Sensenbrenner took 19 trips valued at $168,000.
In contrast, DeLay finished 28th by taking 14 trips valued at $94,568. "
If DeLay were the only one involved, I'd be worked up. As it is, so many of our representatives are entangled with lobbyists that throwing DeLay out wouldn't do a whole lot. Now if there's a way we can impeach everyone in Washington, let me know where I sign up.
Until then, I'm not getting all emotional.
I've harped on this before, and I'll harp on it again. Without term limits, we are never going to have even a vaguely accountable Congress.
Remember the "Contract With America"? Newt Gingrich mobilized conservatives. Republicans were elected throughout the country, taking over the House of Representatives, promising to balance the budget.
They did that then, but a lot of them are still there, and a Republican House won't balance a budget for Bush like they did under Clinton.
Power corrupts...
All of Congress is in bed with special interest. We all know that. For skeptics: CBS News Article
"The PoliticalMoneyLine study reviewed 5,410 trips taken by 605 members of the House and Senate. Democratic lawmakers had the edge, taking 3,025 trips, to 2,375 trips for GOP members.
The No. 1 trip-taker in dollar terms was Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., chairman of the
House Judiciary Committee. Sensenbrenner took 19 trips valued at $168,000.
In contrast, DeLay finished 28th by taking 14 trips valued at $94,568. "
If DeLay were the only one involved, I'd be worked up. As it is, so many of our representatives are entangled with lobbyists that throwing DeLay out wouldn't do a whole lot. Now if there's a way we can impeach everyone in Washington, let me know where I sign up.
Until then, I'm not getting all emotional.
I've harped on this before, and I'll harp on it again. Without term limits, we are never going to have even a vaguely accountable Congress.
Remember the "Contract With America"? Newt Gingrich mobilized conservatives. Republicans were elected throughout the country, taking over the House of Representatives, promising to balance the budget.
They did that then, but a lot of them are still there, and a Republican House won't balance a budget for Bush like they did under Clinton.
Power corrupts...
Monday, April 25, 2005
Iran
World Net Daily is reporting some bad news. Seems Iran just might be planning a bit of an attack.
The good news is, gas prices are down for the moment. Yahoo Article
Thank goodness. Americans will be happy to know that our SUVs will be a little cheaper to fill, at least for the time being. Now, onto the real story...
"Iran is not only covertly developing nuclear weapons, it is already testing ballistic missiles specifically designed to destroy America's technical infrastructure, effectively neutralizing the world's lone superpower, say U.S. intelligence sources, top scientists and western missile industry experts.
The radical Shiite regime has conducted successful tests to determine if its Shahab-3 ballistic missiles, capable of carrying a nuclear warhead can be detonated by a remote control device while still in high-altitude flight."
Here's the really bad part:
"Scientists, including President Reagan's top science advisor, William R. Graham, say there is no other explanation for such test than preparation for the deployment of Electromagnetic Pulse weapons--even one which could knock out America's critical electrical and technological infrastructure, effectively sending the continental U.S. back to the 19th century with a recovery time of months or years."
Makes those rolling blackouts seem rather quaint Californians, huh? Oh, and the good news is, North Korea has this capability, too.
This should cause Ridge to raise the terror threat to the orange M&M. Or was it yellow? I always confuse these things.
We'll just have to watch and see how this plays out. I would personally like to avoid a war with either Iran or North Korea, or both. Hopefully the neo-cons have sobered since Iraq and will be less likely to throw us into another war.
Until then, I'll keep my eyes on the gas pumps. After all, it's very important that we have cheap gas with the possibility of being transported back to the 1800's looming in the distance.
On one hand, a little while without power could build some character. Our soft consumerist, entertain-us-at-all-costs society could probably use it, but I'm rather fond of electricity. The thought of spending "months to years" without it worries me a bit.
Maybe I'll just move to Hawaii.
The good news is, gas prices are down for the moment. Yahoo Article
Thank goodness. Americans will be happy to know that our SUVs will be a little cheaper to fill, at least for the time being. Now, onto the real story...
"Iran is not only covertly developing nuclear weapons, it is already testing ballistic missiles specifically designed to destroy America's technical infrastructure, effectively neutralizing the world's lone superpower, say U.S. intelligence sources, top scientists and western missile industry experts.
The radical Shiite regime has conducted successful tests to determine if its Shahab-3 ballistic missiles, capable of carrying a nuclear warhead can be detonated by a remote control device while still in high-altitude flight."
Here's the really bad part:
"Scientists, including President Reagan's top science advisor, William R. Graham, say there is no other explanation for such test than preparation for the deployment of Electromagnetic Pulse weapons--even one which could knock out America's critical electrical and technological infrastructure, effectively sending the continental U.S. back to the 19th century with a recovery time of months or years."
Makes those rolling blackouts seem rather quaint Californians, huh? Oh, and the good news is, North Korea has this capability, too.
This should cause Ridge to raise the terror threat to the orange M&M. Or was it yellow? I always confuse these things.
We'll just have to watch and see how this plays out. I would personally like to avoid a war with either Iran or North Korea, or both. Hopefully the neo-cons have sobered since Iraq and will be less likely to throw us into another war.
Until then, I'll keep my eyes on the gas pumps. After all, it's very important that we have cheap gas with the possibility of being transported back to the 1800's looming in the distance.
On one hand, a little while without power could build some character. Our soft consumerist, entertain-us-at-all-costs society could probably use it, but I'm rather fond of electricity. The thought of spending "months to years" without it worries me a bit.
Maybe I'll just move to Hawaii.
Thursday, April 21, 2005
More Money For Iraq War
For those who may have forgotten, we are still engaged in a war over in Iraq. To fund that war, Bush recently asked Congress for 81.9 billion dollars.
Yahoo Article
The House thought that this would be too much, and gave Bush less money, only 81.4 billion. Fortunately for those of us who care about fiscal responsibility, the more closely contested Senate wouldn't even give Bush 81.4 billion. They held the line at an even 81 billion.
Thanks senators.
It seems that Bush gets whatever he wants when it comes to spending. This newest bill will push the amount of money spent in Iraq to over 300 billion dollars. That's a large price tag for a misguided foreign policy.
If Congress remains adamant on spending like drunken sailors, something must be done. Our representatives know that most of them will never see any real threat for re-election. Let's provide a threat. It's called term limits, and it's one way we can be sure that Congress provides the neccesary check to Presidential power.
The founding fathers built a series of checks and balances into our government to prevent abuses of power. While no system is perfect, a few reforms will lead to a more accurate realization of the founders' vision.
It's high time we voted out the incumbents who show such blatant disregard for our hard-earned money. The era of balanced budgets is over only because we continue to elect tax-and-spend liberals from both parties who have no sense of fiscal responsibility.
The Iraq war is a failure, and we need to move now to cut our losses and bring American troops home. Spending more money isn't helping. A failed policy is a failed policy regardless of how much is spent implementing it.
Yahoo Article
The House thought that this would be too much, and gave Bush less money, only 81.4 billion. Fortunately for those of us who care about fiscal responsibility, the more closely contested Senate wouldn't even give Bush 81.4 billion. They held the line at an even 81 billion.
Thanks senators.
It seems that Bush gets whatever he wants when it comes to spending. This newest bill will push the amount of money spent in Iraq to over 300 billion dollars. That's a large price tag for a misguided foreign policy.
If Congress remains adamant on spending like drunken sailors, something must be done. Our representatives know that most of them will never see any real threat for re-election. Let's provide a threat. It's called term limits, and it's one way we can be sure that Congress provides the neccesary check to Presidential power.
The founding fathers built a series of checks and balances into our government to prevent abuses of power. While no system is perfect, a few reforms will lead to a more accurate realization of the founders' vision.
It's high time we voted out the incumbents who show such blatant disregard for our hard-earned money. The era of balanced budgets is over only because we continue to elect tax-and-spend liberals from both parties who have no sense of fiscal responsibility.
The Iraq war is a failure, and we need to move now to cut our losses and bring American troops home. Spending more money isn't helping. A failed policy is a failed policy regardless of how much is spent implementing it.
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
Homeless People Need Gyms Too
This is one of those stories that would be hilarious, except that it's true. Out on the left coast, some of our elected officials in a particularly uninspiring burst of absurduty have decided the homeless need a new shelter.
Christian Science Monitor Article
"The $17 million state-of-the-art facility boasts a full-sized gymnasium, library, playroom, hair salon, education center, and professional kitchen. "
In L.A., where the shelter is being built, the biggest problem confronting homeless people is that they have messy hair and their abs aren't toned.
There is a reason that homeless people are where they are. Sure, the policy-wonks like to tell us, we could all become homeless, that we're all one paycheck from living on the streets.
This is simply not the case. Even conservative estimates show a majority of homeless people living with a drug or alcohol problem. Many others suffer from mental illness. This is not to say that these people are less deserving of a home, only to more adequately understand the problem so we can find a solution.
If a crack addict doesn't get clean, he won't be able to hold down a job and keep a stable home. Our goal should be to get the homeless clean so that they can become productive members of society. Allowing them to wallow in their condition and be rewarded for it--most Americans don't get to use a free gym--only serves to perpetuate the problem.
Advocates argue that the gym provides a way for those recovering from substance abuse to exercise. Can someone please tell me why they couldn't just walk outside?
Let's put feel-good idealogy aside and deal with the problem at hand. Coddling the homeless is a counterproductive philosophy.
This "shelter" is an egregious waste of taxpayer dollars and an ineffective measure. The fact that this was even considered is asinine. The fact that they went ahead and built it shows just how out of touch some of our representatives are.
Christian Science Monitor Article
"The $17 million state-of-the-art facility boasts a full-sized gymnasium, library, playroom, hair salon, education center, and professional kitchen. "
In L.A., where the shelter is being built, the biggest problem confronting homeless people is that they have messy hair and their abs aren't toned.
There is a reason that homeless people are where they are. Sure, the policy-wonks like to tell us, we could all become homeless, that we're all one paycheck from living on the streets.
This is simply not the case. Even conservative estimates show a majority of homeless people living with a drug or alcohol problem. Many others suffer from mental illness. This is not to say that these people are less deserving of a home, only to more adequately understand the problem so we can find a solution.
If a crack addict doesn't get clean, he won't be able to hold down a job and keep a stable home. Our goal should be to get the homeless clean so that they can become productive members of society. Allowing them to wallow in their condition and be rewarded for it--most Americans don't get to use a free gym--only serves to perpetuate the problem.
Advocates argue that the gym provides a way for those recovering from substance abuse to exercise. Can someone please tell me why they couldn't just walk outside?
Let's put feel-good idealogy aside and deal with the problem at hand. Coddling the homeless is a counterproductive philosophy.
This "shelter" is an egregious waste of taxpayer dollars and an ineffective measure. The fact that this was even considered is asinine. The fact that they went ahead and built it shows just how out of touch some of our representatives are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)