What we should have learned, I don’t know that we did. What we should have learned is that we have principles and ideals and we should stick to them.
Ronald Reagan knew it, and we gave him victories. The 1994 Republican House knew that, and we gave them victories.
Ever since then, our leaders have been trying to reach across the isles. And we get trounced, every time.
George Bush Sr, “No New Taxes.” Until he reached across the isle, and we voted him out of office.
Republicans spent money in 2004-2006 like, well, like they were Democrats. And we voted them out of office.
What was McCain except a big reach across the isle? Part of the Gang of 14 that chose to work with Democrats instead of pushing for the judicial appointees which we will never get. Not in my lifetime. The Democrats will fill each and every one of those posts with liberal activist judges that should have been filled by conservative strict constructionists. Reaching across the isle hurt the conservative cause. Wait till Obama appoints 4 new judges in his first term to the Supreme Court, and then see if reaching across the isle helped us in any way.
McCain promised to take hatchet to the government spending and cut our earmarks, but when it came time for the $700 billion bailout of our economy, not only did he vote for it, but he also voted for an additional $150 billion in pork. That’s when he lost the election for sure.
Lesson learned. Stick to your principles.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 4 so far )
Barrack Hussein Obama describes himself as a Christian and the New York Times is almost besides itself with glee. Notice the picture and how holy Obama appears.
I like Christians, I really do. I happen to be one. But those people that routinely exhibit their Christian faith are routinely trashed by the New York Times. George W. Bush, for instance, would never get a glowing NY Times article abut his faith. Instead, we get scare stories about upcoming theocracies and how important the separation of church and state is. So why does Obama get special treatment for his faith? If the New York Times trashes most Christians but praises Obama, then it’s likely Obama is not like the other Christians. My hackles of suspicion are raised.
I repeat my repetition: liberals are going to try to split the conservative Christian vote by portraying themselves as Christian. Conservative Christianity is bad (separation of church and state! we don’t want a theocracy!) while liberal Christianity is good (wow, Obama is practically a saint!) according to liberal media.
â€œBe strong and have courage, for I am with you wherever you go,â€ Mr. Obama said in paraphrasing Godâ€™s message to Joshua.
Now, I’m all in favor of liberals quoting scripture. In fact, I’m all in favor of liberals quoting the entire bible. I think liberals (and conservatives, for that matter) that selectively quote scripture to support their position ought to be challenged by scripture the candidate doesn’t like.
As a presidential candidate, Mr. Obama is reaching out to both liberal skeptics and committed Christians. In many speeches or discussions, he never mentions religion. When Mr. Obama, a former constitutional law professor, does speak of faith, he tends to add a footnote about keeping church and state separate.
What I’ve seen in the news recently is more than just a challenge to church and state; it’s a downright hostility to any public policy that mirrors faith. The recent decision by the Supreme Court to uphold partial birth abortion – a decision Obama “strongly disagrees” with – was decided 5-4 justices. All the justices that upheld the ban had Catholic upbringing; those that voted against it did not. This same New York Times that praises the most holy Barack Obama also decries the influence of Catholics in the partial-birth abortion ban. As if any belief that a Christian might hold is automatically suspect, and Christians are OK only if they actively vote against Christian principle in order to demonstrate their progressiveness.
Color me unimpressed with the New York Times hypocrisy.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 3 so far )
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
WASHINGTON (AP) – The Supreme Court upheld the nationwide ban on a controversial abortion procedure Wednesday, handing abortion opponents the long-awaited victory they expected from a more conservative bench.
The 5-4 ruling said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion.
The opponents of the act “have not demonstrated that the Act would be unconstitutional in a large fraction of relevant cases,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion.
The decision pitted the court’s conservatives against its liberals, with President Bush’s two appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, siding with the majority.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia also were in the majority.
It was the first time the court banned a specific procedure in a case over how – not whether – to perform an abortion.
Abortion rights groups have said the procedure sometimes is the safest for a woman. They also said that such a ruling could threaten most abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy, although government lawyers and others who favor the ban said there are alternate, more widely used procedures that remain legal.
The outcome is likely to spur efforts at the state level to place more restrictions on abortions.
In Michigan, the Legislature probably did not intend for adultery to fall under the sexual crime laws, but the Michigan Supreme Courts say the way the laws are written, adultery could lead to life in prison:
In a ruling sure to make philandering spouses squirm, Michigan’s second-highest court says that anyone involved in an extramarital fling can be prosecuted for first-degree criminal sexual conduct, a felony punishable by up to life in prison.
I want to open up a discussion on this – while Michigan will no doubt clarify their legislation, should adulter be a crime? Arguably their are innocent victims involved – the spouse of the one cheating, any children, etc. And nearly everybody, I think, believes that adultery is wrong (including those that are committing adultery). So, should adultery also be a criminal offense? Or maybe a civil offense?
Neither, both? What’s your opinion?Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
South Dakota has wasted no time challenging the federal government’s mandate to allow abortion. They have approved a ban on abortion specifically to challenge Roe v. Wade.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 4 so far )
PIERRE, S.D. – South Dakota lawmakers approved a ban on nearly all abortions Friday, setting up a deliberate frontal assault on Roe v. Wade at a time when some activists see the U.S. Supreme Court as more willing than ever to overturn the 33-year-old decision.
Republican Gov. Mike Rounds said he was inclined to sign the bill, which would make it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless it was necessary to save the woman’s life. The measure would make no exception in cases of rape or incest.
A judge is likely to suspend the abortion ban during the legal challenge, which means it would never take effect unless the state gets the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and wins.
Under the measure, doctors could get up to five years in prison for performing an illegal abortion. The House passed the bill 50-18 on Friday, and the Senate approved it 23-12 earlier this week. If signed, it would become law July 1.
Money for the anticipated legal fight is already pouring in. Lawmakers were told during the debate that an anonymous donor has pledged $1 million to defend the ban, and the Legislature is setting up a special account to accept donations.
You probably know Cindy Sheehan was arrested and removed before the President’s State of the Union address last night. That wasn’t really a surprise – the surprise to me was that a U.S. Representative, Lynn Woolsey, gave her a ticket. Sometimes the Left is really… Left, you know? Cindy was removed by Capital Police because, well, because it wasn’t a State of Cindy speech last night.
Cindy’s posted about her experience on Michael Moore’s website. I’m going to nitpick only a couple of pieces in it:
At that time, I was wearing the shirt that said: 2,245 Dead. How many more?
I had just sat down and I was warm from climbing 3 flights of stairs back up from the bathroom so I unzipped my jacket. I turned to the right to take my left arm out, when the same officer saw my shirt and yelled, “Protester.”
I wore the shirt to make a statement. The press knew I was going to be there and I thought every once in awhile they would show me and I would have the shirt on.
These snippets show she still doesn’t understand why she was escorted out. The show wasn’t about her. The wife of Republican Representative C.W. Bill Young was also escorted out for wearing a t-shirt supporting the troops. I remember a man being escorted out during one of Bill Clinton’s State of the Union speeches. The President is required by the US Constitution to tell Congress about the State of the Union every year. It’s all about the President on that night.
I have lost my First Amendment rights.
I have some lawyers looking into filing a First Amendment lawsuit against the government for what happened tonight.
I don’t want to live in a country that prohibits any person, whether he/she has paid the ultimate price for that country, from wearing, saying, writing, or telephoning any negative statements about the government.
I think a lawyer would have a hard time proving that her First Amendment rights are being violated, especially when she’s posted everything she wanted to say the very next day. The fact that she can’t say it there and that particular time and be disruptive at a Presidential event is supported by a Supreme Court ruling placing a “reasonable time, place or manner” restriction on speech.
Read some of her ranting. Does she sound oppressed to you?Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 6 so far )
I wrote about this last year after that dreadful Supreme Court Kelo decision – that the government can confiscate private property if it can be shown taxes can be increased. Increased taxes historically haven’t been considered part of the “public use” definition in the Constitution. Churches in particular have been worried since they’re tax exempt.
So I found it amusing that citizens immediately filed a claim to raze Justice Souter’s home and replace it with a “Lost Liberty” hotel and museum. And now they’re one step closer, having gained enough signatures to put it to a town vote in March.
I’m amused that Justice Souter is having to fight this government grab of his private property because of one of his own rulings. :PRead Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
I find this non-ruling interesting: The U.S. Supreme Court was asked to review whether the words “In God We Trust,” written prominently in large block letters on the Lexington, N.C. county government center, violated the so-called separation of church and state.
As an aside, I’ll keep saying this until the news media gets it: there is no constitutionally mandated separation of church and state. If you think you’re suddenly converted to Christianity by walking under the words “In God We Trust,” then you’re too easily influenced. You’re not converted into a mosquito when you attend the Clute, Texas, Mosquito Festival, either.
Anyway, an appeals court said the words were fine just the way they are:
A U.S. appeals court ruled that the lawsuit failed to show that the display had no legitimate secular purpose, that it has the effect of endorsing religion or that it has resulted in an excessive entanglement of government and religion.
The appeals court said Congress first authorized the phrase “In God We Trust” on coins in 1865, and Congress made it the national motto in 1956. It is inscribed above the speaker’s chair in the U.S. House of Representatives and above the main door of the U.S. Senate chamber.
Of course the opposition appealed; the opposition was two lawyers who had hired lawyers to represent them. The more time in court, the better. The U.S. Supreme Court basically said, “Nah, not interested. Next!”
I suspect that “In God We Trust” will be stricken from coins within my lifetime, but it’s refreshing to see that it won’t be happening this year.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Bush has nominated Samuel Alito for Supreme Court of the United States. I like him for the following reasons:
- He’s Italian and Florence is a beautiful city.
- He has decades of conservative judicial opinions under his belt.
- Harry Reid doesn’t like him.
No matter who Bush nominates, there is going to be a fight. I’m just glad Bush decided to fight the other team this time.
Polipundit’s rundown of the expected meltdown is good, too.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )
Finally. As much as I like Harriet Miers as a person of good character, I want a rock-solid conservative judicial nominee for the Supreme Court. Harriet Miers has withdrawn her name for consideration.
President Bush, if you’re going to pick another fight, why not fight the opposition instead of your own base?Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )
« Previous Entries