Thursday, April 14, 2005

One of the main reasons I and so many other Christians supported President Bush and the Republican Senatorial candidates this last November was that we knew that one of the most important issues that will determine what sort of country our Children and Grandchildren will grow up in, is who will be our judges. The recent Terri Schiavo drama helped drive home this point.

Filibustering in the US Senate is a means a minority in the Senate can use to prevent the majority from passing a law, and it requires a supermajority of 60 out of the 100 Senators to break a filibuster. When it comes to blocking the creation of new laws the filibuster has in general been a good thing for the country. The filibuster is not in the Constitution, but has been part of the rules of the US Senate since the early days of our country.

The US Constitution gives the US Senate the duty to approve or reject the President's nominations for Federal Judgeships. It does not say this should require a supermajority.

Before President G. W. Bush entered office, never in the history of our country was a President's nominations for the Circuit Court or the Supreme Court filibustered. Exactly once there was a filibuster of a nomination of a sitting Supreme Court justice to become Chief Justice, and that was an unusual case of a nomination submitted at the end of the year when the Congress was about to go home, and the justice in question had serious ethical questions. That's it!

Our Constitution has a number of supermajority requirements in it including for doing things such as amending the Constitution, but the approval or rejection of a president's judicial nominations by the US Senate was not one of them. The Democrats are lying through their teeth and trying to tell the American public that all they are doing is upholding the traditions of the Senate, when really they are trying to ram though an Amendment of the Constitution without following the Constitutional provisions for such an Amendment.

Unfortunately there are Republicans who are siding with the Democrats in this unconstitutional Amendment attempt. Hugh Hewitt just reported on his radio program and his website that "Republican" Senator John McCain has declared he is going to support the Democrats in their unconstitutional filibuster of President Bush's judicial nominations.

There are also Republican Senators Alexander, Chafee, Collins, Hagel, Snowe, Sununu and Warner who are said to be thinking of joining Senator McCain in betraying the trust of the American people and of those who worked so hard to get them elected, by supporting the Democrats in this back door attempt to Amend the US Constitution.

Please call the Congressional Switchboard at 202-225-3121 and ask to speak with each of the above Senator's offices. Be polite, but ask them to please support the Constitution by voting against the use of the filibuster against the President's judicial nominations. If you are a past donor to Senatorial campaigns let them know that if they vote against the Constitution you will donate to their primary opponents next time around.

After you have left messages for the 7 waffling Senators above, call back and leave messages for Senators Frist and Specter urging them to take prompt action on the President's nominees. All of the President's judicial nominees currently before the US Senate would be approved, if they could only get a vote.

Senator's emails and direct phone numbers can be found here.

To learn more about the use of the filibuster against judicial nominations click here. To learn more about the history of judicial nominations click here.

Ed at Captain's Quarters has some choice words about Senator McCain and his history in the US Senate.



UPDATE: It was pointed out to me by Jarrad Shiver that my original wording "The US Constitution gives the US Senate the duty to approve the President's nominations for Federal Judgeships" could easily be read to imply that the Senate was under an obligation to approve the President's nominations, which is of course incorrect. Therefore I changed it to read "The US Constitution gives the US Senate the duty to approve or reject the President's nominations for Federal Judgeships" which I hope clarifies what I meant to say.
Friday, April 15, 2005 1:06:00 AM (Mountain Daylight Time, UTC-06:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [5]  |  Trackback
 Wednesday, April 06, 2005

John H. Hinderaker of Power Line writes "We have expressed our disappointment, in several respects, with this year's Pulitzer awards." "Cartoonist Nick Anderson of the Louisville, Kentucky Courier-Journal was awarded the top prize in print journalism "for his unusual graphic style that produced extraordinarily thoughtful and powerful messages," according to the Pulitzer Web site.

"You can see Anderson's prize-winning cartoons here. Virtually every one is a vicious, hateful attack on President Bush, the United States, or Christianity."

Here is one example:



"Yup, that's right. The central symbol of the Christian faith, with its two billion adherents, is just a tool to ride herd on those poor Democrats. That's what happens to them, I guess, when they aren't being run over by construction equipment or set aflame by Vietnam veterans." [as depicted in his other prize winning cartoons]

"Am I missing something, or is this a pathetic body of work, as whiny, self-pitying and incompetent as it is hateful? It's of a piece, though, with the journalism that the Pulitzer committee found worthy of reward this year. Loyalty to the Democratic party and antipathy toward America are the only qualities that count."

Read the whole article.

Wednesday, April 06, 2005 12:48:00 PM (Mountain Daylight Time, UTC-06:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [5]  |  Trackback
 Tuesday, April 05, 2005

I have known of and supported Spirit of America for about a year. They have done outstanding work helping the cause of freedom in Iraq and elsewhere. Jim Hake the founder writes:

"I'm in Beirut, Lebanon to kick off a project to support the pro-democracy demonstrators at the "tent city" in Martyrs' Square. Their goals are independence (i.e., Syria out of Lebanon) and free and fair elections. The tent city demonstrators are the center of gravity for Lebanon's pro-democracy movement. They are leading the charge. They put together the massive demonstrations 3 weeks ago. As they go, so goes Lebanon's independence. And so goes a great opportunity for democratic transformation of the Middle East and Arab world.

"They need our help to sustain their struggle. Our project is raising support for them (food, shelter, water, etc.) While I'm here we're looking into other things to help (e.g., Internet access at tent city)

"People can go here to help. 100% of all donations go directly to the things that will help the pro-democracy demonstrators.

"Syria is publicly acting like it is playing nice and withdrawing. Behind the scenes they are destabilizing the country, delaying the elections and intimidating the opposition. The good guys in Lebanon need our support.

"Please blog and help get the word out. This message is posted on our blog here."



Lots of people ask "but what can I do?" Well here is something you can do to help. Any donation large or small will help the cause of freedom.

Wednesday, April 06, 2005 1:58:00 AM (Mountain Daylight Time, UTC-06:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [3]  |  Trackback
 Sunday, April 03, 2005

The website for GodBlogCon is now operational and they expect to be accepting registrations soon.

"The Torrey Honors Institute of Biola University is proud to announce that the first ever GodBlog Convention will be held at Biola University on October 13th through October 15th, 2005. GodBlogCon is designed to establish and cultivate relationships within the Christian blogging community and to provide opportunities for Christian bloggers to think about their role within the broader blogging world."

I will post more as information becomes available.

Monday, April 04, 2005 12:42:00 AM (Mountain Daylight Time, UTC-06:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [2]  |  Trackback
 Friday, April 01, 2005
Friday, April 01, 2005 5:40:00 PM (Mountain Daylight Time, UTC-06:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback

Remember Sandy Burger, the Clinton White House Official who it was claimed removed the only copies of top secret documents "by accident" from the National Archives by hiding them in his socks? He claimed the documents were later misplaced or thrown out.

At the time the story was treated as one of those wild accusations coming out of what Hillary calls the "vast right wing conspiracy".

Now we learn due to his plea bargain that he intentionally removed the only copies in existence of these documents, and then personally shredded them with scissors in his office.

The liberal Washington Post leads off their story today this way: "Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, a former White House national security adviser, plans to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, and will acknowledge intentionally removing and destroying copies of a classified document about the Clinton administration's record on terrorism."

As Bill at INDC Journal writes: "So, let me get this straight: Sandy Berger intentionally destroyed the only copies of top secret documents about this country's historical knowledge of looming terrorism threats for clearly political purposes, even though a bipartisan Congressional commission was requesting and utilizing all such documents in an effort to formulate recommendations about how to protect America from another terrorist attack.

"In my world, that's not a "$10,000 fine ... three-year suspension of his national security clearance" offense, it's in the parking lot of the ballpark of treason. Former NSA or not, this man should suffer a permanent revocation of any security clearance, and probably sample the cuisine at a federal prison. "



Ed at Captain's Quarters writes: "He should face obstruction of justice and contempt of Congress just for this action alone, both felonies. The Post, meanwhile, insists on calling these "copies". They were not exact copies; each memo started off as a copy of an original draft by Richard Clarke, but the memos had handwritten notes from each recipient as comments, requests for revision, and suggestions for possible action. Each document was unique, and their destruction by Mr. Scissors means that we will never know what some did with Clarke's information. All we know is that it must have reflected badly on Berger, Clinton, or both. Otherwise, why would Berger destroy them?

"This is a travesty. If a lower-level cleared worker had done a fraction of what Berger did in this case, he would face years in prison. Berger gets off with a fine that any of his well-connected friends will wind up underwriting, a gracious gesture of gratitude for pulling their chestnuts out of the fire."



Indeed. Clinton's buddy Sandy Burger has obstructed justice, and the joke is on us.

Friday, April 01, 2005 2:27:00 PM (Mountain Daylight Time, UTC-06:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback