Sunday, May 31, 2009
That is because many white liberals derive power and personal satisfaction by targeting conservative minorities and woman. They do not "know their roles" in these racist and bigoted eyes. They also carry around a self inflicted guilt of seeing their "whiteness" as a sin.
May 17, 2005, 8:12 a.m.The Dems’ Post-Nuclear NightmareThe problem of Janice Rogers Brown. By Peter Kirsanow
To Democrats, Janice Rogers Brown is the scariest nominee to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in the history of the republic. Since her nomination nearly two years ago, she has been the subject of the most vitriolic and persistent attacks ever leveled against a nominee to the federal bench other than Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas.
The black sharecropper's daughter, born in segregated Alabama, has been excoriated as a closet member of the Ku Klux Klan who, at least according to the Senate minority leader, would like nothing better than to return America to "Civil War days." Left-leaning political cartoonists depict her as an Aunt Jemima on steroids, complete with exaggerated physical features typically found only in the racist literature distributed by hate groups. She's been called insensitive to the rights of minorities, the plight of the poor, and the difficulties of the disabled. Her opponents warn that she is "the far right's dream judge" and that "(s)he embodies Clarence Thomas's ideological extremism and Antonin Scalia's abrasiveness and right-wing activism." And her opponents are plentiful, a who's who of Left-wing advocacy groups: Planned Parenthood, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, NAACP, NOW, People for the American Way, National Abortion Federation, Feminist Majority, and the American Association of University Women, just to name a few.
SCOTUS on the MindWhat's driving the hysteria? Three things: demographics, abortion (more specifically, the doctrinal approach that produced Roe v. Wade), and impending Supreme Court vacancies.
As Professor Steven Calabresi of Northwestern University Law School has noted, Democrats are determined "not to allow any-more conservative African-Americans, Hispanics, women or Catholics to be groomed for nomination to the High Court with court of appeals appointments." And John Leo observes that abortion politics also is driving the opposition to filibustered nominees like Justice Brown.
As I noted in an earlier piece, pro-life minority nominees represent the perfect storm for Left-leaning opposition groups: non-conformist role models from the Left's most reliable voting blocs who may one day be in a position to reconsider Roe v. Wade. In that regard, Janice Rogers Brown could well be the Storm of the Century: A black female who has been nominated to the court viewed as a springboard to the Supreme Court and who may not view Roe as the zenith of constitutional jurisprudence.
Thomas Sowell adds the kicker: "What really scares the left about Janice Rogers Brown is that she has guts as well as brains. They haven't been able to get her to weaken or to waver. Character assassination is all that the left has left."
Indeed, Justice Brown's intelligence and steadiness are plainly apparent throughout the scores of California-supreme-court opinions she's written over the years. Their lucidity and precision reveal a person unlikely to go searching for penumbras and emanations; someone disciplined in interpreting the nation's laws without resort to European precedent or, as Justice Thomas puts it, "the faddish slogans of the cognoscenti." Put simply, Janice Rogers Brown's copy of the Constitution doesn't have a respiratory system.
Some of Brown's detractors dress up their opposition in legal garb. They contend that she "disregards legal precedent" but fail to cite a single case in which she's overturned existing law. They also allege that she lacks the qualifications to be a judge, ignoring ten stellar years on the California supreme court.
The biggest howler, however, is the claim that Brown "disregards the will of the people as expressed through their legislators." This, despite the fact that she dissented when the California supreme court struck down the will of the people (as expressed through their legislators) requiring parental notification in the case of a minor's abortion. Moreover, Brown wrote the main opinion upholding Prop. 209 — the referendum outlawing racial preferences that was overwhelmingly supported by the people but rabidly opposed by many of the same groups now opposing Brown's nomination. California voters duly punished Brown for disregarding their will by returning her to the supreme court with 76 percent of the vote.
The Substantive CritiqueThe only charges against Brown meriting serious consideration were posed by Stuart Taylor in a May 2, 2005, National Journal piece in which he examined Brown's nomination and described her as "a passionate advocate of a radical, anti-regulatory vision of judicially enforced property rights far more absolute than can be squared with the Supreme Court precedents with which judges are supposed to comply." (NR's Ramesh Ponnuru has made some similar criticisms.) Taylor's description is largely based upon a review of two speeches given by Brown a few years ago and her dissent in San Remo Hotel v. San Francisco.
Taylor acknowledges that in her confirmation testimony Brown pledged to follow precedent, even when she disagrees with it, but he maintains that Brown has commented favorably on Lochnerism. ("Lochnerism" is a term derived from the 1905 case Lochner v. New York that struck down, on specious 14th Amendment grounds of economic liberty and "freedom of contract," wage and hour and worker-protection laws. Among other things, "Lochnerism" maintains that the state police power shouldn't regulate private commercial transactions. In some ways Lochner is the obverse of Roe). Brown has stated clearly that she doesn't support a return to Lochner.
Taylor cites Brown's San Remo Hotel dissent to suggest that she might invalidate laws that have the effect of redistributing wealth. He argues that such a radically expanded view of judicially protected property rights is simply another form of judicial activism — one that trends toward the libertarian/conservative side of the philosophical spectrum — but activism, nonetheless. To drive the point home, Taylor asks, "How would Republicans react if a Democratic president nominated an advocate of radical redistribution of wealth or Marxism?"
Taylor's critique, the best by far regarding Brown, is thoughtful and substantive, but suffers from at least two infirmities: First, Taylor places too much weight on Brown's speeches. While sentiments expressed in a nominee's speeches may illuminate how that person may behave as a judge, in Brown's case we're not operating with a blank slate. She's compiled an extensive library of opinions while serving on the California supreme court the last ten years. That record reveals a judge committed to steadfast adherence to precedent and textual interpretation. There's nothing in her opinions, including that in San Remo Hotel, outside of the legal mainstream. Critics who charge that Brown might give in to Lochnerian impulses if she were elevated to a United States Supreme Court unchecked by appellate review should consider that her position on the California supreme court provided numerous opportunities to be a judicial activist, yet she took advantage of none of those opportunities. Besides, if one's philosophical meanderings and musings in speeches, debates, or lectures are presumptive of how such nominee will rule as a judge, 90 percent of those who've ever taught a law-school class, given a luncheon address, or participated in an ABA panel discussion would be disqualified. Only the intellectually incurious would remain.
Second, Taylor's reading of Brown's San Remo Hotel dissent finds an urge to radically expand property rights where others find an unremarkable interpretation of the California constitution's comparatively broad takings clause.
San Remo Hotel involved San Francisco's hotel-conversion ordinance that requires owners of hotels that serve the poor, elderly, and disabled to pay a substantial fee to the city whenever the owners seek to convert their property to tourist use. The fee, amounting to 80 percent of the construction costs of the units to be converted, would be paid into the city's Residential Hotel Preservation Fund for the poor. Taylor suggests that Brown's dissent from the majority opinion upholding the law indicates she "would invalidate laws redistributing wealth from one group to another." Obviously, such invalidation could affect much New Deal and Great Society legislation, including Social Security and Medicare.
But Brown's dissent is not nearly so expansive. Rather, it's wholly consistent with mainstream (although, admittedly, libertarian-leaning) jurisprudence that holds that broad societal burdens may not encumber the property rights of a discrete or insular class of individuals. Moreover, Brown was referring only to laws pertaining to real property rights, not legislation that may otherwise have the effect of redistributing wealth (Social Security, etc.).
Janice Rogers Brown is no extremist. She's tough, smart, principled, and conservative. She's the embodiment of everything that challenges the worldview of liberal elites. Teamed with a Justice Thomas on the U.S. Supreme Court, she would threaten the Democrat political imperatives cited by Professor Calabresi. Teamed with justices that don't embrace the doctrines of a "living, breathing constitution," she would threaten the political imperatives cited by John Leo.
Two sitting Supreme Court justices are in their 80s; two are in their 70s. Retirement naturally beckons. There could be as many as four high-Court vacancies in the next few years. Nuclear winter fast approaches the Left.
— Peter Kirsanow
Friday, May 29, 2009
Patrick J. FlynnState ChairmanAmerica's Independent Party of Michigan:
The World is Changed.This was the opening line in the cinematic version of The Lord of the Rings, The Fellowship of the Ring. In the story, we were being informed that things are to be as they never were. A great ominous force was gathering with a goal to dominate and oppress. I thought it very appropriate indeed as an allegory to open this letter.Whether at the tea parties, in the workplaces, throughout the streets, in the homes and churches, there is one theme that prevails in the hearts of conservatives. Our culture, our liberty, our sovereignty and all that we hold dear is now threatened as it has never been threatened before.Some say that we are just meandering through the repetitious cycle of liberal/conservative leadership. It is flippantly suggested that this time is not unlike the Carter and Clinton years and we just have to sit tight and prepare for our turn. Dear friends, this is nothing like the previous eras of liberal power shifts. We are witnessing and having to endure nothing less than pure historical tyranny and a systematic dismantling of our free civilization. We are indignant over the fact that the people we have elected who are in the places of leadership whom we trusted to prevent this evil either cannot or will not do so. The current power-driven government talking heads must be replaced with principled leaders who possess the will and courage to stand against this atrocity and molestation of all that is good.
This administration, intoxicated with societal adulation, has succeeded in casting a spell of sorts upon the entire world. In this enigmatic trance behind the synthetic veils and ethereal chants of hope and change, we seem to barely notice the recent and significant encroachment of a massive government machine upon the very foundations of a free people.
Testimony against Notre Dame University &Father Jenkins, witnessed before God and manNew spending and planned debt are now at levels beyond the scope of comprehension. Federal intrusion in the private sector augments daily. The floodgates of global, unrestricted, taxpayer-funded child killing and human embryonic destruction have been thrown open. National security is compromised to the wiles of our sworn enemies, and we are virtually promised upcoming criminal prosecution for sharing and proclaiming certain portions of the Sacred Scriptures. Is this the hope and change which they branded and marketed throughout most of 2008? I assure you it most certainly is. They were just banking on the fact that most Americans were thinking of something entirely different. Their wager paid off nicely.A strong prevailing theme in the hearts, minds, and souls of principled conservatives that is building movement and unity of purpose is the reality that the two-party system is not only incapable of restoring sovereignty and liberty, it is actually responsible for things as they stand. An entirely new party based upon pure foundational and constitutional principles will be necessary if we are ever to rebuild our blessed republic. Let's review the recent events of South Bend, Indiana, as a real-life, real-time vignette. This was not just a school that forgot its foundation, carelessly tainting its commencement ceremony with the wrong speaker. This was a true assault upon our sacred values, a treacherous strike that was launched with the arrogant and unfortunately accurate assumption that moral and spiritual leaders were indifferent enough, incapable, or simply afraid to confront. People of real faith across denominations realized this attack as unprecedented in its severity and impact. They were moved to respond with their voices, their hearts, and their presence to pull back the shroud and push this outrageous scandal onto the world stage. Who was there standing as witnesses to the truth against this dreadful lie? Not the Republicans. Not the Democrats. Only one party had the moral character, the will, and determined principles to participate in this righteous resistance. America's Independent Party was there on the streets, on the campus, and in the jail giving witness against the dismantling of our civilization by a nameless force that continually feeds on the innocent blood of pre-born children.As one of the state chairmen of America's Independent Party, I was in South Bend. I was there as a concerned American. I was there as a husband and a father of eight who cares what kind of culture my children will inherit. I was compelled deep within my spirit to join Dr. Alan Keyes to enter the Notre Dame campus to witness the truth of the school's own stated foundations to the administration, the faculty and the student body. We were peacefully praying and proceeding forward with the visual reminders of our nation's silent holocaust. We were arrested and jailed. We were violated, dishonored and handed over to the civil authorities. Days later, the university's authorities arrested and jailed members of the clergy as well. All this while the world's most famous Catholic institution of higher learning was moving forward with its plans to honor the master of global child killing and host the poisoning of the minds of our young adults with his lies.
"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter."
It was in the St. Joseph County Jail's holding cell in the company and fellowship of Dr. Keyes and the other witnesses that I realized that no effort for righteous truth was ever successful in this great society without this level of sacrifice and determination. From the American Revolution to the emancipation of slavery to the elevation of women to full citizenship, freedom fighters and witnesses for truth have sat in jails across this land. Some have even shed their blood to ensure freedom and truth to their posterity.This is the heart of our party: its people, its commitment to principle, its grass-roots values, its rejection of power politics, its recognition that life is the unalienable right granted by Almighty God, and its understanding that if you cannot care for the most vulnerable among us, you cannot care, period.AIP is different from the other parties. We have a concise platform based upon the foundations for good and effective government laid down by our founding fathers. We hold our leaders and candidates to their affiliation of this platform. The Democrats and Republicans have platforms as well, but they are virtually meaningless. Candidates can take or leave the platform in piece or entirety without consequence. Remember Arlen Specter? He was an enemy of the socially-conservative Republican Party platform, yet he enjoyed the approval and endorsement of his fellow Republicans for decades until he departed the ranks and joined the Democrats. Then he was chastised by his party, not for his leftist politics, but because he reduced the number of Republicans on Capitol Hill. Do you honestly think we will be able to confront the atrocities we now behold in this regime run amok, with the weak and relative leadership we have seen of late in the GOP?Additionally, America's Independent Party has a commitment against self-service. After a thorough vetting process, we will support any candidate from any party that is willing to affiliate with our principles embedded in our platform. As long as they uphold in practice their affiliation, they can count on our help. Unlike the other parties, if they fail to perform according to their affiliation, we will publicly withdraw our support for their candidacy or office.Now, most people think of political independents as those who wander somewhat bewildered between decisions during campaigns. They associate independents with not being able to make up their minds. The true spirit of the independent is, however, far from this. The true independent is capable of espousing strong principles and decisively selecting authentic representative leadership as our forefathers have done. AIP embodies the true spirit of independence straight from the pages of the nation's foundational documents. We reject the dependence on deeply engrained, power driven political machines and their dysfunctional self-elevating politics. We turn away from the debilitating options offered to us by the two party structure of having to choose the lesser of two evils in a country as great and accomplished as ours. The time for America's Independent Party has arrived and there may not be a moment to lose. I am writing to you today for two purposes, the first of which is to briefly inform you of our party, our goals, and our commitment. I hope I have accomplished that. Secondly, I write to you to confidently ask you for your financial support for the tasks that lay before us. These efforts to restore our liberty and sovereignty will require resources just as any other worthy movement would. We need you to help us with your donation. If every reader of this letter were moved to give just five dollars, we could advance our efforts to establish sound government substantially. Please consider your gift to America's Independent Party. Donate at:http://selfgovernment.us/contribute.phpOr mail your donation to:
America's Independent Party17195 Silver Parkway #336Fenton, MI 48430I urge you to visit AIP's web site at www.AIPNEWS.com Click on our Platform link. Sign the Personal Affiliation Agreement and be part of the restoration of our great republic.The World is Changed.... We must respond with principled leadership!I thank you in advance for your participation and your financial help for America's Independent Party.Most sincerely,Patrick J. FlynnState ChairmanAmerica's Independent Party of Michigan
I FEEL YOUR PAIN. NOT THEIRS. YOURS.May 27, 2009God save us from liberal "empathy." After President Barack Obama announced his empathetic Supreme Court nominee this week, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, we found out that some people are more deserving of empathy than others. For example, Judge Sotomayor apparently "empathized" more with New Haven, Conn., government officials than with white and Hispanic firefighters who were denied promotions by the city on the basis of their race. Let's hope she's as empathetic to New Haven residents who die in fires fought by inferior firefighters as a result of her decision. In the now-famous firefighters' case, Ricci v. DeStefano, the New Haven Fire Department administered a civil service exam to choose a new batch of lieutenants and captains. The city went so far as to hire an outside consultant to design the test in order to ensure that it was job-related and not racially biased. (You know, just like all written tests were pre-screened for racial bias back when we were in school.) But when the results came in, only whites and Hispanics scored high enough to earn promotions. Such results never entice Democrats to reconsider their undying devotion to the teachers' unions that routinely produce students who can't read, write or do basic math. Obviously, disadvantaged children from single-parent homes suffer the most from inadequate public schools -- and their tragic outcome bedevils the entire society for the rest of the students' lives. Instead, Democrats hide the failure of government schools by punishing the high-scoring whites, Asians and Hispanics, who presumably learned everything they know at home. (If only successfully applying a condom were relevant to firefighting, public school graduates raised in single-parent homes would crush the home-learners!) So naturally, New Haven city officials decided to scrap the exam results and promote no one. Seventeen of the high-scoring whites and one high-scoring Hispanic sued the mayor, John DeStefano, and other city officials for denying them promotions solely because of their race. The district court ruled that there was no race discrimination because the low-scoring blacks were not given promotions either -- citing the landmark case, One Bad Apple v. The Rest of the Barrel. (That's the sort of sophistry we're taught in law school.) Concerned that Sotomayor's famed "empathy" might not shine through in cases such as Ricci v. DeStefano, the Democrats are claiming -- as Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said on MSNBC -- that she was merely applying "precedent" to decide the case. You know, just like conservatives say judges should. This was an interesting claim, in the sense that it was the exact polar opposite of the truth. To be sure, there is "precedent" for racial discrimination by the government, but Plessy v. Ferguson was overturned in 1954 by Brown v. Board of Education. If Sotomayor had another case in mind, she wasn't telling: The lower court's dismissal of the firefighters' case was upheld by Sotomayor and two other judges in an unsigned, unpublished opinion, titled, "Talk to the Hand." Not only that, but Sotomayor's fellow Clinton appointee, Jose Cabranes (who sounds like an "empathetic" fellow), issued a blistering dissent from the appellate court's denial of a rehearing specifically on the grounds that the case "raises important questions of first impression in our Circuit -- and indeed, in the nation." A "case of first impression" means there's no precedent. If there were a precedent, it would be a case of, at least, "second impression." If it were merely "empathy" that explained liberal judges' lawless opinions, one might expect some liberal judges to have empathy for the white and Hispanic firefighters being discriminated against today, and others to have empathy for the hypothetical black firefighters discriminated against in times past. But all liberals only have empathy for the exact same victims -- always the ones that are represented by powerful liberal interest groups. As Joe Sobran says, it takes a lot of clout to be a victim. Thus, the media and Democrats seem to find successful Hispanic attorney Sotomayor much more "empathetic" than successful Hispanic attorney Miguel Estrada. After aggressively blocking Estrada's nomination to a federal appeals court during Bush's first term solely on the grounds that he is Hispanic and was likely headed for the Supreme Court -- according to Senate Democrat staff memos -- now Democrats have the audacity to rave that Sotomayor will be the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice! If Sotomayor is not more empathetic than Estrada, liberals at least consider her more Hispanic -- an interesting conclusion inasmuch as Sotomayor was born in New York and Estrada was born in Honduras. Forty-four of 48 Senate Democrats voted to filibuster Estrada's nomination to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, with congressman and professional Hispanic Raul Grijalva assuring them that just because "he happens to be named 'Estrada' does not give him a free ride." The truth is liberals couldn't care less about Sotomayor being Hispanic. Indeed, liberals often have trouble telling Hispanic people apart, as James Carville illustrated on "Good Morning America" Wednesday morning when he kept confusing Miguel Estrada with Alberto Gonzales. "Empathy," in Liberalspeak, is nothing but raw political power. COPYRIGHT 2009 ANN COULTER
Thursday, May 28, 2009
And forget about the snarky disclaimer she adds, she is a smart enough person to know that by saying, “And I know — I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it. I’m — you know.” http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15judge.html
she can play bot sides of the political fence. Most people learn this trick around the first grade.
She also comes across as a racist and bigoted person.
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't’t lived that life,” said Judge Sotomayor. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15judge.html
Alrighty then. So she has opened the door for others to question her on race and gender. She is the one who made these claims. She is the one alluding to the thought that white men are not able to rule wisely on certain issues because they are, TA DA! white. I guess by that logic Abe Lincoln stumbled into his decisions about slavery.
While I am at it, she is believes that gun ownership is not a right granted to us by our constitution. "It is settled law," Sotomayor and the Second Circuit held, "that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right." http://www.reason.com/news/show/133722.html
Even the circus known as the 9Th Circuit Court of Appeals in Nordyke vs. King ruled;
We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear arms is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition." Colonial revolutionaries, the Founders, and a host of commentators and lawmakers living during the first one hundred years of the Republic all insisted on the fundamental nature of the right. It has long been regarded as the "true palladium of liberty." Colonists relied on it to assert and to win their independence, and the victorious Union sought to prevent a recalcitrant South from abridging it less than a century later. The crucial role this deeply rooted right has played in our birth and history compels us to recognize that it is indeed fundamental, that it is necessary to the Anglo-American conception of ordered liberty that we have inherited. We are therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and applies it against the states and local governments.
So what we have here is president BHO following through on what he said he wanted to do, and for that, I give him credit. What is even more worrying, is for one, he is just getting started, and two; he was able to fool just enough fools to get elected.
She is looking to make law and not rule on it. She has also stated that gun ownership is not a constitutional right. President B. Hussein Obama and his staff have intentionally picked a female,hispanic, and radical leftist for a reason. He believes, and for the most part correctly, the the Republican party is go easy on her because of her race, thus allowing her lefist views to go unchallenged. BHO is a clear and open racist. And to make matters worse, he is an angry one at that. Make no mistake, BHO was to reshape America into a socialist, racist country where free thinking is illegal.....
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Christianity and conservatism: Christian doctrinal orthodoxy and conservative political philosophy
A brief history of conservatism: Part 16
February 26, 2009Fred Hutchison, RA analyst In the last essay in this series, part 15, we discovered in history a strong correlation between Christian spirituality and the vitality of Western culture. However, spirituality by itself is not enough. Issues of truth and doctrinal orthodoxy are equally important. A spiritually charged people who faithfully declare God's Truth can turn the tides of history. Therefore, let us now turn to questions of doctrine.In this essay, part 16, we shall explore some of the logical correlations between Christian doctrinal orthodoxy and conservative political philosophy. When I speak of orthodoxy, I mean the great truths of the historical creeds and the confessions of the church.In the first essay in this series, I proposed that the five streams of conservatism have always had a positive influence on Western culture. This is particularly true of Christian conservatism — when the doctrine is orthodox and the truths of the faith are propagated boldly and without compromise.Christian truth claims transform EuropeThe truth claims of Christianity preoccupied the scholars at the monasteries and universities of the 11th through the 13th century. They pursued the truth with extraordinary enthusiasm, zeal, and intellectual vigor. Watering down the truth to pander to the crowd — as is so often the practice today — would have been unthinkable to these zealots.Interestingly, some of the learned debates of scholars in the 12th century were attended by large crowds of ordinary people — who shared in the general zest for truth. Never has a common people been so enthusiastic about the battle for truth. Never have students burned with such intellectual excitement and displayed such an earnest striving after Truth — with the possible exception of the students who sat in the olive groves of Plato's Academy, or the students who walked in the gymnasium colonnade of Aristotle's Lyceum, and were called the "peripatetics," or the students who walked in Zeno the Stoic's colonnade which overlooked the Agora of Athens. However, the enthusiasm of the European "scholastics" was ultimately shared by perhaps a thousand-fold more students than ever sat in Plato's Academy olive groves, or strolled in Aristotle's colonnade. As marvelous as the teachings of the Greek philosophers were, it was a small-scale enterprise compared to the Medieval European universities, and ill timed in history for a maximum cultural effect. Plato, Aristotle, and Zeno appeared after the golden age of Athens was over — and the culture was set in its ways.In contrast, scholasticism appeared shortly after 1100 A.D., when European civilization was brand new. Therefore, scholasticism had a seminal influence in molding of the culture of Europe when it was impressionable and pliable. The twelfth century was particularly flexible and dynamic, and the developing culture was rapidly changing.The greatest of the "scholastics" was St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). His works are still included in the Western literary canon. The "Thomists" — scholars who specialize in Aquinas — still appear on the scene when there is intellectual ferment among people who have a renewed interest in metaphysics.Scholasticism gives Europe the edge in rationalityFrom almost the beginning of the civilization of the High Middle Ages, Europe had a uniquely rational culture. Scholasticism was formally developed in the early decades of the 12th century. European culture was then in a very early stage of formation, because the civilization was born in the second half of the 11th century. Europe became the premier society of rationality and remained so until the early days of the 20th century. The historical advantages of Europe were mainly advantages of reason and the educated intellect.Other natural advantages of Europe like navigable rivers and natural harbors had to be aggressively exploited by intelligent men. The proliferation of wind mills, water mills, and machinery for cutting stones and hoisting stones betokens a society of restless minds seeking to solve practical problems. The slumbering minds of the Dark Ages had to be awakened to such tasks. Scholasticism and education in the Cathedral schools and monasteries were a key stimulus for that awakening of the mind.The scholasticism of the universities and monasteries was a truth-seeking venture sponsored by the church. Therefore, it was Christianity that gave Europe its edge over other civilizations in its rational powers. The triumph of scholasticism was a triumph of doctrinal orthodoxy. During the scholastic debates of the early 12th century, orthodox views soon triumphed over heterodox and heretical views.Thus, European culture was shaped and enlightened by the theology of doctrinal orthodoxy. Most of the remainder of this essay will be devoted to establishing the affinity of doctrinal orthodoxy and conservative political philosophy.Conservative vs. modernismJust as conservative theology (i.e., orthodox doctrine) is compatible with conservative political philosophy, liberal theology is compatible with political liberalism and progressivism — i.e., the politics of modernism.Liberal theology can be characterized as modernism wrapped in a Christian package. Modernism is the common enemy of conservative theology and conservative political philosophy. None of the links between Christianity and conservative political philosophy that we shall explore in this essay are applicable to the nominal Christianity of liberal theology. Conservative theology and conservative political philosophy are the friends of reason and civilization. As we shall see in the next essay, Modernism in the 20th century has fallen to a shocking state of intellectual and moral decadence and has become the enemy of reason and of civilization.A tight theology and a loose political philosophyThe fact that there are logical connections between conservative theology and conservative political philosophy does not imply a perfect fit. There are points of tension. Therefore, It is a loose fit, not a tight fit. A loose fit is good enough for a political philosophy, but only logical precision is acceptable for orthodox theology. Whereas the great creeds of the faith required an exacting precision of language and concepts, political philosophy needs only to provide a good general fit, like clothes purchased off the shelf that need not be custom tailored for a perfect fit.Beware of doctrines that are woven too loosely and political philosophies that are woven too tightly. Loose doctrines are an invitation to heretics. Tight political philosophies collapse into narrow ideologies, which are not amenable to debate. Such ideologies alienate natural allies and make political compromise impossible.Perfectionism and political disasterWe just came through a political campaign in which the search for the perfect conservative candidate led to the mutual assured destruction of all the conservative candidates. As the ground was littered with conservative bodies, John McCain, a moderate candidate whose chances had long been written off, stepped forward and claimed the Republican nomination. He was beaten by a vague and inexperienced liberal Democrat named Barack Obama.Perfectionism is suicidal in politics. I speak as one who was guilty of insisting upon the perfect conservative and fought against the imperfect conservative candidates who might have won.As a sadder and wiser man, my mission now is to unite the five historical streams of conservatism. That would be unfeasible if all five groups were perfectionists or defined their cluster of ideas as narrow ideologies. The five schools of conservatism can only work together if a loose fit is tolerated. A loose fit allows each of the five schools of conservatism to learn from each other. Each of the schools has its own special wisdom that is needed by the conservative movement as a whole.Now let us turn to the central theme of this essay. To wit: There are affinities and logical correlations between Christian doctrinal orthodoxy and conservative political philosophy. A theologian could write tomes on this subject, but we are limited by space and time to consider a small sampler of the affinities.Man has a nature"I believe in God the father almighty, creator of heaven and earth." This first line of the Apostle's Creed confesses that God is the creator. If God created man, he also designed man. If man has a design, he also has an innate nature. An integrated design is not subject to material change, but is fixed over time. Thus, human nature is fixed throughout the centuries and is universally shared by all mankind. Modernists almost universally deny that man has a universal nature — and insist that man is a construct of culture, environment, economics, and biology. In contrast, doctrinally orthodox Christians and political conservatives almost universally insist that man has an innate nature.Modernists believe that human nature is in flux and that men were essentially different in former centuries. Therefore, they are skeptical about the wisdom of the past. In contrast, theological conservatives and political conservatives insist that man has always been essentially the same. Therefore, they cherish the wisdom of the past.Here we get a look at the great gulf between modernism, on one side, and conservatism on the other. We also observe how theological conservatism lines up with political conservatism in opposition to modernism.Human nature and legislationIf man has no nature, but is a construct of society, as liberals think, the legislator will tend to think that he can fashion a better man through social engineering programs. In contrast, if man has a nature based upon a design that is fixed and unchanging, as conservatives believe, social engineering programs designed to change human nature can only inflict injuries upon man or stifle his nature.Seventy years of social engineering by the Soviet Union failed to change human nature the slightest amount. The relentless attempt to change human nature turned the entire society into a wretched and joyless prison filled with dysfunctional people.In contrast to the soviet tyrants, the thoughtful conservative legislator will review proposed legislation to determine if it runs against the grain of human nature. He will examine a proposed new law in an attempt to ascertain whether it is oppressive to human nature or whether it will provide wholesome boundaries in which man can flourish.Political conservatives and theological conservatives will usually unite to oppose social engineering programs. Liberals and communists generally favor such programs. It is patently obvious why conservatives are invariably anticommunists and why historically, many liberals have had a secret sympathy for communism. This offers us a clue as to why poorly informed conservatives have long had difficulty in differentiating between liberalism and communism.Although Christian conservatives and political conservatives generally agree in their opposition to social engineering programs, Christian conservatives put the emphasis of the principle that only divine grace can change the human heart. Traditionalist conservatives emphasize that government social engineering projects rend the delicate social fabric. And Libertarians are primarily concerned with how government programs interfere with individual initiative.In Adam's fall we sinned allDoctrinal orthodoxy requires one to see that although man is harmoniously designed with an innate nature that was originally good, his nature has been fatally corrupted by original sin. I like to think of man as having a well-designed constitution that has been contaminated.Man is "totally depraved" in the sense that the contamination of wickedness has reached all his faculties and every part of his constitution. Man is not totally depraved in the sense of being absolutely evil, for that would be absurd.The most evil of men — like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and bin Laden — started with an innate propensity to sin, and willfully pursued evil thoughts and evil deeds through various stages of development. In the fullness of time, they brought forth a highly developed evil, if not an absolute evil. The human lifetime is too short and the developmental process is too slow to produce an absolute evil. In like manner, a saint is overtaken by death long before he can realize a perfection of holiness.This being understood, orthodox doctrine traditionally holds that there is no human faculty that has been left pure and uncontaminated by original sin.The evangelist Charles Finney is regarded by some doctrinally orthodox theologians as a "pelagian" heretic, because he limited the scope of original sin. He asserted that the mind and the will was not automatically contaminated with original sin — and that man is as sinful or as righteous as he chooses to be. Finney preached the gospel on the assumption that men can choose their way into faith.To the contrary, the doctrinally orthodox reformer Martin Luther taught us that 1) all of our faculties, including the mind and the will, are contaminated by original sin; 2) we are in bondage to sin until God sets us free through His grace; and 3) faith is a gift from God. Man was originally good but became bad through Adam's fall. The opening lines of the McGuffey Reader were: "In Adam's fall we sinned all.""Original sin" was inherited by all of Adam's progeny — meaning all mankind. The harmony of the original design was disrupted by the deep-seated wickedness of the human heart. It is not possible for us to return to Eden and regain the original harmony and goodness of God's design by relying on human strength and making human efforts. That is why we need a Savior.Man is a contradictionTraditionalist conservatives like to say that "man is a contradiction" and is capable of evil. This is a mild, common-sense view of the dark side of human nature. It is what the daily experiences of life and the lessons of history consistently teach us about man.There is a tension between this view and the orthodox Christian view, but when it comes to politics and legislation, most differences seem to fade away.Once again, we observe the loose fit of conservative theology and conservative politics. These two groups are easily united in political ventures against liberals who have convinced themselves, God knows how, that man is inherently good.The bewitching of the conservativesThe ascendancy of liberalism unites the conservatives to the extent that their eyes are open to perceive a common enemy. One of the reasons conservatives were not united in the last election cycle was that the eyes of many were blinded in such a way that they failed to perceive the rise of leviathan out of the pit — that is to say, the rise of the far left into power.Why were they blinded, deceived, and bewitched? One reason is that they slipped away from conservative principles. A Christian who forgets biblical truths can backslide and be deceived by the world and the devil. A political conservative who loses his grip on conservative principles can be deceived by the liberals or compromised by deals with moderates.Some conservatives tried to balance conservative principles with incompatible modernistic concepts. As we shall see in the next section, this practice debilitates the conservative and induces a slide down a slippery slope to the left.Wishful thinkingWhen liberals deny the palpable reality of the dark side of human nature, they reject all the lessons of life and experience. Such a denial suggests a powerful delusion or a childlike naivete.During my late teens, around the time I was thinking about becoming a conservative, I remember telling a liberal college instructor that his arguments were based on "wishful thinking." The stubborn notion that man is inherently good was behind much of his naivete. We live in a broken world, and it does no good to wish otherwise as a naive child might do.The willful denial by liberals of the evil that lurks in the human heart has, in some cases, an element of malice. Such a denial suggests a primal rebellion involving an indignant rejection of the harsh reality of the broken world in which they find themselves. "I refuse to believe that men are the rascals and knaves which they appear to be. Therefore, I insist that they are otherwise." The malice inherent in their rebellious denial is sometimes turned against conservatives who are pessimistic about human nature.Can fallen man become virtuous?Some theological conservatives believe that although man is depraved, he can cooperate with a development process leading towards virtue with the help of "common grace," an empowerment from God for the believer and the unbeliever alike. Through common grace, a "noble pagan" like Roman Emperor and Stoic philosopher Marcus Aurelius had reached some degree of light on truth questions. He knew the difference between good and evil, and between virtue and vice. By all accounts, he made significant headway in his quest for virtue and wisdom. However, common grace without the special grace that comes with conversion to Christ is not enough. For all his virtue and wisdom, Marcus Aurelius wasted the substance of Rome with futile, tactically foolish wars against the northern barbarians. He persecuted the Christians. He designated Commodus — his foolish, malicious, and delusional son — to be the heir to his throne. Socrates was wrong. The rule of philosopher kings is no panacea.Conservatism can be problematicThere is a problematic dichotomy with a creature who has a good design, but has become evil through rebelling against his Designer and resisting his design. According to Aristotle, virtue consists of thoughts and actions in agreement with the design of man. Vice consists of doing things that are "against nature" — that is to say, against the nature and design of man. This is not an intellectually easy nor intuitively obvious concept. A distinction must be made carefully made between a good design and a deep corruption.Due to the failure to make this distinction carefully, fault lines have formed among conservative theologians and conservative political philosophers. The fault line can form from two kinds of errors: 1) downplaying human depravity by overemphasizing the goodness of the design; and 2) downplaying the goodness and harmony of the design, due to a preoccupation with human depravity. The first error might lead one to trust in man too much and to slip towards the left, theologically and politically. The second error might lead one to reject Natural Law philosophy, which is indispensable to a coherent systematic theology and a rational conservative political philosophy.The difficulties do not end here. The conservative must carefully distinguish between the sinful nature and the habitual propensities that have developed from a long series of choices. A mistake here can lead to all kinds of sloppy thinking. Theologian John Gregory Mantle characterized this sloppy thinking by referring to self-righteous Christians as those who have built learned behavior upon a corrupt root.The opposite error is to downplay the wickedness of a sinner by making the excuse that the person is merely following bad habits. This error leaves out a moral appraisal of the long series of wicked choices that were made to develop the bad habit. One can justly refer to someone as an "evil man" if he has spent a lifetime cultivating evil patterns of behavior. Certain criminal psychologists have determined that hardened criminals often start cultivating evil imaginations in childhood and perform many experiments in turning the thoughts into deeds. Through such experiments, they become proficient in increasing stages of evil. (See Inside the Criminal Mind by Dr. Stanton Samenow.)A tutelary paradoxI have always had a pessimistic view of human nature, and at the same time have always been optimistic that individuals can eventually fulfill the destiny inherent in their design — with the help of divine grace. However, the developmental process of maturing and getting ready for one's ultimate destiny can be very long and very difficult. Many stray from the straight path that leads to the fulfillment of their destiny.Some folks think that a potential destiny and manifest depravity are an impossible contradiction. I regard both dimensions of human nature as a tutelary paradox that can lead one slowly to wisdom and personal growth. The paradox is a motivator to seek help from God and to be delivered from the sins and vices that might bar one from fulfilling his destiny.The particular and the universalSome libertarian conservatives and some traditionalists emphasize the particular and unique qualities of individuals to such an extent that they doubt that man has a core nature with universal qualities. The denial of universal human nature of underlying the individual particulars is why some libertarians reject the idea of a universal moral law. The confusion of not seeing the forest of human nature for the trees of individual particulars can be cleared up by a refresher course in Aristotle or St. Thomas Aquinas. Both men taught us how to differentiate "essence" and "accidents." Aristotle's universals subsist as the "essence" of particular things. In other words, one's core human essence — that is to say, one's humanity — is universal. The "accidents" are those superficial, tangible details, particularities, and eccentricities that make a person a unique individual. Recognizing the unique personality but ignoring the underlying personhood is an error of logical distinctions; e.g., "He is a rascal and a clown; therefore he is not a human being." The error is insulting because it is reductionistic.Precisely because Aristotle's and Aquinas' thought was so deeply woven into Western culture, the West was long able to avoid extremes in collectivism and extremes in individualism. The West lost this facility in direct proportion to the decline of metaphysics after 1800 A.D. The political liberals of the present time swing wildly between collectivism and a lawless, atomistic individualism. It is no accident that metaphysics is anathema to them.The existential mistakeAnother Libertarian mistake is of the Existentialist type. It involves a failure to differentiate between essence and existence. Existentialists are obsessed with finding an "authentic" mode of existence. It is an extreme version of the American quest for a self-defining and trendy "life-style." Such preoccupation with modes of existence tends towards the neglect of "essence," the inner humanity that exists independently of one's modes of existing. Aristotle or Aquinas can clear up the problem by clarifying the difference between essence and existence.Why cannot man be content just to exist and not be so concerned about his personal modes of existence? Because man is a finite, contingent, insecure, proud being who must attach himself to the world by raising a banner that he exists. "Look at me. I am right here, right now, and am expressing myself in a unique manner. Therefore, I exist!" The man who is spiritually mature enough to completely dispense with "raising the flag" is very rare. However, an obsession with "raising the flag" of existential self-expression is a sign of abnormal insecurity and immaturity.Unlike man, God's essence is the same as his existence, because he is complete and self-contained in the perfection of his being. If he "raises the flag," it is purely an act of love and never an attempt to ground or vindicate his existence.Those who can't differentiate between essence and existence do not understand man. Those who think God has modes of existence does not understand God.The West used to have a good balance between individual creativity and archetypal forms in the arts and literature. Now, the existential quest for radical individuality of expression has thrown the arts and literature into chaos.A universal moral lawAll designs have rules of operation. When one buys a new kitchen appliance, there are always written directions about how to operate the appliance and what one should not do with the appliance, lest it malfunctions and becomes dangerous to the user.Since man is a designed being, there are rules and laws concerning what he may do that are salutary to his nature and what he may not do lest he destroy himself and his neighbor. These rules, laws, and precepts are the same for all people. Therefore, a universal moral law must exist. The moral law has been unchanging and universal ever since man has been on earth. Considering that man is a designed being, Is there an instruction booklet for man, provided by the designer? Yes. We call it the Bible. The one thing on which the Old Testament and New Testament are in perfect agreement is the core elements of the universal moral law that are summed up in the Ten Commandments. Old Testament ordinances that were specific to Israel and were not universal in applicability were abolished in the New Testament — but not the precepts of the Ten Commandments.Many modernists deny the existence of a universal moral law, and call such things the "value judgments" of individuals. They assume that because a modernist will often invent his own moral cosmos, the moral law of conservatives is the same kind of personal invention. They give this presumption away when they claim that the command against adultery is a personal value judgment. Not so. A universal moral law is the exact opposite of a made-up value that is unique to the individual.One's positions on innumerable political issues will hinge upon whether he thinks there is a universal moral law, or dismisses such laws as individual "value judgments." For example, consider an example of a free-floating value judgment: "The babe in the womb is part of my body. I can do anything I want with my body. Therefore, I have the right to kill the baby. My free choice to do so makes it right."The first sentence is contrary to scientific fact. The second sentence is contrary to natural law and biblical teaching. The third sentence is contrary to the universal moral law. The fourth statement comes from the funny farm of solipsism. This cluster of concepts ignores the spiritual reality that the babe in the womb is a person.The invention of tailor-made value stances of this kind pander to personal comfort and unrestrained lusts. They promise freedom from consequences and from personal responsibility. In contrast, authentic moral laws require self-denial, develop personal virtue, and promote the general good of the family, the neighborhood, and the community.The self-contradictory nature of modernismIn contrast to the fault-lines of conservatism, modernism has stark contradictions. As we have seen, the conservative fault lines can often be reconciled or reduced to a loose fit. However, it is dubious whether the contradictions of modernism can be reconciled or made to work together.Modernists say: 1) man does not have a nature; and 2) man is inherently good. These two propositions are contradictions. If man does not have a nature, he cannot be inherently good, or inherently bad, or inherently anything.Modernism posits an impossible contradiction and is therefore a false world view.Modernists have an absurd view of the world. It is no accident that Sartre came to believe that life is absurd.If men were angelsJames Madison, the principal author of the Constitution wrote, "If men were angels no government would be necessary." We would not need police or a justice system to punish evil doers. Liberals, who believe men are good unless they are mentally ill, or emotionally damaged, sometimes propose that we substitute therapy for criminal punishment. A liberal judge in my home town let a child molester off on probation in order that he could get "therapy." Was this morally deranged judge impeached? No, he was defended by the liberal press and was re-elected.Some liberals say, "Society is the cause of criminality. Therefore, let us fix the root causes in society, instead of punishing criminals."When there is a crime wave, conservatives talk of hiring more police and building more prisons, and liberals talk about therapy and social engineering projects. A Christian who believes in the fall of man must be skeptical that therapy can make an evil man good or that social programs can cure the real cause of crime that lies in the darkness of the human heart.In the novel The Lord of the Flies, English school boys were cast adrift on an island and quickly reverted to savagery. When a seaman came to rescue them, a boy named Ralph realized how far the boys had sunk into depravity. He wept for "the end of innocence and for the darkness of the human heart." The boys were delivered of the illusion that man is naturally good, and it hurt to give up this pleasant illusion.When I was on the college debate team, an argument was made that welfare programs do not corrupt the beneficiaries because "people have an innate desire to work." This point was baldly asserted on the grounds that man is naturally good and therefore tends to prefer virtue to vice.That kind of thinking prevailed when the New Deal and Great Society programs were designed. The result was a great mass of welfare families who remained on the government dole for generations. Their idleness multiplied their vices and shattered their families. They did not sit at home studying the Aristotelian virtues.Rights and dutiesIn our political culture today, those who shout the loudest about rights are the most likely to deny duties. This is the behavior of the dead beat, the moocher, and the con man. While I expect such moral decadence from liberals, I am embarrassed to confess that some libertarian conservatives carry atomist individualism to extremes and demand rights while denying duties.If man has a nature, he must have both rights and duties connected with that nature. Governments that respect human nature are obliged to protect the innate rights of an individual against the infringements of other men. Since human nature is constant, these protections should be enduring principles of law. At the same time, no one should be offended when the legitimate duties of citizenship are called for.If man has rights, he must also have duties. It is inconceivable that the creator would design man to soak up rights and deny duties. The man who demands every benefit but shuns every duty is despicable. He is a parasitic narcissist. It is unthinkable that man was designed to be this way.To suppose that man is here solely to serve only his private ends calls into question the idea that man really has the innate dignity that warrants special rights and privileges. We can't have it both ways. Either man has both rights and duties, or he has neither.Self-governmentIf man has both rights and duties, the full flourishing of his nature would require that he exercise himself in meeting those duties. If man is capable of arousing himself from self-seeking activities to carry out his duties, the unavoidable implication is that man is capable of governing himself — or, to some degree, moral and self-disciplined men who are thoroughly socialized as responsible members of the family and the community are capable of governing themselves.The capacity of men to govern themselves makes it possible to have a Republic of free men and a limited role for government. The greater part of the government will be self-government. The lesser part will be civil government. It is no accident that at a time when individual self-control is in decline, an increasing number of citizens are calling for an increased scope of government programs and government regulation.The restoration of self-government It is not enough for conservatives to fight against the expansion of government. They must show the way — through example and teaching — to the restoration of self-control by individuals.It is not enough to be virtuous and to teach the classical virtues to the populace. The preaching of righteousness, holiness, personal responsibility, and self denial, long absent from America's pulpits, must be restored. Perhaps an entire generation of pandering seeker-sensitive ministries must pass from the scene, so that a new wave of godly men, with their hearts on fire for truth and zeal for righteousness and holiness, might rise up from the grassroots of America. The sharp edges of doctrinal orthodoxy, which have been blunted and rounded off in the fear that someone will be offended, must once again be a razor-sharp two-edged sword.This has happened several times before in American history. That is why we have had such a long run of self-government and personal freedom.Freedom within boundariesAll designs are integrated with boundaries and limits. This truth is known to every engineer and architect. If man is a designed being, all of life must be conducted within limits. Virtually all doctrinal and theological conservatives understand this.However, liberals and modernists frequently talk about the absence of limits on the possibilities of an individual. This popular idea passes for wisdom and enlightenment, but it is a notion so filled with fantasy and folly that even a child should know better.All ideas about a life without limits are destructive to man. Many Americans are lured to their doom by the pied piper of "no limits." They boldly throw off boundaries, thinking it will set them free and they can then do the impossible.This is madness, of course. Man is a created being and therefore is finite and is obliged to live within boundaries, like them or not. Get used to it.God has placed each of us on earth according to "appointed times," and has established the "boundaries of our habitation" (Acts 17: 26). He has put us in a particular place at a particular time to do business for Him in a particular station in life. Our lives have starting and ending times, and the community, province, or nation in which we live has boundaries. Every kind of work we might do is hedged about with duties and boundaries. God himself has established these "boundaries of our habitation." We flourish and find our freedom within these boundaries. Everyone who knows they are not God but are mere created men should understand this in the marrow of his bones. Unfortunately, 20th century modernism promotes a powerful delusion that we are gods, and not men, and therefore have no limits. As we shall see, in the next section, it was Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) who opened this pandora's box to poison the souls of 20th century men.ConclusionChristian doctrinal conservatism, allied with conservative political philosophy, is a good antidote to Nietzsche's nihilistic modernism. Christian conservatism is uniquely potent in fighting modernism.Therefore, Christian conservatism is indispensable as one of the five branches of conservatism. Without it, the other branches will be in constant danger of being seduced by modernism and drifting to the left.© Fred Hutchison
RenewAmerica analyst Fred Hutchison also writes a column for RenewAmerica.
So all this discussion about the three things that are a must has lead to a blog entry. So here are mine;
1- No brainer....Ice cold beer
2- Stereo with plenty of Jones, Haggard, Lefty, and Waylon
3- Any type of grilling meat from National Market
and a honary mention would be a can of OFF. I think that should have been my number one from the way I am scratching today!
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Monday, May 25, 2009
All is not lost though; ask God for forgiveness and step forward and admit that killing innocent life that resides inside of a woman for 9 months is a living person sent to Earth from God in Heaven.
How about for next year's graduation ceremony Notre Dame have an abortionist perform an abortion live on stage? They could have a partial-birth abortion for the advanced degrees.
According to liberals, the right to kill babies was enshrined by the Founding Fathers in our Constitution -- and other constitutional rights are celebrated in public.
The right to bear arms is honored in 21-gun salutes, turkey shoots, Civil War re-enactments, firearms demonstrations and, occasionally, at Phil Spector's house.
The right to petition the government for redress of grievances is celebrated at political rallies, tea parties, marches, protests and whenever Keith Olbermann has a fight with his cat.
The free exercise clause is observed in church services, missionary work, peyote-smoking Indian rituals, and for a few days after every time Bill Clinton gets caught having an extramarital affair.
So instead of inviting a constitutional lawyer to yammer on about this purported constitutional right, why not show it being practiced?
How about a 21-vacuum hose (D&C) salute? Maybe have the Notre Dame marching band form a giant skull-piercing fork? How about having the president throw out the ceremonial first fetus, like on opening day in baseball? I'm just brainstorming here, folks -- none of this is written in stone.
Being such a prestigious institution, Notre Dame could probably get famed partial-birth abortion practitioner George Tiller to do the demonstration at next year's graduation. Obama could help -- inasmuch as Tiller the abortionist is a close friend of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
This is a "constitutional right" like no other.
Even its supporters are embarrassed by the exercise of this right. They won't practice the right in public -- they won't even call abortion by its name, preferring to use a string of constantly changing euphemisms, such as "reproductive health" and "choice."
It would be as if gun owners refused to use the word "gun" and the NRA's motto were, "Let's all work together to keep hunting safe, legal and rare."
Liberals were awestruck by Obama's statesmanlike speech at Notre Dame, but whatever he says about abortion is frothy nonsense because we're not allowed to vote on abortion policy in America. If it's a "constitutional right," we can no more vote on abortion than we could vote on free speech.
With Roe v. Wade, abortion supporters ripped the issue out of the democratic process -- limb from limb, you might say -- and declared their desired outcome a "constitutional right." They have hysterically defended that lawless decision for the last quarter-century.
All of Obama's soothing words about joining hands and not demonizing one another are just blather as long as that legal monstrosity remains the law of the land.
Showing his open-mindedness, Obama asked, "How does each of us remain firm in our principles ... without demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side?" (What do I have to do to get you murderers and you non-murderers to shake hands and be friends?)
A good start would be letting us vote.
Liberals can be all sweet reason as long as their preference for abortion on demand is lyingly called a "constitutional right," immutable to the tiniest alteration by the voters.
In the minuscule areas where abortion policy can be affected, Obama has shown his passion for compromise by always taking the most extreme pro-abortion position.
On his third day in office, Obama overturned the "Mexico City Policy," which prohibited U.S. taxpayer money from being spent on overseas organizations that perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning.
Obama has filled his administration with Planned Parenthood veterans and friends of partial-birth abortionists.
As an Illinois state senator in 2002-2003, Obama repeatedly blocked and voted against the "Born Alive Act," which would have allowed doctors to give medical care to babies who somehow survived abortions and remained alive, wholly apart from their mothers.
Even the extremist National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League declined to take a position on the bill. The same bill in the U.S. Senate passed unanimously -- and that means that abortion-happy nutcake Barbara Boxer voted for it.
But Obama apparently thought it was important to affirm a woman's critical right to fourth-trimester abortions.
Here's my idea for how we can "live together as one human family," as Obama proposed at Notre Dame: Go ahead, demonize pro-lifers, Obama -- call us "right-wing ideologues." But just once, support one little policy that will save a single unborn child.
COPYRIGHT 2009 ANN COULTER DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Sunday, May 17, 2009
PRINCETON, NJ -- A new Gallup Poll, conducted May 7-10, finds 51% of Americans calling themselves "pro-life" on the issue of abortion and 42% "pro-choice." This is the first time a majority of U.S. adults have identified themselves as pro-life since Gallup began asking this question in 1995.
The new results, obtained from Gallup's annual Values and Beliefs survey, represent a significant shift from a year ago, when 50% were pro-choice and 44% pro-life. Prior to now, the highest percentage identifying as pro-life was 46%, in both August 2001 and May 2002.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Submitted by gmaudlin on Sun, 2008-01-06 02:16.
Health and Science
The United States government is interested in the homeless problem. As a part of research into this subject, many children were interviewed. When ask the question "what do you want to be when you grow up", many answered with statements like, a doctor, a lawyer, a football player, a fireman, etc., etc. Not one single child wanted to be and set out and studied to be homeless. Wow, what a surprise that might be when people say, "that was their choice."
Homelessness is a core problem in America. "What can I do to help the homeless?" It is estimated that nearly 3.5 million people are homeless in the United States. 1.35 million of these are children (National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, 2004). Contrary to popular belief, many of these people do not choose to be homeless.
Why are people homeless? Everyone is faced with a crisis at some point in their lives. For some, maybe a spouse suffers from mental illness, or has developed an addiction to drugs or alcohol. Others experience job loss, domestic violence, divorce, injury or illness. Many families are fortunate to have the financial resources to deal with these problems. For those that don't, they soon find themselves out of money and homeless. Lack of financial resources is the primary reason people are homeless. For those who lack education, job or social skills, it is extremely hard to extract oneself from the cycle of homelessness.
How can I make a difference? Visiting shelters and volunteering at soup kitchens are one way in which a person can make a difference. Donate food for the homeless to a local food pantry. By C. Jeanne Heida, published Jul 27, 2007
Give clothing to the shelters. Give cash to the shelters. Adopt a homeless family and share your experience strength and hope. Volunteer your time to help the homeless. Take a homeless person fishing, golfing, or just to a movie..........or just down to buy some clothes at the local thrift shop. Or bring a homeless home to shower and feed. Don't say it can't be done. I have done all of that and it not only worked out perfectly, the effort was greatly appreciated.
And most of all pray for those that dislike the homeless. Pray for the egotistical, unhumbled, ignorant people that show no compassion or respect for our veterans, mentally ill, addicted, unfortunate, jobless, homeless. Especially pray for the children of the homeless. Homelessness is a revolving cycle for families. And I will do my part also. And I will remain a friend and advocate to the homeless and work in the solution with each one I can. Pray for the city and county officials to continue providing for the common welfare of all people.
We get a lot of religious viewpoint on the Hive, and that is very good. Pro-actively speaking, what do the religions desire to do about the homeless problem?
"I'm the master of low expectations".
Flag as offensive
Submitted by jheaton on Sun, 2008-01-06 02:54.
For some, being homeless is a life style choice. Years ago they were called hobos. Today, they are called "homeless" by some and bums by others. People who choose to live the bum life don't ask for help. Good for them. But for the "bums" who steal and do illegal drugs... don't do it in my neighborhood because you will loose this fight.
If a person is down and out they need to seek out a church or the Salvation Army. There are also social services and if one is a vet, go to the VA.
It is time for some people in this country to toughen up, quit crying and take care of yourself. If that means getting down on your kness and asking for help from the Lord, then good. If it means robbing innocent people, looking for a free lunch and begging.... then screw you!
May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't.- General George Patton Jr
What Can I Say?
Submitted by Bnic on Sun, 2008-01-06 03:43.
Please "forgive them, for they know not what they say."
Years ago I had frequent encounters with a schizophrenic man, in his early thirties. Some days he would tell me he hadn't eaten in a day or two. Often I would give him something to eat and sit with him. He would tell me of his problems. Frequently he showed evidence of a severe beating and extreme exposure to the elements.
Then he was gone! I never saw him again!
He was gentle, kind, frail and didn't want to live a life on the streets. He didn't use substances or commit crimes. He was mentally ill and didn't receive the attention or help he deserved as a human being, an American woefully in need of help.
Flag as offensive
Ya, I hear you. What can I say?
Submitted by gmaudlin on Sun, 2008-01-06 13:09.
Churches don't house the homeless. The Salvation Army is filled up and one can't get in. Social Services don't house the homeless. As for the Veterans:
Article Finds Veteran's Housing Programs to be Inadequate. Posted: 12/11/2007
First published in the Indiana Law Review in 2005 this article examines the nature and extent of housing assistance provided by the United States government to veterans of its military service. It finds that assistance remarkably limited and inconsistent with our nation's history and rhetoric, providing a sobering corrective for those who wish to believe that public policy in the United States progressively becomes more humane or that national declarations are matched by national performance. The article also considers the reasons and potential cures for these inadequacies and inconsistencies.
Send Us Your Successful Ideas
If you have successfully created a program to provide continual support to homeless veteran service providers in your area, NCHV would appreciate hearing about it. If it is a program that can be replicated, your idea could contribute greatly to the success of other programs that provide hope and restore the dignity of homeless veterans nationwide. Send information about your program to the Communications Director at email@example.com, or by mail to NCHV, 333 ½ Pennsylvania Ave., SE, Washington, D.C. 20003-1148.
So just looking at the homeless veterans as a separate group, aren't we really demonstrating thru our lack of effort that we are all prideful for the vet. to fight our war, but once the vet. is beat up, take a hike. It's a me world the past two decades and homeless vet's. have nothing more I can use them for, so just get the hell away. You dirty bum.
Rationalize all you want but, it is totally inexcusable to have homeless in this country today. And especially homeless veterans.
"I'm the master of low expectations."
Flag as offensive
Submitted by Activist1 on Sun, 2008-01-06 13:22.
Flag as offensive
The Church Teaches
Submitted by LSK49rs on Sun, 2008-01-06 19:20.
and I believe:
2447 The works of mercy are charitable actions by which we come to the aid of our neighbor in his spiritual and bodily necessities. Instructing, advising, consoling, comforting are spiritual works of mercy, as are forgiving and bearing wrongs patiently. The corporal works of mercy consist especially in feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and imprisoned, and burying the dead. Among all these, giving alms to the poor is one of the chief witnesses to fraternal charity: it is also a work of justice pleasing to God:
He who has two coats, let him share with him who has none and he who has food must do likewise. But give for alms those things which are within; and behold, everything is clean for you. If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit?
Flag as offensive
That is what I call a spiritual principal. That is what I have
Submitted by gmaudlin on Sun, 2008-01-06 19:43.
been getting at all this time. It's the way people should live out their life. With that type of attitude. And this is just one area of life's challenges and choices.
Thank you LSK. I was beginning to wonder about the Catholic religion. Thanks for taking a stand for humanity or whatever one wants to call it.
I feel if one is going to have a religion, apply the religion to real life and preach from the heart, so all can relate and understand the message. You have done just that.
"I'm the master of low expectations."
Flag as offensive
Many people do not know
Submitted by LSK49rs on Sun, 2008-01-06 20:22.
that the Catholic Church and the other various Christian denominations are often the dam holding back the flood waters of social ills. For instance, the food for the Gospel Mission is prepared by parishoners at St. Joseph's where I attend. The only people who were present in Dafur and are in the Congo for many MANY years were the Churches. We, the membes, are far from perfect, but we do our best to live out the teachings, one day at a time.
Flag as offensive
Every last Saturday of the month, I donate my time to a church
Submitted by gmaudlin on Sun, 2008-01-06 21:13.
here in town, that does amazing things for all the people in need. This is not the church I attend, but it is a Christian church also and they need my help. It is one of my favorite ways to give. The church has several trucks and the trucks go out to the people. There are no requirements to receive, although there is a limit on clothing and food. All the donations are gathered by the church workers such as myself, taken out to the community and given freely to the people. It is a huge operation and I can tell you the recipients are very grateful. Many will wait in line an hour or two for us to get there. At each stop point (6 or so are going on at the same time), the gospel is preached a little and people young and old alike are asked to join God's family. One of the things I have noticed about the whole operation is that people really do see others care. And I know for sure, some join the helping team and wind up giving away what has been freely given to them. It's something else to see. All set up as a totally not for profit deal. It's a perfect demonstration of God's love working thru his people.
"I'm the master of low expectations."
Flag as offensive
On the flip side...
Submitted by AbstrACT on Mon, 2008-01-07 02:15.
We are an individualistic society- as a whole many have abandonded the idea of taking care of our family members in need, and instead take care of ourselves- I think it perpetuates our homeless problem. Most are mentally ill and/or drug addicts. There are some that are incapable of taking care of themselves due to mental illness and of course they need charity and mercy.
It is surprising to find out that many of them WANT to live on the streets. There are so many social programs- anyone who is homeless with a mental illness or drug problem CAN get help, especially if there are children involved. For the most part, the only people who do not choose to be homeless are children.
As someone who lives in the Bay Area (with a large homeless population) and worked Mental Health Crisis for 4 years, I think it has gotten to a point where people expect to be taken care of. On a primitive level, the harsh truth is that it is "survival of the fittest"... that the strong will survive and by comparrison, what we consider "poverty" in this country is not that bad.
What religious institutions and organizations do in charity is amazing, and that's how it should be. I think it is extremely important to have humanitartian involvement in our communities- but it needs to be done in a way that not only encourages, but demands self-reliance and a sense of reciprocity. Because I believe most of the people taking advantage of these charitable and governmental programs are working the system.
Flag as offensive
You raise a very interesting point
Submitted by LSK49rs on Mon, 2008-01-07 02:34.
especially in regards to the way our society treats the mentally ill. I remember (because I am old enough!) when there were more pro-active ways in which society could make sure those who were incapable of making productive, safe decisions as to how they would live had a roof over their heads. Unfortunately, some real abuses existed but it seems to me that we went overboard in trying to correct those abuses. Now, because of laws in place, people who really are too sick to be able to live outside of an institution are given the 'right' to refuse treatment. They are so often the victims of crime and drug abuse that it breaks my heart. Yet I sat with many an elderly parent outside a court room who were prevented from 'forcing' adult, mentally ill children off the mean streets of this rather cold, cruel world.
I also agree with you that the children are the horrible victims of this problem. They truly TRULY do not choose their way of life.
Flag as offensive
Submitted by jheaton on Fri, 2009-05-15 14:32.
I used your quote;"that the Catholic Church and the other various Christian denominations are often the dam holding back the flood waters of social ills" while discussing this topic with a friend. I just wanted to give credit where it was due!