America Rejects What the Elites Are Offering! Why Don’t They Get It?
Published January 31, 2010 | 
By Brian Farrington
Congress’ New Secret Plan to Pass ObamaCare – The Nuclear Option
Published January 31, 2010 | ….The problem today is that the American people are dealing with an elite class of politicians in Washington that don’t care what the American people think about ObamaCare…..
Leaders in the House and Senate have a new secret plan to pass President Barack Obama’s sweeping health care plan using strong arm tactics and no transparency.
I wrote back in September that Congress had a plan to ram through ObamaCare by the end of the year, but the American people stopped that plan. Public outrage was amplified by Rush Limbaugh and others in the media who took up the cause to educate Americans about Congress’ plan to railroad the unpopular bill through Congress with little debate and no opportunity for dissent. Cooler heads prevailed and Congress stopped efforts to sneak the bill through Congress.On January 19, the proponents of ObamaCare suffered a big setback. When little-known State Senator Scott Brown scored a shocking upset in a special election for Senate in Massachusetts campaigning as an opponent to ObamaCare, moderates in the Senate and House put the brakes on ObamaCare. The left had to retool their strategy, because there was no will in the Senate to take up and pass ObamaCare again. The only way proponents of Obamacare can win now is if they change the way the game is played, and liberals seem to be prepared to change the traditional rules of the Senate by triggering a legislative Nuclear Option in an effort to pass Obamacare by the end of February.
This is a Nuclear Option, because the left is preparing a strategy to obliterate the filibuster rule – the rule that requires 60 votes to shut off debate on legislation, for the purposes of passing multiple pieces of legislation that add up to ObamaCare. They will either use reconciliation to pull an end around the filibuster rule or they may be bold enough to merely use a simple majority of Senators to exterminate the filibuster rule from the Senate rule book.
Sources on Capitol Hill tell me that liberals in the House and Senate are a handful of votes away from a scenario where they can get ObamaCare to the President’s desk by the end of February.
Here is the way it works. According to The Hill, “House Democrats are readying a series of smaller ‘sidebar’ healthcare provisions to introduce by mid-February even as they push for using reconciliation rules to move a broader healthcare package, according to leadership aides.” So the plan is to try to pass a few smaller issues and to prepare a so called “reconciliation measure” to make changes to the Senate passed ObamaCare bill awaiting action in the House.
The reconciliation plan would be done by “using budget reconciliation rules to pass parts of the healthcare package (and) would require only 51 votes in the Senate. But those rules can only be used to move provisions affecting the federal budget.” If they can pass smaller portions of ObamaCare with Republican support, then they jam a reconciliation measure through the Senate with only 51 votes containing ObamaCare tax provisions. Next the House would take up and pass the Senate passed 2,700 page ObamaCare monstrosity. If that happens, then the game is over and the will of the American people will be ignored again.
President Obama declared at the State of the Union, “here’s what I ask Congress, though: Don’t walk away from reform. Not now. Not when we are so close. Let us find a way to come together and finish the job for the American people. Let’s get it done. Let’s get it done.” This is a message from the President to Congressional liberals that he will support their efforts to ram through ObamaCare with all means at their disposal. The President showed his complete disconnect from the feelings of average Americans when he called for Congress to pass his health care proposal that has been rejected by the voters of liberal Massachusetts. Real Clear Politics has the President’s plan with the approval of an average of 37.4% and an opposition of 54.4% – that is an average poll deficit of 17% for ObamaCare, yet the President forges forward.
Liberals can use the Nuclear Option to pass at least some part of ObamaCare and it allows them to deal with the tax or revenue aspects of health care reform. Then they will pull the trigger and force the House to pass the 2,700 page ObamaCare bill which is one House floor vote away from a Presidential signing ceremony. This is a multi-bill strategy. The reason why House members may vote for the Senate ObamaCare bill is because they may have their concerns addressed with the small bills and reconciliation measures that will have passed before this historic vote. This scenario also provides cover for moderate Democrats in the Senate who can vote against the reconciliation measure and claim to constituents that they were, in the end, against ObamaCare.
This procedure is an indication that Congress understands that even the people of liberal Massachusetts hate ObamaCare, so they need to pass this bill as fast as possible and with little transparency to try to minimize the participation of the American people in this process. A rational politician would see the terrible polling numbers for ObamaCare and the results in Massachusetts as a sign that the bill should be scrapped. The problem today is that the American people are dealing with an elite class of politicians in Washington that don’t care what the American people think about ObamaCare.
These elites make fun of people who participate in Tea Parties. They have distain for those that show up at Town Halls to voice opposition to the bill. They denigrate protesters who come to Washington, D.C. to demonstrate against a government takeover of health care. They laugh at all the poll numbers that indicate they are going in the wrong direction. They are ignoring the voters and their own constituents to further the cause of President Obama’s vision of a de facto government run health care system.
This is one of those unique moments in history where a minority number of Members of Congress are protecting the will of a majority of the American people – the big question is who will win?
http://townhall.com/blog/g/6564154b-b81a-492b-86e5-118361b519d2
Susan B. Anthony List Fights To Keep Tebow’s Ad Rolling
Published January 31, 2010 |
| Posted by: Jillian Bandes, TownHall.com |
| The National Organization for Women is trying to compel CBS to drop the the Tim Tebow / Focus on the Family pro-life advertisement slated to roll on Super Bowl Sunday. NOW says the pro-life message is disrespectful towards woman, and shouldn’t be aired.
The Susan B. Anthony list is supporting Tebow and Focus on the Family with a campaign to condemn NOW’s attack, and keep the advertisement rolling. They’re accepting signatures at their new website, “ Block Hard for Tim Tebow,” and their video about Tebow’s and his journey shouldn’t be missed: |
Rove: Obama Faked Bipartisan Outreach for TV
Published January 31, 2010 | “Let’s be honest. That was ridiculous what the President said. Even today his own chief lieutant David Axelrod said the purpose of the president going to the Republican conference in Baltimore was to put the Republicans to the test. To make them ‘put up or shut up.’ That it was an attempt to sort of depict the Republicans as obstructionists for the November election.”
The Sunday Homily: DISCIPLESHIP AND CONFLICT
Published January 31, 2010 | 
Father James Farfaglia, Pastor, St. Helena of the True Cross of Jesus Catholic Church in Corpus Christi
TODAY’S GOSPEL
Published January 31, 2010 | 21. Then he began to say to them, “On this day, this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.”
22. And everyone gave testimony to him. And they wondered at the words of grace that proceeded from his mouth. And they said, “Is this not the son of Joseph?”
23. And he said to them: “Certainly, you will recite to me this saying, ‘Physician, heal yourself.’ The many great things that we have heard were done in Capernaum, do here also in your own country.”
24. Then he said: “Amen I say to you, that no prophet is accepted in his own country.
25. In truth, I say to you, there were many widows in the days of Elijah in Israel, when the heavens were closed for three years and six months, when a great famine had occurred throughout the entire land.
26. And to none of these was Elijah sent, except to Zarephath of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow.
27. And there were many lepers in Israel under the prophet Elisha. And none of these was cleansed, except Naaman the Syrian.”
28. And all those in the synagogue, upon hearing these things, were filled with anger.
29. And they rose up and drove him beyond the city. And they brought him all the way to the edge of the mount, upon which their city had been built, so that they might thrown him down violently.
30. But passing through their midst, he went away.
Atheist Group Urges Boycott of Mother Teresa Stamp
Published January 31, 2010 | ….Athiest Gaylor claimed that Dr. King “just happened to be a minister” and that “Malcolm X was not principally known for being a religious figure. And he’s not called Father Malcolm X like Mother Teresa. I mean, even her name is a Catholic honorific.”….
Catholic News Agency, Jan 29, 2010
- Following the U.S. Postal Service announcement that they are featuring the late Mother Teresa on an upcoming stamp, the atheist group Freedom from Religion has urged its supporters to boycott the stamp on the grounds that it violates postal regulations.
The stamp is scheduled for release on Aug. 26, which would have been Mother Teresa’s 100th birthday, and is intended to honor the Nobel Peace Prize recipient for her humanitarian work. A press release from the U.S. Postal Service issued last month praised Mother Teresa for her 50 years of service to “the sick and destitute of India and the world,” as well as her “humility and compassion” and “respect for the innate worth and dignity of humankind.”
However, Annie Gaylor, spokeswoman for Freedom from Religion, told Fox News on Thursday that the stamp goes against a postal stipulation that prevents the Postal Service from honoring “individuals whose principal achievements are associated with religious undertakings.”
“Mother Teresa is principally known as a religious figure who ran a religious institution,” Gaylor argued. “You can’t really separate her being a nun and being a Roman Catholic from everything she did.”
Postal Service spokesman Roy Betts responded to Gaylor by saying that there is a long history of individuals with religious backgrounds like Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. who have been honored on stamps. “This has nothing to do with faith,” he stated in a reply to Fox News.
Gaylor claimed, however, that Dr. King “just happened to be a minister” and that “Malcolm X was not principally known for being a religious figure.”
“And he’s not called Father Malcolm X like Mother Teresa,” Gaylor continued. “I mean, even her name is a Catholic honorific.”
Catholic League president Bill Donahue also reacted to Gaylor’s arguments on Thursday, issuing a statement which said that Gaylor “sounds like a white racist when she dresses down Rev. Martin Luther King.”
Responding to Gaylor’s claim that Martin Luther King, Jr. “just happened to be a minister,” Donahue said, “Really? We’d like to hear her explain that to African Americans at a Sunday service. Perhaps she can get the NAACP to recast King as a secular orator, and not as a black clergyman, during Black History Month, which starts on Monday.” Continue reading
ST. JOHN BOSCO
Published January 31, 2010 | 
John was born in 1815 in Recchi, Italy. When John was two, his father died prematurely. As a boy, John lived on a farm with his family doing the only thing they knew how, farming. Poverty and a lack of formal education in the home did not stop the growth of John Bosco as a person. His mother was for real, realizing the importance of God in life.
Getting a formal education was a constant struggle for John. The family finances being what they were, his brothers felt that he was wasting time, energy, and money and that it would be better for all if he stopped going to school and worked on the farm, earning money.
John was talented. He must have understood physical fitness for as a youngster he was known and respected as the town¹s acrobat and juggler. Many would assemble to witness his tricks. What was amazing is the fact that before any performance he would ask his audience to join him in prayer. God was his friend.
This friendship with God became powerful and slowly John prepared for the priesthood. In 1841 at the age of 26, John was ordained priest. He was now ready to make his contribution toward the poor and homeless.
While in Turin, the rejects of society appealed to him. His awareness of ³what could be² in them motivated him to commit his work and style of living to the building of people. His life is unbelievable as his burning love brought him to hospitals and prisons, to the troubled and the dying. His ministry forced him to beg for jobs for the boys he was helping, visited private homes, taught night classes, heard confessions, and celebrated the Eucharist. His life was deeply questioned by his confreres. He was deeply disturbing the establishment and efforts were made by the authorities to have him committed to a mental asylum. Somehow God took care of him as he attempted to help the people around him. His life was so full that his health began to fail.
John’s mother shared his dream and worked along with him. One of his boys, Dominic Savio, was also extraordinary and the Church declared him a saint.
John died at the age of 73 in 1888 ending a life spent for others. His work lives on in the Salesian order he founded.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/saint.php?n=133
Taking Back the People’s Seats from Monopoly Rule
Published January 30, 2010 | ….In Congress, representatives who are too confident of their re-election can become politically tone-deaf and complacent, even if they otherwise work hard on legislation. When times get tough, and voters look skeptically at all incumbents, those signs of arrogance loom large.”….
Fr. Roger J. Landry, The Anchor, Editorial, January 29, 2010
Scott Brown’s victory over Martha Coakley in the special election for U.S. Senate has not only massive national ramifications but perhaps even more pronounced statewide implications. January 19 was a bold declaration of independence by Massachusetts voters against a one-party system, both in Boston and in Washington, that has acted as if it prefers to ignore rather than heed their opinions and to presume rather than earn their electoral support.
Scott Brown’s victory — or perhaps more precisely, Martha Coakley’s defeat — was particularly welcomed by those Massachusetts citizens who support authentically Catholic values on marriage, abortion, conscience protection, and various other cultural and moral issues. In recent years, especially after the members of the Massachusetts legislature repeatedly thwarted their attempts to give voters a chance to overturn the Supreme Judicial Court’s redefinition of marriage, values voters have felt increasingly disenfranchised and politically depressed. A victory by Coakley — who as Attorney General sued the federal government to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act in order to open the way to same-sex “marriages” nationally, who used to do free legal work to help girls get abortions without parental knowledge and consent, and who far exceeded Senator Kennedy’s “personally opposed” support for abortion by making the most radical positions in favor of abortion a centerpiece of her campaign — would likely have been the equivalent, at least psychologically, of nailing shut their political coffin. For that reason, Brown’s election has been received by them as a sort of resurrection, filling them with hope that the attempts of the radical left to force their immorality on everyone else may not be as politically inevitable as members of the radical left wanted everyone else to believe.
The Boston Globe, in a refreshingly balanced and blunt January 24 editorial, said that Brown’s victory “told a broader story about Massachusetts politics and of voters’ hunger for options in a state that has often offered only one meaningful choice.” It welcomed the fact that his triumph “created the potential for improvement in the state’s political culture.” It “will almost surely be more competition for seats in the U.S. House as well as the Massachusetts House and Senate” and enable “forces of reform” within the Democratic party to “gain traction.”
A couple of days after Cardinal Sean O’Malley of Boston wrote on his blog, “It is refreshing that the people of Massachusetts have voted independent of their party affiliation… [and looked] at issues rather than just vote party-line,” the Globe basically concurred, giving strong reasons for why voting the party-line for so long has harmed the commonwealth. “Single-party dominance leads to stagnation,” the editorial continued, in words that can be applied not just to Beacon Hill but to a Capitol Hill, where the Democratic majority has cut Republicans totally out of health-care discussion and has awarded not just pork but whole pigsties to buy votes in Louisiana and Nebraska. “Supermajorities in state legislatures often breed political bosses and corruption. In Congress, representatives who are too confident of their re-election can become politically tone-deaf and complacent, even if they otherwise work hard on legislation. When times get tough, and voters look skeptically at all incumbents, those signs of arrogance loom large.”
Among the “signs of arrogance” the editorial writers specified was the “high-handed and foolish move” that Democratic leaders on Beacon Hill took to “upend the traditional system of filling a vacancy in the US Senate.” Beacon Hill bosses changed the rules in 2004 away from a principle fair to all to a system that would give the best chance of retaining Democratic influence on Capitol Hill. Then they changed the rules again in 2009 for the very same reasons. It was a classic political example of “might makes right,” and they could only get away with such corruption because their supermajority meant that no one could stop them. Another sign of the “arrogance of single-party rule” that the editorial describes is that the U.S. Attorney has indicted three straight Speakers of the House. “In a more competitive political environment,” they write, “such a run of corruption would be devastating to Democrats. But the vast, overfed majority on Beacon Hill paid no visible price. … The party chose DiMasi’s handpicked replacement and kept on moving as if nothing had happened.”
People do not like oligarchic rule, and especially resent corrupt oligarchic rule. That is basically the way, the editorial implies, Democratic leadership in the state has been behaving. These were among the factors, it concludes, in “last week’s disaster for the Democratic party.”
The Globe also suggested that Martha Coakley was a symbol and product of the arrogance of one-party rule. “Her career … was marked by single-party dominance. She followed a greased path from Middlesex County district attorney to state [Attorney General], with little competition along the way.” The lack of competition clearly hurt her in the election, the editorial continues. “Without electoral competition, even the best political skills begin to atrophy.” It leads to politicians’ spending “far more time crafting policies in back rooms than explaining them to constituents; even if the policies are sound, members can only benefit from having to confront their critics.”
That point leads to what was perhaps the biggest contrast in the Senatorial campaign. It wasn’t the stark policy differences over the present health care bill, the economy and jobs, Afghanistan and whether we should defeat or defend terrorists like the Christmas Day bomber. All of these policy divergences were important and clearly played some role in Brown’s victory. The biggest gap of all between the candidates, however, seemed to be how they approached the ordinary hard-working men and women of the commonwealth.
Scott Brown seemed to be on a series of job interviews across the state, treating people as his future bosses and asking them for their vote. He seemed to enjoy meeting them and comported himself as if he aspired to be their servant and their voice in Washington. His driving his GMC truck, in great condition after over 200,000 miles, became a powerful symbol that seemed to reinforce that he was anything but elitist and had no aspiration to be chauffeured in a town-car or Cadillac Escalade.
In contrast, Martha Coakley, after an aggressive campaign in the Democratic primary in which she and the other candidates jockeyed to satisfy the demands of those on the far-left fringe, gave the impression of retreating from direct contact with all but her supporters. When asked by a reporter in a generally sympathetic piece about why she was choosing to hold most of her campaign events with officially sympathetic union members, she responded by asking, sarcastically and condescendingly, whether she should rather be shaking hands with Bruins’ fans in the cold outside Fenway Park at the January 1 Winter Classic. That is hardly the way someone seeking to serve such people is expected to behave. Such a comment appeared to portray that she thought that she was above such fans, above shaking their hands, above the cold, and above appealing for and earning votes one at a time. This is the personification of what the Globe means by arrogant and out-of-touch.
It got worse. Many snickered, of course, when Martha Coakley demonstrated that she didn’t even know that Curt Schilling was one of the greatest Red Sox heroes of all time, and certainly not a Yankees fan. Perhaps the greatest demonstration, however, of how out of touch she was with people at large was seen in the way she made radical support for abortion a centerpiece of her campaign. She attacked Scott Brown not because he was pro-life — unfortunately he isn’t, although he does support a few restrictions — but because, while supporting the distribution of the morning after pill to rape victims in emergency rooms, he authored an amendment at the State House exempting medical personnel and institutions who opposed abortion from being forced to administer these potentially abortifacient pills. Coakley attacked Brown for even wanting to protect the jobs of those who in conscience could not administer such pills.
After she raised the subject on Ken Pittman’s WBSM radio program in New Bedford, Pittman asked her whether Catholics and others who might oppose abortion still have religious freedom in emergency rooms. The Attorney General replied that they do, but then declared that they “probably shouldn’t work in the emergency room.” She said this in a state where nearly half the residents are baptized Catholics, many of the hospitals were founded by the Catholic Church, and a high percentage of the medical personnel is Catholic. Coakley somehow was convinced that trampling on the consciences of health care workers would be a winning issue in this state — perhaps because she seemed to consult and value the opinions of her radical pro-abortion donors on Emily’s list more than than those typical nurses and pharmacists who populate our state and who would be going to the polls on January 19.
Brown made a lot out of his debate one-liner that he was campaigning for “the people’s seat.” Last Tuesday, the people of the Commonwealth demonstrated that they consider such a seat theirs to give and put other politicians, locally and nationally, on notice: unless they regard the people’s seats they presently occupy with humility rather than as an entitlement, unless they begin to listen to the voice of the people and serve their legitimate interests, the people will rise up to fire them, take the seats back, and offer them to those who will.
The Boston Globe, in a refreshingly balanced and blunt January 24 editorial, said that Brown’s victory “told a broader story about Massachusetts politics and of voters’ hunger for options in a state that has often offered only one meaningful choice.” It welcomed the fact that his triumph “created the potential for improvement in the state’s political culture.” It “will almost surely be more competition for seats in the U.S. House as well as the Massachusetts House and Senate” and enable “forces of reform” within the Democratic party to “gain traction.”
Among the “signs of arrogance” the editorial writers specified was the “high-handed and foolish move” that Democratic leaders on Beacon Hill took to “upend the traditional system of filling a vacancy in the US Senate.” Beacon Hill bosses changed the rules in 2004 away from a principle fair to all to a system that would give the best chance of retaining Democratic influence on Capitol Hill. Then they changed the rules again in 2009 for the very same reasons. It was a classic political example of “might makes right,” and they could only get away with such corruption because their supermajority meant that no one could stop them. Another sign of the “arrogance of single-party rule” that the editorial describes is that the U.S. Attorney has indicted three straight Speakers of the House. “In a more competitive political environment,” they write, “such a run of corruption would be devastating to Democrats. But the vast, overfed majority on Beacon Hill paid no visible price. … The party chose DiMasi’s handpicked replacement and kept on moving as if nothing had happened.”
Scott Brown seemed to be on a series of job interviews across the state, treating people as his future bosses and asking them for their vote. He seemed to enjoy meeting them and comported himself as if he aspired to be their servant and their voice in Washington. His driving his GMC truck, in great condition after over 200,000 miles, became a powerful symbol that seemed to reinforce that he was anything but elitist and had no aspiration to be chauffeured in a town-car or Cadillac Escalade.
In contrast, Martha Coakley, after an aggressive campaign in the Democratic primary in which she and the other candidates jockeyed to satisfy the demands of those on the far-left fringe, gave the impression of retreating from direct contact with all but her supporters. When asked by a reporter in a generally sympathetic piece about why she was choosing to hold most of her campaign events with officially sympathetic union members, she responded by asking, sarcastically and condescendingly, whether she should rather be shaking hands with Bruins’ fans in the cold outside Fenway Park at the January 1 Winter Classic. That is hardly the way someone seeking to serve such people is expected to behave. Such a comment appeared to portray that she thought that she was above such fans, above shaking their hands, above the cold, and above appealing for and earning votes one at a time. This is the personification of what the Globe means by arrogant and out-of-touch.
It got worse. Many snickered, of course, when Martha Coakley demonstrated that she didn’t even know that Curt Schilling was one of the greatest Red Sox heroes of all time, and certainly not a Yankees fan. Perhaps the greatest demonstration, however, of how out of touch she was with people at large was seen in the way she made radical support for abortion a centerpiece of her campaign. She attacked Scott Brown not because he was pro-life — unfortunately he isn’t, although he does support a few restrictions — but because, while supporting the distribution of the morning after pill to rape victims in emergency rooms, he authored an amendment at the State House exempting medical personnel and institutions who opposed abortion from being forced to administer these potentially abortifacient pills. Coakley attacked Brown for even wanting to protect the jobs of those who in conscience could not administer such pills.
http://www.catholicpreaching.com/index.php?content=articles&articles=20100129anchor
By Dave Granlund / GateHouse News Service
BREITBART: THE PREZ DOES Q & A WITH REPUBLICANS
Published January 30, 2010 | 
‘Overwhelmingly’: Obama Claims Most of Health Care Debate WAS on C-SPAN
“The truth of the matter is that, if you look at the health care process, just over the course of the year, overwhelmingly the majority of it actually was on C-SPAN because it was taking place in Congressional hearings in which you guys were participating. How many committees were that that helped to shape this bill? Countless hearings took place.”
Obama: ‘I Am Not an Ideologue’
“Why would I resist that?”
Obama Defends Earmarks in Omnibus Spending Bill
“We didn’t have earmarks in the Recovery Act. We didn’t get a lot of credit for it, but there were no earmarks in that. I was confronted at the beginning of my term with an Omnibus package that did have a lot earmarks from republicans and democrats — and a lot of people in this chamber. And the question was was I going to have a big budget fight at a time when I was still trying to figure out whether or not the financial decision was melting down and we had to make a whole bunch of emegency decisions about the economy. So what I was was, ‘Let’s keep them to a minimum.’ But I couldn’t excise them all.”
Obama: We’ve Been ‘Very Consistent’ in Limiting Influence of Lobbyists
“There has not been an administration that was tougher on making sure that lobbyists weren’t participating in the administration than any administration that has come before us.”
Justice Roberts Hints He Could Overturn Roe
Published January 30, 2010 | ….“When considering whether to re-examine a prior erroneous holding, we must balance the importance of having constitutional questions decided against the importance of having them decided right.” The chief justice declared: “stare decisis is not an end in itself.”….
By: Theodore Kettle, NewsMax, Jan. 24, 2010
Chief Justice John Roberts last week made it clear that the Supreme Court over which he presides will not hesitate to sweep away its own major constitutional rulings when doing so is necessary to defend America’s bedrock governing document.
The announcement of that guiding core principle means two very big things. First, Roberts and his fellow strict constructionists on the court are now armed and ready with a powerful rationale for overturning the 1973 Roe v. Wade abortion ruling if Justice Anthony Kennedy or a future justice becomes the fifth vote against Roe.
Secondly, successfully placing Roberts atop the high court is beginning to look like former President George W. Bush’s most important legacy – a gift that will keep on giving for conservatives for decades.
In last Thursday’s 5-to-4 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling dismantling the McCain-Feingold campaign law, Roberts joined with fellow Bush appointee Justice Samuel Alito to issue a separate concurrence “to address the important principles of judicial restraint and stare decisis implicated in this case.”
While Roberts conceded that “departures from precedent are inappropriate in the absence of a ‘special justification,’” he quickly added that “At the same time, stare decisis is neither an ‘inexorable command’… nor ‘a mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision’ … especially in constitutional cases,” noting that “If it were, segregation would be legal, minimum wage laws would be unconstitutional, and the Government could wiretap ordinary criminal suspects without first obtaining warrants.”
Instead, under the “stare decisis” judicial doctrine of respecting past rulings, “When considering whether to re-examine a prior erroneous holding, we must balance the importance of having constitutional questions decided against the importance of having them decided right.” The chief justice declared: “stare decisis is not an end in itself.”
The court’s most senior liberal, Justice John Paul Stevens, even found himself haunted by his own words on the subject of when precedent can be discarded, courtesy of Roberts. In a 1995 dissent, Stevens had argued that returning to the “‘intrinsically sounder’ doctrine established in prior cases” can “better serv[e] the values of stare decisis than would following” some “more recently decided case inconsistent with the decisions that came before it.”
Moreover, when Roberts mentions a need to “curtail the precedent’s disruptive effects” and imagines instances in which a “precedent’s validity is so hotly contested that it cannot reliably function as a basis for decision in future cases,” the “hotly contested” Roe decision, which 37 years ago disrupted the abortion laws of all 50 states, cannot help but come to mind.
He also said a precedent could be targeted for destruction if its “rationale threatens to upend our settled jurisprudence in related areas of law, and when the precedent’s underlying reasoning has become so discredited that the Court cannot keep the precedent alive without jury-rigging new and different justifications to shore up the original mistake.” That uncannily describes Justice Antonin Scalia’s long-held objections to Roe v. Wade, and the unusual joint opinion that shored it up in 1992 in the Casey decision.
What more ambitious undertaking for a chief justice could there be than to define the constraints of stare decisis? Yet clearly it was exactly that kind of leadership Bush was looking for when he chose Roberts.
As White House aide Dan Bartlett told the press the day Bush nominated him for the court in July, 2005, Roberts had “set himself apart in an elite group when it comes to his qualifications.”
Bartlett noted that “this is somebody who graduated with honors, both undergrad and Harvard Law.” But the Bush adviser also pointed to the fact that the former president “likes to size people up himself, make his own judgment” and “make sure the person matched the resume … but also had those innate qualities you’re looking for – the character and temperament and judgment, and, frankly, leadership qualities that you want in the highest court in the land.” Bush had done that during a long visit with Roberts in the White House residence.
Roberts “was class president,” Bartlett pointed out. “He was team captain of the football team, somebody who just exhibited leadership qualities right out of the gate; went to Harvard and really set himself apart there as well, as I said, graduating with honors, as well as being part of the paper there, and doing a lot of things that distinguished himself.”
While Roberts conceded that “departures from precedent are inappropriate in the absence of a ‘special justification,’” he quickly added that “At the same time, stare decisis is neither an ‘inexorable command’… nor ‘a mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision’ … especially in constitutional cases,” noting that “If it were, segregation would be legal, minimum wage laws would be unconstitutional, and the Government could wiretap ordinary criminal suspects without first obtaining warrants.”
Instead, under the “stare decisis” judicial doctrine of respecting past rulings, “When considering whether to re-examine a prior erroneous holding, we must balance the importance of having constitutional questions decided against the importance of having them decided right.” The chief justice declared: “stare decisis is not an end in itself.”
The court’s most senior liberal, Justice John Paul Stevens, even found himself haunted by his own words on the subject of when precedent can be discarded, courtesy of Roberts. In a 1995 dissent, Stevens had argued that returning to the “‘intrinsically sounder’ doctrine established in prior cases” can “better serv[e] the values of stare decisis than would following” some “more recently decided case inconsistent with the decisions that came before it.”
Moreover, when Roberts mentions a need to “curtail the precedent’s disruptive effects” and imagines instances in which a “precedent’s validity is so hotly contested that it cannot reliably function as a basis for decision in future cases,” the “hotly contested” Roe decision, which 37 years ago disrupted the abortion laws of all 50 states, cannot help but come to mind.
He also said a precedent could be targeted for destruction if its “rationale threatens to upend our settled jurisprudence in related areas of law, and when the precedent’s underlying reasoning has become so discredited that the Court cannot keep the precedent alive without jury-rigging new and different justifications to shore up the original mistake.” That uncannily describes Justice Antonin Scalia’s long-held objections to Roe v. Wade, and the unusual joint opinion that shored it up in 1992 in the Casey decision.
What more ambitious undertaking for a chief justice could there be than to define the constraints of stare decisis? Yet clearly it was exactly that kind of leadership Bush was looking for when he chose Roberts.
As White House aide Dan Bartlett told the press the day Bush nominated him for the court in July, 2005, Roberts had “set himself apart in an elite group when it comes to his qualifications.”
Bartlett noted that “this is somebody who graduated with honors, both undergrad and Harvard Law.” But the Bush adviser also pointed to the fact that the former president “likes to size people up himself, make his own judgment” and “make sure the person matched the resume … but also had those innate qualities you’re looking for – the character and temperament and judgment, and, frankly, leadership qualities that you want in the highest court in the land.” Bush had done that during a long visit with Roberts in the White House residence.
Roberts “was class president,” Bartlett pointed out. “He was team captain of the football team, somebody who just exhibited leadership qualities right out of the gate; went to Harvard and really set himself apart there as well, as I said, graduating with honors, as well as being part of the paper there, and doing a lot of things that distinguished himself.”
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/johnroberts-supremecourt-abortion-roev-wade/2010/01/24/id/347808
Scott Roeder Found Guilty of Tiller Murder
Published January 30, 2010 | By Kathleen Gilbert, LifeSiteNews.com, January 29, 2010
WICHITA, Kansas – A Wichita jury found 51-year-old Scott Roeder guilty of first-degree murder Friday for his admitted shooting of late-term abortionist George Tiller last May.
Roeder confessed to shooting the abortionist at point-blank range in the Reformation Lutheran Church, where Tiller, 67, was a parishioner. Tiller was renowned for his burgeoning late-term abortion business, one of few in the United States, where he boasted of having killed 60,000 children in the womb.
Although Roeder’s attorneys had requested consideration of a lighter sentencing for Roeder, at the end of testimony on Thursday, Sedgwick County Judge Warren Wilbert ruled that only premeditated, first-degree murder could be considered as a charge. Roeder, who says he had stalked Tiller since 1999, now faces life in prison.
Immediately following news of the murder, pro-life organizations, both local around the world, issued strong condemnations of the deed that took Tiller’s life. Continue reading
Catholic News Roundup 01-29
Published January 30, 2010 | CNN distorts pro-life March;
Dems back at Obamcare;
NOW says Fetus isn’t a life;
Edwards sought abortion for mistress
Never Underestimate the Power of a BIG LIE! If It’s Not a LIFE What is It?
Published January 30, 2010 |
THE GREAT IRONY! CBS News Legal Analyst Slams Feminist Critics of Tebow Super Bowl Ad
Published January 30, 2010 | ….CBS News legal analyst Jan Crawford has written an article on the CBS News blog criticizing the pro-abortion campaign, saying, “According to the women’s rights groups, Pam Tebow shouldn’t be able to talk about her choice.” Crawford adds: “They won’t even allow the discussion. And that shows just how much the issue of abortion has been taken out of public discourse. Because of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade, you can’t even talk about it. That point of view is not allowed to exist.”….
By John-Henry Westen, LifeSiteNews.com, January 29, 2010
(Petition to Support CBS’s Decision to Air the Tim Tebow Super Bowl Ad)
WASHINGTON, DC – The campaign being waged by pro-abortion feminist groups against the pro-life Super Bowl ad starring college football star Tim Tebow appears to be backfiring.
In recent days former VP candidate Sarah Palin and a CBS official both have warned of the negative image the feminist groups are casting for themselves by opposing the ad. At the same time, the pro-abortion campaign has galvanized pro-life groups into mounting a firm response, through petitions, Facebook groups, and other mediums, which have gained widespread and growing support.
CBS News legal analyst Jan Crawford has written an article on the CBS News blog criticizing the pro-abortion campaign, saying, “According to the women’s rights groups, Pam Tebow shouldn’t be able to talk about her choice.” Crawford adds: “They won’t even allow the discussion. And that shows just how much the issue of abortion has been taken out of public discourse. Because of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade, you can’t even talk about it. That point of view is not allowed to exist.”
Crawford concluded: “Here’s the great irony of all this: Whether or not the ‘Celebrate Life’ ad ever sees the light of day, the women’s groups that made it an issue have played right into Focus on the Family’s focus. They’ve gotten the abortion debate out in the public.”
Sarah Palin made her comments on the controversy on her Facebook page this week. Her post was titled, “Women’s Rights Groups: Your Double Standard is Showing.”
Palin said: “My message to these groups who are inexplicably offended by a pro-woman, pro-child, pro-life message airing during the Super Bowl: please concentrate on empowering women, help with efforts to prevent unexpected pregnancies, stay consistent with your message that for too long women have been made to feel like sex objects in our ‘modern’ culture and that we can expect better in 2010.”
Sarah Palin also had a message for CBS: “just do the right thing. Don’t cave. Have the backbone to run the ad.”
But the pro-abortion National Organization for Women (NOW) and company are continuing to pursue the matter full-steam ahead, with headline-grabbing feminist lawyer Gloria Allred now trying to bring down the ad with the threat of legal action and claims that the Tebows’ story is untrue.
In a letter to Les Moonves of CBS, available at RadarOnline.com, Allred says she wants the ad pulled because it is allegedly guilty of “misleading advertising.”
Allred, who has not seen the ad, charges that when Tebow’s mother was being advised by doctors in the Philippines to consider an abortion, it was illegal there to have one. Allred says that the ad should disclose this information, otherwise it is “misleading.” She implies that Tebow’s mother has in fact falsified the story of her son’s birth, referring to the story as the “purported story.”
“If this ad airs and fails to disclose that abortions were illegal at the time that Ms. Tebow made her ‘choice’, then I intend to file a formal complaint of misleading advertising with those federal commissions,” Allred concludes.
Bill Donohue of the Catholic League has responded to Allred’s accusations, however, saying that “What is really misleading is Allred’s duplicity.” Donohue points out that while representing Amber Frey in a case related to the death of Laci Peterson, Allred emphasized that in the case of Peterson’s murder there were two victims – her and her unborn child. “And the fact that there are two individuals who are dead there, Laci and Connor, that has to be the most important consideration of everything,” said Allred at the time.
“For once, she was right,” quips Donohue.
“Allred’s confession in 2003 undercuts her credibility — to say nothing of her ethical standing — to make the case against this Super Bowl ad,” Donohuge concluded. “She knows that Tim Tebow is alive today because his mother did not abort him.”
(To sign the petition supporting CBS’s decision to air the Tebow ad, click here)
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jan/10012910.html
Krauthammer: Obama’s Only Talk of Terrorism in SOTU Was to Pretend Criticism Attacks His Patriotism
Published January 30, 2010 |
TODAY’A GOSPEL
Published January 30, 2010 | 35. And on that day, when evening had arrived, he said to them, “Let us cross over.”
36. And dismissing the crowd, they brought him, so that he was in one boat, and other boats were with him.
37. And a great wind storm occurred, and the waves broke over the boat, so that the boat was being filled.
38. And he was in the stern of the boat, sleeping on a pillow. And they woke him and said to him, “Teacher, does it not concern you that we are perishing?”
39. And rising up, he rebuked the wind, and he said to the sea: “Silence. Be stilled.” And the wind ceased. And a great tranquility occurred.
40. And he said to them: “Why are you afraid? Do you still lack faith?” And they were struck with a great fear.
41. And they said to one another, “Who do you think this is, that both wind and sea obey him?”
ST. HYACINTHA OF MARISCOTTI
Published January 30, 2010 | 
Born of a noble family near Viterbo (Italy,) she entered a local convent of sisters who followed the Third Order Rule. However, she supplied herself with enough food, clothing and other goods to live a very comfortable life amid these sisters pledged to mortification.
A serious illness required that Hyacintha’s confessor bring Holy Communion to her room. Scandalized on seeing how soft a life she had provided for herself, the confessor advised her to live more humbly. Hyacintha disposed of her fine clothes and special foods. She eventually became very penitential in food and clothing; she was ready to do the most humble work in the convent. She developed a special devotion to the sufferings of Christ and by her penances became an inspiration to the sisters in her convent. She was canonized in 1807.
TIME TO THROW THE BUMS OUT?
Published January 29, 2010 |
LifeSiteNews.com–Petition Launched: Support CBS’s Decision to Air Tim Tebow Super Bowl Ad
Published January 29, 2010 | ….In a recent press release Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life commented on the war over the ad. “Why should it bother people who call themselves pro-choice if women watch Pam Tebow and her son Tim on Super Bowl Sunday and freely decide to choose life? Would fewer abortions be a bad thing?”…. Note: Click here to sign the petition to support CBS and its decision to air the Tim Tebow Super Bowl ad. To join the Facebook page to Support the Tim Tebow Ad, click here.
LifeSiteNews.com, January 28, 2010 - Pro-life forces are responding swiftly to the fierce pro-abortion campaign that is being waged against Focus on the Family’s pro-life ad featuring football superstar Tim Tebow, which is set to air on CBS during the Super Bowl on Feb. 7.
In the past few days, pro-abortion groups have generated over 120,000 letters to CBS, NFL, and Super Bowl advertising executives, asking that they scrap the ad, which has yet to be unveiled. Other pro-abortion organizations have generated thousands more.
In response, a petition was launched today by LSN, whereby pro-lifers can express support to CBS for its decision to air the ad, and exhort the network not to cave to pressure to drop the ad. The names of those who sign the petition will be forwarded on to CBS executives. (To sign the petition, click here)
At the same time, another pro-life group, the Susan B. Anthony List, has launched an effort aimed at supporting the Tebow family during the controversy. Via the ‘Block Hard for Tim Tebow’ website, pro-lifers can send messages of encouragement to Tim and his family to let them know that the pro-life movement is standing behind them.
The Focus on the Family ad is expected to feature the story of how Tebow’s mother refused to abort him despite being advised to do so by physicians for health reasons. Pam Tebow eventually gave birth to a perfectly healthy baby, who has gone on to become one of the most-recognized sports stars in America.
Despite its hopeful message, the ad has infuriated pro-abortion forces, who argue that it is tantamount to revoking women’s “right to choose.” On Wednesday, a number of pro-abortion groups launched an all-out campaign to pressure CBS into cancelling the ad.
“CBS needs to hear the voices of those who support life and family as well,” said LSN editor, John-Henry Westen. “Therefore LSN is launching this petition addressed to CBS, asking them not to cave in to pressure to pull the Focus on the Family ad.”
In a recent press release Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life commented on the war over the ad. “Why should it bother people who call themselves pro-choice if women watch Pam Tebow and her son Tim on Super Bowl Sunday and freely decide to choose life? Would fewer abortions be a bad thing?” he asked.
“As for the argument that the ad should not be shown because it is divisive, since when do we broadcast only things on which the American people all agree? In that case, the Super Bowl itself could not be broadcast.”
Westen added, “The pro-life leadership is already stepping forward to support the ad. Now it’s up to the pro-life rank and file to defend the Tebows and the right for their story to be told, whether or not pro-aborts would rather that they were silenced.”
Click here to sign the “Petition to CBS in Support of their Decision to Air the Tim Tebow Super Bowl Ad”
SOTU ADDRESS: It’s What He DIDN’T Say
Published January 29, 2010 | “The words Obama failed to utter in his SOTU”
January 29, 2010
Obama’s 70-minute State of the Union speech was packed with the high flying oratory for which he and his TelePrompTer are so justly famous. Soaring phrases to spin supposed accomplishments, energize a disappointed base, and galvanize the citizenry into a mood of future hope for “changes” that aren’t really wanted and never will happen anyway.
The how and why of all that I leave to other analyses, but striking among the president’s remarks were the things he did not say — or even touch on more than in a passing nod. Things that represent prominent problems on the international stage, and include some of the most important threats to the safety and future of our country, one of our closest allies, and an entire region, if not the whole Western World.
In more than an hour’s worth of carefully chosen words, among the ones Obama chose not to utter, not even a single time, were terrorist, Israel, the Middle East, al-Qaeda, jihad, Islamism, Palestinians, Gaza, mullah, Iran, or any other word or phrase that would give an inkling of the tremendous threats we face from the fanatics of Islam who would kill and destroy our cities and out people.
Not one of those words worth a mention, just a small nod in passing with a promise to keep a watch our for bioterrorism and, perhaps, next year’s flu strain:
Not one of those words worth a mention, just a small nod in passing with a promise to keep a watch our for bioterrorism and, perhaps, next year’s flu strain:
And we are launching a new initiative that will give us the capacity to respond faster and more effectively to bioterrorism or an infectious disease — a plan that will counter threats at home and strengthen public health abroad.
And we are launching a new initiative that will give us the capacity to respond faster and more effectively to bioterrorism or an infectious disease — a plan that will counter threats at home and strengthen public health abroad.
Not one word about the kind of terrorism that has already done devastating damage here and in places around the world such as London, Madrid, Bali, Israel, and elsewhere.
Indeed, President Obama devoted far more of his time and wordage to berating Republicans for their refusal to conspire with his administration to pass unpopular and unwanted legislation than in even a whisper of the challenges of confronting an existential enemy.
He did, however, make sure to throw a sop to the friends in the world of his childhood:
We are working with Muslim communities around the world to promote science, education and innovation.
What does this teach us about Mr. Obama’s real concerns, and the cavalier disregard he has for the threat of Khalid Sheikh Mohammeds and their ilk who would destroy our civilization utterly if they could?
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/01/the_words_obama_failed_to_utte.html
Soft on Terror
Published January 29, 2010 | After 50 minutes of questioning him, the Obama administration chose, reflexively and mindlessly, to give the chatty terrorist the right to remain silent. Which he immediately did, undoubtedly denying us crucial information about al-Qaeda in Yemen, which had trained, armed and dispatched him.
We have since learned that the decision to Mirandize Abdulmutallab had been made without the knowledge of or consultation with (1) the secretary of defense, (2) the secretary of homeland security, (3) the director of the FBI, (4) the director of the National Counterterrorism Center or (5) the director of national intelligence (DNI).
The Justice Department acted not just unilaterally but unaccountably. Obama’s own DNI said that Abdulmutallab should have been interrogated by the HIG, the administration’s new High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group.
Perhaps you hadn’t heard the term. Well, in the very first week of his presidency, Obama abolished by executive order the Bush-Cheney interrogation procedures and pledged to study a substitute mechanism. In August, the administration announced the establishment of the HIG, housed in the FBI but overseen by the National Security Council.
Where was it during the Abdulmutallab case? Not available, admitted National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair, because it had only been conceived for use abroad. Had not one person in this vast administration of highly nuanced sophisticates considered the possibility of a terror attack on American soil?
It gets worse. Blair later had to explain that the HIG was not deployed because it does not yet exist. After a year! I suppose this administration was so busy deploying scores of the country’s best lawyerly minds on finding the most rapid way to release Gitmo miscreants that it could not be bothered to establish a single operational HIG team to interrogate at-large miscreants with actionable intelligence that might save American lives.
Travesties of this magnitude are not lost on the American people. One of the reasons Scott Brown won in Massachusetts was his focus on the Mirandizing of Abdulmutallab.
Of course, this case is just a reflection of a larger problem: an administration that insists on treating Islamist terrorism as a law-enforcement issue. Which is why the Justice Department’s other egregious terror decision, granting Khalid Sheik Mohammed a civilian trial in New York, is now the subject of a letter from six senators — three Republicans, two Democrats and Joe Lieberman — asking Attorney General Eric Holder to reverse the decision.
Lieberman and Sen. Susan Collins had written an earlier letter asking for Abdulmutallab to be turned over to the military for renewed interrogation. The problem is, it’s hard to see how that decision gets reversed. Once you’ve read a man Miranda rights, what do you say? We are idiots? On second thought …
Hence the agitation over the KSM trial. This one can be reversed, and it’s a good surrogate for this administration’s insistence upon criminalizing — and therefore trivializing — a war on terror that has now struck three times in one year within the United States, twice with effect (the Arkansas killer and the Fort Hood shooter) and once with a shockingly near miss (Abdulmutallab).
On the KSM civilian trial, sentiment is widespread that it is quite insane to spend $200 million a year to give the killer of 3,000 innocents the largest propaganda platform on earth, while at the same time granting civilian rights of cross-examination and discovery that risk betraying U.S. intelligence sources and methods.
Accordingly, Sen. Lindsey Graham and Rep. Frank Wolf have gone beyond appeals to the administration and are planning to introduce a bill to block funding for the trial. It’s an important measure. It makes flesh an otherwise abstract issue — should terrorists be treated as enemy combatants or criminal defendants? The vote will force members of Congress to declare themselves. There will be no hiding from the question.
Congress may not be able to roll back the Abdulmutallab travesty. But there will be future Abdulmutallabs. By cutting off funding for the KSM trial, Congress can send Obama a clear message: The Constitution is neither a safety net for illegal enemy combatants nor a suicide pact for us.
| Mr. Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist. |
‘Catholic Charities’: How Humane Is It Really? Will They Start Giving Out Condoms to Prevent STD’s?
Published January 29, 2010 |
By PAUL GRONDAHL, Staff writer, Times Union, January 29, 2010
ALBANY– After 20 years of alleviating suffering for people touched by AIDS, Catholic Charities will take one of its boldest steps yet on Monday: passing out free syringes to IV drug users in two urban neighborhoods to prevent the spread of the disease.
Anticipating criticism, the social services agency of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany spent five years planning and vetting the needle exchange program, which received approval from its trustees and board chairman, Bishop Howard J. Hubbard.
“I understand there will be questions, but this is common sense,” said Sister Maureen Joyce, CEO of Catholic Charities. “I strongly believe in this. It will save lives.”
Organizers have met with neighborhood associations, drug users, police, prosecutors and AIDS activists. The program, called Project Safe Point, is supported by Albany County District Attorney David Soares, the AIDS Council of Northeastern New York and local public health officials. Continue reading
Barney Fife and the Preamble to the Constitution
Published January 29, 2010 | Classic Comedy bit where Don Knotts as Barney Fife demonstrates his masterful memorization of the Preamble the US Constitution
Did Obama Confuse the Constitution With the Declaration of Independence?
Published January 29, 2010 | “We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal…”
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
HEY, PRO-’CHOICERS’ . . . . What’s Wrong With Celebrating Life?
Bob Weir is a former detective sergeant in the New York City Police Department. He is the executive editor of The News Connection in Highland Village, Texas. E-mail Bob.
Every life is worth saving