Further Blurring the Line Between Law and Politics
Conservative groups blast GOP for forcing resignation of top judicial nominations strategist.
"If you had told me this is how this would all end, I would not have believed you," said Kay Daly, president of Coalition for a Fair Judiciary. "This is upside-down, backwards Alice in Wonderland."
Conservatives accused Mr. Frist and Mr. Hatch of abandoning their most effective tactician in the continuing struggle over President Bush's judicial nominations.
"It's disgusting," said Jeff Mazzella, with the Center for Individual Freedom. "Senator Frist and Senator Hatch bowed to the Democrats."
"This is like ringing the dinner bell and throwing chum in the water," said Mrs. Daly. "We've just thrown one of our most valuable people overboard, and Orrin Hatch couldn't have done it fast enough."
Friday, February 06, 2004
Thursday, February 05, 2004
Preparing for Passion Mania
From the New York Times:
The movie opens on Ash Wednesday, Feb. 25, and Christian groups are already distributing merchandise to capitalize on the moment. There are lapel pins in Aramaic, the language of much of the film, and "witnessing cards" to give those who ask about the pin; door hangers for the neighbors; one million tracts asking moviegoers to "Take a moment right now and say a prayer like this," and a CD-ROM for teenagers that features a downloadable picture of a nine-inch nail like those that pinned Jesus to the cross.
Although Mr. Gibson is Roman Catholic and the movie is replete with Catholic touches, like the Stations of the Cross and the centrality of Mary, influential Pentecostal and evangelical leaders have embraced it anyway, seeing its value as a tool in evangelism. Evangelical Christians account for 30 percent to 40 percent of the American population, and many of them have recently been hearing their leaders declare that the nation is primed for a return of the ecstatic Great Awakenings that moved Americans in the 18th and 19th centuries to convert to Christianity in droves.
(...)
Although the film has been praised by some Roman Catholics and promoted on some Catholic Web sites, Catholic clergy members and bishops have not latched onto it as a tool for church-building as the evangelicals have.
Comment: While the Church can certainly learn a couple of things from our separated brethren on evangelistic enthusiasm, I can just as easily see how what Evangelicals are doing with this movie could result in a kind of mass trivialization of Christ's passion. For most folks, "WWJD" is just an annoying little Christian catch-phrase.
From the New York Times:
The movie opens on Ash Wednesday, Feb. 25, and Christian groups are already distributing merchandise to capitalize on the moment. There are lapel pins in Aramaic, the language of much of the film, and "witnessing cards" to give those who ask about the pin; door hangers for the neighbors; one million tracts asking moviegoers to "Take a moment right now and say a prayer like this," and a CD-ROM for teenagers that features a downloadable picture of a nine-inch nail like those that pinned Jesus to the cross.
Although Mr. Gibson is Roman Catholic and the movie is replete with Catholic touches, like the Stations of the Cross and the centrality of Mary, influential Pentecostal and evangelical leaders have embraced it anyway, seeing its value as a tool in evangelism. Evangelical Christians account for 30 percent to 40 percent of the American population, and many of them have recently been hearing their leaders declare that the nation is primed for a return of the ecstatic Great Awakenings that moved Americans in the 18th and 19th centuries to convert to Christianity in droves.
(...)
Although the film has been praised by some Roman Catholics and promoted on some Catholic Web sites, Catholic clergy members and bishops have not latched onto it as a tool for church-building as the evangelicals have.
Comment: While the Church can certainly learn a couple of things from our separated brethren on evangelistic enthusiasm, I can just as easily see how what Evangelicals are doing with this movie could result in a kind of mass trivialization of Christ's passion. For most folks, "WWJD" is just an annoying little Christian catch-phrase.
Wednesday, February 04, 2004
Signs of Desperation
For some reason, Democrats are making a big deal about Dubya's service in the National Guard some thirty-plus years ago.
Uber-pundit Hugh Hewitt responds:
To every question on this issue, Republicans ought to respond: President Bush was honorably discharged. Did the question of honorable military service ever cause you pause when you were supporting Bill Clinton? And do you agree with John Kerry that the men who fought in Vietnam routinely committed war crimes?
For some reason, Democrats are making a big deal about Dubya's service in the National Guard some thirty-plus years ago.
Uber-pundit Hugh Hewitt responds:
To every question on this issue, Republicans ought to respond: President Bush was honorably discharged. Did the question of honorable military service ever cause you pause when you were supporting Bill Clinton? And do you agree with John Kerry that the men who fought in Vietnam routinely committed war crimes?
Line in the Sand
Special News Alert
FROM: Alan Sears, Alliance Defense Fund President
Another Twist in the Battle For Marriage…
“[You need] to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits, and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely…to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution…The most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake…is to transform the notion of ‘family’ entirely.” – Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile.
This morning, the Massachusetts State Supreme Judicial Court issued another decision in the continued battle for the institution of marriage. As you may recall, the court ruled last November, that there was no “rational basis” to deny homosexual couples the “right” to “marry.” The court stayed the order for 180 days to allow the Massachusetts legislature to take up the matter before same-sex “marriage” licenses would be issued. The court had looked to foreign law (in Ontario, Canada) – rather than any express language in its own Constitution – to base their decision.
One of the alternatives that the state legislature has proposed is so-called “civil unions,” that grant all of the legal benefits of marriage without calling it marriage. The legislature asked the court for an advisory opinion on whether or not they could implement civil unions instead of same-sex “marriage.” Today, the court said “no,” that the legislature has no choice but to grant full-fledged same-sex “marriage.”
Today’s ruling will be heralded by the secular press as another step towards the inevitability of same-sex “marriage.” However, there is another side to the story. ADF funded lawyers asked the court not to replace marriage with civil unions either. Why? Because the court has now made the battle lines even clearer: it is either full-blown marriage or no marriage substitute for radical homosexual activists. While some may bemoan this ruling, we see this now as an opportunity to protect marriage from the clutches of the radical homosexual activists, since no redefined replacement, such as civil unions, is acceptable.
The quote above from Michelangelo Signorile tells us what is at stake. The most radical of the homosexual activists have made their motives clear. They do not want marriage in order to set up monogamous stable relationships – they want the term “marriage” so they can bring about the wholesale destruction of the institution. That is why they will not relent until they receive this title for their “relationships.” What is happening in Massachusetts is just another “peeling of the onion” of the radical homosexual agenda to re-order society on their terms.
But in the words of Yogi Berra, “it ain’t over ‘till its over.” ADF funded lawyers continue to work overtime in the highly complex legal battle to preserve traditional marriage and overturn this decision. This next Wednesday, the state legislature will convene a constitutional convention to determine whether or not the people of Massachusetts will have the opportunity to vote on a constitutional amendment that will define marriage as being between “one man and one woman.” In addition, ADF, the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, and many other allied groups will be working together to press for the passage of the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would protect traditional marriage nationwide. ADF will continue its major support of legal efforts in this area. This morning, President Bush agreed to join the effort to push for the passage of this amendment.
This is not a time to despair, but it is a time for us to get on our knees in prayer (1 Thessalonians 5:17), roll up our sleeves, and work even harder. Working together, we can preserve traditional marriage, not only for this generation, but for generations to come.
Special News Alert
FROM: Alan Sears, Alliance Defense Fund President
Another Twist in the Battle For Marriage…
“[You need] to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits, and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely…to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution…The most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake…is to transform the notion of ‘family’ entirely.” – Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile.
This morning, the Massachusetts State Supreme Judicial Court issued another decision in the continued battle for the institution of marriage. As you may recall, the court ruled last November, that there was no “rational basis” to deny homosexual couples the “right” to “marry.” The court stayed the order for 180 days to allow the Massachusetts legislature to take up the matter before same-sex “marriage” licenses would be issued. The court had looked to foreign law (in Ontario, Canada) – rather than any express language in its own Constitution – to base their decision.
One of the alternatives that the state legislature has proposed is so-called “civil unions,” that grant all of the legal benefits of marriage without calling it marriage. The legislature asked the court for an advisory opinion on whether or not they could implement civil unions instead of same-sex “marriage.” Today, the court said “no,” that the legislature has no choice but to grant full-fledged same-sex “marriage.”
Today’s ruling will be heralded by the secular press as another step towards the inevitability of same-sex “marriage.” However, there is another side to the story. ADF funded lawyers asked the court not to replace marriage with civil unions either. Why? Because the court has now made the battle lines even clearer: it is either full-blown marriage or no marriage substitute for radical homosexual activists. While some may bemoan this ruling, we see this now as an opportunity to protect marriage from the clutches of the radical homosexual activists, since no redefined replacement, such as civil unions, is acceptable.
The quote above from Michelangelo Signorile tells us what is at stake. The most radical of the homosexual activists have made their motives clear. They do not want marriage in order to set up monogamous stable relationships – they want the term “marriage” so they can bring about the wholesale destruction of the institution. That is why they will not relent until they receive this title for their “relationships.” What is happening in Massachusetts is just another “peeling of the onion” of the radical homosexual agenda to re-order society on their terms.
But in the words of Yogi Berra, “it ain’t over ‘till its over.” ADF funded lawyers continue to work overtime in the highly complex legal battle to preserve traditional marriage and overturn this decision. This next Wednesday, the state legislature will convene a constitutional convention to determine whether or not the people of Massachusetts will have the opportunity to vote on a constitutional amendment that will define marriage as being between “one man and one woman.” In addition, ADF, the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, and many other allied groups will be working together to press for the passage of the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would protect traditional marriage nationwide. ADF will continue its major support of legal efforts in this area. This morning, President Bush agreed to join the effort to push for the passage of this amendment.
This is not a time to despair, but it is a time for us to get on our knees in prayer (1 Thessalonians 5:17), roll up our sleeves, and work even harder. Working together, we can preserve traditional marriage, not only for this generation, but for generations to come.
Exposing Absurdity Through Absurdity
Happy Conservative Coming Out Day! Ah, to be young and in college.
"I started having certain thoughts," said Mr. O'Holleran, 19, a student at the University of Colorado (CU). "I would go out into my mom's car, turn it on auxiliary and listen to Rush Limbaugh."
Yesterday, he said, it was time to come out of the closet. In the middle of a crowded university dining area, he took to the podium and announced, "I'm Jeff, and I'm a conservative."
Happy Conservative Coming Out Day! Ah, to be young and in college.
"I started having certain thoughts," said Mr. O'Holleran, 19, a student at the University of Colorado (CU). "I would go out into my mom's car, turn it on auxiliary and listen to Rush Limbaugh."
Yesterday, he said, it was time to come out of the closet. In the middle of a crowded university dining area, he took to the podium and announced, "I'm Jeff, and I'm a conservative."
Monday, February 02, 2004
Was it Unjust?
The revelations of weapons inspector David Kay that Iraq didn't have large stockpiles of WMD is troublesome at best. At worst, it is a grand indictment on the competency of U.S. intelligence gathering. While President Bush himself cannot skirt all responsibility for this information blunder, I don't believe it can be used as a charge that he committed the U.S. to an unjust war. Consider, for instance, that it is an indisputable fact that everyone, including the U.N., France, Germany and Russia, believed that Iraq was in material noncompliance with its obligation to reveal and hand over all of its WMD. In light of this, it is not beyond the pale of reason to have believed that Iraq's breach indicated that it was harboring large stockpiles of WMD. Indeed, none of the countries that refused to miltarily engage in Iraq with us has ever disputed this. Along with this reasonable inference, as well as the verified connections that Saddam had with terrorist groups, the decision to ultimately go to war was partly clinched by the WMD intelligence information that has since been shown to be erroneous. (But even then, note that Bush was still hesitant to go to war as evidenced by his promise not to attack Iraq if Saddam and his sons immediately exiled themselves. Hardly proof, as some Bush-haters have alleged, that Bush is a war-monger).
Wrong intelligence information or not, all indications strongly suggest that the Bush administration made a good faith and reasonable decision to wage a just preemptive war. And although in hindsight our credibility in the international community might be a little shot by executing this decision, there is no getting around the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens who probably wouldn't be alive today if we hadn't done what we did. This may be of little consolation to those who feign concern for the lives of our military in their opposition to the war (the very same people who tend to have no regard for the lives of the unborn and disingenuously equate Bush with Hitler) but I think it's something that all Americans can be proud of and claim that, in the end, was a war that was well worth fighting.
The revelations of weapons inspector David Kay that Iraq didn't have large stockpiles of WMD is troublesome at best. At worst, it is a grand indictment on the competency of U.S. intelligence gathering. While President Bush himself cannot skirt all responsibility for this information blunder, I don't believe it can be used as a charge that he committed the U.S. to an unjust war. Consider, for instance, that it is an indisputable fact that everyone, including the U.N., France, Germany and Russia, believed that Iraq was in material noncompliance with its obligation to reveal and hand over all of its WMD. In light of this, it is not beyond the pale of reason to have believed that Iraq's breach indicated that it was harboring large stockpiles of WMD. Indeed, none of the countries that refused to miltarily engage in Iraq with us has ever disputed this. Along with this reasonable inference, as well as the verified connections that Saddam had with terrorist groups, the decision to ultimately go to war was partly clinched by the WMD intelligence information that has since been shown to be erroneous. (But even then, note that Bush was still hesitant to go to war as evidenced by his promise not to attack Iraq if Saddam and his sons immediately exiled themselves. Hardly proof, as some Bush-haters have alleged, that Bush is a war-monger).
Wrong intelligence information or not, all indications strongly suggest that the Bush administration made a good faith and reasonable decision to wage a just preemptive war. And although in hindsight our credibility in the international community might be a little shot by executing this decision, there is no getting around the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens who probably wouldn't be alive today if we hadn't done what we did. This may be of little consolation to those who feign concern for the lives of our military in their opposition to the war (the very same people who tend to have no regard for the lives of the unborn and disingenuously equate Bush with Hitler) but I think it's something that all Americans can be proud of and claim that, in the end, was a war that was well worth fighting.
It's the Courts Stupid
Among other things, I've been getting into a cyclical debate with other Catholics on a discussion forum over whether President Bush can rightly be regarded as an opponent to abortion. Some people seem to think he isn't because despite Republicans controlling both chambers of Congress, Bush hasn't even attempted to introduce one piece of legislation that would make abortion illegal. (The ban on partial birth abortion was a nice gesture, but it doesn't go far enough).
I can only sigh over the uninformed charges that have been made against Dubya by what appear to be sincerely pro-life Catholics. What some of these folks fail to understand is that by effectively declaring abortion to be a fundamental right, the Supreme Court in 1973 took the abortion issue out of the democratic process. Thus, for any legislator to ban abortion now would be the legal equivalent of legislatively banning Catholics from going to Mass or receiving Communion.
As I've argued in the aforementioned forums, the current composition of the federal judiciary must first be changed if abortion is ever to be abolished. Accordingly, if you want to know how committed President Bush is to overturning Roe v. Wade, look at who he has nominated to serve on the various federal courts. The fact that several pro-abortion groups and Democrat Senators have vigorously opposed these nominations should tell you something.
Among other things, I've been getting into a cyclical debate with other Catholics on a discussion forum over whether President Bush can rightly be regarded as an opponent to abortion. Some people seem to think he isn't because despite Republicans controlling both chambers of Congress, Bush hasn't even attempted to introduce one piece of legislation that would make abortion illegal. (The ban on partial birth abortion was a nice gesture, but it doesn't go far enough).
I can only sigh over the uninformed charges that have been made against Dubya by what appear to be sincerely pro-life Catholics. What some of these folks fail to understand is that by effectively declaring abortion to be a fundamental right, the Supreme Court in 1973 took the abortion issue out of the democratic process. Thus, for any legislator to ban abortion now would be the legal equivalent of legislatively banning Catholics from going to Mass or receiving Communion.
As I've argued in the aforementioned forums, the current composition of the federal judiciary must first be changed if abortion is ever to be abolished. Accordingly, if you want to know how committed President Bush is to overturning Roe v. Wade, look at who he has nominated to serve on the various federal courts. The fact that several pro-abortion groups and Democrat Senators have vigorously opposed these nominations should tell you something.
Saturday, January 31, 2004
America's First Excommunicated President
What do you think the odds of this happening would be if John F'n Kerry wins the Party of Death's nomination and beats Dubya in November? If Kerry faces Bush in November, expect the election to be closer than previously thought, even if conservatives decide not to stay home in protest over the President's questionable moves over illegal immigration and government spending.
What do you think the odds of this happening would be if John F'n Kerry wins the Party of Death's nomination and beats Dubya in November? If Kerry faces Bush in November, expect the election to be closer than previously thought, even if conservatives decide not to stay home in protest over the President's questionable moves over illegal immigration and government spending.
At Least They Aren't Selling Official T-shirts...Yet
San Mateo County charges media $51K for spots near the courthouse where the Scott Peterson trial is being held.
The 16 spaces, which are approximately 13 feet by 17 feet, will be used for television reporters to store equipment, work and conduct interviews. Each station must provide its own tent.
In addition, television stations must pay $7,500 for space to park their satellite trucks. Twenty spaces set aside for journalists in a nearby lot cost $200 a month each. Reporters are not being charged for space in a media center about a block away.
Altogether, the fees would raise $816,000 for the county, about a third of which has already been spent on preparations for the trial, Alms said.
San Mateo County charges media $51K for spots near the courthouse where the Scott Peterson trial is being held.
The 16 spaces, which are approximately 13 feet by 17 feet, will be used for television reporters to store equipment, work and conduct interviews. Each station must provide its own tent.
In addition, television stations must pay $7,500 for space to park their satellite trucks. Twenty spaces set aside for journalists in a nearby lot cost $200 a month each. Reporters are not being charged for space in a media center about a block away.
Altogether, the fees would raise $816,000 for the county, about a third of which has already been spent on preparations for the trial, Alms said.
Friday, January 30, 2004
9th Circuit: Publicly Exposed Self-Intimacy is a Free Speech Right
If for nothing else, reelect Geroge W. because he nominates sensible people to the federal Courts of Appeal.
If for nothing else, reelect Geroge W. because he nominates sensible people to the federal Courts of Appeal.
Thursday, January 29, 2004
St. Blog's Loves Patricia Heaton
As evidenced by HugeTim Terminator Kathy Shaidle and Holy Roman Emperor wannabe Mark Shea. And rightly so to the extent that Patricia Heaton is a publicly avowed anti-abortion Christian in an environment that is extremely hostile to such perspectives and people. Notice, however, that I've used the term "anti-abortion" to describe Ms. Heaton. For me, in order to be considered "pro-life," you not only have to be against the killing of unborn children, you should also be against any artificial and unnatural acts that prevent the conception of children (i.e., artificial contraception).
In all truthfulness, I have no idea whether Patricia Heaton is for or against the use of contraceptive devices like condoms and IUDs. However, I have seen several episodes of "Everybody Loves Raymond" where the married characters that Ms. Heaton and Ray Romano play, Deborah and Ray Barone, affirmatively consider their use without even a cursory discussion of the Catholic Church's moral opposition to artificial contraception (the fictional Barone family is Catholic). Presuming that she would never agree to play a sympathetic character who condones abortion, an inference can probably be made that Ms. Heaton's personal belief toward artificial contraception is reflected by her willingness to play someone who doesn't think they are that big of a deal. Although it may seem a little picky or semantic, it is on this basis that I am hesitant to call Patricia Heaton, or any other similarly situated anti-abortion advocate, "pro-life."
As evidenced by HugeTim Terminator Kathy Shaidle and Holy Roman Emperor wannabe Mark Shea. And rightly so to the extent that Patricia Heaton is a publicly avowed anti-abortion Christian in an environment that is extremely hostile to such perspectives and people. Notice, however, that I've used the term "anti-abortion" to describe Ms. Heaton. For me, in order to be considered "pro-life," you not only have to be against the killing of unborn children, you should also be against any artificial and unnatural acts that prevent the conception of children (i.e., artificial contraception).
In all truthfulness, I have no idea whether Patricia Heaton is for or against the use of contraceptive devices like condoms and IUDs. However, I have seen several episodes of "Everybody Loves Raymond" where the married characters that Ms. Heaton and Ray Romano play, Deborah and Ray Barone, affirmatively consider their use without even a cursory discussion of the Catholic Church's moral opposition to artificial contraception (the fictional Barone family is Catholic). Presuming that she would never agree to play a sympathetic character who condones abortion, an inference can probably be made that Ms. Heaton's personal belief toward artificial contraception is reflected by her willingness to play someone who doesn't think they are that big of a deal. Although it may seem a little picky or semantic, it is on this basis that I am hesitant to call Patricia Heaton, or any other similarly situated anti-abortion advocate, "pro-life."
World's First "Happy" Farm
If all the world were like this place, either eventually nobody would be left or it would be controlled by a select group of people makers.
If all the world were like this place, either eventually nobody would be left or it would be controlled by a select group of people makers.
You Might Be Catholic in Name Only if...
...you try to dismiss these clear statements from the Catholic hierarchy as a means to support Howard Dean, or any pro-abortion candidate, for President.
...you try to dismiss these clear statements from the Catholic hierarchy as a means to support Howard Dean, or any pro-abortion candidate, for President.
Wednesday, January 28, 2004
A Man For All Seasons?
This editorial on Bill Pryor and his role in the Judge Moore/Ten Commandments monument controversy in Alabama harkens to mind the following quote from St. Thomas More in the play/movie "A Man for All Seasons":
"This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast. Man's laws, not God's. And if you cut them down--and you're just the man to do it--do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?"
This editorial on Bill Pryor and his role in the Judge Moore/Ten Commandments monument controversy in Alabama harkens to mind the following quote from St. Thomas More in the play/movie "A Man for All Seasons":
"This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast. Man's laws, not God's. And if you cut them down--and you're just the man to do it--do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?"
Tuesday, January 27, 2004
Holy Bologne!
Dean welches on hefty lunch bill. No response yet from Catholics for Dean on whether this is consistent with Church teaching.
Dean welches on hefty lunch bill. No response yet from Catholics for Dean on whether this is consistent with Church teaching.
Would He Have Body Slammed the Guy if it Was Saddam?
Al Franken loves free speech so much that he's willing to physically assault a guy who is exercising said right. What a hypocritical moron.
Al Franken loves free speech so much that he's willing to physically assault a guy who is exercising said right. What a hypocritical moron.
Monday, January 26, 2004
Catholic Deaniac
Some yayhoo who seems to regard himself as a pro-life Catholic has constructed a website called Catholics for Dean. While a number of right thinking Catholic bloggers have already commented on its senselessness in regard to the issue of abortion, I would also add that there is no way that any serious Christian can legitimately support a man for President who thinks homosexual conduct is ok because he believes God made homosexuals. By that astounding logic, since God "made" heterosexuals, fornication, adultery, and polygamy must be ok.
Some yayhoo who seems to regard himself as a pro-life Catholic has constructed a website called Catholics for Dean. While a number of right thinking Catholic bloggers have already commented on its senselessness in regard to the issue of abortion, I would also add that there is no way that any serious Christian can legitimately support a man for President who thinks homosexual conduct is ok because he believes God made homosexuals. By that astounding logic, since God "made" heterosexuals, fornication, adultery, and polygamy must be ok.
Saturday, January 24, 2004
Credibility Problem
Would you trust someone's evaluation of Mel Gibson's movie if you knew that person had an agenda to be critical of it, and had to lie to people to get in and see it? Neither would I.
Would you trust someone's evaluation of Mel Gibson's movie if you knew that person had an agenda to be critical of it, and had to lie to people to get in and see it? Neither would I.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)