Aggressive Conservative

NRO supports RINO Specter...

2009-04-28T23:06:00.006-04:00

When a person votes for a Democrat, they generally know that they're getting a person who is:

1. Pro-abortion
2. Pro-big government
3. Anti-gun
4. Anti-big business (at least in name - plenty of dems are fine being fat cats)
5. Pro-union
6. Pro-"victim" group (illegal immigrants, minorities, homosexuals, women, etc.)
7. Pro-eco-religion.
8. Anti-military
9. Pro-internationalism (global government)
10. Pro-raising taxes to punish "the wealthy"

When a person votes for a Republican, at least nowadays, what could they possibly think they're getting?

Pro-life? No, there are plenty of pro-choice Republicans, and the ones who are pro-life never really make an issue of it.

Pro-small government? Nope. Plenty of Republicans like to spend your money on their pet projects. There were lots of Republicans who mocked the Porkbusters, and the Tea Parties. Plenty of Republicans were hell-bent on voting for Bush's last stimulus, which radically increased the size of the government.

Pro-gun? Nope, there were plenty of Republicans who would've voted in favor of the assault weapons ban renewal.

Pro business? Nope, the Republicans are just as anti-business as the Dems. They are owned by certain sectors of the economy, the Dems are owned by other sectors of the economy. And their vote for the "stimulus" package at the end of Bush's term was a vote AGAINST market freedom.

Anti-union? The Republicans have never took a fight to the unions, notwithstanding that the unions always support the Dems.

Anti-"victims' groups"? Nope, the Republicans always make sure to be politically correct.

Anti-eco-religion? Nope, the Republicans spew the same religionist platitudes about Mother Earth as the Dems.

Pro-military? Maybe, but notwithstanding their bluster, the Republicans are just as likely to equivocate about standing up to the nation's enemies as the Dems are. They also let the Dems portray them as idiots because of Bush's failure to lead the public here.

Anti-internationalism? Maybe, but many Republicans often say "we must go to the United Nations" just as much as the Democrats. And the Republicans are bought and paid for by the Saudis.

Anti-taxes? Many Republican governors have raised taxes, many Republicans in Congress are fine with raising some taxes and fees that are buried in pieces of legislation.

So what's the point in electing a Republican nowadays? They're just Democrat lite politicians.

People like Arlen Specter did a lot to damage the Republican brand. And what do the weenie geniuses at National Review Online have to say about it?

Pur et Dur [Andrew Stuttaford]
These remarks by Jim DeMint are not what I'd describe as grounds for good cheer:

I would rather have 30 Republicans in the Senate who really believe in principles of limited government, free markets, free people, than to have 60 that don’t have a set of beliefs.

He's missing the point.

If it comes to a choice, I'd rather have 60 Republicans in the Senate, however squishy some of the views of some in their ranks, than 60 Democrats who are all certain of theirs. Anyone who truly believes in limited government ought to understand that voting against can be as valid as voting for. If it takes a few Specters to see off a Democratic majority, so be it.

As for the idea that reducing the GOP to a rump of true believers (whatever that might actually mean: there are plenty on the right who interpret the terms "limited government" and "free people" in very different ways) is the essential first step in a Republican restoration, it is, I am afraid, a bad mistake. Wildernesses are, almost always, for losers.
04/28 08:07 PM

And here's Ramesn Ponnru, always a reliable RINO:

The NRCC: "Good Riddance" to Specter [Ramesh Ponnuru]
That's what the GOP House campaign committee is saying in its press release. I guess it will be truly happy when Snowe and Collins leave too.
04/28 05:35 PM

Senator Specter does the Republicans no good. He voted for the biggest increase in the size of the federal government in history. Throughout the blogosphere, many are saying "good riddance" to Specter. At NRO, they miss him. And people like Snowe and Collins aren't worth much either. They're pro-abortion, they're pro-big government. They bring nothing to the table. And I'm wondering if NRO does either.

The people at NRO are RINOs.

Senator Specter and the Clinging to Power...

2009-04-28T20:56:00.007-04:00

Much have noted that Senator Specter opportunistically switched parties because he was 20 points behind in the Republican primary and seemed assured of a loss. By switching to the Democrats, he assures himself of an easier time retaining power as a Senator, backed by an incumbent President and a majority in Congress who can provide him with generous cash for his re-election.

Senator Specter is 79 years old. He's had cancer. He's been in the Senate since 1980, for about 29 years. He's running for re-election for another 6 years. If he wins in 2010, he'll be 86 years old when his term ends.

A sure sign of civilizational decline is when leaders cling to power. You see it in dictators like Zimbabwe's Mugabae, in North Korea, etc. It was troubling enough for Americans to see FDR cling to power that the 22nd amendment was enacted, limiting the the President to two terms of office.

Has anyone noticed that the halls of Congress are full of people clinging to power? I think New Jersey's Senator Lautenberg is like 247 years old. He's been in office, give or take a corrupt placeholder, since 1982. Ted Kennedy is clinging to his office - he's been there since 1964 - for over 45 years. 45 years? Robert Byrd - been there since 1959, for over 50 years! What the hell!? Robert Byrd and Ted Kennedy are basically invalids who can't even dress themselves let alone debate in the Senate. They should do the honorable thing and quit.

Dying in office of old age is a bad thing. Leaders who do that show more about the corruption of their office than the generosity of their public spirit. A better person would retire before his wits elude him, trusting that the time they spent in office was well used. Although it's good to have a long-serving faithful public servant, too often corruption becomes systemic such that many refuse to leave. The only time politicians are apt to quit is when their own power is diminished by a change in majorities (many Democrats quit after 1994, many Republicans quit in 2006). This is why term limits are necessary (but will never happen because Congress will never pass it).

Update: Hope the reference isn't too geeky, but it reminds me of this bit of JRR Tolkien's legendarium:

Tar-Atanamir the Great
He was born in the year 1800, and ruled for 192 years, until 2221, which was the year of his death. Much is said of this King in the Annals, such as now survive the Downfall. For he was like his father proud and greedy of wealth, and the Númenóreans in his service exacted heavy tribute from the men of the coasts of Middle-earth. In his time the Shadow fell upon Númenor; and the King, and those that followed his lore, spoke openly against the ban of Valar, and their hearts were turned against the Valar and the Eldar; but wisdom they still kept, and they feared the Lords of the West, and did not defy them. Atanamir is called also the Unwilling, for he was the first of the Kings to refuse to lay down his life, or to renounce the sceptre; and he lived until death took him perforce in dotage.

The Long Defeat of America continues.

Good Riddance to Arlen Specter...

2009-04-28T12:39:00.004-04:00

This guy should've been kicked out of the Republican Party. Instead, the Republicans were idiots and decided to support him. Now he's making big headlines leaving the Republicans for the Democrats.

Specter, a five-term Republican and ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, is facing a tough primary challenge next year from former Club for Growth president Pat Toomey. He was one of the three Republicans to support President Obama’s stimulus bill, and his liberal approach to many issues -- from his devoted opposition to the Supreme Court nomination of Robert Bork to his support for illegal alien amnesty programs -- earned him a low ACU rating of 43 in 2006. This switch will give the Democrats their 60-seat filibuster-proof majority.

The comments at Human Events are priceless.

Left unspoken is how much RINOs like Specter damaged the Republican brand, not only as evidence that they have no backbone, consistent philosophy, or core beliefs. But also for their stupidity in continuing to support someone who always spits in their eye. Good riddance, Specter. You never really counted for much anyway.

Edit: See here for more on the moral implications of Senator Specter's decision.

F-16s...

2009-04-28T12:25:00.004-04:00

The last time I saw F-16s in person was after 9/11, when they were flying over my apartment building.

President HopenChange and his pre-9/11 thinking are what led to this.

I don't need to see F-16s buzzing New York City any more.

Update: here's another video that's much better.

Hot Air Blog Post Attacks Catholics as Shallow and Unbiblical...

2009-04-28T11:57:00.006-04:00

At Hot Air's "Greenroom," in a post slamming Bill Maher for being a repulsive, amoral, hedonistic jerk, blogger The Other McCain concluded his post with an amazingly ignorant attack on the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation:

"At the beginning, you see Maher mocking the Catholic notion of transubstantiation and, at the end, you see an excerpt of Religulous in which Maher interrogates his mother, who married into the Catholic Church. The refutation of transubstantiation is simple enough: When Jesus spoke to the apostles about bread as symbolic of his body and wine as symbolic of his blood, Jesus was still sitting there among them, alive. Obviously, then, the expression was symbolic in meaning and the famous phrase, “This do in remembrance of me,” captures Jesus’ intention of this as a memorial ritual, not as a miraculous feat whereby the bread and wine literally became his flesh and blood.
That Maher would think it a serious critique of Christianity to mock a clearly unbiblical belief like transubstantion tells you a lot about his shallowness. And the fact that he felt the need to bring his mother into it tells you a lot about the childish resentments that motivate him."

So The Other McCain thinks that this is a clearly shallow, unbiblical belief. What a gratitutous slam on Catholics. I can't understand why this was done. Note, this isn't a blog comment, it's a post at Hot Air's "Greenroom" which is a collection of other bloggers posting at a separate area on Hot Air.

A commentor sets him straight:

“That Maher would think it a serious critique of Christianity to mock a clearly unbiblical belief like transubstantion tells you a lot about his shallowness.”
No. I think I’ve found out something about *your* shallowness via this gratuitous statement of anti-Catholic belief which does nothing to add to the point of your essay. Transubstantiation has far more biblical warrant than the 16th century Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura. Please point out for me one lengthy section of Scripture that can back up sola scriptura to the degree that transubstantiation can be backed up by the sixth chapter of John. Which part of “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you” don’t you understand?
Do you have some problem with sussing out the meaning of the word “is” in the following passage? “While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body.” Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.” (Mt 26)
Or is 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 too unscriptural for you? “Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.”
Your statement is without foundation. But the doctrine has always caused trouble. From John 6: “Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me…Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”…As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.
Look, if God Incarnate could do it (transubstantiation), if God Incarnate said He’d do it, why don’t you believe that He did it? If He could pull off the Incarnation, I’m sure He’d have little trouble with transubstantiation. You believe the former (presumably) but why not the latter? You only thereby cut yourself off from a great source of grace for eternal life. God wnats to be far more one with you than you imagine. He offers you His very flesh, His very substance, and you spurn it as superstition and somehow “unbiblical”. If so, it is your loss.
Matteo on April 26, 2009 at 7:02 PM

Even if The Other McCain doesn't believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation, what is the point behind that idiotic attack on Catholics? It does nothing to support his argument that Bill Maher is a shallow person. Instead, he ends up saying that all Catholics are just as shallow as Bill Maher. It is incredibly insulting. Score another one for anti-Catholicism at Hot Air, this time by a sorta-kinda-co-blogger.

What's even more odd is that on his regular blog, The Other McCain has nothing but praise for Catholics:

When you actually examined Sager's book, however, you discovered that his argument was like the Rio Grande, a mile wide and six inches deep. He tended to treat all pro-lifers and social conservatives as if they were evangelicals -- i.e., conservative Protestants.
In fact, Catholics have always been the backbone of the pro-life movement, as anyone familiar with the movement could tell you. And this was especially true with the Terry Schiavo case, which Sager (and many others) cited as evidence of the undue influence exercised by "the Religious Right" within the GOP. But it was Father Frank Pavone and Priests for Life who led the Schiavo crusade. Terry Schiavo was Catholic, her family was Catholic, and end-of-life issues are part of an elaborately developed Catholic doctrine on the sanctity of human life.
As with the Schiavo case, as with opposition to abortion, so also with opposition to the gay-rights agenda -- the Catholic Church has been firmly on the conservative side, and yet Sager (again, like many others) continue to single out evangelicals when they want to slam "the Religious Right." Why?
It is an appeal to prejudice.

Of course, he's noting that Catholics are at the core of the pro-life movement only to protest against an attack by some RINO on sterotypes involving protestant fundamentalists. Still, given this kind of political support that The Other McCain finds valuable to conservativism, you'd think he'd be more circumspect in his comments. He shouldn't be so quick to equate fundamental Catholic doctrine with something "shallow" or "unbiblical," especially when it is not.

It'd be nice if other Christian conservatives didn't merely see Catholics as political allies...

UPDATE: Whattya know, the guy who corrected The Other MccAin has a blog. Hi Matteo! Nice blog you have there. Thanks for the smackdown. I enjoyed it immensely.

Federal Overstep or Hint of More to Come?

2009-04-16T14:33:00.011-04:00

By now, I'm sure most people have heard about the Department of Homeland Security report on "right-wing extremists" that it defines as

those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

That broad, sweeping generalization - particularly taking aim at opposition to abortion or immigration, implies that religious beliefs or political opinions could make a person a target for investigation (or worse) by the federal government.

The report is also famous for saying that returning military veterans could become recruits for homegrown terror movements. The American Legion slammed DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano for that anti-military bias.

The best take-down of the report can be found here, at Powerline. Additionally, even the #1 liberal Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee found himself dumbfounded that DHS would issue a report, noting:

"This report appears to raise significant issues involving the privacy and civil liberties of many Americans -- including war veterans," Mr. Thompson said in the letter sent Tuesday.

"As I am certain you agree, freedom of association and freedom of speech are guaranteed to all Americans -- whether a person's beliefs, whatever their political orientation, are 'extremist' or not," Mr. Thompson said.

The report "blurred the line," and Mr. Thompson said he is "disappointed and surprised that the department would allow this report to be disseminated" to law enforcement officials nationwide.

"I am particularly struck by the report's conclusion which states that I&A 'will be working with its state and local partners over the next several months to ascertain with greater regional specificity the rise in rightwing extremist activity in the United States with a particular emphasis on the political, economic, and social factors that drive rightwing extremist radicalization,'" Mr. Thompson said, demanding to know what types of activities DHS had planned for "the next several months."

Now Napolitano is doing the rounds trying to apologize for the blow up. I think she should be fired anyway. Here she is on Fox News trying to spin the report. When called on the broad definition of rightwing extremist included in the report, however, all she can do is stumble. I like it how the Fox News guy asks if all Catholics, because of their opposition to abortion, are now considered extremists by the federal government:

Even if this report is just an incredibly stupid, poorly worded, bureacratic SNAFU - I wonder if it is an indication of things to come. The Washington Post did a recent article (safe link to avoid drive-by-media) noting that religious people are increasingly losing in court as conflicts arise between the homosexual activists and their allies in government, and religious groups. Religious freedom, protected by the First Amendment, loses out to homosexual activism. The article notes these examples:

Faith organizations and individuals who view homosexuality as sinful and refuse to provide services to gay people are losing a growing number of legal battles that they say are costing them their religious freedom.
The lawsuits have resulted from states and communities that have banned discrimination based on sexual orientation. Those laws have created a clash between the right to be free from discrimination and the right to freedom of religion, religious groups said, with faith losing. They point to what they say are ominous recent examples:
-- A Christian photographer was forced by the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission to pay $6,637 in attorney's costs after she refused to photograph a gay couple's commitment ceremony.
-- A psychologist in Georgia was fired after she declined for religious reasons to counsel a lesbian about her relationship.
-- Christian fertility doctors in California who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian patient were barred by the state Supreme Court from invoking their religious beliefs in refusing treatment.
-- A Christian student group was not recognized at a University of California law school because it denies membership to anyone practicing sex outside of traditional
marriage.
"It really is all about religious liberty for us," said Scott Hoffman, chief administrative officer of a New Jersey Methodist group, the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, which lost a property tax exemption after it declined to allow its beachside pavilion to be used for a same-sex union ceremony. "The protection to not be forced to do something that is against deeply held religious principles."

The article includes this chilling summary:

Some legal analysts suggest that religious groups that do not support gay rights might lose their tax exemptions because of their politically unpopular views.

Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University who supports same-sex marriage, said the Bob Jones ruling "puts us on a slippery slope that inevitably takes us to the point where we punish religious groups because of their religious views."

Right now, it seems that the Courts are willing to take up the effort of punishing religious groups because of their religious views. But DHS might not be far behind. Hopefully if I have time, I'll post more on what I think are various clues that America is slowly becoming a new unfree police-state like Roman Empire, content to throw Christians once again to the lions, along with other indications showing a general decline. New tag to go with that type of post: the Long Defeat of America.

An ok summary of the term Long Defeat can be found at Wikipedia.

Susan Roesgen is a Liberal Hack...

2009-04-16T14:15:00.006-04:00

Stay for the end on this video. I love the righteous indignation of the tea party protestor who asks, "are you trying to play stupid?"

If you're going to talk with the media, that's how to do it.

The drive-by-media are the enemy of all decent people. I have't watched TV news in years, I get all my news from blogs and others on the internet. Haven't read a newspaper or a newsmagazine in years, either. I can't wait for all of them to go bankrupt.

Although not included as a part of this clip, Ms. Liberal Hack was also upset that a protester chose to compare Obama to Hitler (he might've been a liberal plant). However, she wasn't so upset when the left did the same thing to Bush.

Deranged Abortion-Loving Sickos...

2009-04-13T23:06:00.005-04:00

Sick, sick sick. This woman should be institutionalized. Her sanity is clearly absent.

We need to create a world where a woman having an abortion is as respected and supported as a woman having a baby. As the movement for abortion pride and the recognition of women's human rights progresses, we will continue to speak out with our voices, our experiences, our bodies - and our lives. YES - ABORTION PRIDE!

What is it that makes people so deranged that they think the disemboweling and murder of babies should be just as celebrated as becoming a mother?

I wonder if this "abortion pride" crap is the start of a new honesty from the murder-lovers of the left. At least they're not cloaking it in some false sense of shame.

I should hope that abortion will never be as respected as having a baby. But never underestimate the depths of cultural suicide that America will succumb to. I give it until the end of Obama's term as president before this woman's rant becomes standard in the Democratic party platform.

Note: Always, always, always use the term "pro-abortion" instead of pro-choice. And then when you're called on the use of that term, you can point to sickos like Marcy Bloom and Katherine Ragsdale who proudly advocate the choice of abortion instead of the choice to have a baby. Abortion should always and everywhere be equated with premeditated murder, because that's exactly what it is.

Passover Coca-Cola...

2009-04-02T22:44:00.003-04:00

I recently learned of the existence of Passover Coca-Cola, which doesn't have high fructose corn syrup, but actual, real sugar.

Passover Coke, otherwise known as Kosher Coke, can be spotted in stores by its yellow bottle-top, which also sports some neato Hebrew words on the cap.

Kosher Coke supposedly tastes great because corn syrup leaves an aftertaste, and sugar is what God intended to use in Coca-cola. It seems that everyone in the world in the know who likes soda stocks up on it during Passover, because it's authentic and a classic. Coke started adding corn syrup to their soda in 1985.

I spotted some Kosher Coke in the supermarket today. I'm not a soda drinker normally, but I had to try it.

Let me tell you, it was frickin' GREAT! If they made it all year long, I'd probably drink it every day. Wow. I'm going to stock up so that on special occasions I can bring out the Kosher Coke like it's a fine bottle of wine.

Now you know: Coke with yellow bottle caps with Hebrew on them = Awesome.

Evil Priestess Worships Abortion...

2009-04-02T00:56:00.006-04:00

This sermon by Katherine Ragsdale, a so-called "priest" in the Episcopal Church, is illuminating for several things. Written in 2007, it has come to attention because of her recent election as Dean of the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge and has caused a firestorm because she says "abortion is a blessing." No, she doesn't just say it. She chants it:

When a woman finds that the fetus she is carrying has anomalies incompatible with life, that it will not live and that she requires an abortion – often a late-term abortion – to protect her life, her health, or her fertility, it is the shattering of her hopes and dreams for that pregnancy that is the tragedy; the abortion is a blessing.

When a woman wants a child but can’t afford one because she hasn’t the education necessary for a sustainable job, or access to health care, or day care, or adequate food, it is the abysmal priorities of our nation, the lack of social supports, the absence of justice that are the tragedies; the abortion is a blessing.

And when a woman becomes pregnant within a loving, supportive, respectful relationship; has every option open to her; decides she does not wish to bear a child; and has access to a safe, affordable abortion – there is not a tragedy in sight -- only blessing. The ability to enjoy God’s good gift of sexuality without compromising one’s education, life’s work, or ability to put to use God’s gifts and call is simply blessing.

These are the two things I want you, please, to remember – abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Let me hear you say it: abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done.

The comments in her own blog, if they're not deleted, are illuminating. Of course she has been called out for her evil, wicked prayer. Abortion is her sacrament. But doing a little more digging has shown me several things.

First, take a look at her bio. Here's her wikipedia page. What has she been doing?

Ragsdale has served for 17 years on the national board of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. She is also on the board of NARAL Pro-Choice America, The White House Project, the Progressive Religious Partnership, as well as the bi-national advisory board of The Center for the Prevention of Sexual and Domestic Violence. She presented to the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary on behalf of NARAL Pro-Choice America and the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice in 2004.^[3]

Aside from being a "priest", her entire life has been devoted to abortion. She's on the board of the National Abortion Rights Action League (now called NARAL). She worked for nearly 20 years for the Clergy Consultation Service on Abortion (now called Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice). Her entire purpose and meaning in life revolves around abortion (ever notice how those groups got rid of the word ABORTION from their names?).

This woman puts the lie to the theory that people who are "pro-choice" are not pro-abortion. Of course they are pro-abortion. Because to them, abortion is a blessing. "Pro-choice" fundamentally means pro-abortion. It is ridiculous to be in favor of a choice if one of those choices is inherently evil. You'd might as well say you're pro-choice if the choices were eating applesause or drowning your mother.

But notice anything else?

She's glad that: "The Democrats have removed "safe, legal, and rare" language about abortion from the platform. About time!"

A little digging in her other blogs found me this other sermon, where she said (in 1996):

So, the first question – addressed to us all – is: what are we doing to reduce the need for abortions? None of us, regardless of our position on choice, approves of a world where pregnant women are faced with despair and see no viable options but to abort. But what are we doing, as God’s agents in the world, to change that situation?... No, we cannot eliminate the need for abortion. But we could dramatically reduce it. What are we doing to make our society more supportive of children and families? What are we doing to reduce the need for abortion?

How to square her desire to reduce the need for abortion in 1996, with her sermon in 2007 saying that she's glad the Democrats dropped the "rare" crap from their platform and that abortion is a blessing?

It's because she was lying in 1996. She doesn't want to reduce abortions at all. They do not want abortion to be rare - and not only because NARAL and people like Ragsdale are funded by the abortion mills. The other reason? Ragsdale says: "The ability to enjoy God’s good gift of sexuality without compromising one’s education, life’s work, or ability to put to use God’s gifts and call is simply blessing." Yes, abortion is all about me me ME! She doesn't want people to be "compromised." Just like Obama doesn't want his daughters to be punished with a baby.

So whenever you hear someone say that they're not pro-abortion and they're really pro-choice, know that they're lying, both to you and possibly to themselves. And whenever you hear someone say that they want abortion to be rare, they're probably lying as well. Abortion-lovers don't want abortion to be rare.

(Hat tip to Hot Air's headlines, which brought them to Amy Wellborn's beliefnet post, which devolved into another religious fight, so much that she closed the comment thread.)

UPDATE: Ragsdale deleted her post. Here's a cached version, scroll down to find the sermon. Unfortunately, the comments were lost.

Management at Hot Air...

2009-03-31T17:37:00.012-04:00

Others are noticing the problem of anti-Catholicism in Hot Air's comboxes. Donald McClarey, Jay Anderson, and Cranky Conservative all have threads on the subject and there's some interesting discussion in their comboxes.

One question that has been raised is the degree to which management is culpable. As I said in my first post on this subject, bloggers aren't always responsible for the content of their comments. However, when hateful comments are deleted towards one religion and not another, that's a problem. What bothers me the most, however, is the stupidity of creating an environment given over to ranters who drive away Catholic conservtives at an otherwise mainstream conservative blog.

Jay Anderson suggests that the problem of Hot Air's comments begins with Michelle Malkin. He points to this post by Michelle criticizing "Catholic elites" for their statements on immigration policy.

Michelle Malkin has done many posts on the Pope and she seems to have an admiration for Ratzinger and JP2. I've long wondered whether she is Catholic, and I've admired her for a long time. If you look at the history of her posts, I think that her post on immigration policy is the first time she's said anything remotely critical of the Church. However, her comments on that, while aggressive, may not cross the line. In particular, I think she was reacting towards Cardinal Mahoney, and as we all know there's much criticism that can be directed at him.

Additionally, Michelle Malkin has been the subject of many hateful leftist attacks and slurs. She has been blogging for a long time and probably has built up a very thick skin towards hateful attacks in general. It's likely that she may see the anti-Catholic posts as just part of the nature of internet commenting and may think that there's little that can be done about them.

Ed Morrissey is Catholic and as I've noted, tries to police the comments at Hot Air by mistakenly engaging the bigots instead of banning them. He can't be there all the time. Allahpundit is an atheist and he has said that he enjoys "a good religious food fight in the comments" (as seen in this thread from today). Some people think that Allahpundit is setting the tone for the anti-Catholic comments. However, I think it's more likely that, like Michelle Malkin, both he and Ed Morrissey are veteran bloggers who might think that hateful comments are just part of the nature of blogging and cannot be avoided entirely. Additionally, they might think that it's too much effort to police their blog. Although I've been focused on Hot Air's comments, a cursory examination of Michelle Malkin's blog shows that the same problem exists.

However, I have no doubt that Michelle Malkin would not permit hateful posts towards her in her comments. The comments policy in her blog and on Hot Air expressly state that comments can be deleted. And as I've noted, Hot Air has banned people for posting hateful attacks towards Islam. So this is not a situation where there is a resistence to censor and that completely free speech is the policy. Commentors are guests at those blogs. This is a problem that can be solved with effective policing. Over time, the bigots become well known and they can be ejected from the blog. Michelle can hire another blogger to do the dirty work of policing her comments in her various blogs.

In the meantime, like Michelle who posts hateful emails to expose them to the world, I'll continue to provide excerpts of Hot Air's comment problem. It would be nice to be able to contribue to political discussion on a blog without having to constantly defend your religion. It would be nice to have religious discussions where people are respectful towards differences. Ultimately, the problem isn't Hot Air's management, but an anti-Catholic undercurrent that is prevelent in conservativism that needs to be execised. I'll have more on that later. And I'll have more on why it is just stupid to allow a well known conservative blog like Hot Air to be known for this.

However, one question for those who have followed this issue - should I change the label of "Hot Air Bigots" to something else? It's aggressive, but then again, that's what I'm all about.

Hot Air Bigotry - second thread for the day!

2009-03-30T01:17:00.003-04:00

Is there a chance that the bloggers at Hot Air are trying to deal with their gigantic anti-Catholic bigot problem? I think so. In this thread, I the first post that caught my eye was this:

TTheoLogan

As usual, your Catholic-bashing insults are short, limp and unsightly.

SKYFOX on March 28, 2009 at 1:08 PM

But there was no post from a "TheoLogan" yet. Was it deleted? Maybe it was! Ed Morrissey posted comments at 1:49pm. But of course, the bigots showed up eventually (or again), knowing that they'd face no consequences for making a premiere conservative blog a place well known for its hatrid of Catholics:

Often the day-laborers leave a urine stain on a wall and the local priests show up to declare it a vision of their “Queen of Heaven” as proof AMNESTY should be granted to these criminals. What a failed people, culture, religion, and country!!!!!

RealDemocrat on March 28, 2009 at 4:14 PM

RealDemocrat is a very well known anti-Catholic bigot at Hot Air. He's usually found in threads trying to bash the Church. You'll probably see a lot more of him here, as I find other examples of him.

This post sums things up very well:

Sad to see anti-Catholicism alive and well - even here.

I don’t ever remember seeing any Catholic poster attempting to trash any fellow Christian’s religious beliefs on this site.

Why non-Catholics believe it is acceptable to take their lame shots is a mystery to me - and it continues to divide and conquer us as Christians.

Guess Obama might be right after all about “bitter clingers”, because he sure benefits from our disunity.

As for “Catholics” or any “Christians” who voted for Obama,
they will have to take that up on Judgement Day.

tigerlily on March 28, 2009 at 6:55 PM

"right4life" doesn't want to hear any of it:

whatever you’re preaching, it ain’t christianity…in christianity you cannot ‘earn’ a spot in heaven…Jesus earned it for us…and He is the ONLY ONE who could..

right4life on March 28, 2009 at 7:25 PM

What is it with these so-called conservatives who, by their names are pro-life, yet feel content in attacking the Catholic church - which is the biggest pro-life organization on the planet.

Think right4life is merely disagreeing with the theology of the Church? Think again:

then tell me why a good ‘christian’ like you wants to see the jews slaughtered? hmmm?? remember Jesus was a jew.

right4life on March 28, 2009 at 7:26 PM

tigerlily tries to be nice, again:

No, not questioning Catholic doctrine, as in sincere and humble inquiry. What you call “questioning” is really a rude violation of the core beliefs of another human being.
You don’t even respect the faith enough to capitalize the word “Catholic” when you write it. (FYI, the word Catholic means “universal” and was first used to describe the Christian church about 100 years after His Resurrection.)

Also, since the time of Martin Luther, (an ex Augustinian priest), there are now some 26,000 Protestant sects. None of them agreeing with the other on many facets of the faith. Perhaps you should spend some time questioning that can of worms.

I stand by my statements. We could go on ad nauseum - as in now you come up with a statement(you don’t say who wrote it and who published it)which seems to be written in order to inflame prejudices and obscure true understanding.

It would seem that the author is implying that the Church is attempting to insult other faiths. This is America, and we still have Freedom of Speech, so the author can deceive and continue to divide and conquer, and you are free to agree. But I am free to tell you that you and your author are completely and sadly mistaken.

If you or anyone else would like to know what the Catholic Church teaches about herself and others, then I suggest you get it firsthand. Go to http://www.vatican.va There you will find
two thousand years of Catholic teaching to learn and read for yourself.

I have always avoided the anti-Catholic fighting that I have seen on this site, but today I guess it’s my time to defend my Blessed Mother and my Lord. But to answer every crack that is or will be written on this thread - no, no, no.

tigerlily on March 28, 2009 at 7:36 PM

tigerlily makes a good fight, but the bigots have come out of the woodwork now:

Most heathen religions always have their own “Queen of Heaven”. I can’t think of one heathen religion that doesn’t.

RealDemocrat on March 28, 2009 at 7:39 PM

right4life seems to think that Jesus insulted Mary when he called her "woman." He actually believes that Jesus insulted his mother. Really.

Are you really trying to say Jesus would disrespect His own Mother?
You sadly have no true understanding of Catholicism.

clarifides on March 28, 2009 at 7:40 PM

do you consider calling your mother ‘woman’ disrespectful?

would you call your mom that??

right4life on March 28, 2009 at 7:45 PM

When it was evident how insane it is to state that Jesus insulted Mary, unclesmrgol made this self-evident statement:

Are you really trying to say Jesus would disrespect His own Mother?

You sadly have no true understanding of Catholicism.

clarifides on March 28, 2009 at 7:40 PM

I would go further. right4life has no understanding of Jesus.

unclesmrgol on March 28, 2009 at 8:09 PM

Get a load of the response:

this from a piece of anti-semitic trash who hates jews..JESUS WAS A JEW…get a clue.

right4life on March 28, 2009 at 8:10 PM

right4life seems to think that Catholics hate Jews for some reason. I have no idea why:

do you know what your church teaches, and can you post the same sorts of references that I have posted from the Catholic Church, for our increased understanding of your version of the True Faith?

At the present time, all you seem to have for theology is opposition.

unclesmrgol on March 28, 2009 at 8:07 PM

I’ve been posting from the BIBLE..you know its kinda important to christians…

although to hate-filled anti-semites like you, I’m sure its just more zionist propoganda…

oh yeah Mary was a jew…so was Peter, and Paul…

right4life on March 28, 2009 at 8:09 PM

There are plenty of people who have had it with the resident Hot Air Bigots. This post is very enlightening:

You know what? I haven’t attacked anyone’s religion on HA, I haven’t called anyone sick for believing in a faith , well except Islam I will admit, so I’ll say this and be done this crap….. Shut up about Catholicism. You don’t agree or you dislike it? Fine, don’t practice, read about it or follow it. This thread had to do with Clinton not being prepared to visit something of a culture’s value, which any representative of a country should be aware of… so she screwed up. But, no, you folks had to go off on a screed about Catholicism and the Virgin Mary…. to use a troll’s name in vain Get a fricken life.

MNDavenotPC on March 28, 2009 at 9:10 PM

Others try the same thing:

right4life on March 28, 2009 at 10:21 PM

It would be good if you would calm down a bit. You obviously do not understand Catholicism and that is fine. What isn’t fine is using your misconceptions as a platform to attack your won brothers and sisters in Christ. You need to be very careful on this. Remember that you will be judged as you judge others. If you choose to be accusatory and inflammatory in your judgment, then you judgment will be the same in Heaven. There is only one prayer given to us by Jesus, and it asks to “forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive others.”

Please remember that we all share the same Bible. If you are a Christian, then the faith that you practice is the same as ours. Only the window dressing changes. Condemning another Christian over doctrinal differences is a lot like saying you hate somebody because they wear ugly shoes.

You have a right to your beliefs. I applaud you in trying to express them. But you must learn to teach and not condemn. That was the way of Jesus and one of the most important examples that he gave to us.

Hawthorne on March 28, 2009 at 11:35 PM

And here:

I honestly cant believe you guys are arguing catholic doctrine and such here. This is a political blog.

Why dont you evangelical creeps who seem more interested in putting down other people’s religions, which shows your insecurity over your own absurd beliefs, take it to religiousgoons.com or something?

The Wall on March 29, 2009 at 4:06 PM

Shame the management won't listen to them... Those bigots will be back another day to poision another thread.

And just so you don't think that the thread ends on a happy note, who makes an appearance? Why, TTheoLogan!

The Catholic church has a lot invested in people not taking the bible literally because otherwise no one would pay attention to the catholic church and stuff it makes up constantly. The apostles didn’t make up silliness like the catholic church does constantly(the sign of the cross, how a pope is picked, etc). There’s no evidence they did any of that nonsense.

“holy tradition” is nothing more than someone decides to do something new, and someone else repeats it, and after a while it’s considered just as valid as God’s word. That’s insane. How the pope is chosen is a good example of this(the color of the smoke, etc).

But seriously, I don’t blame you guys from the point of view of wanting to have power over people. For a ridiculously long time you forbid people to be able to read the bible themselves and in a language they could understand. The proletariat are far more useful to you if they don’t know any better.

TTheoLogan on March 29, 2009 at 10:05 AM

So we're back to where we started.

More Hot Air Bigotry

2009-03-30T00:25:00.006-04:00

It only takes several posts in this thread about Obama speaking at Notre Dame for the bigots to show up.

You are soooo right. The Church protects the unborn while covered up for years the rape of childern by priests. I guess you are procted while the in mother’s womb; but once you leave it: watch out for the priests!!!!!!

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 11:34 AM

Here, blogger Ed Morrissey tries to deal with the guy when he rants about the Church and the death penalty:

The Catholic Church also opposes the death penalty. Why was it okay to invite Bush and not Obama? More hypocrisy from the Catholic Church.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 11:35 AM

Not as a matter of doctrine, as it does with abortion. In fact, the church specifically does not reject it entirely, as explained in paragraph 2267 of the Catechism. Maybe if you didn’t get your anti-Catholic talking points from Jack Chick tracts, you’d know that.

Ed Morrissey on March 29, 2009 at 11:39 AM

It obviously doesn't work:

What is hilarious is the that the Catholic hierachy still thinks is has moral authority when it come to “protecting” innocent children. Not even Catholics listen to what the Church has to say. The majority voted for Obama. I just wish the Bishops would spend their time regaining the trust of Catholics instead of these phony controversies. It is a tradition to invite POTUS regardless of the politics. STOP THE HYPOCRISY!!!!!

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 11:39 AM

ThackerAgency is well known resident anti-Catholic bigot at Hot Air. Here's some from him:

Why don’t Catholics believe that abortion is terrible? Ed seems like the only one who does (maybe he shouldn’t be Catholic to avoid being stained with the same hypocritical stereotype that is prevalent among Catholics). The Catholic Church seems to only care when the hierarchy of the Church senses the ability to get some publicity and headlines.

ThackerAgency on March 29, 2009 at 12:00 PM

Thacker loves to bash the Pope. You'd think a pro-lifer would decide to find something in common with the Church? Nope. He's a bigger bigot than he is a pro-lifer.

HAHAHAHAHA! main stream Protestants find ALL ABORTION ABHORRENT. We don’t need a pope or bishop to tell us that. Our shepherd is Jesus, not a person.

Apparently you have been told that only Catholics are pro-life.

ThackerAgency on March 29, 2009 at 12:01 PM

Chekote pretends that his problem is hypocrisy, but later we learn what his real problem with the Church is.

Someone who facilitates implementation of the death penalty has not committed a mortal sin requiring coonfession - however according to the RCC someone who participates in aborting a baby does.

More hypocrisy on the part of the Church. They oppose both abortion and the death penalty because of the principle of the dignity of human person. The doctrine makes exceptions only in cases when there is no other option available to protect life, i.e. self-defence and the life of the mother. Same principle. Same exceptions. Same thing. The fact that the Church enforces one more than the other just shows how intellectually dishonest the Church is. That’s why they keep losing moral authority among their followers.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 12:34 PM

Here's the standard "all priests are molesters" argument:

Obama giving the commencement to the graduating class of Notre Dame sends a very strong message from the Church that they don’t care about upholding fundamental moral tenets.

chunderroad on March 29, 2009 at 12:41 PM

They already have done that when they chose to protect molesting priests instead of turning them in to the authorities. Where is Cardinal Law (The enabler-in-chief) these days?

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 12:59 PM

...

Once you start down that slippery slope of not supporting your core principles,,,,,

The Catholic Church has been down that slippery slope for centuries. Nothing new here.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 1:44 PM

The reason for Chekote's anger? Here it is:

I was raised Catholic but I am non-practicing. See, no hypocrisy on my part.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 5:03 PM

His real reason is that he's pro-choice, though. Liars and slanderers of Catholicism are almost always pro-choice:

Actually, you are very wrong. I am not a Democrat. I am a conservative, very active in local Republican politics. Just ask jeanie, artist and INC. I just happen to be pro-choice because I can see where reasonable, moral people can come to the conclusion that a fertilized egg or an embryo consisting of 1o cells (that’s what we are talking about when we deal with embryonic stem cell research) is not a person. Therefore, in order to allow people to exercise their personal beliefs about life, ensoulment, etc., the best public policy position is to permit abortion on demand in the early stages (1st trimester) and restrict it during the latter stages.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 3:33 PM

As soon as Chekote says he'll leave the thread, ANOTHER bigot shows up. Hot Air never fails!

Given the fact that the Catholic Church has been complicit in covering up the rapes committed by its priests and complicit with the acts of Nazi Germany, (and these are only headline items) I find it highly entertaining that it tries to take moral stands and even more amusing that anyone takes it seriously.

But maybe that is just me.

Doubt it somehow.

Ares on March 29, 2009 at 4:15 PM

Ares really hates the Church:

The notion that abortion, at any stage, has ever been acceptable in the Roman Catholic Church is a barefaced lie.

chunderroad on March 29, 2009 at 4:06 PM

When did schtupping boys and nuns get official sign off? Because I am pretty sure the Church has been complicit in that for at least the last thousand years.

Apples and oranges maybe? Perhaps there are hairs to be split here - abortion vs. homosexual statutory rape.

Catholics are the very last people on earth who should be sounding off on moral issues.

“The mote in your eye” comes to mind.

Ares on March 29, 2009 at 5:10 PM

Chekote then comes back for more lies about "Hitler's pope." He's just spewing the standard anti-Catholic talking points it seems:

I am not posting as Ares. But good point. What about the Catholic Church cooperation with Mussolini and the Nazi? I am sure they did that in the name of the dignity of human life.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 5:11 PM

Ares has a real problem with the Church teaching people right from wrong:

The Catholic Church and its adherents should clean up their house before trying to force feed their version of morality on the rest of the world. Admittedly they have had a great deal of success, especially in developing nations with under-educated populations, but its claim to any kind of moral authority is at best suspect given its disgraceful history of covering up sexual abuse and of course its collusion with the nazis and other totalitarians in the 20th century.

Personally I don’t care if priests schtup alter boys and nuns regularly. Personally I don’t even care that they colluded with the fascists in WW2. What sticks in my craw is having these craven fools try to ram down their twisted morality down everyone’s throats.

Enough.

Ares on March 29, 2009 at 5:32 PM

Hot Air often has a lot of Catholics attempting to defend against lies, smears, and other attacks from anti-Catholic bigots or Angry Lapsed Catholics. Even co-blogger Ed Morrissey tried it here, for one post. 4 pages of rants later, Hot Air again shows no inclination of putting an end to these sorts of posts. And these people are REPUBLICANS. Thacker says he's PRO-LIFE.

Am I the only one here who thinks it's a huge problem that so many self-described Republicans are anti-Catholic bigots?

Hot Air's Religion Problem: What I want...

2009-03-22T21:41:00.000-04:00

What I want from Hot Air: a comment policy that, after a warning, would involve the deletion of posts that are clearly designed to troll for religious fights, with eventual banning. If they want to be a mainstream conservative blog, then they're going to learn the hard way that religious bigots cannot be allowed to take control of their comment threads.

It seems as if every comment thread involving the Pope, or religion in general, turns into a Catholic bashing thread by the bigots there. Notwithstanding that Ed Morrissey is a Catholic, and Michelle Malkin might be Catholic but is at least Christian, the bigots run the show at Hot Air. A basic rule of thumb: if the post has anything to do with religion, the Pope, abortion, or sex - it will always eventually turn into a Catholic bashing thread (perhaps with a little anti-Mormonism if Mitt Romney happens to be mentioned).

So the excerpts I'm posting here really aren't out of the ordinary. It's just the stuff I could find in my free time. This sort of stuff happens so often that it's obvious they know of this problem.

They either refuse to acknowledge the problem, or do not care about the problem, or hope that it can be ignored by others who do not read the blog's comments. That is why I am going to expose all of them. If they are not shamed, then they can own these comments. If they think there's nothing wrong with a popular conservative blog hosting these vile comments, let them defend it. One day, someone bigger than me is going to take notice. And by then, I'll have hundreds of these posts in the "Hot Air Bigots" category.

More Hot Air Anti-Catholic Bigotry...

2009-03-22T19:00:00.000-04:00

This thread is a goldmine of the examples of bigotry that Hot Air allows in their comments. The thread is 8 pages long. The anti-Catholicism begins on page 1, accelerates on page 2, and it just all goes downhill from there.

From "money2":

Is the Pope going to lecture Catholic Priests to stop raping and molesting boys? Catholics are not even Christians to begin with. Martin Luther agrees with this statement

money2 on February 18, 2009 at 10:33 AM

Here's a run of comments by a guy named "TTheoLogan":

Okay, I’m not Catholic, but I find myself liking this Pope more and more. Sure, he’s not as “glamorous” and rock-starish as John Paul II, but it’s great to see that he has the chutzpah to directly confront & challenge America’s wayward liberal “leaders” (quotes intended).

bluelightbrigade on February 18, 2009 at 11:51 AM

Did you like him when he said all non-catholic churches are false?

TTheoLogan on February 18, 2009 at 12:16 PM

...

Thank you, Your Holiness. It’s about time.

coldwarrior on February 18, 2009 at 11:12 AM

How is he more holy than anyone else?

TTheoLogan on February 18, 2009 at 12:21 PM

...

Catholics didn’t compose the Law.

baldilocks on February 18, 2009 at 12:25 PM

They claim they have a monopoly on scripture, didn’t you know that?

TTheoLogan on February 18, 2009 at 12:26 PM

Here's where he admits that he'd unapologetically attack Mormonism as well. This is the state of "conservatives" on Hot Air:

You obviously have a problem with the Catholic Church. I hope you work it out somehow.

baldilocks on February 18, 2009 at 12:30 PM

I’d post the same things if they posted mormon stuff on here.

TTheoLogan on February 18, 2009 at 12:31 PM

...

Sure, it’s not like popes throughout history have called non-catholics and their churches heretical.

TTheoLogan on February 18, 2009 at 12:30 PM

All Christians believe they have the truth. That would mean in the eyes of each and every one, a contradictory teaching is heretical.

The Church teaches that in all faiths there is a kernel of truth. It is only in the Catholic Church that the fullness of truth, as God has revealed it, can be found. Every Protestant Christian accepts or rejects elements of Catholic doctrine. This is not a which came first scenario. The Catholic Church came first, everyone else accepts or rejects her.

Jvette on February 18, 2009 at 12:48 PM

Right, but catholics tend to burn and torture who they consider heretics.

TTheoLogan on February 18, 2009 at 12:50 PM

...

The Church is not punishing him they are attempting to have him rethink his errors.
Contrary to your thinking the Vatican does not have secret torture chambers

clarifides on February 18, 2009 at 1:12 PM

They certainly have in the past. I have no idea whether or not they do now.

TTheoLogan on February 18, 2009 at 1:13 PM

...

The catholic church… the biggest religious power grab in history.

1.Hey, let’s claim we put together the bible!
2.Hey, let’s claim that peter was the first pope and he gave us the right to determine future popes!
3.Hey, let’s claim our tradition has precedence over the bible!
4.Hey, let’s claim only we can determine the will of God and this pope guy is the vicar of Christ on earth!

TTheoLogan on February 18, 2009 at 1:15 PM

Long_cat apparently thinks that it's smart to bash Catholics as the "whore of Babylon" notwithstanding that they're perhaps the strongest anti-abortion force on the planet:

First, the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon as written in the book of Revelations. Second, according to the Bill of Rights, we are granted Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Nowhere does it say life begins after a trimester, after you are born, etc. Once a child is conceived, it is granted these rights, and I consider it murder to abort an innocent human being under any circumstance. Pelosi is an evil crook, the Pope is a figurehead for an “organization”. Does it really surprise anyone that these two are meeting in secret?

long_cat on February 18, 2009 at 1:23 PM

...

Another ridiculous comment…why do you keep doing this to yourself? God is all, end of discussion. Catholics also pray to the saints to intercede with God on our behalfs. This in no way obviates our ability to pray directly to God-I do it all the time. However, if you choose not to believe that the saints can intercede with God, then don’t ask them to. It doesn’t matter to me in the slightest.

Trafalgar on February 18, 2009 at 1:50 PM

I know this will be hard for you to accept, but catholicism is not monotheistic. You cannot have catholicism with other gods(who you call saints) and the great coredemptrix, mary. It’s really sad you guys are still pushing this after the tearing of the curtain to the holy place after Christ was resurrected.

TTheoLogan on February 18, 2009 at 1:51 PM

Here's a snarky edit of another person's post by the resident bigot:

TTheoLogan,

your ~~anti-Catholic remarks~~ refusal to assimilate is very tiresome. It is the same old accusations that have honestly no basis in fact. You claim to be a Christian and yet you continually ~~bash~~ refuse to assimilate with ~~many of your fellow Christians~~ and tow the party line just because they are Catholic? That is very sad and doesn’t speak well of you.

rapunzel77 on February 18, 2009 at 1:55 PM

TTheoLogan on February 18, 2009 at 1:57 PM

It basically devolves into another "I'm a Protestant let me quote the TRUE meaning of the Bible to you" verses "I'm Catholic and you're misrepresending me" threads. I don't know why Hot Air thinks this is appropriate. The bigots clearly run the roost over there.

Hot Air has a Religion Problem...

2009-03-22T18:20:00.000-04:00

The Hot Air blog has a religion problem. It has hoards of commentors who feel free to spit on religions, including Catholicism and Mormonism. I don't understand why Michelle Malkin's employees (Allapundit especially) think that it is appropriate to run threads that always devolve into Catholic bashing or Mormon bashing. I recall that several commentors were banned when they made posts maligning Islam or all Muslims. Yet similar posts about Catholics or Catholicism go untouched. The bigots run the show there, apparently.

So I've decided to document all of this for posterity, in an attempt to embarass people enough to do something about it. These posts will run until Allahpundit finally wakes up and realizes that it is incredibly stupid for one of the most well-known conservative blogs to be known as a Catholic bashing blog, or a Mormon bashing blog. Or, hopefully Michelle Malkin will give the order to clean house. I hope she does.

Bloggers aren't always responsible for blog comments, but Hot Air had no problem banning people who attack Islam. And Allahpundit has a tendency to deliberately post inflammatory threads about the Pope or Catholicism, in a crass attempt to get readers. I guess he's earned his 30 pieces of silver. Nevertheless, even a single commentor can be ignored. But when it's hoardes of bigots on your blog, bashing Catholics day in and day out, in every thread that has anything to do with the Church or the Pope, then I think the label fits: Hot Air is a Bigoted Blog.

Some choice comments in this thread:

This one's by "RealDemocrat":

Sorry, the Roman Catholic Church was founded in 313 or 396 A.D., not by Jesus Christ. That probably one reson why the catholic church has remained what it is to this day, a church of pedophile priests, idolaters, Illegal Aliens, and drunken buffoon RoastBeefers.

RealDemocrat on March 22, 2009 at 2:02 PM

And this one seems to think he knows everything about Catholic theology:

Explain this… the RCC warned American Catholics that if they voted for Obama (or any pro-Choice candidate), they might be guilty of a mortal sin (they were warned of forfeiting their eternal life)… and if they were pro-Choice they have effectively made themselves unfit for communion…
They were guilty of cooperation with evil.

But they won’t refuse the actual Catholic politicians and judges to partake of the Eucharist.

mankai on March 22, 2009 at 4:07 PM

Here's mankai again claiming that his out of context quotes aren't attacking the Church.

It matters because you must hold to what the Popes said. Period. If quoting your popes and councils makes me a “Catholic basher” or if you’re ashamed of their decrees that is something you’ll need to explain to yourself.
As Ed himself noted last week… how is it bashing to quote someone verbatim?

mankai on March 22, 2009 at 4:29 PM

More examples to follow.

EDIT: More here:

In America, you’ll have a difficult time reconciling the ideas of individual liberty, smaller government, and the Catholic Church. They’re really incompatible, ya know? One just doesn’t fit there.

RealDemocrat on March 22, 2009 at 7:13 PM

Some comments acknowledge the scope of the problem:

I’m starting to confine myself to only Ed’s posts. I’m getting sick and tired of Allah’s snarky, condescending and sneering attitude. I get enough of that everywhere I go. I don’t need to seek it out.

Thanks Ed for this excellent post.

Allah, go . . . . . . oh, never mind.

Charles Martel on March 22, 2009 at 7:02 PM

and

Allah has a horse in this race, and we just have to put up with it. After all, he’s the one who loves putting up those interesting and mind-expanding posts on the foibles of believers. mankei is obviously not Allah’s sockpuppet, but he is serving Allah’s purpose, just as those idiots trashing Mormons were. Allah loves a fight in which the believers are at each others’ throats, telling each other they aren’t real believers.

That said, all real Americans love the sting of battle.

unclesmrgol on March 22, 2009 at 5:53 PM

One day, I hope Allah realizes that none of this does his blog any favors.

Quick links...

2005-11-21T13:38:00.000-05:00

Professor Bainbridge has a thread suggesting that if Bush were more open to the Democrats on strategy, they'd stop their snarking. I think that's pure baloney. In his comments I note:

It is ridiculous to believe that the left, peddling the "Bush Lied" lie, would suddenly be sated by an admission of mistakes. That is just plain bonkers. People like Michael Moore and Jimmy Carter will never work towards a common goal of improving the situation in Iraq.

Liberals hate the war in Iraq because they hate Bush, but Bush will be president for 3 more years. They will CONTINUE to hate the President, only if Bush unnecessarily admits mistakes in a gratitutous attempt to make friendly with the Democrats, the liberals will sense weakness and take it to the next notch.

The media is to blame in part, because the media is overwhelmingly liberal. They're not only peddling the stupid "Bush lied" lie, but they're also in abject failure in explaining the strategic currents in Iraq: that al-Qaeda is largely supported by Syria and Iran, and that the terrorists there are attacking Iraqis more than Americans. The media don't want to explain that Syria and Iran have an institutional interest in seeing Iraq fail as a democratic state, because they'd rather blame it all on Bush and the US Army.

What the president should do is continue to make the case that the Democrats are lying about the "Bush lied" meme, and that the media is missing the proper angle on the war.

Liberals would love this to be 1969 all over again, but after September 11, I don't think the American public is interested in that sort of idiotic love-fest. They're much more interested in KILLING TERRORISTS. And when push comes to shove and the Democrats finally cast aside their cloak and finally proclaim themselves the peacenick party (of which they always are), the people will once again reject that delusional fantasy of foreign policy in favor of a party that promotes American strength abroad.

Related to that, Ralph Peters has a column in the New York Post: How to Lose A War. He writes:

Not one of the critics of our efforts in Iraq — not one — has described his or her vision for Iraq and the Middle East in the wake of a troop withdrawal. Not one has offered any analysis of what the terrorists would gain and what they might do. Not one has shown respect for our war dead by arguing that we must put aside our partisan differences and win.
There's plenty I don't like about the Bush administration. Its domestic policies disgust me, and the Bushies got plenty wrong in Iraq. But at least they'll fight. The Dems are ready to betray our troops, our allies and our country's future security for a few House seats.

Finally, Mark Shea links to an ABC News article (warning: MSM activity) about the administration's interrogation techniques. A long discussion will certainly follow about whether the White House conducts torture. From the MSM report, though, it's clear that the administration does not believe its techniques are torture.

Needed Surgery for the Republicans...

2005-11-18T00:42:00.000-05:00

I'm a big fan of Rod Dreher, as he used to write for National Review and also comments on several blogs in the St. Blogosphere. But Bryan Preston (guest blogging at Michelle Malkin's blog) pulls no punches with him when he reports:

Democrat Rep. John Murtha said today that we can't win the war in Iraq. That would be news if he hadn't said the exact same thing a year ago. So today's speech wasn't as much a change of heart as a change of venue.

But it was enough to make Rod Dreher leave a big puddle on the floor. Seriously, one more panic like that and Bill Buckley may have to lend Dreher one of his testicles.

Ouch! Poor Rod. But I really, really think Preston is right on this. He continues:

I'm tired of the likes of Andrew Sullivan, whose overwrought, emotional blog writing now meets the McCain definition of torture, and I'm tired of the likes of the Clintons. And frankly I'm past treating the left with anything resembling due respect. The present situation can come to no good. We have the formerly security savvy party running for the door at light speed. We have the moonbat party aiding and abetting the enemy.

Sullivan has been un-readable since 2003, and I won't link to him on principle. It annoys the hell out of me that people like Jonah Goldberg keep discussing him in The Corner. Of course I'm also tired of the Clintons. And naturally, the left and the terrorist-sympathizing, America-hating Democrats never deserved any respect to begin with.

What bothers me most, though, are the Republicans. The Republicans should know better. But they're really showing their cowardice these days (in addition to spending like drunken sailors, not being serious about illegal immigration, and a host of other problems). For pete's sake, the Iraqis will elect their leaders in mid-December for the first time since approving a brand-new Constitution, and all the Republican party can think of is how to screw around and allow terrorist access to the Courts, whose judges will obviously usurp the executive branch's constitutional authority in running the frigging war (another reason to despise those black robed elitist bastards). Only recently has Bush and McCain and Cheney come out to attack the idiotic "Bush lied" lie. Why now, when they could've done it months ago?

So yes, I agree with Bryan Preston's greater point: the Republican party is in serious need of some BALLS.

Update: Captain Ed says it plainly: "Cutting and running is surrender, no matter who proposes it. I don't care if Murtha has a chest full of medals -- telling the national media that American troops can't handle Islamofascist terrorists and must be withdrawn from their range of action is cowardice."

Loretto High School: Run by Dissenters?

2005-11-17T01:00:00.000-05:00

An update on Katelyn Sills, the girl who was expelled from her CATHOLIC high school after her involvement in getting an abortion-activist teacher fired: Katelyn has posted all correspondence between her family and the school.

The result is devastating. Loretto High School's administration, particularly Sister Helen Timothy, come off as the most paranoid, delusional, totalitarian, crazy bunch of whacked-out cat ladies this side of the tracks.

Read the emails for yourself. It's a real eye-opener. I think that the turning point came when Katelyn's mom clearly indicated that the discovery of an abortion-activist teacher required termination of the teacher's employment. I'll bet a zillion dollars that Sister Helen Timothy, and her minion principal, Sister Barbara Nelson, rejected that outcome immediately. Why? I submit that they're probably quite fine with the practice of abortion, aka: THEY ARE DISSENTERS.

Yes, I'm speculating, and yes, it's a harsh conclusion. But let's get real here: Sisters who are authoritative, paranoid, and see "threats" in the most sincere of emails are themselves afraid that their own dissent will become known: A word heard when it shouldn't have been, a memo read by eyes who shouldn't have seen. Katelyn's mother probably ended up on their enemies list because she noted the idiotic and dissenting statements made by Sister Barbara Nelson (and this definitely takes the cake for its stupidity): "Just because a person volunteers at Planned Parenthood does not necessarily mean they support abortion." I'll bet that when Sister Helen saw that statement and also read Ms. Sills' shock over it, Sister Helen feared that in the future her own public dissent could become known. Hence, her rageoholic attitude towards the Sills family after the abortion-activist was fired.

I should note that the Sills family attorney is 100% correct that the Loretto High School's public documents regarding the Sills' behavior is per se libel. That means, it is a classic case of the public distribution of untrue statements causing harm and regarding a nonpublic figure with intent or with reckless disregard for the truth. Their lawyer is absolutely right that, because of the public nature of the untrue statements and the damage done to the reputation of the Sills family, Katelyn and her parents can sue for damages. No school has the right to lie about your family to the public. And the school lied in the worst possible way: by suggesting that the Sills family engaged in threats and other potentially criminal behavior.

Well, Sister Helen, how do you like your dirty laundry being aired in public now? Your insane administration of Loretto High School is now open for the world to see. Congratulations, tyrant.

(via Amy Wellborn and The Curt Jester)

No surprise here...

2005-11-16T12:22:00.000-05:00

Ok, I had time to take a brief quiz. No surprise here:

You scored as Batman, the Dark Knight. As the Dark Knight of Gotham, Batman is a vigilante who deals out his own brand of justice to the criminals and corrupt of the city. He follows his own code and is often misunderstood. He has few friends or allies, but finds comfort in his cause.

Batman, the Dark Knight

88%

Lara Croft

75%

Maximus

67%

Indiana Jones

67%

Neo, the "One"

67%

William Wallace

54%

The Amazing Spider-Man

42%

El Zorro

38%

James Bond, Agent 007

38%

The Terminator

33%

Captain Jack Sparrow

25%

Which Action Hero Would You Be? v. 2.0
created with QuizFarm.com

Very busy...

2005-11-16T12:06:00.000-05:00

Posting will be light for the rest of the week.

Washington Post Hack...

2005-11-15T00:05:00.000-05:00

A smear job by some uglo-American left-wing hack is appropriately fisked by Powerline:

Froomkin goes beyond arrogance and audacity when he reaches the merits of the pre-war intelligence issue. First, he asserts "Far from being baseless, the charge that [Bush] intentionally misled the public in the run-up to war is built on a growing amount of evidence." Froomkin points to no such evidence. Instead, he hides behind the story by Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus. But Froomkin knows that this story provides no evidence that Bush intentionally misled the public about WMD. In fact, Milbank and Pincus concluded thatThe administration's overarching point is true:
Intelligence agencies overwhelmingly believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and very few members of Congress from either party were skeptical about this belief before the war began in 2003. Indeed, top lawmakers in both parties were emphatic and certain in their public statements.
Froomkin lacks the integrity to mention this dispositive admission. If the overwhelming intelligence consensus was that Saddam had WMD, then Bush did not mislead the American people in making that claim. On this crucial point, Froomkin shows himself to be more partisan and less honest than Milbank and Pincus.

I swear, I don't have their patience. If I saw Froomkin, I'd slug him. His lies are disgusting and deserving of contempt. This smarmy, self-righteous attack on the President's decision to go to war is outrageous. Bush may have faults, but he saw the same intelligence as the Democrats and rightly concluded that after September 11, it was not enough to rely on the words of a madman like Saddam Hussein, and that if Saddam didn't come clean we would make him come clean.

But slimy little j**zbuckets like Foomkin don't care about that. They only have one agenda, which ironically enough is spelled out in another Washington Post column written by Fred Hiatt:

Whether Iraqis are in fact committed to a life-or-death struggle for democracy will become clear as its army does, or does not, continue to shoulder a greater burden. But the aptness of Mahdi's view of the United States is already evident in Congress, which pours most of its Iraq-related energy into allegations of manipulated intelligence before the war.
"Those aren't irrelevant questions," says Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.). "But the more they dominate the public debate, the harder it is to sustain public support for the war."
What Lieberman doesn't say is that many Democrats would view such an outcome as an advantage. Their focus on 2002 is a way to further undercut President Bush, and Bush's war, without taking the risk of offering an alternative strategy -- to satisfy their withdraw-now constituents without being accountable for a withdraw-now position.
Many of them understand that dwindling public support could force the United States into a self-defeating position, and that defeat in Iraq would be disastrous for the United States as well as for Mahdi and his countrymen. But the taste of political blood as Bush weakens, combined with their embarrassment at having supported the war in the first place, seems to override that understanding.

No kidding. Hiatt goes on to say that a true wartime President would be assuaging Democrat demands, by meeting with them over strategy and bringing them into the war effort. But that complaint is baseless. The Democrats making these arguments aren't patriots at all. They want America to lose in Iraq (meaning soldiers must die) and their constant questioning of pre-war intelligence is a proxy fight, designed to hide their commitment towards RETREAT, because it'd be too embarassing otherwise to directly call for a return of the troops. They don't have the guts for that argument. And a President running a war can't afford to make friendly with an opposition party that wants America to be defeated, purely for partisan purposes. In fact, the President should continue to call them out for the gutless cowards that they are.

All in all, it proves that Democrats can never be trusted with national security issues at all. They never could, and they never will.

UPDATE: TKS points out a perfect example of why Democrats cannot be trusted on national security: "[Senator Rockefeller] is suggesting that the President and these forces could bring in Zarqawi if he and they wanted to, and they simply haven't. Zarqawi roams freely, plotting more terrorist attacks, because the President and U.S. military want it that way. If this is what Rockefeller's point is, then this is paranoid nonsense, and it is baffling to see not just any member of the Senate, but the top-ranking Democrat on the intelligence committee saying this."

Not baffling to me, when you consider that they are so twisted around the pursuit of political power that they'll believe the most ridiculous things in order to criticize the President.

Alito Reads, Understands, Constitution

2005-11-14T10:27:00.000-05:00

The fact that a person can read and actually understand the Constitution is news today:

Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., President Bush's Supreme Court nominee, wrote that "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion" in a 1985 document obtained by The Washington Times....

[He wrote:] "I am particularly proud of my contributions in recent cases in which the government has argued in the Supreme Court that racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed and that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion."

Whattya know? The Constitution requires equal protection under the law and that means ethnic quotas are illegal. Who would've figured? And the Constitution also says nothing about abortion, too. Fancy that! This is news to those who don't read the Constitution and want it to say other things entirely. But for the life of me, I can't find the Affirmative Action clause or the Abortion clause. I do, however, know that the Constitution has an Equal Protection clause and a 10th Amendment (confirming that states have Police Powers, which the Federal government does not).

Of course, this supposedly bombshell news is spun by Republican committee staffers to try to play to the Democrats, again. It's spun this as a denial about how Alito would rule on Roe v. Wade:

A leading Republican involved in the nomination process insisted that this does not prove Judge Alito, if confirmed to the Supreme Court, will overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court ruling that made abortion a constitutional right. "No, it proves no such thing," said the Republican, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "In fact, if you look at some of the quotes of his former law clerks, they don't believe that he'll overturn Roe v. Wade."...

"Ruth Bader Ginsburg had a long history of advocacy on behalf of liberal causes, but she was evaluated on her 13-year record as a federal judge and her jurisprudence, not her belief that there was a constitutional right to prostitution or polygamy."

It's true that Ginsberg advocated on behalf of liberal causes, and while she's a smart judge, she is unquestionably also a Judicial legislator. Alito will not legislate from the bench, but if Alito retains any of the brains he had when he wrote that memo, he should overrule Roe v. Wade if it ever presents itself again. One doesn't ratify abortion rights while sincerely believing that the Constitution does not protect them. If he does and fails to overturn Roe, he'll betray his inner logic regarding the Constitution, and would be establishing himself as a legislator rather than an impartial umpire. If the people want abortion-rights, they can write and pass an abortion Constitutional amendment. Otherwise, pipe down, NARAL.

It's not likely that Alito will transform into a Supra-Legislator on the bench, however:

"In the field of law, I disagree strenuously with the usurpation by the judiciary of decision-making authority that should be exercised by the branches of government responsible to the electorate," he added.... "In college, I developed a deep interest in constitutional law, motivated in large part by disagreement with Warren Court decisions, particularly in the areas of criminal procedure, the Establishment Clause, and reapportionment."

A-frickin'-men. Alito apparently reads, and understands, the Constitution. Wow. What's strange is that while Republican committee staffers want to avoid the issue of Roe v. Wade, they DO want to evaluate his judicial temperment:

Republicans are relishing the opportunity to defend Judge Alito's support for judicial restraint, saying it puts him squarely in the majority of American public opinion.
"We're delighted to have a debate over judicial philosophy and the proper role of courts in America," a Republican strategist said. "That's a debate the Republican Party wins every time."

But if they debate his judicial philosophy, it will necessarily involve a debate about Roe. The Republicans don't seem to understand that. If Alito firmly establishes himself as a person who rejects judicial legislating, then absent some irrational protection of precedent, he should overrule Roe. Judicial temperment might be an adequate proxy substitute about Roe, especially since the source of decisions like Roe is the faulty temperment and inflated sense of superiority in the Court. But Democrats aren't idiots and know what a fight over judicial temperment means. It's strange that the Republicans want a fight about that, but not about Roe. Perhaps they're merely too afraid to state the obvious: a restrained Judge who sincerely reads the Constitution could never support a ruling like Roe, and has a duty to overrule it. And if they really believe it's a debate the Republican Party wins every time, then they should follow its logical conclusion.

Still, this news is very satisfying. I was beginning to have doubts about Alito. Now, I'm a lot more satisfied.

Update: Further Discussion from Captain Ed. And Jay Anderson says this will make both the left and the right happy. Patterico says he was happy to get Alito without a fight, but that it's likely we'll get the fight we were looking for all along. More from Stop the ACLU (crossposted at Prolife Blogs) as well as Blogs for Bush, and ConfirmThem.

Further Update: Professor Bainbridge says that this "unequivocal statement of commitment to conservative values" means that Alito is the anti-Miers. He's right. This is no stealth nominee, and should forever destroy the notion that a conservative must be stealthy in order to be confirmed to the Supreme Court. More importantly, he notes that "only by standing up to Bush and the party loyalists were conservatives able to get a judge who gives us a shot at advancing movement concerns." You can say that again. We cannot let up in our demands for conservativism in ALL branches of government. The Prof. isn't quite as happy as me on this news though, noting that Alito wrote this before the Casey decision and thus could be further influenced by precedent. But hopefully Thomas and Scalia's influence will shoot that lingering concern down, if it is a lingering concern.

Liberal Republicans Should be Punished

2005-11-13T22:25:00.000-05:00

Well, I thought that Hugh Hewitt had jumped the shark when defending Hariett Miers, placing his politics ahead of his principles. But look who's making the case for retribution against the cowardly Republicans who voted against dtilling in ANWR?

If the party isn't dedicated to being a majority party organized around the core issue of national security seriousness, it won't last as a majority anyway. Exiling the weak-kneed on a national security issue is exactly the sort of action that will underscore the seriousness of the party on these issues.

Hugh makes the claim that the GOP cannot afford to have individual views trump the party's agenda on national security issues, and suggests that the members who voted against drilling in ANWR be stripped of their committee and subcommittee chairs. Fine with me. I'd also refuse to send them any national campaign money, and the GOP should encourage primary opponents to run against them. Liberal Republicans, as a rule, should be punished.

Of course, the common thread with Hewitt is that, as with Miers and here, he views his own agenda as being equivilent with the agenda of the GOP, which should be defended at all costs. He viewed those attacking Miers as the ones pursuing their own individual agendas at the expense of the party. But when discussing the agenda of "the party," numbers are what counts, and the numbers were against Miers from the beginning.

Here's a thought, though: I wonder when Hugh will take his own advice on party discipline and purge the pro-abortion GOP members? That should be just as important as making national security a party agenda item.

But, maybe Hewitt HAS learned something from the Miers episode after all. He actually makes the suggestion that if liberal Republicans keep scuttling a conservative agenda, conservatives won't vote Republican next time around:

Pro-ANWR exploration Republicans from competitive districts ought to realize that their "colleagues" are endangering not only the majority but their seats as well. It might be unpleasant to deal out some party discipline, but a whole lot less unpleasant than having Nancy Pelosi as the Speaker.

Darn right, Hugh. About time you learned it.

Abortion: It's killing us all.

2005-11-11T00:47:00.000-05:00

Jane Galt over at Asymmetrical Information has a lot of posts on abortion. She links to this post, which puts my "Aggressive Conservative" name to shame (the title of his post is called "Why Roe V. Wade Must Be Overturned, Encased in Lead, and Sunk to the Bottom of the Marianas Trench There to Lie Forever Among Tubeworms and Busted Russian Submarines").

A little excerpt:

"Roe V. Wade has had a disastrous and insidious effect on the highest judicial process in the country. It has hijacked an entire branch of the United States government, which means we only have two left. It has reduced all public discussion of constitutional law to one word: ABORTION. The grand legacy of John Marshall, John Jay, and Oliver Wendell Holmes is now represented by a single lump of tissue: ABORTION. The evolution of judicial thinking in the greatest nation on earth has been stopped dead by ABORTION. The vitally important democratic function of reviewing and choosing suitable candidates for the greatest court in history has been gruesomely hewed down to a single splinter: ABORTION. Blind-folded Justice is almost mute; she can only croak the word ABORTION.

Socrates, what is truth? ABORTION. Conan, what is best in life? ABORTION. What's the atomic weight of Germanium? ABORTION. What is the very meaning of existence itself - what single word breaks the silence of those infinite spaces that filled great Pascal with dread? ABORTION, ABORTION, ABORTION, ABORTION, ABORTION...

Now this is a sad state for this once-great court to have fallen to, and makes me wonder if we don't need another court to assume the neglected responsibilities of the current one. Then the Abortion Toggle Switch could be moved to some remote corner of the public's attention, and the various abortion partisans could play their endless game of Keep Away without buggering up the entire constitutional process.

However, this would require amending the constitution itself, with all attendant fuss. The simpler course is to push for Roe V. Wade to be overturned, so that the Supreme Court can get out of the abortion business. And stay the hell out of the abortion business, forever. At once the Pro-Choice legions arise in anguish, complaining that they will never be able to survive the savage Darwinian environment of American politics without the protection of Roe V. Wade. Well, cry me a freaking river. It's about time that you gelatinous sob sisters learned to paddle your own canoe. If you haven't got the guts to make it in the real world, you'll have to use something other than the United States Constitution as an artificial life support system."

Wow. Read the whole thing. Like I said, it puts this blog's name to shame. Some might think it funny, and it is, but it's also very very hard-hitting. I also should note that his insight is precisely the same as Justice Scalia's dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in which he wrote:

"Not only did Roe not, as the Court suggests, resolve the deeply divisive issue of abortion; it did more than anything else to nourish it, by elevating it to the national level, where it is infinitely more difficult to resolve. National politics were not plagued by abortion protests, national abortion lobbying, or abortion marches on Congress, before Roe v. Wade was decided. Profound disagreement existed among our citizens over the issue -- as it does over other issues, such as the death penalty -- but that disagreement was being worked out at the state level. As with many other issues, the division of sentiment within each State was not as closely balanced as it was among the population of the Nation as a whole, meaning not only that more people would be satisfied with the results of state-by-state resolution, but also that those results would be more stable. Pre-Roe, moreover, political compromise was possible.

Roe's mandate for abortion on demand destroyed the compromises of the past, rendered compromise impossible for the future, and required the entire issue to be resolved uniformly, at the national level. At the same time, Roe created a vast new class of abortion consumers and abortion proponents by eliminating the moral opprobrium that had attached to the act... Many favor all of those developments, and it is not for me to say that they are wrong. But to portray Roe as the statesmanlike "settlement" of a divisive issue, a jurisprudential Peace of Westphalia that is worth preserving, is nothing less than Orwellian. Roe fanned into life an issue that has inflamed our national politics in general, and has obscured with its smoke the selection of Justices to this Court, in particular, ever since. And by keeping us in the abortion-umpiring business, it is the perpetuation of that disruption, rather than of any Pax Roeana that the Court's new majority decrees.

In truth, I am as distressed as the Court is -- and expressed my distress several years ago... about the "political pressure" directed to the Court: the marches, the mail, the protests aimed at inducing us to change our opinions. How upsetting it is, that so many of our citizens (good people, not lawless ones, on both sides of this abortion issue, and on various sides of other issues as well) think that we Justices should properly take into account their views, as though we were engaged not in ascertaining an objective law, but in determining some kind of social consensus...

What makes all this relevant to the bothersome application of "political pressure" against the Court are the twin facts that the American people love democracy and the American people are not fools. As long as this Court thought (and the people thought) that we Justices were doing essentially lawyers' work up here -- reading text and discerning our society's traditional understanding of that text -- the public pretty much left us alone. Texts and traditions are facts to study, not convictions to demonstrate about. But if in reality, our process of constitutional adjudication consists primarily of making value judgments; if we can ignore a long and clear tradition clarifying an ambiguous text, as we did, for example, five days ago in declaring unconstitutional invocations and benedictions at public highschool graduation ceremonies; if, as I say, our pronouncement of constitutional law rests primarily on value judgments, then a free and intelligent people's attitude towards us can be expected to be (ought to be) quite different. The people know that their value judgments are quite as good as those taught in any law school -- maybe better. If, indeed, the "liberties" protected by the Constitution are, as the Court says, undefined and unbounded, then the people should demonstrate, to protest that we do not implement their values instead of ours. Not only that, but the confirmation hearings for new Justices should deteriorate into question-and-answer sessions in which Senators go through a list of their constituents' most favored and most disfavored alleged constitutional rights, and seek the nominee's commitment to support or oppose them. Value judgments, after all, should be voted on, not dictated; and if our Constitution has somehow accidently committed them to the Supreme Court, at least we can have a sort of plebiscite each time a new nominee to that body is put forward...

...By foreclosing all democratic outlet for the deep passions this issue arouses, by banishing the issue from the political forum that gives all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight, by continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences, the Court merely prolongs and intensifies the anguish.

We should get out of this area, where we have no right to be, and where we do neither ourselves nor the country any good by remaining."

And Jane keeps blogging, musing about abortion-supporters:

"I am amazed that half the chattering classes really purport to believe that the single most important issue facing the courts is whether or not ten or so low-population states will, or will not, be allowed to outlaw abortion. More important than civil liberties? More important than towns condemning any old house they feel like it to build a strip mall? The highest cause in the land, the only one that really matters, is making sure that nothing interferes one iota with the free and unfettered scraping out of uteruses from sea to shining sea?"

Jane, you'd be surprised how many people support evil when they have their entire lives invested in it. They might never even have an abortion or know someone who would. But those who worship at the altar of abortion know that if they give it up, they're giving up the Sexual Revolution. They need that. It's their 20-something fantasy that they hold onto, whether they're actually 20-something or 50-something. Scalia is right that the Court is being destroyed by abortion. But so is the country, and our humanity. Roe v. Wade must be overturned. But even more important, abortion must be attacked from every side. Now that the abortion debate was brought to the national level, it should be finished at the national level. It's not enough to hope like Scalia or Jane that returning it to the states would settle the matter. Like its victims, it will not die unless we destroy it. Abortion should be outlawed entirely, with a Constitutional amendment. I want to bury Roe and its legacy into the ground, for good. And its supporters should be shunned for their support of a murderous ideology of sexual fanaticism and amoral narcissism.

No question about it, abortion is today's slavery debate. Slavery consumed the politics of the young Republic for nearly 70 years before the Civil War. How long will abortion consume the politics, and the people, of America? And like slavery with all its evils, I think it will see its red day before the end. In fact, that would probably be the BEST outcome we can hope for (since it's naive to believe that the abortion-worshippers won't give up without a real violent fight). Because the alternative outcome is complete and utter surrender, and the masses of people giving in and accepting abortion and all its logical consequences: cloning, euthenasia, genetic manipulation, legalization of all sexual deviancies, and state sanction and monetary support to allievate the obvious social problems that are caused, war of the clones, war of the genetically superior over the inferior and their eventual enslavement or holocaust, economic dislocation, poltiical persecution of Christians, the end of parenthood and the family, the rise of nihilism, mass suicides, and the depopulation and eventually moral hollowing-out of the West - leading to Islam's resurgenace in the world and its ruling power of Terror.

If any of that happens, it's all because of abortion. Abortion is a maggot-worm that has wriggled its way into the heart of humanity and is killing us all. You'd think that the widespread practice of murdering innocent babies worldwide wouldn't cause our modern-day philosophers to think twice about this matter, that perhaps maybe Barbarity and all its horiffic glories aren't so chic.

It's going to be a long, long winter...

UPDATE: Amy Wellborn notes a positive piece on the Mirror of Justice blog by Greg Sisk about the good that would happen from overturning Roe. It's a good mirror to my aggressive mood here.

Outsourcing Parenting...

2005-11-11T00:19:00.000-05:00

I saw a report on local Fox 5 news here in New York the other night. They had a segment on rich parents who outsource their parental duties so they can spend time doing other things. The local newscasters treated it as if it were a wonderful thing that parents could pay someone, not just for day care, but to do all the "work" of being a parent. Such things include:

Paying a professional bicyclist to teach your kids how to ride a bike.
Paying a person to sit up all night to comfort your child if he wakes up, so you can get a full night's sleep.
Paying a person to help your daughter organize her room.
Paying a person to teach your kids not to suck their thumbs.
Paying a person to play with your kids

The only evidence of the segment I could find on the internet was this contact information on Fox 5's website, that lists 2 of the people providing their services. It's treated as a viewer resource, like it's a good thing. Throughout the segment, it was made clear that the parents who outsourced their "duties" weren't off working a busy job, they were just doing other things that they wanted to do instead of spending time with their kids. The only semblence of balance in the entire report was a developmental psychologist saying how necessary it is for kids to bond and spend time with their parents. But that advice was treated with utter skepticism and contempt by everyone else.

Needless to say, any parent who has to pay someone to teach their kid to ride a bike because they don't want to do it is a terrible parent. Do I have to mention that the services were so expensive that the "luxury" of spending time away from your kids could only be done by the filthy rich? They should be ashamed of themselves, those self-centered, narcissistic, egomaniac jerks.

Pat Robertson is an Idiot...

2005-11-11T00:10:00.000-05:00

What did the self-appointed guru of Christianity have to say now?

All eight Dover, Pa., school board members up for re-election were defeated Tuesday after trying to introduce "intelligent design" - the belief that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power - as an alternative to the theory of evolution.
"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God. You just rejected him from your city," Robertson said on the Christian Broadcasting Network's "700 Club."

Yeah, because the last thing we want are people turning to God when they realize they need Him.

There are plenty of problems with unorthodox Catholic priests and bishops. But thankfully we don't have Robertson to deal with. Can't someone pay this man just to shut the heck up?

Republican Cowards...

2005-11-10T14:20:00.000-05:00

The Anchoress has words for the Republican Party:

If your plan was to make people so disgusted with your cowardice, your disorganization and your political tone-deafness that they either stop contributing to the RNC, or they decide to just sit out the next election (because what’s the point), or they decide to vote out every stinking one of you in the next elections, because you freaking well deserve ouster for literally doing nothing constructive and squandering your majority…well…you have succeeded spectacularly! Beyond your wildest imaginings, I am sure.

I can’t think of a single reason to vote to re-elect a any one of you....

You seem directed toward nothing more than keeping your almighty Senate or House seat in your name. You give away your power, you give away your advantages in committee, you leave in place utterly feckless people like Arlen Specter and then, when you finally seem like you are on the cusp of doing something productive and right, like investigating the CIA or okaying drilling in a bare, muddly, uninhabitable tundra, you fall into a faint and go slinking back to your states and districts to gladhand and pump for money and then gladhand some more.

Michelle Malkin has been posting reader emails who are increasingly disillusioned with the GOP for breaking away from its campaign promises. John from Right Wing News says that "Voting to allow drilling in ANWR should be the easiest decision the clowns up in Congress ever had to make -- and they still can't get it right. Pathetic, pathetic, pathetic."

The Republicans are going to get their butts handed to them in 2006. They seem not to care about the people that voted for them. The only thing they can count on is the Democrats acting even dumber by continuing to stage useless Senate shutdowns. But that won't work forever (Hillary Clinton is no moron).

A surefire way to be defeated is to piss off the conservative base that elected you. I can't imagine why the Republicans think that's a good thing.

Update: Professor Bainbridge says that Bush is a conservative impostor. I should note that the Professor Bainbridge is now against the war in Iraq. [Edit. I mistakenly said Anchoress was against the war.] I'm not. I was for it, and I'm still for it. But their other criticisms are fair: Bush has mangled domestic policy, spent a lot of useless money, let the Democrats and RINOS run circles around him, and has done a poor job of managing things within his control. I like Bush personally, but he's becoming the leader of a failed Republican coalition. Right Wing News proposes an agenda of the Republican Party post-Bush, but frankly it should've been his agenda all along. If the Republicans want to get anywhere, they should take a hard look at it and start implementing it now, or else they won't be in a position to implement it after Bush leaves office.

Catholic Values and the Court...

2005-11-10T00:59:00.000-05:00

(this is an expansion from a comment I tried posting at Mark's blog; I don't know if it successfully posted b/c of Internet problems.)

Mark Shea, commenting on the role of a Catholic Supreme Court judge and the Constituion's "cruel and unusual" clause, says:

I think the death penality is an intractably moral question. I think judges have to draw on some kind of moral tradition if they are to decide it. And as a Catholic, I would prefer that the moral tradition they draw on would be the one revealed by the Son of God, as distinct from whatever they happen to pull out of their butts, as Harry Blackmun's was.

First, as a cautionary note towards those that argue against the application of the death penalty, as some of Mark's commentators are: murders happen in prision. Life imprisonment is no guarantee against preventing crime. There is an excessive amount of crimes committed against other inmates in prison, from rape to murder. A man already serving a life sentence in a state with no death penalty is immune from punishment if he kills another inmate. And that is an injustice, to be sure.

On the greater issue of how to interpret the Constitution with Catholic values verses originalism / textualism, the issue bears greater scrutiny than I think Mark has undertaken. Mark, I know I've criticized you in the past for a shoot-at-the-hip attitude of not looking into the details on things, but in this case I think a sincere re-examination would do all of us a lot of good. Professor Bainbridge had a great thread about this on his blog, which he updated with supplemental posts (here, and here), that responded to critiques about why bishops don't deny communion to judges. I believe Amy Wellborn linked to that thread; I don't know if Mark did.

Basically, a judge, acting prudently and sincerely, has an obligation to interpret statutes and constitutions with plain meaning (textually) and if the meaning is vague (as it may be with a word like "unusual"), to use the original understanding of the term. A judge should not legislate from the bench, period. An originalist judge is, for lack of a better term, a REAL judge. A judge that legislates from the bench is not a REAL judge. However, that is not to say that a Catholic understanding of Right Reason cannot guide him. I agree with Mark that Catholic values should inform a judge, but ONLY because those values are correct. Using Catholic values is not, however, "legislating from the bench." Catholic judges can be REAL judges, and in fact many are. But, how to distinguish between a Catholic properly using Catholic values to inform him, and a judge who lets post-modernist secular values inform him? How can I fairly say that a Catholic judge using his Catholic values could be a "REAL judge?"

Critics will say that I merely want to have the cake and eat it too; why cannot postmodern humanist secular values guide a judge if it's ok for Catholic values? The difference is, as things stand now, Catholic values are fully consistant with sincere and honest efforts at judging (meaning that they're fully compatible with originalism). I have said over and over, from the Roberts nomination until today: There is NOTHING in the Constitution incompatible with Catholic values. Nothing. (usually, people make the mistake of assuming the Constitution requires abortion as a fundamental right when it does not. Once that assumption is out of the way, it's easy to see that the Constitution and Catholicism are perfectly compatible.) In contrast to that, secular humanist values often interfere in properly judging the plain meaning of the Constitution. Secular humanist values must re-write the Constitution to create fake rights to abortion, euthenasia, affirmative action, etc. Judges with secular humanist values are often corrupted into legislating from the bench. An originalist, Catholic judge need not do such a thing, and in fact will not do that, ever.

However, on Prof. Bainbridge's blog, I brought up, and could not answer, the hypothetical of a Catholic judge interpreting a Constitution that explicitly said in plain text that abortion was a fundamental right. I was stumped by that example, because it would be an instance of Catholic values clashing with the clear role of a judge in plainly interpreting text. But that example does not, in my view, exist at this point in time (even on issues like the death penalty). Given the POSSIBILITY of that example, it's important we have this conversation. Also, we should bear in mind that even though we KNOW that Catholic values are right, we cannot use that as an excuse to say that it's ok to use them while saying that a secular humanist cannot draw on his "values". We have to come up with better reasons, and unfortunately that's what I'm struggling with. As long as the Constitution remains as it is now, there should be no problem. But if the Constitution were ever to explicitly include plainly evil things (such as an explicit, fundamental right to abortion), then Catholic judges would be in a real bind, and would probably either have to serve under false pretenses or not serve at all.

Update: Professor Bainbridge links to a book review that Justice Scalia recently wrote, which talks about how to interpret the law. I read this article a while ago, and now I think it provides a clue to my thinking. In Scalia's concluding words, he notes that secular humanist judges are essentially searching for God in their search for the law. Catholics have no such mysteries, since we know who God is. He is our savior. He is Jesus. Catholics are not forced to look for the mysteries of the universe and define them in our law, as those who legislate from the bench are prone to do. Scalia notes:

If, as Smith contends, a hypothetical author is not up to the job of resolving law’s quandary [of what it means], neither, it turns out, is Smith himself. His book describes what he believes to be the quandary but does not resolve it, examining and rejecting various solutions—except, of course, the classical one, which is out of bounds because it violates the “norm prescribing that religious beliefs are inadmissible in academic explanations.” The book’s last paragraph acknowledges that “perplexity is not a resting place” but concludes that “we would perhaps be wise to confess our confusion and to acknowledge that there are richer realities and greater powers in the universe than our meager modern philosophies have dreamed of.”

Hmmm. Richer realities and greater powers than our modern philosophies have dreamed of. Could there be a subversive subtext here? Why does Smith bring in at the outset of his book a third ontological category—religion—which he immediately disclaims, not because it is wrong, necessarily, but because it violates academic ground-rules? And why does his book repeatedly point out how the “classical school”—premised, alas, upon religion—was coherent where modern jurisprudence is not? And why does his penultimate chapter describe at length (though with the academically correct acknowledgment that it is “foreign to prevailing ontological assumptions”) the work of Joseph Vining, which speaks of a hypothetical author who “would need in some sense to be actually present,” and “to display qualities of caring, and of mindfulness”? Lawyers, Vining says, either “must believe what they do with legislation is often foolish and deceptive; or they do believe and confess a belief in an informing spirit in the legislated words that is beyond individual legislators.” Holy cow! Could it be that . . . ?.....

Could it be,...that Smith is inviting, tempting, seducing his fellow academics to consider the theological way out of the quandary—the way that seemed to work for the classical school?As one reaches the end of the book, after reading Vining’s just-short-of-theological imaginings followed by Smith’s acknowledgment of “richer realities and greater powers in the universe,” he (she?) is sorely tempted to leap up and cry out, “Say it, man! Say it! Say the G-word! G-G-G-G-God!” Surely even academics can accept, as a hypothetical author, a hypothetical God! Textualists, being content with a “modest” judicial role, do not have to call in the Almighty to eliminate their philosophical confusion.

Scalia sums it up perfectly. Textualists do not have to call in the Almighty to eliminate their philosophical confusion of the law. We merely need to look to the text of things and figure out its plain, basic, understandable meaning. And that need not change unless the Constitution begins to plainly and expressly permit explicitly evil things.

Further Update: Steve Dillard at Southern Appeal, responding to Mark, notes: "Catholics should be extremely leery of condoning any form of extratextual reasoning that is not already enshrined in the Constitution. The Constitution's meaning is fixed in time, except to the extent the document is amended to alter its meaning. " This statement would be fine as long as the Constitution did not expressly permit or mandate anything evil. But if there were ever an amendment that explicitly said that abortion was a fundamental right, faithful Catholic judges would be strangled in their attempt to interpret it.

In a July 3, 2004 letter to Cardinal McCarrick, Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict) made clear that Catholic judges cannot enforce clearly evil laws:

"A member of the judiciary ordinarily does not have the same capacity to initiate change that a member of the legislature has. . . . While acknowledging the difficulties and limitations inherent in each level and branch of government, the Church urges public officials to be aware that they cannot hold themselves excused from their duties as disciples of the Lord. They must be able to stand before the Lord with a clear conscience and say they defend the rights of all human beings, at every stage of existence, to the best of their ability. They must never take refuge in the specious argument that they must enforce the law, whatever it may be. Persons of good conscience must refrain from seeking office if the price of holding office is the enforcement of evil laws which allow the killing of the innocent. "

Since the Constitution right now doesn't state that abortion is a fundamental right, or any other evil thing, then Catholic judges have no problem. But the fact remains, if the Constitution were amended to become a document of evil, then Catholics could not honestly serve as judges (it's an open question whether they could licitly serve as judges while doing everything in their power to destroy the evil effects of such a law).

Republican Idiots in Action...

2005-11-09T22:42:00.000-05:00

Want to know why the approval ratings of President Bush, and the Republicans in Congress, is so low? Perhaps because they don't know the first thing about running a political office, as politicians. In calling for an investigation into the leak of possible secret European terrorist detention centers, which would turn the leakfest of the Valerie Plame matter back on those hostile to the President's foreign policy, Senate Majority Bill Frist screwed up big time:

A leak suspected to have come from the office of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) complicated, confused and nearly derailed a joint effort by Senate and House Republican leaders to seek an investigation of the unauthorized release of classified information.
Frist and House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) both eventually signed a letter Tuesday calling for the Senate and House intelligence committees to conduct a joint investigation of how The Washington Post discovered of the existence of CIA-run detention and interrogation facilities in eight foreign countries....
The leak appeared to pressure Hastert to sign the letter before he or Frist intended to. But then something happened that lawmakers and political observers surmised made Frist hesitant to sign it.
CNN reported earlier in the day that Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) had said a Republican senator may have leaked information about the so-called black sites to the Post. Lott told reporters yesterday that he had been talking about another Post article. He said he was not talking about the article about the detention and interrogation facilities....
The lack of confirmation about Frist’s support raised the specter that Hastert would be left alone in calling for the investigation. That would have likely been a source of major irritation for House Republicans since the idea for the investigation originated with Frist office, said a senior Senate GOP aide....
Another complication created by the snafu is that it forced lawmakers to answer questions about a letter they were not sure Frist had endorsed.

Read the rest of the article just to see how complicated, confused, and derailed these politicians are. Honestly, it's like watching slapstick, as things get worse and worse.

Frist is an idiot, and he employs idiots. The delayed timing of the release meant the news trickled out, instead of providing a bombshell announcement with clear House-Senate Republican support. The Republicans looked feckless. I remember seeing Drudge's teaser and wondering when the heck the "official" announcement would come. I remember wondering what the heck was taking so long. Now it's clear. Frist bungled the politics of it. Friggin' idiot. I just can't believe how stupid this is.

The Flame of Reality..

2005-11-08T01:35:00.000-05:00

France Burns:

The police union Action Police CFTC called for curfews to be imposed in all riot-hit areas to combat the "civil war that spreads a little more every day". The mayor of one town, Raincy, north of Paris, announced a late-night street ban on children to "avoid a tragedy". The union also urged the government to send in troops to defeat the trouble-makers, mainly mobs of young people from poor estates dominated by Muslim families whose origins are in France's former colonies in north and sub-Saharan Africa...

More than 1,400 vehicles were destroyed, two policemen were injured by birdshot and petrol bomb attacks were launched on schools, churches and public buildings.

A country that continuously chides America while letting its elders die in a heat wave, that created a bureaucratic superstate in the European Union, that kisses the ass of Saddam Hussein, that todies for Iran's terror-masters, that looks whistfully on the days of its Revolution and the La guillotine, might finally have a serious wake up call.

But I highly doubt it. France is a nation of sycophants. They are incapable of decisive action and cutting through the grey to see the stark choices they face. They are so wedded to leftist political ideology that its logical nihilism will soon be upon them. Better to burn than to fight back against an oppressed Muslim. Needless to say, I don't even think they have the guts to fight back - hence, there will be no "civil war." France will capitulate. It's what they do.

I'm reminded of the words of Denethor:

"But soon all shall be burned. The West has failed. It shall all go up in a great fire, and all shall be ended. Ash! Ash and smoke blown away on the wind!"

But that may be France's destiny. It is not America's.

Americans for the first time in my memory seem not to care a whit what Europeans think — to the great consternation of our elites on the East Coast. Heartland Americans think the French are ridiculous, and seem almost to welcome Gallic disdain. Most of us out here, far from being deprived yokels, have a clearer appreciation of the quite profound amorality in Europe than anyone in the Ivy League: we detect a cynical, self-loathing paralysis of cheap talk and aristocratic banter on the continent that never leads to any real good physical deed: prancing and preening in Brussels and Paris, but paralyzing fear when the real innocents are being butchered in Serbia a few miles away. Tough talk to a democratic and humane America, not so tough talk to nightmarish killers in Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.
I had a conversation not long ago with a European, who typically so, began with the pained look of someone who was methodically entering a long grandfatherly lecture about the American pathologies of "unilateralism" and "exceptionalism." When I laughed and told him he should worry more about keeping us in NATO than threatening to leave, more about America turning its attention to Russia, India, Japan, and South America than to Paris and Rome, and expect pride rather than guilt that we stopped the Russians, fought the Gulf War, kicked out Noriega, and bombed in Serbia. In short, when I made it clear that Europe is irrelevant, he was shocked — and, mon dieu!, of all things, hurt! Europeans, I think, are going to learn that their real fears are not that we wish to control them, work with them, influence them, or corrupt them, but rather that we simply prefer to forget about them. They are rapidly becoming little more than an old windy Nestor — wordy, impotent, and full of empty advice about a glorious past in someone else's busy present...

Let the Europeans be toadies and fear these abjectly bankrupt regimes; let Americans worry more about the poor half billion people who have had to suffer and endure under them. Europeans, not us, are on the wrong side of history — and it is more embarrassingly apparent each day of this present crisis. Like the weeks before the fall of the Berlin Wall, what is ahead is fraught with uncertainty and fear, but it is also, in some strange and macabre way, full of rare hope as well.

Night lies over Paris. If it does not burn, it will only be because they've abandoned their pretentions and have decided that Western Civilization is worth saving. It remains to be seen.

France begins to panic...

2005-11-02T11:08:00.000-05:00

I see that Chirac is now trying to appease the rioters that are slowly but surely marching towards Paris after 6 nights of rioting.

"The law must be applied firmly and in a spirit of dialogue and respect," Chirac said at a Cabinet meeting. "The absence of dialogue and an escalation of a lack of respect will lead to a dangerous situation."

Oh yeah, I'm sure those thugs, who have taken over 9 towns already, really respect you, Jacques.

The rioting, which spread Tuesday night to at least nine Paris-region towns, has exposed rifts in Chirac's government, with Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy — a potential 2007 presidential candidate — being criticized for his tough talk and police tactics....

That Chirac intervened personally was a measure of the crisis. He acknowledged the "profound frustrations" of troubled neighborhoods but said violence was not the answer and that efforts must be stepped up to combat it....

Sarkozy — blamed by many for fanning the violence with his "zero-tolerance" approach to suburban crime — defended his approach and vowed to restore calm. He recently called rioters "scum" and vowed to "clean out" troubled suburbs.

This Sarkozy guy is probably the only hope that the French have to fight back against the Islamist hoardes that threaten the cities. Naturally, the French hate him for having the slightest bit of backbone. Chirac's appeal to the thugs is ridiculous, a craven position fueled by weakness and cowardice. There is one way to deal with the rioters: tear-gas and deport all of them. End of problem. Of course, they won't do that, and as the Muslim rioters realize that they will grow more brazen. France is screwed.

Prior post in this series: The Fall of France.

Pro-Life Student Expelled at Catholic School...

2005-11-02T01:31:00.000-05:00

I suppose I'm late in commenting on this, but Katelyn Sills, a 15 year old girl attending Loretto High School (a Catholic school) who exposed to her Bishop a teacher who was eventually fired for aiding and abetting abortion, has been expelled.

Katelyn has been commenting on her blog, Stand Up and Speak Out. The comments from her schoolmates are disgusting. Many of them are gleefully attacking Katelyn for getting what she supposedly deserved. They are almost all sympathetic to an abortion-helping teacher instead of an innocent girl who speaks the truth.

Contact information for the Loretto administration is here. Personally, I hope the Bishop fires every single administrator who had a hand in expelling Katelyn. He should wade in there and indiscriminately cut them down like a scythe through grass. It's time to clean house. The "Catholic" school was reluctant to fire their pro-abortionist teacher, but they have no problem expelling a little girl who only went to her Bishop. If they lose their jobs, they should consider themselves lucky. As it is, Katelyn could probably sue the pants off of them. She should, irrespective of the merits of her case, because it will put the administrators through a hell they want to avoid. Time to rake them over the coals.

There's a long thread over at Amy Wellborn's blog on this topic, and Mark Shea has a thread about it here.

UPDATE: Katelyn has posted a press release on her blog.

The Fall of France?

2005-10-31T23:38:00.000-05:00

Via Little Green Footballs, the International Herald Tribune reports on an amazing quote from the French Interior Minister:

Sarkozy says that violence in French suburbs is a daily fact of life.

Since the start of the year, 9,000 police cars have been stoned and, each night, 20 to 40 cars are torched, Sarkozy said in an interview last week with the newspaper Le Monde.

That is astounding. It's just, un-frickin-believable. 9,000 police cars have been stoned? 20-40 cars are torched, as in fireball destroyed, every night? If this were happening in an American city like New York, there would be chaos on the streets. The international media would call NYC a war zone, and the citizens would probably flee in panic.

France is in the fifth straight night of violent riots by Muslim youths. The violence has started to catch the attention of the MSM. I wonder if this riot is part of the ordinary, 20-40 torches per night and we're only now bearing witness to it, or if it is in fact the beginning of something more sinister and dangerous. I wonder if we're seeing the beginnings of the inevitible Fall of France to the Islamists? Hopefully not, but I have no faith in the French government to do something about these attacks. I notice that in the MSM reports relating to the recent riots, the Interior Minister keeps having to defend himself against charges he's being too brutal, instead of being left to do his job:

French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy defended his tough anti-crime policies on Monday after a fourth night of riots in a Paris suburb in which tear gas was fired into a mosque during evening prayers.
Sarkozy vowed to investigate the tear gas incident and repeated his "zero tolerance" policy toward violence that began when two teenagers were electrocuted to death after clambering into a power sub-station while apparently fleeing police....

Opposition Socialists said the disturbances were proof Sarkozy's tough policies were failing. "We need to act at the same time on prevention, repression, education, housing, jobs ... and not play the cowboy," former prime minister Laurent Fabius, who also has presidential ambitions, told Europe 1 radio.

My prediction? Even if Sarkozy does succeed in quelling this riot, it will be too late. There will be more. France is seriously screwed, especially because those socialists aren't going away. Read the rest of that news report. The socialists want to "understand" the "problems" of the rioters. The fools. The failure of Europe will result from the immobile presence of leftist political parties incapable of dealing with reality. And when they fall, all they will do is cry out, "we didn't know...." Yes, you do. You've been told before. You just didn't listen.

Prior Post: The French Have a Little Problem on their hands...

STOOOPERDUCK!!!

2005-10-31T17:20:00.000-05:00

Anyone remember that Looney Tunes cartoon when Daffy Duck portrays Superman? His name in that episode is STUPORDUCK! I always laugh whenever I see it, because during the cartoon he gets increasingly crazy whenever he yells out his name: "This looks like a job for Stuporduck" later is loudly exclaimed, "This is a job for Stupor-duck!!!" Finally, towards the end of the cartoon, he slathers the name yelling it loudly: "THIS IS A JOB FOR - AAAAAA - STOOOOOOPERDUCK!!!!"

I had to think of that when I saw this post by Professor Bainbridge.

(with thanks to the Stuporduck website for the sound links)

The French have a little problem on their hands...

2005-10-31T11:20:00.000-05:00

It seems that Radical Muslim Islamists aren't taking too kindly to the benefits of what remains of Western Civilization in France. "A police union spokesman says a Paris suburb is seeing 'civil war.'"

Youths hurled rocks and set fire to cars in the northeastern Clichy-sous-Bois suburb of the French capital, where many immigrants and poor families live in high-rise housing estates notorious for youth violence....

The violence began four days ago among residents of Clichy-sous-Bois over the deaths of two teenagers believed to be of African origin who were electrocuted while fleeing police.

This article by CNN is perhaps the greatest notice the MSM has paid to this story yet. It should come as no surprise to any of us that France will experience the greatest attack from the Islamists. Theodore Dalmypre predicted as much in his City-Journal article from 2002:

Unless it assimilates these millions successfully, its future will be grim. But it has separated and isolated immigrants and their descendants geographically into dehumanizing ghettos; it has pursued economic policies to promote unemployment and create dependence among them, with all the inevitable psychological consequences; it has flattered the repellent and worthless culture that they have developed; and it has withdrawn the protection of the law from them, allowing them to create their own lawless order.
No one should underestimate the danger that this failure poses, not only for France but also for the world. The inhabitants of the cités are exceptionally well armed. When the professional robbers among them raid a bank or an armored car delivering cash, they do so with bazookas and rocket launchers, and dress in paramilitary uniforms. From time to time, the police discover whole arsenals of Kalashnikovs in the cités. There is a vigorous informal trade between France and post-communist Eastern Europe: workshops in underground garages in the cités change the serial numbers of stolen luxury cars prior to export to the East, in exchange for sophisticated weaponry.
A profoundly alienated population is thus armed with serious firepower; and in conditions of violent social upheaval, such as France is in the habit of experiencing every few decades, it could prove difficult to control. The French state is caught in a dilemma between honoring its commitments to the more privileged section of the population, many of whom earn their livelihoods from administering the dirigiste economy, and freeing the labor market sufficiently to give the hope of a normal life to the inhabitants of the cités. Most likely, the state will solve the dilemma by attempts to buy off the disaffected with more benefits and rights, at the cost of higher taxes that will further stifle the job creation that would most help the cité dwellers. If that fails, as in the long run it will, harsh repression will follow.

But among the third of the population of the cités that is of North African Muslim descent, there is an option that the French, and not only the French, fear. For imagine yourself a youth in Les Tarterets or Les Musiciens, intellectually alert but not well educated, believing yourself to be despised because of your origins by the larger society that you were born into, permanently condemned to unemployment by the system that contemptuously feeds and clothes you, and surrounded by a contemptible nihilistic culture of despair, violence, and crime. Is it not possible that you would seek a doctrine that would simultaneously explain your predicament, justify your wrath, point the way toward your revenge, and guarantee your salvation, especially if you were imprisoned? Would you not seek a “worthwhile” direction for the energy, hatred, and violence seething within you, a direction that would enable you to do evil in the name of ultimate good? It would require only a relatively few of like mind to cause havoc. Islamist proselytism flourishes in the prisons of France (where 60 percent of the inmates are of immigrant origin), as it does in British prisons; and it takes only a handful of Zacharias Moussaouis to start a conflagration.

UPDATE: (hat tip to Ringo the Gringo) Daniel Pipes predicted this as far back as October, 1995.

Bush Nominates Alito

2005-10-31T10:21:00.000-05:00

He's done it:

WASHINGTON — President Bush on Monday nominated Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court to replace the retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

While many Republicans praised the judicial nominee, Democrats wasted no time in publicly blasting him as "too radical."

Screw the Democrats. They were going to do that anyway.

Alito has been dubbed "Scalito" or "Scalia-lite" by some lawyers because his judicial philosophy invites comparisons to that of conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. But while Scalia is outspoken and known to badger lawyers, Alito is polite, reserved and even-tempered. Some at the White House have taken offense to the nickname.
FOX News Supreme Court analyst Tim O'Brien said while Alito's ideology may be similar to that of Scalia's, he is an independent thinker and should not be labeled as another Scalia.
But "he is a friendly, easy-going guy and that certainly will help him in this confirmation here," O'Brien said.

I don't know why they'd take offense to the name. It's a great compliment.

NRO's Bench Memos has continuing coverage. David Bernstein at Volokh notes that if Alito is confirmed, it will be the first time in the nation's history that a majority of Catholics are on the bench. I'm sure that, once that fact becomes known, it will make the abortion-worshippers go ballistic, and will bring up another institutional inquisition on the nature of religion/judging, all designed as a mask to make sure that pro-life believers are not on the Court.

Scott at Powerline notes: "We're about to get the fight over Constitutional principles that conservatives have looked forward to for years."

UPDATE 1: Professor Bainbridge notes that Alito "is everything Harriet Miers was not: An experienced jurist. Prosecutorial and government experience. Relatively young (55). Stellar educational credentials (Princeton and Yale). A committed conservative whose track record..." Good point. Also, he's a man. Bush didn't cave in again to the demands of the diversity crowd and nominate another woman merely because O'Connor's seat is held by a woman. The Prof. notes that Alito wasn't his first choice, but nevertheless is a solid candidate and should do much to unite the base. I agree.

I think that some of the more overzealous headline writers among the MSM wouldn't be engaging in hyperbole regarding Bush's second term if he had picked a solid choice for the Court in the first place, instead of Miers. But, in a month's time, assuming Alito is confirmed, Bush should be in a much better place politically than he was last week.

UPDATE 2: Captain Ed notes that "55, has the possibility of providing 20-30 years of jurisprudence on the Supreme Court, meaning that he and John Roberts have a real opportunity to turn the court back from its decades-long flirtation with supplanting the Legislature and turning itself into a strange American version of the Iranian Guardian Council." I couldn't have said it any better myself, Captain Ed. And he's right in noting that the Democrats blew their chance at getting a moderate on the bench (one nearly hand-delivered to them by Bush, though). I wish Alito was younger, like Luttig, but nevertheless he's a stellar choice.

The only thing that remains to be seen is whether the Republican Senate will hold the front and confirm this man. Michelle Malkin has a big rundown of blogger posts and notes (via Jason Smith) that Bill Frist said on FoxNews that "If the Democrats are looking for a fight, we'll be up for the fight. We won't back down... We're gonna get an up or down vote on the Senate floor and if the Democrats want a fight, they'll get one." A-frickin'-men. We should do everything to offer support to those Senators who are willing to go to bat for this nominee. If Alito is defeated, it will be because of the Republicans, not because of the Democrats.

UPDATE 3: An update on the Senate numbers for confirmation: "Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, fired back Sunday, saying that if the Democrats staged a filibuster against Judge Alito or Judge Luttig because of their conservatism, "the filibuster will not stand." Captain Ed predicts about 30 Democrats as opposed to Alito, but that a filibuster would be unsuccessful because of his disarming personality. Perhaps. He also notes that in order to protect a genuine liberal, Judge Stevens (85 years old), the Democrats will want to save their defense of a "liberal seat" for the time when it comes and won't waste their ammo on Alito. I disagree. They need to fight Alito for the same reasons that conservatives wanted him or Luttig or anyone other than Miers: to present to the American people their vision of Supreme Court jurisprudence. The Democrats will fight, but they will lose.

UPDATE 4: Reaction from other Catholic Bloggers (will be updated throughout the day): Amy Wellborn has an open thread, & Mirror of Justice has discussion on Alito's case background. Rich Leonardi also has been posting on Alito. Mark Shea now posts his thoughts.

Hugh Hewitt jumps the shark..

2005-10-28T11:40:00.000-04:00

Would a conservative write an opinion piece for the NEW YORK TIMES? Maybe. But would it include this line?

"This triumph of the conservative punditocracy will have lasting consequences, and I hope my fears are misplaced."

You know, for a guy who's supposedly a right-leaning talk show radio host (a job that is quintessentially for conservative pundits), that quoted sentence is incredibly ELITIST. Fears of a conservative punditocracy? Who the hell in their right mind would fear that? I guess only people like Hewitt are allowed to talk. And this is the man who argued that opposing Miers was wrong because it was elitist. Pot. Kettle. Black.

Moreover, the NYT piece he writes drips with sanctimonious false outrage that the opposition to Miers was.... mean-spirited. It's like suddenly Hewitt has adopted all of the talking points of the left. The fact remains, Miers was seen as unqualified by many, but even worse, she had no prior experience in constitituional jurisprudence and there was no evidence at all she would be an originalist/textualist like Scalia. In fact, there were multiple indications she'd be a wishy-washy liberal.

Hewitt has officially jumped the shark.

This Washington Post article is pretty fair in describing the broad-based opposition to Miers. And Jonathan Adler in NRO's Bench Memos deconstructs Hewitt's other complaints.

I think it's wise to move on, not to gloat, and to get onto the business of confirming an originalist, conservative judge. But we should do well to remember that politics is merely a means to an end. People like Hewitt, who value power and appearance over principles and substance, are useless because when push comes to shove, they abandon the fight. Need we any more testiment to that than the fact that now he's bashing conservative pundits in the friggin' New York Times?

One of these should be the next Justice...

2005-10-28T10:52:00.000-04:00

Charmaine Yost has a roundup (with pictures!) of the top individuals under consideration for current Supreme Court opening. I think almost any of these candidates would be great. But the younger, the better, obviously. Michael Luttig, Edith Jones, and Michael McConnel stand out. Janice Brown would be a great pick also.

It's a shame more vacancies aren't open.

For the Record...

2005-10-27T14:37:00.000-04:00

I'm feeling very relieved that Miers withdrew. It makes me wonder if the time is ripe to ask for other things I've been wanting for a long time now. So, for the record, I'm praying for the following objects:

A lightsaber (red or green will do).
A customized Batmobile that also transforms into a stealth fighter that can fly through outer space (which is equipped with missiles, lasers, etc).
Customized black kevlar armor that also doubles as a space-suit, with a rocketpack attached so I can fly whenever I want.
A hidden fortress.
Lots, and lots, of money.

That should do for starters. Oh, and I need all of this for, um... my job. Yeah.

Who to nominate...

2005-10-27T11:19:00.000-04:00

Now that Miers is gone, who should be nominated?

There are many names out there, but why not just ASK Justices Scalia and Thomas their opinion on who would be a good choice? I'm sure they've reviewed countless decisions by judges across the country and can predict with good certainty who would be an originalist/textualist.

But barring that, the President should do a thorough search now. He should really think hard about this. Justice Roberts is a competent judge and knows the Constitution very well, but it's still a guess if he'd be a judge in the mold of Scalia. This time, the President must not fail. He really, really, really should take his time on this one, and think hard about who to pick.

Frankly, I'm not wedded to one single candidate like Judge Brown or Luttig. I've heard those names before, but the only person I know I could be satisfied with right now is Robert Bork. Hey - why don't they ask BORK who a good choice would be? That's an idea... In any event, I have no pre-selected replacement for Miers. All I want is the most solid, conservative, originalist candidate in the entire friggin' country right now. Basically, I want Scalia's role model.

Captain Ed says: "Now can we nominate a candidate whose qualities and track record presumes we control the Senate?"

Amen to that.

Holy Moly...

2005-10-27T10:53:00.000-04:00

Miers withdraws her Supreme Court nomination...

More from FoxNews & CNN.

Michelle Malkin has a blog roundup: "What a relief. Sad, pensive, what-a-waste relief. Not happy-joy-joy relief."

I for one am really surprised. I didn't think it would happen this early. Wow.

RNC, are you listening?

2005-10-26T23:30:00.000-04:00

Looks like Ken Mehlman didn't get that nasty email I sent him when he last requested cash from me. I got a postage letter from the RNC in the mail today:

"Dear Mr. XXXXX,

I've written you several times since January but our records show that you have not renewed your RNC membership for 2005."

Oh really? I wonder why the heck I'd let that lapse...

"Perhaps our letters have crossed in the mail or you may think your continued commitment to President Bush and our Party is not needed now that the 2004 campaign is over."

Or, perhaps I think you're a hack willing to shrill for an administration that's sending a liberal to the Supreme Court and is spending like a sailor more drunk than Ted Kennedy...

"Mr. XXXX, your continued support is needed now more than ever. Liberal Democrats are determined to derail our President's second term initiatives and will do whatever it takes to win."

Liberal Republicans seem to be derailing the second term just fine without the help of the Democrats, Kenny.

"Democrats and their liberal special interest allies are continuing the vicious negative attacks and outlandish charges that marked the 2004 presidential campaign. They have rejected the Bush victory and the votes of 62 million Americans."

At least they know how to do their job, bub. The President and the Republicans, however, are feckless crapweasels. Why else would they fail to cut pork, nominate a feminist liberal to the Supreme Court, threaten conservatives with retaliation, and call us names?

"The RNC must be able to get our positive message of reform past this bitterness and anger and build momentum for the President."

How about you apologize for calling us sexist elitists first. It might to a bit to assuage the bitterness and anger. Idiot.

"Your continued support as a Sustaining Member will keep our grassroots network strong and growing. And your generous gift today will help the RNC expand our communications program to promote our agenda and recruit strong candidates who share our principles and goals."

You mean candidates like Lincoln Chaffee, liberal wuss from Rhode Island who didn't even vote for President Bush? Who's currently facing a primary challenge from a more conservative Republican, Steve Laffey? And who you're supporting against Mr. Laffey's challenge by running ads against him? Give me a friggin' break.

"That is why I urgently need you to renew your RNC Membership with a contribution of $100, $50, or $25 to counter the liberal Democrats' smears and delaying tactics. We must lay the groundwork today for the 2005 state elections and the crucial mid-term elections in 2006"

Again with the liberal Democrats... Frankly, the only thing the RNC stands for at this point is holding power for its own sake. I'd never give to a bunch of liberal Republicans, which is what you are. I oppose the Miers nomination. You guys, on the other hand, have no problem with her support for racist quotas, feminist lunacy, and complete lack of grounding in constitutional interpretation. Tell you what... I'll CONSIDER donating to you if you do one of the following IMMEDIATELY:

Begin impeachment proceedings against Justices Ginsberg, Kennedy, Souter, Breyer, Stevens... and what the heck, O'Connor also. For not knowing the first damn thing about reading a Constitution (or, even worse, probably knowing and not caring because they're all too damn drunk with power). It'd be nice if they're thrown off the Court, but if not I'd still congratulate the effort for the mere fact of showing a spine against our Black Robed Masters. Oh, and while we're at it, DUMP MIERS and appoint someone better. Like Luttig, or frigging Robert Bork for that matter...
Pass a constitutional amendment ending lifetime appointment of Justices, ending or severely restricting judicial review, and limiting the terms of all members of Congress.
Pass a constitutional amendment protecting unborn children, a balanced budget amendment, a line-item veto amendment, and a defense of marriage amendment.
Rebuild the Twin Towers, taller and with anti-aircraft weaponry on the rooftops.
Convince Adriana Lima to marry me. (work safe, I think)

That's it. Should be easy enough for you gentlemen. Get to work.

UPDATE: More from Michelle Malkin on how Miers is so embarrassing because she can't turn in her homework on time. And Baseball Crank has a bunch of good questions for self-appointed Hack, Hugh Hewitt.

FURTHER UPDATE: Amy Wellborn also says that it's the straw that broke the camel's back, just like Prof. Bainbridge, Captain Ed, Rob Dreher, NRO's Ed Whelan, and Redstate's Pejman.

Conservative Rebellion....

2005-10-26T23:22:00.000-04:00

Well whattya know? Bush is worried that he's losing the conservative base:

In a speech to the Economic Club of Washington, Bush said lawmakers should make tax relief permanent and restrain the spending appetite of the federal government. Bush's message was designed in part to ease the worries of conservatives that the Republican Party is not doing enough to control spending and cut the deficit.
Color me unimpressed.

"Bush's remarks came as congressional Republicans are advancing a budget implementation bill to curb federal spending by as much as $50 billion over five years."

50 billion over 5 years? That's only 10 billion a year. That's PATHETIC. The administration has increased spending by 18 bagillion zillion dollars since taking office in 2001 anyway. But what good is this kind of rhetoric when they can't even end the bridge to nowhere pork project? Trust me, the Republicans ain't cutting anything from the budget. Forget about it. They're too damn timid.

Catholicism and Islam...

2005-10-19T01:03:00.000-04:00

I've seen some strange things, but I've never seen a person who professes to be a faithful Catholic claim that the religion is essentially the same as Islam. This person, with a demonstrable persistence in falsely maintaining that Pacifism is the end-all-be-all of Christianity, was bound to come up with other falsehoods in time.

Chris Sullivan is now claiming that Islam and Christianity are exactly the same. On a thread over at Disputations involving an entirely different matter, Chris Sullivan writes in the comment boxes:

As Islam proclaims there is only one God, and he is the God of salvation, it follows that Islam is a path to God's salvation.
Those Qu'ran passages which seem to deny the trinity need to be read in the context of the book's frequent use of the plural in refering to God and it's depiction of the Gospels as "holy books" (the trinity is clear in the Gospels despite what Mark Shea thinks).
Islam belives Jesus will return to judge the living and the dead. To do that justly Jesus must know everything everyone ever did and their mental state at the time. Only God can know this.
The clues are all in the Qu'ran but one needs the key to unlock them. Her name is Mary and the Qu'ran has an entire chapter about her.

He continues in more posts:

"There is nothing in the Qu'ran which isn't reconcilable with the Christian faith, although, as with the bible, it's possible to come up with "first impression" interpretations which are erroneous.To understand the book, you need to go to the key, Mary."

And later...

"My views on Islam cannot be a heresy because no Pope or Ecumenical council has ever pronounced dogmatically that Islam is incompatible with the Catholic Faith or made any negative assesment of the Qu'ran."

One wouldn't think that a Ecumenical council would be necesary to state that the Sky is Blue either. Anyway, in response to the incredulous nature of these comments, one commenter suggested that Chris Sullivan couldn't possibly be suggesting that Christianity and Islam are at bottom one religion. Chris's response?

"They are. If you go right to the very bottom, but few dare go that deep, down through the dark night led by the mediatrix of all graces."

I understand what "they are" means, but I don't know what the hell he's talking about when he says that "if you go right to the very bottom... down through the dark night..." Sounds like a new Batman movie or something.

In any event, this is the most ludicrous thing I've seen yet. Obviously Islam is only tangentially related to Christianity, in the sense that Islam was derived from Christianity as well as certain pagan traditions which influenced Mohammed. Yes, Islam professes to believe in the God of Abraham. Islam reveres Jesus as a prophet, but explicitly says Jesus is Not the Christ, that he is Not God, that he explicitly did Not Rise from the Grave on the Third Day. Muslims explicitly, absolutely, 100% reject the Ressurection. In fact, the Koran explicitly says that Jesus was surely not killed on the Cross:

That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah"; but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;- And there is none of the People of the Book but must believe in him before his death; and on the Day of Judgment he (Jesus) will be a witness against them. (surah al-Nisaa'; 4:157-159)

"For a surety they killed him not." According to Islam, Christ DID NOT DIE, but was merely transplanted to Heaven like Elijah. And if Christ did not die, he could not die for our sins, and he could not be ressurected. And, as St. Paul says in his 1st letter to the Corinthians, "If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain, and your faith is in vain."

Christianity is Not Islam, period. And it is disgraceful that someone could think they're the same. I don't know what kool-aid Chris Sullivan is drinking, but this is probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard him say (and that's me trying to be nice about it, which isn't easy). If this isn't heresy, then I don't know what is.

UPDATE: I think that one can understand how Chris Sullivan came to this deluded view through his clue on how Islam views Mary. Islam proclaims Jesus to have been born of the Virgin. Well, that's fine, but it doesn't change the fact that according to Islam Jesus is NOT the Christ. He is Not God, and still Did Not Die and Was Not Ressurected. And thereore, Christianity is NOT the same as Islam. Sheesh...

How to Talk to Abortion-Worshippers

2005-10-18T12:10:00.000-04:00

You have a child with Downs Syndrome. You're at some dinner party with some smarmy, self-absorbed pseudointellectual when this happens:

At a dinner party not long ago, I was seated next to the director of an Ivy League ethics program. In answer to another guest's question, he said he believes that prospective parents have a moral obligation to undergo prenatal testing and to terminate their pregnancy to avoid bringing forth a child with a disability, because it was immoral to subject a child to the kind of suffering he or she would have to endure. (When I started to pipe up about our family's experience, he smiled politely and turned to the lady on his left.)

In an article in the Washington Post, Patricia Bauer talks about her daughter Margaret and how there is an assumption that their family owed a duty to society to abort Margaret merely because she has Downs Syndrome.

I wouldn't merely have "piped up" to that Ivy League director of ethics (why is it that every "ethics" program is led by unrepentant believers in murder and other crimes? Want to know who's evil? The people involved in "ethics" programs). Shame is the best feature of public life, and I would've gotten loud and asked that jerkoff if he really believed that Margaret should've been "terminated." (kind of brings new meaning to the phrase: hasta la vista, baby) People expressing such thoughts in public, with snide superiority, deserve to be put in their place and firmly corrected. Who would care about causing a scene when you're sitting next to a man who outright says you have a duty to kill your children because they don't live up to HIS expectations? I'd get very loud, and very mad.

Ms. Bauer also writes:

Many young women, upon meeting us, have asked whether I had "the test." I interpret the question as a get-home-free card. If I say no, they figure, that means I'm a victim of circumstance, and therefore not implicitly repudiating the decision they may make to abort if they think there are disabilities involved. If yes, then it means I'm a right-wing antiabortion nut whose choices aren't relevant to their lives.

Frankly, these women who ask that question deserve to be slapped in the face (in the old fashioned sense of social disapproval of reprehensible conduct). It's none of their damn business. But if slapping them is a bit extreme, how about point-blank asking them: "WHAT do you mean by that? That Margaret should've been aborted?" Showing anger at such an offensive question might rattle some of their loose brain cells into perhaps thinking that maybe their assumptions aren't right about abortion after all. Who CARES if they think you're a "right-wing antiabortion nut"? It's more important to repudiate their assumptions about abortion, period. That they ask the question in a tone unconcerned about the child, only concerned with their own personal vanity, is all you need to know.

Doubters tend to doubt themselves....

2005-10-14T01:39:00.000-04:00

A good discussion over at Amy Wellborn's blog about the Da Vinci Code and how the author has no doubt in the "evidence" that the Catholic Church is built on lies. The conversation moved along to the basis of belief and doubt, and I noted that Pope Benedict said that doubt in athieism is common among the most hardcore athiests/agnostics. In his book, "Introduction to Christianity", he writes:

"No man can lay God and his Kingdom on the table before another man; even the believer cannot do it for himself. But however strongly unbelief may feel justified thereby, it cannot forget the eerie feeling induced by the words 'Yet perhaps it is true.' That 'perhaps' is the unavoidable temptation it cannot elude, the temptation in which it, too, in the very act of rejection, has to experience the unrejectability of belief."

Doubters in the existence of God are eventually going to doubt their surety in their own athieism at some point.

Hugh Hewitt's Hackery...

2005-10-14T00:54:00.000-04:00

Hugh Hewitt seems to have many fans in the blogosphere, but his hackery on the part of the Bush Administration is really causing him to make STUPID arguments. He has been making a real dumb one for a while now: that evangelicals will be upset if Miers isn't confirmed and will stay home on election day, thus, the critics of Miers should shut up if they don't want Republicans to lose.

He makes the argument here, here, here, here and here. (do a search for "evangelical" since many of those posts contain lengthy discussions of other topics)

His argument is weak and in effect he ends up proving that Bush's nomination will imperil the Republicans in the next election. Sure, MAYBE Evangelicals will stay home on election day. But it's much more likely that the base, mad over the broken promise to appoint Justices like Scalia and Thomas, will sit out the election. There seems to be no hope that the Court will ever be fixed, and thus no reason to vote Republican (the Court rules over so much of our lives that having the Democrats in charge means little difference, especially since the Republicans aren't conservative these days to begin with). Hewitt actually seems to be playing up the identity-politics of evangelicals, courting their influence in pressing for Miers' nomination merely BECAUSE she's an evangelical (as opposed to being a good lawyer, like John Roberts).

Hewitt says:

Look. Some elections are very close. Some, like the 2000 Senate contests in Washington State and Missouri, or the 2002 contest in South Dakota are decided by handfuls of votes. It doesn't have to be an epic departure of an entire cosntituency to cripple crucial races. Playing with fire over nominees --and especially attacking those who at least deserve the benefit of the doubt and at best deserve a strong and determined defense-- is terrible politics.
The response will be that "the base" cares about judges --of course they do. They cared enough about Bush's nominees to get very active in 2002 and 2004 on that issue. Now the critics are saying Bush has lost his way and is losing the issue. These critics aren't just refusing to dance with the one that brought them, they are denouncing the idea of even having traveled to the ball in his car.

Exactly, Hugh. Elections are close. Playing fire over nominees IS terrible politics. Which kinda makes you think - what the HELL was Bush thinking playing fire over this nominee? Moreover, his response has backwards logic. It's not that the Critics are refusing to dance with Bush, who supposedly brought THEM to a ballroom dance. No, Hugh. WE elected Bush. We brought him to the dance. We're the ones driving the car. Bush is along for OUR ride. He's OUR person we hired to to the job WE saw fit. If WE don't like it, HE and his Republicans can take a walk home from the ball.

Hugh therefore sees that the argument cuts against him, but he fails to properly respond to the charge that "the base" that cares about judges will be the tipping point in the elections, and not that evangelicals will. I should also note that it's likely that evangelicals probably overlap to a large degree with "the base" that cares about judges and that they, again, probably don't give a fig about identity-politics.

Moreover, it seems unlikely that Republicans, supposedly against affirmative action and identity politics, would suddenly vote in droves for the Democrats or stay home merely because an unqualified evangelical cipher was defeated for the Court. There are plenty of other evangelicals that Bush could've nominated that are conservative and publicly committed originalists.

Frankly, all the discussion I've seen about people sitting out the next election are Catholics mad that Bush missed an opportunity to regin in the runaway Court. And now we must apparently wait another 20 years or so before a swing-vote opportunity opens up to shift the Court to the right. With Harriet Miers an unrepentant believer in diversity, she moves the Court to the left, away from the people and away from the Constitution.

Miers is no Match for Coulter...

2005-10-14T00:26:00.000-04:00

Ann Coulter concisely details the arguments against Miers' nomination.

Ah, but perhaps you were unaware of Miers' many other accomplishments. Apparently she was THE FIRST WOMAN in Dallas to have a swimming pool in her back yard! And she was THE FIRST WOMAN with a safety deposit box at the Dallas National Bank! And she was THE FIRST WOMAN to wear pants at her law firm! It's simply amazing! And did you know she did all this while being a woman? ...

Which brings us to the other enraging argument being made by the Bush administration and its few remaining defenders — the claim of "elitism." I also don't know when the Republican Party stopped being the party of merit and excellence and became the party of quotas and lying about test scores, but I don't like that development either.

The average LSAT score at SMU Law School is 155. The average LSAT at Harvard is 170. That's a difference of approximately 1 1/2 standard deviations, a differential IQ experts routinely refer to as "big-ass" or "humongous." Whatever else you think of them, the average Harvard Law School student is very smart. I gather I have just committed a hate crime by saying so.

The LSAT is a good measure of rational intelligence, but it's not a good measure of common sense. That's why you can find so many liberals at top-tier schools who spout complete nonsense with perfect English. They end up convincing themselves that you can defeat al Qaeda, for example, with law enforcement techniques. Or that a local government seizing a person's home to give to a corporation that bribed the city council is a perfectly constitutional thing to do. I work with plenty of people who attended Harvard (my firm heavily recruits from the ivy leagues), and, speaking as a non-ivy leaguer, they are no better than most from a top 25 ranked school (mine was in the top 25, but was not an ivy league). Many of them are unrepentant leftists. Still, without a doubt, on average a person attending a higher ranked school will be smarter than someone from a mid or lower ranked school.

My problem with Miers isn't that she didn't attend a better school, but that she has no demonstrable judicial philosophy (let alone one consistent with Scalia or Thomas). She also has no record outside of school which would demonstrate her skills as a lawyer. Being a hack for the Texas Bar Association is certainly not a qualifier (it's idiotic that certain people would suggest that it is). Hugh Hewitt's snide references to elitism are really wearing thin, and his constant suggestion that her religion is equal to having a conservative jurisprudential philosophy is just stupid. There are plenty of conservatives who, plainly speaking, couldn't tell you the most basic meaning of the Establishment clause if they tried.

Our Defense Policy is Run by Wimps...

2005-10-13T16:17:00.000-04:00

This is outrageous: World may have to live with nuclear Iran - US Study. The ongoing concern of a nuclear Iran has led several analysts covering this issue to declare defeat without even stepping up to the firing line:

'Can the United States live with a nuclear-armed Iran? Despite its rhetoric, it may have no choice," concluded the report by Judith Yaphe and Air Force Col. Charles Lutes, which was released on Thursday.
The potential for rolling back Iran's program, once it produces a nuclear weapon, "is lower than preventing it in the first place and the costs of rollback may be higher than the costs of deterring and containing a nuclear Iran," they said.'

Read that second paragraph closely. The potential for "rolling back" Iran's program AFTER it produces a bomb is lower than PREVENTING it in the first place. But then why does the report then conclude that PREVENTION is impossible? I thought the entire context of Iran's nuclear ambitions were focused on prevention, and never rollback. Rollback is a non-option when dealing with nukes, because the nukes are the spears that prevent any possible rollback option at all. Everyone dealing with Iran has been focused on prevention. But the authors of this report aren't even hanging their hopes on prevention:

"Nothing in the intervening four years has diverted Tehran from the "systematic pursuit of nuclear technology that could contribute to a weapons program," the new report concluded."

Perhaps because having the Euro-weenies offer them bribes for playing nice has only made them conclude that the West is full of prissies. Britian has flatly ruled out a military option on Iran, making the US and Israel the sole countries possibly willing to hold out the threat of a strike. Iran has correctly concluded that, given the international opposition to the Iraq war, it can wait out the clock on its nuclear bomb while the Western countries argue amongst themselves.

On the threat of a military strike, the report concludes the following:

"...the U.S. researchers warned that a U.S. or Israeli pre-emptive military strike likely would rally Iranians around a religious fundamentalist government in Tehran that they might otherwise want to replace, spur new attacks by Iran-allied groups like Hizbollah. "

So OBVIOUSLY we shouldn't do that. But since it earlier noted that Iran hasn't been deterred by anything attempted by the West to date, it probably will not be deterred at all. Hence, we have to live with a nuclear Iran. But don't worry, says this pathetic report, because:

"On living with a nuclear-armed Iran, the analysts said Tehran was unlikely to use its nuclear capability unless facing an overwhelming threat and while it might become more assertive in the region, superior U.S. capabilities could probably deter significant mischief. "

A country run by fanatical muslims who want to destroy the United States cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons, period. It should be the #1 security priority of the United States to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. That means we get in covert ops to destroy the facilties, we engage in active promotion of democratic opposition in Iran, or we engage in a full-blown pre-emptive strike or let Israel do it.

Iran with nukes is a nightmare scenario. That effectively gives the bomb to the terrorists. There is no distinction between Iran and "terrorist groups" anyway. Their policies and goals are one and the same. Iran has not been subtle in its rhetoric:

Iran’s new hardline president launched a blistering attack on America and its allies at the United Nations last night as he fiercely defended his country’s right to nuclear technology.
“Let me be blunt. State terrorism is being supported by those who claim to fight terrorism,” Mahmood Ahmadinejad said in a thinly-veiled tirade against the West at the UN General Assembly.
Mr Ahmadinejad proposed that unnamed third-party countries could be allowed to share in Iran’s nuclear programme, an offer that is too vague to satisfy the country’s critics....
Broadening his verbal assault, he also called for “foreign occupation forces” to leave Afghanistan and Iraq and even raised questions about who was behind the September 11 attacks.

This is a terrorist leading a terrorist country that is doing everything in its power to acquire nuclear weapons it has no problem sharing with other terrorists. Anyone willing to live with this scenario doesn't appreciate the threat or is too deluded to understand it.

Iran must be stopped, right the hell now.

Weather...

2005-10-13T13:27:00.000-04:00

It is raining cats and dogs today in New York. I'm reminded of this article by Michael Rubiner when the weather was just as bad several years ago (reprinted in full below because it's behind the stupid TimesSelect firewall thingy, and besides every other blog posted it in full when he originally wrote it):

Wednesday in New York: Rain. Heavy at times. Followed by periods of precipitation.
Thursday: Lingering showers throughout the day. Chance of rain 800 percent.
Friday: Moist. Damp. Sodden.
Saturday: Rainish. Showery. Precipitacious.
Sunday: Light rain followed by heavy rain followed by pouring.
Monday: Unseasonably rainy in the morning. Uncharitably rainy in the afternoon. Unconscionably rainy in the evening.
Tuesday: Endless showers broken up by occasional flooding.
Wednesday: Remember "Waterworld"? Like that, only with more rain.
Thursday: Not sunny. The opposite of sunny. Just forget about sunny, O.K.?
Friday: Clearing just long enough for you to make weekend plans. Followed by obscene amounts of rain.
Saturday: Take a wild guess.
Sunday: Incessant, spirit-crushing rain. The kind of rain that makes it futile to get out of bed in the morning. The kind of rain that seems as if it will never end. And guess what? It never will. Ever. Do you understand?
Monday: Please go away.
Tuesday: Ample, brilliant sunshine throughout the day. Wait - did I say sunshine? I meant rain. Really hard rain.

Peggy Noonan on Miers...

2005-10-13T13:19:00.000-04:00

Peggy Noonan has a great article on Miers. She also has good advice:

And next time perhaps the White House, in announcing and presenting the arguments for a new nominee to the high court, will remember a certain tradition with regard to how we do it in America. We don't say, "We've nominated Joe because he's a Catholic!" A better and more traditional approach is, "Nominee Joe is a longtime practitioner of the law with considerable experience, impressive credentials, and a lively and penetrating intellect. Any questions? Yes, he is a member of the Catholic church. Any other questions?"
That's sort of how we do it. We put the horse and then the cart. The arguments for the person and then the facts attendant to the person. You don't say, "Vote for this gal because she's an Evangelical!" That shows a carelessness, an inability to think it through, to strategize, to respectfully approach serious facts--failings that, if they weren't typical of the White House the past few months, might be called downright sexist.

You are the BEST Governor EVER! EVER!!!!!!

2005-10-13T11:59:00.000-04:00

Who wrote this sentence: "You are the best governor ever--deserving of great respect!"

Gnat, or Harriet Miers?

(no offense to Gnat, who unknowlingly is among the blogosphere's brightest stars).

I should mention that every morning, after I come into the office, I grab a cup of coffee and read Lileks. I wonder if he knows that his musings are read as wake-ups to Wall Street attorneys? He's very funny and I appreciate his amusing reports on his daughter. Gnat rocks.

Bloomberg...

2005-10-11T10:03:00.000-04:00

Even though the Democrats are worse, even though if he weren't re-elected crime would probably skyrocket, and even though no one else has a chance in hell of winning...

I can't vote for Bloomberg when he keeps doing crap like this.

UPDATE: Here's an excerpt from the article, since to read it you have to register on the Post's website.

Mayor Bloomberg is coming out big for the gay vote — hiring a homosexual former Democratic candidate who made waves by featuring his boyfriend in a campaign ad, The Post has learned.
Failed Manhattan borough president hopeful Brian Ellner signed on last week with Bloomberg's campaign to handle outreach to gay and lesbian voters, sources said.
Ellner's recruitment is part of the Republican mayor's plan to snag a significant portion of the gay vote, even though Democratic rival Fernando Ferrer has already lined up endorsements from numerous gay groups.
Last month, Ellner, who is openly gay, aired an unusual TV spot during the borough president's primary contest, which was ultimately won by Assemblyman Scott Stringer, that was the talk of the city political world.
"I'm Brian Ellner and this is my partner, Simon," Ellner says as the commercial ends and the two men face the camera arm in arm.
That was believed to be a first in the city for a candidate.

My problem is not that he wants people with a same sex attraction to vote for him, but that he's causing scandal by promoting the openly gay lifestyle. Bloomberg picked this guy, and this guy only out of all others, because he was openly gay (and not that he happened to pick a qualified man with same sex attractions).

Miers is Not a Conservative...

2005-10-10T10:58:00.000-04:00

Read the emails that Michelle Malkin is getting. One in particular stands out for me:

There are some claiming that those of us opposing the Miers nomination are elitists. Not only is the claim simply wrong, it shows that those using the claim aginst us have no good arguments in favor of the nomination and are resorting to name calling. You know your opponents have lost the argument when the best they can do is call you names.
I was one of the grass roots volunteers working my butt off for the President's reelection. Among those I worked with on the campaign, there was no issue that was more important than appointing the absolute best people to the Supreme Court. Never once did I hear a list of elitist qualifications or anything of the sort. The discussions always centered on picking candidates in whom we could have confidence and fight for.
It feels like I've gotten kicked in the teeth, and the guy who kicked me, along with his best buddies, are telling me I'm a jerk for not enjoying it. What's worse is that I think they actually believe I am a jerk for not enjoying it.

Michelle also notes that Polipundit has changed his mind about Miers, and is now opposing her nomination:

Since her nomination was announced, I’ve said that Harriet Miers should be confirmed to the Supreme Court, despite her unexciting qualifications, because she’s a conservative. Information that has come out over the last week has caused me to believe she is not a conservative. So I’m changing my position: Harriet Miers should not be confirmed by the Senate.
On Roe v. Wade, I have no doubt that Miers is a rock-solid pro-lifer. If this were the only issue that mattered, then Miers would have my full support.
But there are any number of other issues before the Court, foremost among them the racial discrimination that goes on in the name of affirmative action. On these issues, Miers would at best be a squishy liberal like Justice O’Connor.

David Frum at National Review has been blogging a lot on Miers recently (probably to keep up with Professor Bainbridge), and notes that Miers has a devotion to the ideal of "diversity." He also posts some reader email which is very illuminating. An excerpt:

I voted for Reagan in 1980 and have voted Republican ever since, I knocked on doors for Coleman and Rep Kennedy here in Minnesota. But today I cannot tell you how disappointed I am in Bush's selection. She is a solitary workaholic like Souter, and even though I am a Evangelical Christian, I find it patronizing to have the White House and Hewitt sell her on her religious devotion. I want the sharpest legal mind available for the Court.Sen. Graham told those of us who object to the nomination to Shut Up. Ok, will; I will also stay home for the midterm elections. I feel the GOP establishment is holding its voters, you know, the folks who put them in power, in contempt.

Redstate summarizes the Sunday talk shows involving Miers, which involved, among others, Pat Buchanan, Senator Lindsey "Shut Up" Graham, Gary Bauer, and Senator Chuck Schumer

John Hawkins over at RightWingNews posts the results of a poll he conducted among right of center bloggers. It's not good news for Miers, but whether it will make a difference is another matter entirely. Scroll down for further commentary on Miers and elitism, and for an excerpt from an article which notes that Miers unliaterally watered down the President's message on Christmas because she thought it was offensive (again showing a disturbing attachment to "diversity").

After writing an article in the Washington Post on the right-leaning blogosphere's reaction to Miers, Captain Ed has an update noting that while lack of GOP support could damage Miers, Democrats might drag her across the finish line because she's the best they could hope to get. But this means that the Democrats would have to gamble on her position on Roe v. Wade as well, which is something they might not be willing to do.

A Devastating Article on Miers...

2005-10-10T10:48:00.000-04:00

John Fund writes on the Wall Street Editorial Page:

I have changed my mind about Harriet Miers. Last Thursday, I wrote in OpinionJournal's Political Diary that "while skepticism of Ms. Miers is justified, the time is fast approaching when such expressions should be muted until the Senate hearings begin. At that point, Ms. Miers will finally be able to speak for herself."
But that was before I interviewed more than a dozen of her friends and colleagues along with political players in Texas. I came away convinced that questions about Ms. Miers should be raised now--and loudly--because she has spent her entire life avoiding giving a clear picture of herself. "She is unrevealing to the point that it's an obsession," says one of her close colleagues at her law firm.

Fund gives numerous examples of Miers' unfaithfulness as a conservative. After detailing the notorious history of the "trust me" excuse used by Republican Presidents over the past 50 years which resulted in 7 liberal appointments to the Court, Fund notes that:

Ms. Miers's record is one of initially supporting a conservative position and then abandoning it. She started out backing a plan to redistrict the City Council that had received the endorsement of two-thirds of Dallas voters in a 1989 referendum. When it appeared that plan would lose a court case on account of its alleged effect on minority representation, she backed a plan for single-member districts supported by liberals. "I formally debated her on the issue," recalls Tom Pauken, a former chairman of the Texas Republican Party. "She was a liberal then. I don't know about today, but in the last week all the liberals who've been on the council have been singing her praises."....
After giving her effusive praise, her friends are a little nonplussed when asked if she is a conservative. "She is a person of great integrity," says Ms. Spaeth. "I have never had a political conversation with her." While many of the Bush judicial nominees she has helped shepherd to confirmation are affiliated with the Federalist Society, Ms. Miers herself has been ambivalent about the influential conservative legal group. In 1990, she almost anticipated how much of a lightning rod the group would become to the left. She testified in a court case that she would not join the society because "it's better not to be involved in organizations that seem to color your view one way or the other for people who are examining you."

I would read Frum's article just for the grim history of failed Republican appointments to the Court. You end up thinking "it's happening again." It's almost as if it's a curse or something. Given the history, it is unfathomable that defenders of the President think we owe him any trust on this issue. We certainly do not. The President has made his choice, but he must live with it. And so Miers should be defeated or withdrawn.

Narnia is safe, it seems...

2005-10-08T21:28:00.000-04:00

Amy Wellborn notes that Barbara Nicolosi has seen the first movie of the Chronicles of Narnia, the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, and she gives it a big thumbs up.

Most important in Ms. Nicolosi's report is the fact that she compares it to Peter Jackson's version of the Lord of the Rings. I remember when the Lord of the Rings was being produced and the fans for the most part were so giddy that they didn't care if any changes to the plot were being made. As if their glee for the opportunity defeated any reason for wanting the opportunity in the first place (gee, kinda reminds me of the Miers nomination), many fans simply didn't care if entire characters or the plot were re-written by Jackson. When specific changes started to filter through to the fans, such as Arwen's proposed expanded role, Purists rightly went ballistic, and Peter Jackson eventually cut some of his changes out. Still, while certain parts of the trilogy are enjoyable and faithful to the book, the changes make the movies as a whole unwatchable to me.

But Ms. Nicolosi notes that "contrary to Peter Jackson's agenda-aversion manhandling of Tolkien's classic, here, the tone of LW&W is as close to the book as probably could have been achieved. All the lines the Christians are worrying about are in there. All the scenes you want to see are here and lovingly rendered. So everybody can relax and get ready to enjoy..."

Awesome. I can't wait to see it.

More on Miers

2005-10-08T21:08:00.000-04:00

More evidence is brought that Miers is not a conservative:

In the Corner, Stanley Kurtz links to a report on Miers showing her "progressive stances" as a legislator. He correctly notes her disdain for the Federalist Society as an indicator of her true feelings on jurisprudence.

On Bench Memos, in a post that has gotten attention throughout the blogosphere (see here, here, and here), Richard Garnett expands on Miers' disdain for the Federalist Society and says that if true, it seriously undercuts her claim to be a conservative.

National Review has been doing a good job. But no one seems more out in front of this issue than Professor Bainbridge, who has been blogging a storm about Miers. He compiles all of his criticism to date in a long blog post, mentioning the Wall Street Journal piece I linked to below, and linking to all of his other posts on the matter.

UPDATE: Now the Democrats are defending Miers from conservatives. With friends like that, who needs enemies?

It's not Personal, It's Strictly Business...

2005-10-07T13:57:00.000-04:00

Everyone quotes that line from the Godfather, but it's usually only the readers of Mario Puzo's book who know that the author was using that phrase cynically, because the business of killing a man's father will always become personal. So it's never business, it's always personal.

Is opposition to Miers personal as well? That's what Daniel Henninger says in today's Wall Street Journal editorial page.

However, this news account of the President's celebration of William Buckley and National Review's 50th anniversary seems to suggest that, so far, it remains just business. For now.

Should Miers be Defeated?

2005-10-07T12:19:00.000-04:00

The question facing all conservatives doubtful of President Bush's selection of Miers to the Supreme Court is: should we work towards defeating her? Several prominent columnists are saying YES to this question. Charles Krauthammer thinks so, noting that "

The issue is not the venue of Miers's constitutional scholarship, experience and engagement. The issue is their nonexistence...

Constitutional jurisprudence is... by definition, an exercise of intellect steeped in scholarship. Otherwise it is nothing but raw politics. And is it not the conservative complaint that liberals have abused the courts by having them exercise raw super-legislative power, the most egregious example of which is the court's most intellectually bankrupt ruling, Roe v. Wade ?

Although the Constitution is a plain document, the meanings behind many of its words are heavy with historical meaning. Take "establishment of religion," as an example. Many people today, because of the cultural weight assigned to that phrase by the Supreme Court, think that "establishment of religion" means that the government cannot display a Christmas Tree at all or without appropriate "secular" balancing displays (such as a plastic reindeer or frosty the snowman). People think this, of course, because the Supreme Court said as much in Lynch v. Donnelly and Allegheny County v. ACLU. In those two cases, the Court held that the display of religious symbols by the government would only be permissible if the context is clear that government does not "favor" religion. Thus was born the "plastic reindeer rule."

The last time I checked, I don't think the Constitution mentions plastic reindeers. But it does mention "establishment of religion," which is a very specific thing and of which the Framers had intimate knowledge. England had an established religion: the King was the head of the Anglican Church. In England, there were vicious laws against practicing Catholicism or any other unapproved form of Christianity. This is the reason the Pilgrims left for the new world, to be free from government persecution. Notably, however, the New England colonies didn't shirk from establishing their own government-selected religions. The idea at the time was that if you had a different religious belief, you would move to a different area of the country (Rhode Island accepted nearly anyone as they were fiercely independent, and Maryland was originally for Catholics). The Framers did not want the newly created Federal Government to wipe out those established religions in the various states, which is why the First Amendment says that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. States at the time were free to continue operating their established religions, and did so long well into the 1820s.

It is this kind of historical perspective in understanding a phrase of the Constitution that originalist jurisprudence demands. Does Miers posess any of that? Who can say? Given the important of avoiding another Souter (an outright flip to the left) or a Kennedy, O'Connor, or Blackmun (gradual but consistent shift to the left), we cannot gamble with this nomination. But the President and Miers' supporters ARE asking us to gamble. So should we come out and demand her nomination be withdrawn, or urge her defeat? Powerline says no. Professor Bainbridge hasn't said anything definitive yet. Captain Ed says he bases his support on Miers only to avoid a destructive party schism. And of course, Hugh Hewitt thinks that we're all a bunch of idiots for even suggesting the possibility of defeating her (or something like that).

Of course there's always the possibility that Miers will be the next Scalia. But I wouldn't bet on it. Right now, I hope she withdraws herself after a poor performance before the Judiciary Committee. The Democrats are going to vote in favor of her unless they get spooked by her pro-life opinions. But barring that, the Democrats know that she is malleable given her lack of any jurisprudential philosophy, and that is probably the best they can hope for. If Republicans are forced to vote in the Senate on her nomination, I think they will probably vote to confirm. The only chance at defeat is before the Committee hearings, or during them. Which is why people are making noise now, because as the clock ticks, it becomes too late. At this point in time, by continuing to criticize her without saying what we'd want, it's almost an implicit argument for her defeat (which is why Hugh Hewitt was so upset over the uproar to begin with).

Very soon, I think those who want Miers to be confirmed, for whatever reason (like to avoid a split in the Republican party - a split which is just as likely if she IS confirmed), will soon drop the issue. Those who want Miers defeated will continue to criticize her, and force her defenders to respond. Whether this affects any of the Republican Senators is another matter entirely.

Every day I take the subway...

2005-10-06T20:53:00.000-04:00

After a while, this sort of thing doesn't faze you. But it's only a matter of time.

It's two for two so far...

2005-10-06T19:58:00.000-04:00

As much as Buchanan has riled me in the past (especially concerning his opinions on Israel), he is dead-on when it comes to Miers.

For those who didn't catch it, here's Buchanan's first Miers column.

What can be done?

2005-10-06T18:41:00.000-04:00

Professor Bainbridge, no fan of the Miers nomination, asks a good question:

I have the distinct impression that the Democratic Party sees the liberal blogosphere as being inside the tent, while the Republican Party views the conservative blogosphere as being somewhere between an irrelevance and a minor nuisance. Maybe this is true, at least in part, because many prominent "conservative" bloggers (Andrew Sullivan, Glenn Reynolds, Stephen Green, and Eugene Volokh spring to mind) are not exactly stalwart Republican party loyalists but rather libertarians (or whatever) who put routinely put their principles ahead of party interests. Alternatively, maybe the Democrats have just decided to follow Lyndon Johnson's advice about keeping your critics inside the tent peeing out rather than outside the tent peeing in.
In any event, all of this raises the question of how those of us in the conservative blogosphere can elevate ourselves into the category of genuine problem as opposed to mere nuisances. I'm open to suggestions.

Although the liberal blogosphere readily identifies with Communists, Anarchists, and other loser parties, the discussion never centers around third parties when it comes time to vote. They ONLY vote Democrat. The Professor rightly notes that many prominent non-left bloggers are libertarian (he should not identify this universe as the "conservative" blogosphere, since frankly many of them are not conservative. I'll call it the right-leaning blogosphere). It is not uncommon for the discussion in the right-leaning blogosphere to often note the vote for a third party. Also, many prominent libetarian bloggers do not share the same interests as conservatives and so don't blog often about conservative issues like being pro-life. The right-leaning blogosphere includes many Warbloggers who support President Bush in the War on Terror, but who couldn't care less about abortion, the size of government, gun control, and other conservative issues. So the right-leaning blogosphere is split, while the liberal blogosphere is, well, liberal.

Even more importantly than that, however, the liberal blogosphere has been very focused on party-building activities like donating to specific liberal Democrats, which has the effect of moving the Democratic party left. Many of the MoveOn.org and the Daily Kos people were involved in fundraising efforts for specific liberal candidates. No comparable effort in the right-leaning blogosphere existed (President Bush was the only candidate, and no Senate or House races faced recognition). Therefore, there was no comparable effect of the right-leaning blogosphere pulling the Republican Party to the conservative side. Also, given the libertarian or single-issue nature of many in the right-leaning blogosphere, there is no party-building efforts across the board. To suggest that the right-leaning blogosphere is mainly Republican is absurd. And even though prominent liberal bloggers wanted to wage war on the Democratic National Committee, they were going to do it AS DEMOCRATS, meaning they were doing it to move the party to the left.

So, to answer Professor Bainbridge's question - how do we become a problem? First, as I did, tell the RNC and Ken Mehlman to quit asking for $$$$$. They're not getting a dime from me until they get the message loud and clear. Every piece of mail I get from them has gone in the trash for months. Second, I'll be more than happy to donate to any conservative involved in a primary fight against an incumbent Republican. Third, I would encourage conservatives to quit listening to certain people telling us that we have to shut up and toe the Republican Party line, and instead listen to committed conservatives who are devoted to victory.

It's easy to become a problem to the Republicans when you also remember that by agitating on the political end you'll also be helping in other areas also.

UPDATE: Professor Volokh, a libertarian, sympathizes.

FURTHER UPDATE: As I mentioned on Prof. Bainbridge's blog, with regards to money, it's not enough that conservatives give in general. It's WHO you give it to. Give it to conservative primary candidates taking on incumbent Republicans. Don't give to the RNC. Don't give to Republican PACs. Those things are incumbent protection rackets that don't give a crap about conservatives, and only care about Republicans. There's a difference. Using money in politics is like going fishing. You gotta lead with the bait.

This is what happens when you mess with the base...

2005-10-06T14:14:00.000-04:00

Say you're a pro-life Republican Senator, and were elected among other reasons for your strong support of the pro-life cause and the hopes that your influence in a majority party will be instrumental in advancing that cause. And for a while, your support is solid. You're hated by all on the left, which is always a good sign.

But then, you support a VERY militant pro-choice Republican who is also running for re-election to the Senate. You also work hard to knock down a credible pro-life challenger to that Senator. And when the pro-choice Republican wins, you support him in his efforts to lead up the Judiciary Committee in the Senate. With that power, the pro-choice Senator exerts his influence to pressure the President of the United States to nominate someone to the Supreme Court who is not openly conservative and at the forefront of the battle over the Court. The President nominates a complete blank slate.

What will people in your state think of your efforts? Well, apparently they've had it with you.

Pennsylvania Treasurer Bob Casey Jr.'s lead over Sen. Rick Santorum has grown even larger in their U.S. Senate race, according to a poll released Thursday.

The Quinnipiac University poll of 1,530 Pennsylvania voters showed Casey leading the two-term Republican incumbent by 18 points, 52 percent to 34 percent, in the 2006 race. That compares to a 50-to-39 percent lead in a July poll by Quinnipiac...

Casey, a Democrat and the son of a popular late governor, has maintained a low profile and done a limited number of media interviews.

Casey isn't even campaigning and Santorum is losing. This is what pissing off the base will do. Yes, there may be other factors at work, especially since Pennsylvania voted for Kerry in the last election. But it will be a miracle if Santorum wins this. Casey claims he's pro-life. There are probably a lot of disgruntled pro-life Pennsylvanians who are thinking that Santorum made a big mistake when he supported Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey, and as a result we are now dealing with Harriet Miers.

It is a fact of life that the base, upset over Miers, will not be enthusatically voting for the Republicans in 2006. Supporters of Miers and the President, despite compliaints about it, had better accept it. Just as people disappointed with Miers' nomination have to accept that she's the President's pick, people supporting her have to understand that there will be consequences that result from it. They cannot browbeat conservatives into voting for the Republican party forever, especially when they feel they're being used.

Update on clean-up...

2005-10-06T01:54:00.000-04:00

I'm going to be testing out some new blogger templates today. This white-on-black has got to go. But I'll merely be replacing it with the standard Blogger templates, unless anyone web-savvy enough can send something along that looks nice. I have no idea how Haloscan will react to all of this and what will happen to comments, but hopefully it will be fine.

FURTHER UPDATE: Apparently, if you direct-link to the older posts, Haloscan comments won't show up on them. I have no idea why. The comments are there if you read the posts from the main page. This glitch doesn't appear to occur on new posts, though.

FINAL UPDATE: I figured it out. I had to republish the entire blog. That takes care of that!

File under "What the...?"

2005-10-05T12:22:00.000-04:00

Python Explodes After Eating Alligator

The python was found with the gator's hindquarters protruding from its midsection. Its stomach still surrounded the alligator's head, shoulders, and forelimbs. The remains were discovered and photographed Sept. 26 by helicopter pilot and wildlife researcher Michael Barron.

I'll bet that python didn't figure the gator would have the last laugh.

Religious Test...

2005-10-05T11:51:00.000-04:00

Captain Ed over at Captain's Quarters makes a great point about the use of religion in the nominations process of Supreme Court candidates. He notes a Washington Post report that the White House is trying to calm conservatives rightly concerned about Miers' lack of qualifications by noting that her religion would be an appropriate proxy for determining how she would vote. The Post says:

Hecht and other confidants of Miers all pledge that if the Senate confirms her nomination to the Supreme Court, her judicial values will be guided by the law and the Constitution. But they say her personal values have been shaped by her abiding faith in Jesus, and by her membership in the massive red-brick Valley View Christian Church, where she was baptized as an adult, served on the missions committee and taught religious classes....

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino declined to comment on Hecht's recollection yesterday but said President Bush did not ask Miers her personal views on abortion or any other issue that may come before the court. "A nominee who shares the president's approach of judicial restraint would not allow personal views to affect his or her rulings based on the law," Perino said.
Some religious conservatives have expressed deep dissatisfaction with the Miers nomination, grumbling that she has never taken public stands on hot-button social issues. But her friends point to Valley View as evidence that she is cut from conservative cloth. They say she's not a "holy roller" who flaunts her religion on her sleeve but she lives her faith as a born-again Christian...

Captain Ed rightly notes that if conservatives are supposed to be assuaged by Miers' faith, as an appropriate proxy for her voting patterns she would have as a judge, it flatly contradicts the stance taken by the White House in the Roberts nomination. Recall, the Administration rightly noted that questioning Roberts' Catholicism should be off-limits. Everyone was upset that Senator Schumer was proposing what some believed would be an unconstitutional religious test on actual, believing Christians. So why now should conservatives switch gears and suddenly accept Miers because of her commitment to her faith?

I'll admit that Roberts' strong Catholicism was a huge plus in my mind. But his obvious qualifications and his demonstrable wrestling of constitutional issues in his work during the Reagan Administration was a far bigger factor than his religion. And I think that Captain Ed is right that by opening up this subtle hint to conservatives, it also opens the door to Schumer and others like him who would use religion as a cudgel to bash prospective nominees. That cannot be allowed to happen.

None of this would be an issue if Miers was sufficiently qualified. Moreover, the leap of logic the Administration is asking conservatives to make only goes so far. Miers is an evangelical Christian. Fine. MAYBE she'll vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. Maybe, if we make the assumption that her personal religious preferences would be the foundation of her vote instead of any reasoned constitutional analysis of the numerous faults of Roe. But how will she vote on federalism matters? Commerce clause matters? How would we be able to use her religion as a proxy to gague her philosophy of constitutional jurisprudence in matters wholly unrelated to religion? This proxy of her religion really doesn't satisfy at all, if one thinks about it. And it opens the door to a bigger attack from a sinister Senator in the future.

Slouching towards Gomorrah file....

2005-10-05T11:23:00.000-04:00

Today the Supreme Court is considering whether the federal government has the ability under the Controlled Substances Act to prohibit doctor-assisted suicide in Oregon. Libetarians and federalist-minded conservatives would LOVE to see Oregon's law upheld, especially since the rationalization for Congressional authority of the Controlled Substances Act is the commerce clause.

Dozens of spectators gathered outside the court before arguments began, waving signs supporting the Oregon law. "My Life, My Death, My Choice," read one sign. "Who should decide? Me" said another.

"Oregon ought to be proud of having taken the first step," said one of the law's supporters, Rowland Cross, of Arlington, Va.

I wonder how the culture-of-death liberals on the Court will weigh their obvious desire to support the so-called privacy choices of Oregon's supporters, with the balance of upholding the commerce clause in all its glory?

Clean up...

2005-10-05T11:17:00.000-04:00

Yes, I have a blog, but getting used to the intricacies of it all will take time. I'll add links later on. Haloscan comment boxes are also here and hopefully will work well (I had a little trouble installing it last night). So within 24 hours, everything should be running smoothly.

Everyone should read this.

2005-10-05T00:26:00.000-04:00

George Will's new column about Miers:

The money quote:

The wisdom of presumptive opposition to Miers' confirmation flows from the fact that constitutional reasoning is a talent -- a skill acquired, as intellectual skills are, by years of practice sustained by intense interest. It is not usually acquired in the normal course of even a fine lawyer's career. The burden is on Miers to demonstrate such talents, and on senators to compel such a demonstration or reject the nomination.

Amen.

This is idiotic...

2005-10-05T00:04:00.000-04:00

From the AP:

Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers' footprints on contentious social issues suggest a moderate position on gay rights, an interest in advancing women and minorities and sympathy for anti-abortion efforts. Judging from the Smith & Wesson she once packed, she favors gun rights, too.

Miers' years as a corporate lawyer and White House insider have produced a record so scant that court-watchers are picking through 16-year-old Dallas city council votes and the like to divine how she might come down on constitutional matters.

This is what the nominations process has come down to: playing detective. Instead of a nominee who has a principled stand on how to interpret the Constitution, which we could question to determine the degree to which such principles would be applied, instead we have to figure out if Miers' enrollment in the "jelly of the month club" would determine how strictly she would apply the commerce clause. Lovely.

The AP goes on to report that Miers owned a gun, donated $150 to a pro-life group, met with gay activist groups, and that the root causes of crime were "poverty, lack of mental and other health care, inadequate education and family dysfunction." (Of those, I think the one that has the strongest basis in reality is family disfunction.)

The AP calls Miers an "anti-abortion moderate." In their worldview, those words must seem contradictory (since all the chattering classes know that moderates are always pro-choice). This article screams code words to the liberal left that Miers is a nominee who will move to the left once confirmed. If she's moderate enough on certain matters like gay rights, theories of poverty, and an interest in advancing minorities and women, then the left can conclude that in 5 years, she'll be a solid vote to declare gay marriage a fundamental right, that interventionist policies to advance the poor are constitutional despite property rights or the commerce clause, and that affirmative action quotas are ok.

Miers is no Scalia.

Aggressive Conservativism...

2005-10-04T23:24:00.000-04:00

With the debacle that is quickly becoming the Harriet Miers nomination, and the pathetic failure of the Administration to send up a bold, open, public conservative as a nominee, I figured instead of writing a million comments in a lot of diverse blogs, I'd be better suited to start my own and take things from there.

As anyone who knows my frequent comments on other blogs, I think that a bold, up-front, unapologetic conservativism is the best sort of politics for the nation. "Compassionate Conservativism" is a disgusting, pathetic term that inherently apologizes for the very nature of traditionalist ideology. I think that a lot of the discussion is too focused on maintaining Republicans in power without properly assessing if Power has merely become an end instead of a means to do good. I think that too much of the discussion is improperly conciliatory to incorrect conclusions. I think that in the face of unrelenting attacks by the crazy left that many conservatives have succumbed to blindly rallying around the Republican flag instead of questioning whether a proper intellectual attack is being undertaken to destroy the Left and better promote our ends in the political arena.

While certain people have in the past seemed to assume that in their comment boxes I shrilled for the Administration, the Miers nomination proves to me that Republicans are advancing a passive form of conservativism at best, or not advancing it at all. Either way, I intend to call them on it. Bush was a hero after September 11, 2001, but he has his faults and I hope that by pointing them out he can correct himself.

Test

2005-10-04T23:10:00.000-04:00

Test