Saturday, April 30, 2005

Quotes 4

"What makes it so dangerous for our country is [Republicans'] willingness to do serious damage to our American democracy in order to satisfy their lust for one-party domination of all three branches of government. They seek nothing less than absolute power. ... This aggressive new strain of right-wing religious zealotry is actually a throwback to the intolerance that led to the creation of America in the first place."
--Al Gore

Memo to Alpha Al: Republican preponderance in the three branches is an expression of the will of the American people -- what some call democracy -- and thanks for all you did to help make it happen!

"Democrats want to terrify people by claiming Bush's judicial nominees are nutcase extremists hell-bent on shredding the Constitution -- as opposed to liberals' preferred method of simply rewriting it on a daily basis -- but they're terrified that someone might ask them what they mean by 'extremist.' So let's ask! If the details helped liberals, I promise you we'd be hearing the details. Most important, if liberals could win in the court of public opinion, they wouldn't need the federal courts to hand them their victories in the first place. The reason liberals refuse to elaborate on 'extremist Right-wing ideologue' is that they need liberal courts to give them gay marriage, a godless Pledge of Allegiance, abortion on demand, nude dancing, rights for pederasts, and everything else they could never win in America if it were put to a vote. Republicans are letting them get away with it by allowing the debate on judges to consist of mind-numbing arguments about the history of the filibuster. Note to Republicans: Of your six minutes on TV, use 30 seconds to point out the Democrats are abusing the filibuster and the other 5 1/2 minutes to ask liberals to explain why they think Bush's judicial nominees are 'extreme'."
--Ann Coulter

"Since our Nation's earliest days, prayer has given strength and comfort to Americans of all faiths. Our Founding Fathers relied on their faith to guide them as they built our democracy. Today, we continue to be inspired by God's blessings, mercy, and boundless love. As we observe this National Day of Prayer, we humbly acknowledge our reliance on the Almighty, express our gratitude for His blessings, and seek His guidance in our daily lives. Throughout our history, our Nation has turned to prayer for strength and guidance in times of challenge and uncertainty. ... Across our country, Americans turn daily to God in reverence. We ask Him to care for all those who suffer or feel helpless, knowing that God sees their needs and calls on us to meet them. As our first President wrote in 1790, 'May the father of all mercies scatter light and not darkness in our paths.' As we face the challenges of our times, God's purpose continues to guide us, and we continue to trust in the goodness of His plans."
--President George W. Bush

"The belief in a God All Powerful wise and good, is so essential to the moral order of the world and to the happiness of man, that arguments which enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources nor adapted with too much solicitude to the different characters and capacities impressed with it."
--James Madison

"I don't pray. But I support YOUR right to public prayer and public _expression of religious sentiment. I remain respectfully silent while you and yours pray, support the right to voluntary prayer in schools or at public events, etc. And if others choose to exclude themselves from your religious activities -- fine. Unlike the French, Americans did not include 'Fraternity' along with Liberty. 'Equality' does not require sameness." --San Francisco, California

Monday, April 25, 2005

Quotes 3

"A day of decision is upon us. Whether it was the legalization of abortion, the banning of school prayer, the expulsion of the 10 Commandments from public spaces, or the starvation of Terri Schiavo, decisions by the courts have not only changed our nation's course, but even led to the taking of human lives. As the liberal, anti-Christian dogma of the left has been repudiated in almost every recent election, the courts have become the last great bastion for liberalism. For years activist courts, aided by liberal interest groups like the ACLU, have been quietly working under the veil of the judiciary, like thieves in the night, to rob us of our Christian heritage and our religious freedoms. Federal judges have systematically grabbed power, usurping the constitutional authority that resides in the other two branches of government and, ultimately, in the American people."
--Tony Perkins

For months now, Demo-gogues Harry Reid, Teddy Kennedy, Bobby Byrd, et al., with the help of their Leftmedia minions, have railed against any potential change of Senate procedure. Specifically, they object to a Republican proposal to end judicial filibustering, which, for the first time ever, is being used by the Demos to obstruct the prescribed constitutional process for reviewing judicial nominees.

Historically, Senate rules allowed for unlimited debate (filibuster) until 1917, when the rules were changed to allow a two-thirds vote (67 senators) to close debate and call for a vote. In 1975, the rules were changed to allow 60 senators to invoke cloture. At that time, Ted Kennedy said, "Again and again in recent years, the filibuster has been the shame of the Senate and the last resort of special-interest groups. Too often, it has enabled a small minority of the Senate to prevent a strong majority from working its will and serving the public interest."

Indeed, regarding judicial nominees, "a small minority of the Senate" is preventing the "majority from working its will and serving the public interest" by preventing judicial nominees from receiving their constitutionally-mandated full Senate vote.

More recently, when Democrats still held a Senate majority, two of today's principal obstructionists spoke strongly against judicial filibusters. Said Vermont's Patrick Leahy, "I have stated over and over again on this [Senate] floor that I would...object and fight against any filibuster on a judge." Delaware's Joe Biden added, "[E]veryone who is nominated is have a hearing and to...have a vote on the floor. It is not...appropriate...not to bring them to the floor and not to allow a vote."
But that was then.

Now, Kennedy, Leahy, Biden and company are holding hostage a third of President George Bush's appellate-court nominees, preventing them from receiving an up-or-down confirmation vote in the full Senate.

The Demos assert that they are "protecting" the nation from radical judges who would do harm to our Constitution. Reid blusters, "The President is at it again with the extremist judges." Kennedy bloats, "[I will] resist any Neanderthal that is nominated by this president...for any federal court."

"My goal is to have fair up-and-down votes," responds Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. "Are we going to shift from that principle? The answer to that is no. ... All judicial and Supreme Court nominees deserve a fair up-or-down vote."

So, what's really going on?

Demos insist that preservation of the Constitution is at the center of this heated debate. They are, inadvertently, correct, except -- and it's a colossal exception -- that their plan for constitutional preservation is based on seating judges who "interpret" the Constitution and legislate by judicial diktat. Or, in the words of the august Sen. Sam Ervin, judges who "interpret the Constitution to mean what it would have said if they, instead of the Founding Fathers, had written it."

Indeed, the preservation of our Constitution -- and the fate of our Republic -- hangs in the balance. The window for correcting decades of judicial mischief is closing.

Plainly, the Constitution declares (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2) that executive-branch appointments be subject to confirmation by the full Senate and that such consideration not be obstructed by a handful of ultra-partisans. However, Senate Democrats are dead-set on blocking the President's appellate-court nominations, because they know the real locus of central-government power resides on the federal bench with their cadre of judicial activists.
On the other hand, most of President Bush's nominees are constitutional constructionists -- those who issue rulings based on the letter of constitutional law as intended by our Founders, rather than interpreting it according to their constituent agenda -- and seating such nominees threatens to loosen the Democrats' stranglehold on our Constitution.

The Federalist Papers constitute the definitive explication of the Founders' "Original Intent" regarding our Constitution. In Federalist No. 32, Alexander Hamilton writes on the subject of constitutional interpretation, "[T]here is not a syllable in the [Constitution] which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution."

In Federalist No. 45, the author of our Constitution, James Madison, writes about the limits of constitutional authority: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State."

Hamilton and Madison clearly reveal the scope of our Constitution and its proscription on judicial interpretation. For decades, however, Democrats like Kennedy have seen to it that the federal bench is stacked with judicial activists who will "interpret" the Constitution on behalf of their constituent agendas, thus ensuring that those constituents will re-elect their political patriarchs in perpetuity.

Therein resides the greatest threat to our constitutional republic.

As Thomas Jefferson warned: "The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch. ... The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please."

The final arbiter of constitutional law is the Supreme Court, and that body of jurists is one seat away from becoming the ultimate protectorate of the "despotic branch."

The Demos, of course, know that Mr. Bush's appellate-court judges will compose the A-list from which he'll nominate one or two Supreme Court justices before the end of his term. That is especially true of the DC Circuit Court from which Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg hail, and to which California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown was recently nominated.
This is precisely why the Demos' denial of full Senate consideration to constitutional constructionists such as Judge Brown, Priscilla Owen and Miguel Estrada is so important: The Demos simply can't stomach judges who will abide by their oath to "Support and defend the Constitution of the United States" -- "Neanderthals," as Kennedy calls them.

Of the Democrats' effort to block these and other Bush nominees, Justice Antonin Scalia concludes, "As long as judges tinker with the Constitution to 'do what the people want,' instead of what the document actually commands, politicians who pick and confirm new federal judges will naturally want only those who agree with them politically."

The Republican leadership has two options: Bow to the Demo filibuster and abandon these decent and well-qualified judges, or amend the rules for considering judicial nominees only and allow a simple-majority vote to enforce cloture. In the event there are not enough Republican senators with the spine to support the latter option, Majority Leader Frist may call in Vice President Cheney, in his constitutional role as presiding officer of the Senate, to rule that a constitutionally mandated process may not be obstructed by filibuster.

Mr. Cheney has pledged to cast the deciding vote if the Senate is deadlocked, noting, "On the merits, this should not be a difficult call to make. The [filibuster] tactics of the last few years, I believe, are inexcusable."
--The Federalist Patriot

Monday, April 18, 2005

Quotes 2

"We have grasped the mystery of the atom and rejected the Sermon on the Mount....The world has achieved brilliance without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants." --General Omar Bradley

"You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing is worth dying for, when did this begin...? Should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots of Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn't die in vain!"
--Ronald Reagan

"When he refused to bow and grovel before the federal judiciary, [Judge Roy] Moore was suspended as Alabama's chief justice. In November 2003, he was tried before a judicial ethics panel. Moore's position was elegant in its simplicity: I took an oath to defend the Alabama Constitution, which acknowledges God as the foundation of our laws. Therefore, as the state's chief judicial officer, I am bound to affirm that truth, which I have done with my Ten Commandments statue. And, by the way, I'm not required to go along with the federal judiciary's convenient misinterpretations of the Constitution. Based on his intransigence here, Moore was removed from office. ...[W]e are in a constitutional crisis created by activist judges intent on mandating homosexual marriage (thereby deconstructing the American family), taking God out of the Pledge of Allegiance, abetting pornographers in flooding the country with filth, enshrining abortion-on-demand as the penultimate right, making Americans subject to foreign laws, and rewriting our history to transform America into one (secular) nation, under their heel. To save the Constitution and representative government will take a thousand Roy Moores, all echoing the words of Thomas Jefferson (author of our nation's founding document) 'To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions (is) a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.' It has."
--Don Feder

"The IRS -- I find it interesting that when you combine the words in the above subject line it becomes 'THEIRS'!"
--Baton Rouge, Louisiana

"I keep reading that there are no WMD's in Iraq -- but that claim is patently false. My unit has found many WMD's -- silk-worm missiles with sarin gas, for example. Soldiers have been killed trying to disarm these weapons. We find the weapons in small numbers -- 2 or 3 at a time, here and there, which does not constitute 'stockpiles,' but WMD ARE here." --USA, Iraq

From the files of the Morally Depraved: "I do think that it is sometimes appropriate to kill a human infant. For me, the relevant question is, what makes it so seriously wrong to take a life? Those of you who are not vegetarians are responsible for taking a life every time you eat. Species is no more relevant than race in making these judgments."
--Princeton University Professor, Peter Singer

The New Pope!

"London's Sunday Times would have us believe that one of the leading contenders for the papacy is a closet Nazi. In if-only-they-knew tones, the newspaper informs readers that German-born Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was a member of the Hitler Youth during World War II and suggests that, because of this, the 'panzer cardinal' would be quite a contrast to his predecessor, John Paul II. The article also classifies Ratzinger as a 'theological anti-Semite' for believing in Jesus so strongly that -- gasp! -- he thinks that everyone, even Jews, should accept him as the messiah. To all this we should say, 'This is news?!' ... Ratzinger's membership in the Hitler Youth was not voluntary but compulsory; also admitted are the facts that the cardinal -- only a teenager during the period in question -- was the son of an anti-Nazi policeman, that he was given a dispensation from Hitler Youth activities because of his religious studies, and that he deserted the German army. ... As prefect of the Doctrine of the Faith, Ratzinger played an instrumental role in the Vatican's revolutionary reconciliation with the Jews under John Paul II. He personally prepared Memory and Reconciliation, the 2000 document outlining the church's historical 'errors' in its treatment of Jews. And as president of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, Ratzinger oversaw the preparation of The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible, a milestone theological explanation for the Jews' rejection of Jesus. If that's theological anti-Semitism, then we should only be so lucky to 'suffer' more of the same. As for the Hitler Youth issue, not even Yad Vashem [the definitive Holocaust Museum] has considered it worthy of further investigation. Why should we?" --Jerusalem Post

Saturday, April 16, 2005

Out Of Control Liberals

I have attempted to dialogue with a few Liberals now that I have a blog. They did not disappoint me with their arrogance, their unwillingness to dialogue without calling me names, and their overall display of illogic. Here is a sampling of their the way, when there are all caps, that is the way the man wrote it. I will put my responses in blue and Liberal responses in red.
When I picked 2 excellent quotes about the Judeo-Christian beliefs of our founding is what one said about Rehnquist and Kudlow... REHNQUIST? UNBIASED SOURCE EH? LAWRENCE CUDWELL? Never mentioned "unbiased" because I don't know anyone who isn't biased in one way or another. YOU MEAN LARRY THE COKE SNORTER?
Basically, he was unable to read these quotes without attacking the person. Why are they unable to just look at what is written without judging the people????
When I was asked why we went into Iraq and why I still support our President...Here is what he had to say...
When I tried to demonstrate that abortion was morally wrong....
why do you think he said "Cheers to my wife" that sarcastic...a threat...a stupid thing to say...I'm not sure.....
Another one accused me of having an asinine opinion regarding my saying that most of the world's major religions were against abortion. I wrote the following in response:
Thank you for readily revealing your inability to stick to the real issues and in a matter of a few lines demonstrate that you would like to revise all of history. You all raise legitimate questions especially Quicksand. I find however, that either you are ignoring what I am saying or not understanding it in its totality. Before I do make some attempt of explaining all this to you, I have some questions. I try my best to understand both sides of an issue before I declare the other side “asinine.” I listen to Air America, I read liberal websites and I watch CNN and others (I’ve been to more often than most liberals…). But….I also listen to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity….I read Ann Coulter etc. to balance my views. Do you do the same??? Back to my points….All cultures have written about the abortion issue. Listen to your logic. I am “asinine” because I think those that can’t defend themselves should be protected…. well that’s fine with me. I can demonstrate from each age and culture (except our more modern one) that what I’ve said is true. All the following writings pretty much cover every major religion and culture. Here is a sampling:
The Quran
"Losers are those who killed their children foolishly, due to their lack of knowledge, and prohibited what God has provided for them, and followed innovations attributed to God. They have gone astray, they are not guided." (6:140)
The Jews
While there is debate among the Rabbis whether abortion is a Biblical or Rabbinical prohibition, all agree on the fundamental concept that fundamentally, abortion is only permitted to protect the life of the mother or in other extraordinary situations.
Most Buddhist commentators have adopted classical Hindu teachings that the transmigration of consciousness occurs at conception, and therefore that all abortion incurs the karmic burden of killing.
[Punnadhammo Bhikkhu is a Buddhist monk living in Ontario.]
"In the Buddhist doctrine of nonviolence and non-killing, abortion is not sanctioned. It is actually one of the Bodhisattva’s practicing vows to avoid all kinds of killing including human-beings and like-beings." Abortion is undeniably the taking of life. The debate centers on the issue as to whether the life in question can be considered human. Buddhism, like most religions, says most emphatically that a fetus is human life.
"You shall not kill either the fetus by abortion or the new born" (Letter of Barnabas, circa 125)
"We say that women who induce abortions are
murderers, and will have to give account of it to God. For the same person, would not regard the child in the womb as a living being and therefore an object of God's care and then kill it.... But we are altogether consistent in our conduct. We obey reason and do not override it." Petition to Emperor Marcus Aurelius (121-180 CE), circa 150 CE
Clement of Alexandria: (? - 215 CE) "Our whole life can go on in observation of the laws of nature, if we gain dominion over our desires from the beginning and if we do not kill, by various means of a perverse art, the human offspring, born according to the designs of divine providence; for these women who, if order to hide their immorality, use abortive drugs which expel the child completely dead, abort at the same time their own human feelings." Paedagogus 2
Tertullian (circa 155 - 225 CE): "...we are not permitted, since murder has been prohibited to us once and for all, even to destroy ...the fetus in the womb. It makes no difference whether one destroys a life that has already been born or one that is in the process of birth." 4
St. Hippolytus (circa 170-236 CE): "Reputed believes began to resort to drugs for producing Sterility and to gird themselves round, so as to expel what was conceived on account of their not wanting to have a child either by a slave or by any paltry fellow, for the sake of their family and excessive wealth. Behold, into how great impiety that lawless one has proceeded, by inculcating adultery and murder at the same time." "Refutation of all Heresies" 9:7
Minicius Felix (a Christian lawyer; circa 180 - 225 CE): "Some women take medicines to destroy the germ of future life in their own bodies. They commit infanticide before they have given birth to the infant" 5
St. Basil the Great (circa 330 - 379 CE): "She who has deliberately destroyed a fetus has to pay the penalty of it is not only the child to be born that is vindicated, but also the woman herself who made an attempt against her own life, because usually the women die in such attempts. Furthermore, added to this is the destruction of the child, another murder... Moreover, those, too, who give drugs causing abortion are deliberate murderers themselves, as well as those receiving the poison which kills the fetus." Letter 188:2
St. Ambrose: (339 to 397 CE) "The poor expose their children, the rich kill the fruit of their own bodies in the womb, lest their property be divided up, and they destroy their own children in the womb with murderous poisons. and before life has been passed on, it is annihilated." 6
St. John Chrysostom (circa 340 - 407 CE): "Why sow where the ground makes it its care to destroy the fruit? Where there are many efforts at abortion? Where there is murder before the birth? For you do not even let the harlot remain a mere harlot, but make her a murderer also. You see how drunkenness leads to whoredom, whoredom to adultery, adultery to murder; or rather something even worse than murder. For I have no real name to give it, since it does not destroy the thing born but prevents its being born. Why then do you abuse the gift of God and fight with His laws, and follow after what is a curse as if a blessing, and make the place of procreation a chamber for murder, and arm the woman that was given for childbearing unto slaughter?" Homily 24 on Romans
St. Jerome (circa 342-420 CE): "They drink potions to ensure sterility and are guilty of murdering a human being not yet conceived. Some, when they learn that they are with child through sin, practice abortion by the use of drugs. Frequently they die themselves and are brought before the rulers of the lower world guilty of three crimes: suicide, adultery against Christ, and murder of an unborn child." Letter 22:13
Have you ever spoken to a woman who has had an abortion and regretted it (which are numerous)? Who by the way, says that the child is unwanted? Maybe unwanted by the mother, but not by society. Read what I wrote before. Your heart bleeds for “young scared women” (and so does mine) but they can get any kind of help they need, but your heart apparently does not bleed for an innocent child still in the womb who is torn apart at a doctor’s hand. You all throw around a lot of big numbers. They pale in comparison with how many babies have been aborted since 1973.
MilesDavis challenged me to prove my point. I have hundreds of other quotes from scriptures and some from historical documents that prove that abortion was considered heinous by the major cultures and religions. Can he prove by way of documents that abortion was considered ok in these cultures and religions? Give me some examples!!!
So, my question to Miles. Find me writings from these various religions and cultures and demonstrate that they were in favor of abortion. If you can’t, I would ask that you acknowledge that what I wrote before is not asinine and that your opinion on this is. I wish you luck.
Gentlemen. I really wish I had the time to frolic in this some more. But to be honest, I don’t get the sense from what I’ve been reading that you are willing to dialogue with an open mind. So….I will disappear, but will continue to pray for you.

Now...I asked for support of his argument. He is unable. I met him the other day and asked him if he read my writing to him. He smiled and said yes. In typical Liberal fashion they think that they can say asinine things and when challenged can just change the subject!!! Wrong! Whose view is asisine??? A second person wrote and said,"I DON'T CARE WHAT RELIGIONS HAVE TO SAY ABOUT ANYTHING...PAST AND PRESENT. THE WORLD WOULD BE BETTER WITHOUT RELIGIONS."
Well...there you have it!

When I tried to explain to one person about Terri Schiavo and why I believe she had the right to live. After being asked to try and demonstrate that she wanted to live, Terri reportedly said..."I-------wannnnnnnnnnn" His response to this poor woman trying to say that she wants to live was this........

They have no real point of view other then to attack anyone who has opinions that differ then theirs. Yet they have no real basis for what they believe. Listen to the logic. He says, "WE NEVER HEARD HER SPEAK OR ENDORSE HER WISH...SO WE RELIED ON THE 'SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE'...The sanctity of marriage to Michael Schiavo who gave up on Terri and went and took a commonlaw wife and had 2 kids with her. The writer believes him because he said so...but refuses to believe many people who claimed that Terri wanted to live. You can go try to figure that out...I can't.
Have you seen the movie Napolean Dynamite? In it there is Napolean's Uncle Rico who everyone in the film claims he is stuck in 1982. Most Liberals are stuck in the '60's with the philosophy that 'if it feels good, do it'. This helps them justify their absurd rhetoric, but notice they are the first to call names or throw things. Throw things you say? Yes, there has been an outbreak of Out of Control Liberals who decided that Conservatives shouldn't speak...for instance on October....2 liberals threw 2 pies at Ann Coulter...on March 29 Liberals threw a pie at William Kristol...on March 31 they dialogue with Pat Buchanon by throwing salad dressing on him....on April 6 they resort to pie throwing again at David Horowitz. All because they are Liberal and pro-choice....unless as I've said before...your choice differs from theirs!