Denver Three - Clear and Present Danger

First it was Sen. Salazar (D-CO), next it was Rep. Waxman (D-CA) and now Denver Post Columnist, Fred Brown is questioning the preemptive removal of three (3) radical Democrat operatives from Bush's Soc. Sec. forum in Denver. Denver Three take to the road, (5/29/05). Funny how ever since this story was first reported, almost no one mentions that, in addition to these three thirty-somethings having a "No more blood for oil" bumper-sticker on their vehicle, they were ALL wearing "No more Lies" T-shirts UNDER their outwear...but they had decided not to unveil them - sure, I believe them...right! Any question that they were there to disrupt the President, to blow-up the event, to get Media attention? Don't Terrorists hope to achieve the same things when they "literally" blow themselves up in a crowd? Investigate this incident? How about awarding the Medal of Freedom to the anonymous citizen who single-handedly sniffed-out these political terrorists and pre-emptively removed the threat. There is no Freedom of Speech to yell "fire" in a crowded movie theatre and ever since 9/11 our primary concern is rooting out the enemies of Free Speech BEFORE they have the opportunity to strike. Today, Al-Zarqawi's weapon of choice against American soldiers is the Improvised Explosive Device (IED). How ironic that the Denver Three are similarly planting their own roadside bombs at town hall meetings all over our Country. Fred Brown is right, the Media should be asking more questions, questions about why are these three insurgents still free and when are their 15 minutes over?

Reform Rabbi Reflexively Rejects Religious Right

In, Lively Opinion, Intermountain Jewish News - IJN (5/20/05), Rabbi David Saperstein, Director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, makes several assertions which are vacuous, factually wrong and politically inspired. In his most recent press conference, President Bush contented that orchestrated opposition, to his Circuit and Appellate judicial nominees, was based on (their) “judicial philosophy”. Contrary to Rabbi Saperstein’s claim, Bush’s statement in no way repudiated anyone or rejected anything that has been said by (other) Republicans, supporters in Congress or Religious Leaders.
Saperstein goes on to say that a majority of Senators are being propelled to change the filibuster rule in order to advance religious nominees. In fact, it is the minority that will ultimately compel such action, due to their misuse of Parliamentary Procedure, hoping to keep qualified “people of faith” from ever getting a simple up-or-down vote.
Having twisted these facts to suit his own political proclivities, Saperstein then makes the ridiculous assertion that Republicans - who never met an extreme Religious justice they didn’t like, would reflexively reject extreme secular judges. In truth, Republican Senators would likely vote down “extreme” nominees of either persuasion, if using the filibuster didn’t preclude such evidence from coming to light.
It was odd to hear a rabbi say that “making a religious claim for a position does not make that position right”. Maybe Saperstein thinks that the Shema, proclaiming there is but one G-d, is open to debate? I wonder how many of the Ten Commandments, Rabbi Saperstein would challenge? So much for spiritual leadership, chalk up another victory for moral relativism and the Culture of Me First.
By repeatedly labeling (these) judicial nominees as too extreme, without ever identifying any characteristics, positions or specifics (other than their common Christian backgrounds) Saperstein and the Senate Democrats make the case for religious discrimination themselves.
The only time this Rabbi and the President would agree is if Bush, ignored the 62+ million Americans who re-elected him (along with a 55-45 Senate majority), and nominated Judges who passed the Liberal litmus tests of Abortion on Demand, Homosexual Marriage and removing G-d from the Public Square. When it comes to thinking about the future of the Judiciary, President Bush is religiously right and Rabbi David Saperstein has got it wrong, wrong, wrong.

All hat, no cattle afterall

81 –18…eighty-one to eighteen! After four years of threatening to filibuster Priscilla Owens, 26 Democrat senators voted Cloture on her nomination…twenty-six, not six or seven, but over half of the Minority Caucus. Apparently, claims that (she) was a dangerous, extreme candidate, were nothing more than lies. After all the months of delay and obstruction, granting Owens a simple up or down vote was never really in question. How much time and energy was wasted in “The World’s Most Deliberative Body”, by Minority members who were simply pandering to the most extreme elements of the looney, Liberal Left? How many false statements has the Senate been subjected to while important legislation has been delayed and judicial and administrative vacancies have remained unfilled?
Just as authorities in Lawrenceville, GA have now indicted Runaway Bride Jennifer Wilbanks on charges of lying and making false statements, would it not also be appropriate to charge Senate Democrats for four years of similar obstruction and unwarranted delay? At a minimum, Sen. Minority Leader, Harry Reid (D-NV), their “ring-leader”, should be forced to resign his position after orchestrating this sham on the American public and then voting, himself, to give President Bush’s judicial nominee a simple up-or-down vote.
Next time the Democrat leadership claims it has their entire caucus in lockstep, obstruction-mode - call the vote. Based on this fiasco, it now appears that MoveOn.org and Ralph Neas are “all hat, but no cattle”.

Eulogy to the filibuster

In his article, Key lawmaker in Nixon ouster dies, Denver Post 5/8/05, NYTimes writer, Michael T. Kaufman inadvertently illustrates the fallacy of the filibuster when eulogizing former Rep. Peter Rodino (D-NJ). While I disagree with Kaufman’s claim that events surrounding the eventual resignation of President Richard Nixon in the Summer of 1974, “lift(ed) (Rodino) to glory”, preferring to characterize Rodeno’s prominence (at the time) as being “lifted to infamy”, I concur with the article’s historical accuracy.
When the House Judiciary Committee voted out Articles of Impeachment, it did so with six to seven Republicans voting their consciences’ and after all the facts were made known, all Committee Republicans joined with Democrats in unanimous disapproval of Nixon. There was no attempt by Republicans, to protect their agenda or even their President, through the use of Parliamentary Procedures or similar delaying tactics. They heard the testimony and then voted (up or down) on the future of the Presidency. If Republicans had not crossed party lines, Nixon would not have resigned and the subsequent trial would have eroded Congressional comity and further divided our Nation. Republicans showed then that they placed the Country’s best interests ahead of agenda politics and while their party suffered a huge loss, they maintained the integrity of the institutions of Government and the best traditions of our Democracy.
Fast-forward to today and we no longer find Democrat majorities in Congress. The stage of controversy now is in the Senate and the issue is judicial confirmations. If those nominees currently being filibustered were wrong for this Country and truly out-of-the-mainstream, there’s no reason to think that Republicans would not, once again, defy their President and vote with the Democrat minority…if only they were allowed that opportunity.
Had Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn) not just lectured Pres. Clinton about immoral behavior, but voted for his removal from office, maybe others in his party would have joined him and with Vice President AlGore then running in 2000 as the incumbent, the selection of judicial nominees would probably have been in the hand of Democrats today. Perhaps this time around, monolithic obedience to MoveOn.org and Ralph Neas is ultimately, not a winning strategy for Senate Democrats either. Filibustering is preventing votes on the merits (evidence) of these nominees, eroding the comity of the Senate and is further dividing our Nation.
In the Biblical story of Sodom & Gomorrah, if not for finding just ten honest men G-d would have destroyed mankind forever. Where would Civilization be, were it not for Christopher Columbus standing up for his convictions? And it was in the middle of concerted air attacks on southern Britain, when Winston Churchill said, ”Never in the field of human conflict has so much been owed by so many to so few”.
In the summer of ’74, while Republicans did the right thing but ended up losing their President, they retained their dignity, their autonomy and lived to win another day. The question today is, are there six-seven Democrat Senators who will stand up to the Ultra-Liberal Special Interest groups, do the right thing and vote cloture on these nominees - even though it may result in (their) ratification to the Bench. Now that would be a real memorial to the dignity and fairness of Rep. Rodino!