End Pro-Abortion Litmus Test

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maranatha
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think the “litmus” test has gone far beyond whether a judge or judges are “pro-abortion” or not. I believe they are also now expected to look to legal decisions made by foreign nations whose sensibilities are far more advanced than those of Americans. If the judges are not outright socialists, pro-science and supportive of the globalization of world economic systems, as well as moral relativists, they might as well forget it.

The only way to truly effect change at this point is by outright revolutionary reform of the entire politico-governmental structure of America. I don’t think many people in America have the courage or the will to risk it all by orchestrating one. So, it’s go with the flow until outside forces unleash their fury, as they inevitably will, upon us.

I envision the possibility that radical Islamic extremists will strike out in concert when we least expect it. Perhaps these will detonate dirty bombs or other nuclear, chemical or biological weaponry in multiple cities throughout the United States on the same day at roughly the same hour. Imagine, if you will, that they have already scoped out their targets, and will ensure the maximum impact by destroying or crippling the health care network of hospitals in these cities. No functional or adequate healthcare facilities…countless more casualties.

And then there will be the 21st Century Pharoahs…the modern humanistic skeptics who will denounce those who cry out that God has allowed America to experience such atrocities as the plagues and pestilences ravage the countryside.

If you ask me, the days of our contending for the soul of this nation are now over. The experiment of our founding fathers has proven itself to be an abject failure. Next.
 
4 marks:
I think the “litmus” test has gone far beyond whether a judge or judges are “pro-abortion” or not. I believe they are also now expected to look to legal decisions made by foreign nations whose sensibilities are far more advanced than those of Americans. If the judges are not outright socialists, pro-science and supportive of the globalization of world economic systems, as well as moral relativists, they might as well forget it.

The only way to truly effect change at this point is by outright revolutionary reform of the entire politico-governmental structure of America. I don’t think many people in America have the courage or the will to risk it all by orchestrating one. So, it’s go with the flow until outside forces unleash their fury, as they inevitably will, upon us.

I envision the possibility that radical Islamic extremists will strike out in concert when we least expect it. Perhaps these will detonate dirty bombs or other nuclear, chemical or biological weaponry in multiple cities throughout the United States on the same day at roughly the same hour. Imagine, if you will, that they have already scoped out their targets, and will ensure the maximum impact by destroying or crippling the health care network of hospitals in these cities. No functional or adequate healthcare facilities…countless more casualties.

And then there will be the 21st Century Pharoahs…the modern humanistic skeptics who will denounce those who cry out that God has allowed America to experience such atrocities as the plagues and pestilences ravage the countryside.

If you ask me, the days of our contending for the soul of this nation are now over. The experiment of our founding fathers has proven itself to be an abject failure. Next.
Click to expand...
4- Marks:

That’s awefully sanguine…Remember, you’re talking about a HUGE load of human suffering that we have a moral obligation to try to stop if we can at all stop it.

Why are couselling allowing your follow humans to suffer while more children are murdered?
Is it because you believe in the Rapture? (I pray to God that you don’t)
Is it because you’ve somehow become immune to the suffering of those around you? (I guarantee you, THEY WILL SUFFER)
or, Are you that sure that you won’t suffer? (Another variant of the Rapture theme)

Our Lord Jesus willingly gave himself over to evil men so that we would not have to suffer the torments of Hell. Have you made the phone calls and written the e-mails so that at least some children won’t have to suffer the torments of Abortion? Have you at least tried? or, did you just decide to give in to despair?

As Pope Benedict XVI said, “Truth without Love is a clanging Symbol.”

Blessings and Peace, Michael
 
Traditional Ang said:
4- Marks:

That’s awefully sanguine…Remember, you’re talking about a HUGE load of human suffering that we have a moral obligation to try to stop if we can at all stop it.

Why are couselling allowing your follow humans to suffer while more children are murdered?
Is it because you believe in the Rapture? (I pray to God that you don’t)
Is it because you’ve somehow become immune to the suffering of those around you? (I guarantee you, THEY WILL SUFFER)
or, Are you that sure that you won’t suffer? (Another variant of the Rapture theme)

Our Lord Jesus willingly gave himself over to evil men so that we would not have to suffer the torments of Hell. Have you made the phone calls and written the e-mails so that at least some children won’t have to suffer the torments of Abortion? Have you at least tried? or, did you just decide to give in to despair?

As Pope Benedict XVI said, “Truth without Love is a clanging Symbol.”

Blessings and Peace, Michael
Click to expand...

I don’t believe in the “Rapture” as I am neither an evangelical fundamentalist Protestant or a charismatic Catholic. I also don’t believe, as many do these days, that suffering is to be avoided, but rather, embraced. It is an intrinsic part of physical reality. We suffer and we die. I don’t see disease or sickness or poverty or so-called injustice as obstacles to be overcome, but, rather, to be lived and endured for our mortification, humility and penance. We, after all, are but condemned criminals awaiting our execution on death row. It is only by the mercy and sovereign will of God that some of us will be delivered from such a fate.

I don’t believe in “torments” of “hell,” if by this you mean physical suffering. Physical suffering ends at death. Terri Schiavo, all those executed through capital punishment, every child who is unwanted by their mother and aborted, indeed all the dead do not suffer any further.

The world considers euthanasia, embryonic stem cell destruction for scientific purpose, abortion and the like “progress.” As the old saying goes, “You can’t stop progress.”

At one time, when I was younger and more naive concerning the state of human nature (I was taught by nuns, priests and brothers that all people were basically “good.”), I participated in abortion clinic protests and blockades. I smuggled blankets and pillows into county holding cells and was nearly arrested for this…I marched fevently on Washington, wrote many “Letters to the Editor,” called and debated these matters on radio talk shows, etc. I thought that these people could change if they really wanted to. I now know that they cannot for, by continuing to heap offense upon offense through their henious actions, they have become devoid of the grace necessary for repentence. Truly, truly, I say to you, they already have their “reward.”

Yes, truth without love is a clanging symbol, which is why I love these people enough to respect their decision to hurl headlong to their destruction. They have long heard of Jonah and the prophets, but they remain deaf to these. It’s time to shake off the dust from our feet and move on. I, for one, will not throw my pearls before swine, nor waste any energy contending with them.

Perhaps, by the lack of an extension of fellowship and dialogue, by avoiding any outward display of charitable concern for them either through prayer or deed, they will come to their senses, as the prodigal son had. I say let them sink to the very depths…turn them over to “Satan” for the “destruction of their flesh” that they might be saved.
 
4 marks:
I don’t believe in the “Rapture” as I am neither an evangelical fundamentalist Protestant or a charismatic Catholic. I also don’t believe, as many do these days, that suffering is to be avoided, but rather, embraced. It is an intrinsic part of physical reality. We suffer and we die. I don’t see disease or sickness or poverty or so-called injustice as obstacles to be overcome, but, rather, to be lived and endured for our mortification, humility and penance. We, after all, are but condemned criminals awaiting our execution on death row. It is only by the mercy and sovereign will of God that some of us will be delivered from such a fate.

I don’t believe in “torments” of “hell,” if by this you mean physical suffering. Physical suffering ends at death. Terri Schiavo, all those executed through capital punishment, every child who is unwanted by their mother and aborted, indeed all the dead do not suffer any further.

The world considers euthanasia, embryonic stem cell destruction for scientific purpose, abortion and the like “progress.” As the old saying goes, “You can’t stop progress.”

At one time, when I was younger and more naive concerning the state of human nature (I was taught by nuns, priests and brothers that all people were basically “good.”), I participated in abortion clinic protests and blockades. I smuggled blankets and pillows into county holding cells and was nearly arrested for this…I marched fevently on Washington, wrote many “Letters to the Editor,” called and debated these matters on radio talk shows, etc. I thought that these people could change if they really wanted to. I now know that they cannot for, by continuing to heap offense upon offense through their henious actions, they have become devoid of the grace necessary for repentence. Truly, truly, I say to you, they already have their “reward.”

Yes, truth without love is a clanging symbol, which is why I love these people enough to respect their decision to hurl headlong to their destruction. They have long heard of Jonah and the prophets, but they remain deaf to these. It’s time to shake off the dust from our feet and move on. I, for one, will not throw my pearls before swine, nor waste any energy contending with them.

Perhaps, by the lack of an extension of fellowship and dialogue, by avoiding any outward display of charitable concern for them either through prayer or deed, they will come to their senses, as the prodigal son had. I say let them sink to the very depths…turn them over to “Satan” for the “destruction of their flesh” that they might be saved.
Click to expand...
4-Marks:

I’m sorry to hear that you gave up from doing such good worrks. There’s a reason Scripture says: Let us not grow tired of doing good, for in due time we shall reap our harvest, if we do not give up. So then, while we have the opportunity, let us do good to all, but especially to those who belong to the family of the faith.
Galatians 6: 9 & 10. NAB

All I know is this, for 20+ years, I was one of them, completely and totally worthy of Damnation, and someone DID CARE enough about me to fervently pray for me, and, eventually, God and the angels in heaven found a way to bring me back home (I’ve spoken about this in other posts):

As I live, says the Lord GOD, I swear I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked man, but rather in the wicked man’s conversion, that he may live.

Ezekiel 33:11. NAB

Enough said about that.

4-Marks, we have an obligation before God and under heaven to try to save the INNOCENT from destruction. That is why men and women fought to end SLAVERY and the OPPRESSION of Jim Crow and Apartheid.

I’m under NO illusions about the “Basic Goodness” of man - I know about THE FALL, and I’ve seen the films of the atrocities of the 20th Century (Armenian Genocide, Ukranian Genocide, Holocaust, Japanese atrocities, Moaist and Cultural Revolutions, Cambodian Killing Fields, Rwanda, Sudan and the Congo - I can list more). I know about the cross-burnings and the church-bombings. I even had neighbors who had 2 crosses burned in front of their house by some of our other neighbors.

That doesn’t absolve us from our responsibility to try.

We’re not trying to make nice or to have fellowship with Republican or Democratic Senators. We’re trying to break an UNJUST FILIBUSTER so that Godly people can take their positions on the Appeals Bench and make decisions that will save a few lives.

So, please, write just a few letters for God’s Little Ones. You can turn the Democrats in the Senate over to Satan later.

It’s NOT love to respect a decision that murders children and sends souls to hell. Regarding Hell - See 2 Peter 2, and St. Faustina and her Vision of Hell:

divinemercymessenger.com/faustinavisionhell.html

Blessings on those who act to save God’s little Ones, Michael
 
40.png
CatQuilt:
Great thread. You’ve spurred at least one person to action!
Click to expand...
Thank You.

May God richly bless you.

Michael
 
Brothers and Sisters:

True to form, the LA TIMES launched an attack on Janice Rodgers Brown for remarks she made to a group of Catholics (She’s a CATHOLIC!):

Faith ‘War’ Rages in U.S., Judge Says

*WASHINGTON — Just days after a bitterly divided Senate committee voted along party lines to approve her nomination as a federal appellate court judge, California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown told an audience Sunday that people of faith were embroiled in a “war” against secular humanists who threatened to divorce America from its religious roots, according to a newspaper account of the speech.

Brown’s remarks come as a partisan battle over judges has evolved into a national debate over the proper mix of God and government and as Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) ponders changing the chamber’s rules to prevent Democrats from using procedural moves to block confirmation of conservative jurists such as Brown.

“There seems to have been no time since the Civil War that this country was so bitterly divided. It’s not a shooting war, but it is a war,” she said, according to a report published Monday in the Stamford Advocate.

“These are perilous times for people of faith,” she said, “not in the sense that we are going to lose our lives, but in the sense that it will cost you something if you are a person of faith who stands up for what you believe in and say those things out loud.”*

latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-brown26apr26,0,6225135.story?coll=la-home-headlines

What the LA Times doesn’t tell you is that Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, who criticized these remarks in their article, has said the same things in the past.

INTERVIEW
Barry Lynn: Defeating the Religious Right
gaytoday.badpuppy.com/garchive/interview/060198in.htm

Culture Warrior or Anti-Christ?
An interview with Reverend Barry Lynn
By David McNair 10/05/04

*I agree with Pat Buchanan that there is a cultural war for the soul of America… He was right. A rare moment, but he was right…

Absolutely. It took me years to be willing to use the word theocracy. By theocracy, I mean a government run along narrow religious lines relying on religious law to guide its governance. I think people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson would like to see the United States base its decisions not on the Constitution but on religious law, which includes a literal reading and interpretation of the Christian Bible. This means that in matters of faith and morals, laws would be written based on their understanding of Christian theology.*

rutherford.org/oldspeak/blog/articles/interview/Lynn.html

Maybe the LA Times didn’t report these instances because they didn’t know…or, Maybe they didn’t report them because they agree with BARRY LYNN and NOT with Janice Brown.

Either way, she said NOTHING INTEMPERATE or UNTRUE.

FYI, Janice Brown is one one the Apointees to the Federal Appeals Bench who was rated “Highly Qualified” by the ABA whom the DEMOCRATS are FILIBUSTERING.

If you agree with THEM and believe that what she said was UNTRUE and INTEMPERATE, do nothing. If you DISAGREE with the LA Times, the Instructions on what to do are above…

Thank you.

May God richly bless those who act to save His Little Ones, Michael
 
BROTHERS & SISTERS:

I want to call your attention to Barry Lynn’s remarks about their success against PRO-LIFE Churches in the interview with the Gay magazine:

*On a more contemporary note, I am proud of the leadership role we played in the defeat of the so-called “Religious Freedom Amendment” sponsored by Rep. Ernest Istook (R-OK) which would have erased the concept of church/state separation for the First Amendment.

I am also gratified about “Project Fair Play,” our national efforts to report illegal church-based campaign activities to the Internal Revenue Service. (Anti-choice/ anti-gay activists Randall Terry’s home church was the first to lose its tax exemption after an AU complaint).*

gaytoday.badpuppy.com/garchive/interview/060198in.htm

That may be one reason the USCCB reacted the way they did to (now Pope Benedict XVI) Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter requesting that they withhold Communion from Pro-Abortion politicians.

The letter is here:

The Kerry Affair: What Ratzinger Wanted from the American Bishops
Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion. General Principles
by Joseph Ratzinger
chiesa.espressonline.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=7055&eng=y

I can assure you that the position in the letter was NOT the position the USCCB took. Reading the Barry Lynn interview, I can see they might have been afraid of losing the Church’s TAX EXEMPT status. As laypeople, WE DON’T have to worry about that!

What that means is that CATHOLIC Politicians probably AREN’T being catechetized on this issue. They probably AREN’T being corrected, at least NOT by the Bishops and by their priests who don’t want to lose that TAX EXEMPT STATUS.

If you are already contacting the “At risk” or ROUND-HEELED Republicans, and you have the time, you may wish to POLITELY but firmly inform those politicians who are DEMOCRATS that their continued support of Abortion SEPERATES THEM FROM GOD & FROM HIS CHURCH! and, That the Bishops may not have been so clear on this issue because of the fear of losing the Church’s Tax Exempt Status.

We can’t let Barry Lynn and those like him keep us from saving the lives of God’s Little Ones.

Thank You.

May God bless those who act to spare the live of God’s Little Ones, Michael
 
Brothers and Sisters - This from the Archbishop of Denver:

Election of Benedict XVI ‘a moment of grace’

*At the archdiocesan Pastoral Center, dozens of people were glued to portable TVs they had brought into the office for the occasion. The cheering broke out as soon as Cardinal Ratzinger’s name became public. Anyone who knows the man and his work understands that Benedict XVI is a great gift to the Church — a leader of simplicity, humility, gentleness and warmth. The reason those who oppose authentic Catholic teaching resent him is not because he’s harsh — he is exactly the opposite — but because he has a unique serenity and courage.

Benedict XVI is not only more experienced in the life of the intellect and Christian conscience than his critics, he’s also more faithful to the mission of the Church and more anchored in the peace that comes from knowing and loving her founder — Jesus Christ.

So the smearing begins. A New York Times columnist summed up the anger of the Disappointed last week when she wrote that, “The white smoke (of the papal election) signaled that the Vatican thinks what it needs to bring it into modernity is the oldest pope since the 18th century: Joseph Ratzinger, a 78-year-old hidebound archconservative who ran the office that used to be called the Inquisition and who once belonged to Hitler Youth.”

There’s an ingenious, almost elegant, dishonesty to that kind of writing. It requires real skill in misrepresenting the man and misleading the reader. It also reveals more about the columnist and the newspaper that publishes her than either might like. But they’re hardly alone. Another prominent American columnist said he was “petrified” by Benedict’s election. Cartoonists have had a field day over the past week engaging in anti-Church bigotry. And even our own Colorado media have repeatedly — and wrongly — described the Holy Father as a “hardliner,” as if living and defending what the Catholic faith teaches is somehow fundamentalist.

One of the lessons from last year that too many American Catholics still don’t want to face is that it’s OK to be Catholic in today’s public square as long as we don’t try to live our beliefs too seriously; as long as we’re suitably embarrassed by all those “primitive” Catholic teachings; as long as we shut up about abortion and other sensitive moral issues and allow ourselves to be tutored in the ways of “polite” secular culture by experts who have little or no respect for the Christian faith that guides our lives.

The reason Pope Benedict XVI will get no media honeymoon is simple. It’s the same reason he instantly won the hearts of committed Catholics, worried the lukewarm and angered the proud and disaffected. He actually believes that what Jesus Christ and His Church teach is true, and that the soul of the world depends on the Church’s faithful witness.

As one columnist bitterly observed, “the cafeteria is now closed.” Of course, for believers, it was never open.*

archden.org/dcr/news.php?e=127&s=2&a=2937

They’re not going to like us anyway, so we might as well force a vote on our Pro-Life Judges. Shouldn’t we?

May God bless whose who act to spare the lives of His Little Ones, Michael
 
Brothers and Sisters - I heard this article on the radio today:

Another reason to contact the 7 WOBBLIES and your State’s Senators (if you live in a State with “Moderate Democrats” who will be up for re-election in 2006 or 2008):

Up, Down or Out
By BOB DOLE

*IN the coming weeks, we may witness a vote in the United States Senate that will define the 109th Congress for the ages. This vote will not be about war and peace, the economy or the threat from terrorism. It will focus instead on procedure: whether the Senate should amend its own rules to ensure that nominees to the federal bench can be confirmed by a simple majority vote.

I have publicly urged caution in this matter. Amending the Senate rules over the objection of a substantial minority should be the option of last resort. I still hold out hope that the two Senate leaders will find a way to ensure that senators have the opportunity to fulfill their constitutional duty to offer “advice and consent” on the president’s judicial nominees while protecting minority rights. Time has not yet run out.

But let’s be honest: By creating a new threshold for the confirmation of judicial nominees, the Democratic minority has abandoned the tradition of mutual self-restraint that has long allowed the Senate to function as an institution.

This tradition has a bipartisan pedigree. When I was the Senate Republican leader, President Bill Clinton nominated two judges to the federal bench - H. Lee Sarokin and Rosemary Barkett - whose records, especially in criminal law, were particularly troubling to me and my Republican colleagues. Despite my misgivings, both received an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor and were confirmed. In fact, joined by 32 other Republicans, I voted to end debate on the nomination of Judge Sarokin. Then, in the very next roll call, I exercised my constitutional duty to offer “advice and consent” by voting against his nomination.

When I was a leader in the Senate, a judicial filibuster was not part of my procedural playbook. Asking a senator to filibuster a judicial nomination was considered an abrogation of some 200 years of Senate tradition.

That’s why the current obstruction effort of the Democratic leadership is so extraordinary. President Bush has the lowest appellate-court confirmation rate of any modern president. Each of the 10 filibuster victims has been rated “qualified” or “well qualified” by the American Bar Association. Each has the support of a majority in the Senate. And each would now be serving on the federal bench if his or her nomination were subject to the traditional majority-vote standard.

This 60-vote standard for judicial nominees has the effect of arrogating power from the President to the Senate. Future Presidents must now ask themselves whether their judicial nominees can secure the supermajority needed to break a potential filibuster. Political considerations will now become even more central to the judicial selection process. Is this what the framers intended?

In the coming days, I hope changing the Senate’s rules won’t be necessary, but Senator Frist will be fully justified in doing so if he believes he has exhausted every effort at compromise. Of course, there is an easier solution to the impasse: Democrats can stop playing their obstruction game and let President Bush’s judicial nominees receive what they are entitled to: an up-or-down vote on the floor of the world’s greatest deliberative body.*

nytimes.com/2005/04/27/opinion/27dole.html?hp=&pagewanted=print&position=

Former Majority Leader Bob Dlole doesn’t want to admit that Senator Frist has exhausted every effort at compromise.

Please keep your phone calls, e-mail and letters going. It’s the only way the Senators know how CATHOLICS and other Christians feel about the DEMOCRATS imposition of a new ANTI-RELIGIOUS Test.

May God bless those who act to spare His Little Ones, Michael
 
*IN the coming weeks, we may witness a vote in the United States Senate that will define the 109th Congress for the ages. *
Click to expand...
I agree that this is the most important issue of this congress.
 
40.png
Maranatha:
I agree that this is the most important issue of this congress.
Click to expand...
Yep. I just got done sending my emails. Thanks Traditional Ang and Maranatha for doing the footwork.
 
John Joseph:
Yep. I just got done sending my emails. Thanks Traditional Ang and Maranatha for doing the footwork.
Click to expand...
Thank you, John Joseph.

May God richly bless you.

Blessed are they who act to spare God’s Little Ones, Michael
 
Brothers and Sisters, This is what Senator Reid had to say about us:

FYI, Senator Reid is the Minority Leader and a self-proclaimed Christian Pro-Lifer…

Democrats decline Frist’s olive branch on judicial nominees
Posted on Fri, Apr. 29, 2005

*WASHINGTON - In a piece of parliamentary choreography that moves the Senate closer to confrontation, Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., offered Thursday to give Democrats 100 hours to debate judicial nominees on the condition that they then permit a vote on each nominee.

Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., immediately rejected the offer but said he was willing to continue discussions.

Reid said the proposal violated his bottom line, which is that the filibuster rules – a tactic used by a minority of senators to block a vote by refusing to end debate – must remain intact.

“Thanks for the offer, but I think it was a big, wet kiss to the far right,” Reid said.

With a Supreme Court vacancy possible this summer, Frist said he would not budge on his bottom line – that Democrats be unable to block votes on judicial nominees.

Democrats argue that they have blocked 10 of 215 nominees they consider “extremists,” and that instead of withdrawing controversial judges, Bush has renominated them.

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., denounced Frist’s offer as insincere, saying that if it were a serious compromise, conservative activists would be unhappy.*

contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/politics/11521203.htm

Please understand that the filibuster has NEVER been used against JUDICIAL NOMINEES who had MAJORITY SUPPORT, no matter how tenuous that majority, until the DEMOCRATS started doing it in 2003!

Please understand that, because of the unusual circumstances involved, only JUDICIAL NOMINEES would be exempt from the Senate’s rules relating to FILIBUSTERS.

Please also understand, the ONLY reason these nominees are extremists is that they do NOT ENTHUSIASTICALLY SUPPORT ROE v. WADE, the Dread Scott Decision of our era.Regarding the rest of the claims from the DEMOCRATS, there’s a PROPOGANDA TECHNIQUE called TURNSPEAK, which is used by those who want to confuse people of good will on the other side.

When TURNSPEAK is used, the speaker accuses the other side (in this case US) of some nefarious motives and activites which he/she KNOWS we are NOT guilty of, but he/she knows his/her side IS GUILTY OF. It’s a complete reversal of reality, and, unless you know what the other side is doing, can be VERY CONFUSING.

eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/turnspeak2.html

eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/turnspeak.html

papillonsartpalace.com/atechniq.htm

baptist2baptist.net/printfriendly.asp?ID=220

mcbible.com/Synergoi/011207.htm

So, my brothers and Sisters, Don’t buy what the MSM and the DEMOCRATS are saying about us for a MINUTE., and just keep on phoning, e-mailing and writing.

They can’t stand that we’ve found our voice! PRAISE BE TO JESUS CHRIST!

Blessed are they who act to spare God’s Little Ones, Michael
 
Brothers and Sisters in Colorado:

Here’s an article for you from the Rocky Mountain News

Rosen: Salazar welshes on deal
Mike Rosen
April 29, 2005

*On the other hand, Salazar’s angry diatribe against Focus on the Family’s advertising campaign targeting him and other filibustering Democrats was equally overblown. Salazar melodramatically claimed that “there has been a hijacking of the U.S. Senate by what I call the religious right wing of the country.” Listen, nobody has hijacked the U.S. Senate nor is Ken Salazar some kind of an anti-Christian heathen.

I’ve heard the Focus on the Family radio ads admonishing Salazar for his flip-flop on the filibustering of President Bush’s appellate court nominees. The ads say nothing about his religious beliefs. They accurately relate his current position as compared to his campaign promise and they urge constituents to call him and express their disapproval. I’ve also read Salazar’s standard e-mail response to his constituents. It’s unresponsive, platitudinous, political doubletalk.

During the campaign, Salazar flatly stated that he favored an up-or-down vote for Bush’s judicial nominees in the U.S. Senate. Now, he’s rationalizing a continuation of the obstructionist filibuster, not to prolong debate but to require a supermajority for confirmation.

Absolutely nothing has changed in the principles surrounding this issue. What has changed is Salazar’s election. In order to beat Pete Coors, Salazar correctly judged that he’d have to run as a moderate. With no legislative voting record, he was free to position himself wherever he chose. The filibustering of judges was a litmus test issue during the campaign. Salazar didn’t want to be perceived as a Tom Daschle liberal on this (and we know what happened to Daschle). And he might even have believed, then, that he would honor his promise on judges. When he got to Washington, however, he soon got the crash course on hardball, party politics.

But he’s still a Democrat, and a freshman Democrat, at that. He doesn’t want to get crosswise, right out of the box, with his party’s leadership. And the Democrat filibustering of conservative nominees to the Circuit Courts of Appeal is a non-negotiable matter. So Salazar went along. This was wholly predictable. As I have often explained to electoral naifs and idealistic independents: in the American political system, party trumps person.

It’s true that more than 200 of Bush’s judicial nominees have been confirmed. But that was mostly to the lower courts. Senate Democrats have concentrated their resistance on Circuit Court of Appeals nominees, mini-Supreme Courts, as they are called. That’s where the major league action is. The confirmation rate of Bush’s appellate judges is only 65 percent, the lowest of any modern president.

Ten of Bush’s nominees have been filibustered, some for as long as four years. This is what’s unprecedented. Never before has there been a successful filibuster in the Senate to deny an up-or-down vote to nominees with clear majority support. The Constitution prescribes a simple majority to confirm judges, not a supermajority.

Democrats cannot justify this act by tradition. In fact, before Senate Rule 22 was broadened in 1949, it wasn’t even theoretically possible to filibuster a judicial nomination. For the record, Senate GOP leaders who have raised the specter of the so-called constitutional option (or the “nuclear option,” as Democrats and the liberal media prefer to label it) to prohibit filibusters on judicial nominees have never proposed restricting filibusters on normal legislative matters.

Bush’s appellate court nominees aren’t “radical, ultra- right-wing reactionaries,” as Senate Democrats and leftist pundits have labeled them. They’re simply conservatives, and liberals don’t like that. They’ve been judged “well-qualified” by the American Bar Association. These nominees are no further right of center than Supreme Court Justices Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg and Souter are left of center.

It was understood during the last presidential election that the winner would shape the federal judiciary, as has always been the case. If Hillary Clinton is elected in 2008, she’ll do the same thing. It’s as American as apple pie. Senate Democrats are flatly wrong on this and Salazar has fallen in with bad and unprincipled company.*

rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_86_3737690,00.html

Let Senator Salazar know that, if he resists this partisanship and fulfills his promise to you and to the American people, that you will support him even when the DNC deserts him as they certainly will. Let him know that YOU will remember that he did the RIGHT THING and upheld PRINCIPLE AGAINST PARTY when his party deserts him for doing the right thing. See if YOU can give him the COURAGE to do the RIGHT THING!

Blessed are they who act to save God’s Little Ones, Michael
 
On the other hand…

There’s Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Republican - Alaska) who got through Hugh’s list…

Senator fires back at attack ads
By RICHARD MAUER and NICOLE TSONG
Anchorage Daily News
Published: April 29th, 2005

*Sen. Lisa Murkowski says she has no intention of yielding to pressure from the Colorado-based evangelical group Focus on the Family, which is calling her a “squishy Republican” in its campaign to prevent Democrats from using the filibuster to block the appointments of some federal judges.

Firing back at the organization, which is running ads against her in Alaska and targeted her during its “Justice Sunday” simulcast to conservative churches around the country last weekend, Murkowski said the group is trying to undermine the Constitution’s separation of power doctrine that has served the nation well for more than 200 years.

“I am NOT squishy,” Murkowski said in a telephone interview from Washington. “This whole deal with Focus on the Family has gotten me mad. They’re not going to put me in a corner this way.”

But even as she resists the organization, Murkowski still is not saying how she would ultimately vote if the so-called nuclear option button is pressed and the Senate must choose whether to continue to allow judicial filibusters.

In fact, Murkowski said, she wants up-or-down votes on Bush’s nominees. But exercising the “nuclear option,” or the “constitutional option,” as Focus on the Family calls it, could lead the Democrats to carry out their threat to halt Senate business, she said, and with it, legislation important to Alaska such as the transportation bill and the budget, which would open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling.

Murkowski said she was surprised to find herself targeted. “They never even called our office to find what our official position was, and quite frankly I feel what they’re saying is false,” she said.

But Amanda Banks, federal issues analyst for Focus on the Family, said Murkowski’s position was well documented. Banks said the organization would be happy to stop the ads if Murkowski would state how she would vote on the filibuster rule change.

“I’ve had more than one conversation with her press office and always want to give her the opportunity to make a statement, so this is based purely on her decision not to provide one, not to take a position,” Banks said.
Murkowski said she is being “thoughtful” in holding back and trying to affect a compromise that would prevent the need for a vote on rules and permit an “up or down vote” on all the nominees.

“Push has not come to shove yet. We are not at that point when this is the only thing left for us to do,” she said. “I don’t want to change the rules in an effort to rectify an issue we are dealing with today that we might regret next year or five years from now.”*

adn.com/news/alaska/story/6433226p-6312288c.html

Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s contact information is as follows - From
senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm :

Murkowski, Lisa- (R - AK)
709 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6665
Web Form: murkowski.senate.gov/contact.html

She sounds very hypersensitive. So, please be very POLITE and let her know why this is important TO YOU as a CATHOLIC and an AMERICAN.

Thank you for the extra effort.

Blessed are they who act to spare the lives of God’s Little Ones, Michael
 
Hi Michaels, both of you. I don’t have a senator. I am quite interested to follow this case of the fillibuster, however. Thanks for making this thread. Ani. 👍
 
I believe that one’s support or opposition for Roe V Wade should be a litmus test for judicial nominees and whether they are allowed to be voted upon. If a nominee doesn’t oppose it, I certainly would want good legislators doing all that they could to stop that person from getting confirmed.
 
Ani Ibi:
Hi Michaels, both of you. I don’t have a senator. I am quite interested to follow this case of the fillibuster, however. Thanks for making this thread. Ani. 👍
Click to expand...
Ani:

Just because you’re not an American citizen doesn’t mean that you don’t have the right (and in this case, the need) to be heard on this issue.

Since the DEMOCRATS claim that “International Opinion” is important to them (esp. that of EUROPE?) e-mails and letters from YOU to the DEMOCRATS might make at least a couple of them rethink their LOYALTY to this ACCURSED & UNCONSTITUTIONAL FILIBUSTER OF “Well Qualified” (per the ABA) Judicial Nominees simply because they object to their RELIGION!

So, follow the LINKS above to the DEMOCRATS - Now, that also applies to the rest of you who AREN’T Americans.

Thanks for the idea, Ani. I hadn’t thought of that until you wrote that you DIDN’T HAVE A SENATOR!

Got that - Americans - Call, E-mail and Write these people, STARTING WITH THE FIRST 7 those Whose names are in bold face:

Lamar Alexander (R - TN)
302 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
Voice (202) 224-4944 Fax: (202) 228-3398
Web Form: alexander.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Home

Lincoln Chafee (R - RI)
141A RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
Main (202) 224-2921
Web Form: chafee.senate.gov/webform.htm

Susan Collins (R-ME)
461 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
Voice (202) 224-2523 Fax: (202) 224-2693
Web Form: collins.senate.gov/low/contactemail.htm

Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
248 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
Tel: (202) 224-4224 Fax: (202) 224-5213
Web Form: hagel.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Offices.Contact

Olympia Snowe (R-ME)
154 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5344 Fax: (202) 224-1946
E-mail: olympia@snowe.senate.gov
Web: snowe.senate.gov/

John Sununu (R-NH)
111 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-2841 Fax: (202) 228-4131
Web Form: sununu.senate.gov/webform.html

John Warner (R-VA)
225 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2023 Fax: (202) 224-6295
Web Form: warner.senate.gov/contact/contactme.cfm

Then, ONLY AFTER the first seven have been PHONED, E-MAILED AND MAILED, contact those on the list below…Hugh Hewitt was positive about Senator Spector. The People from Grassfire aren’t so sure…So he’s on the list below!

DeWine (R-OH)
140 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-2315 Fax: (202) 224-6519
Web Form: dewine.senate.gov/

Murkowski (R-AK)
709 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
Voice (202) 224-6665 Fax (202) 224-5301
Web Form: murkowski.senate.gov/contact.html

Gordon Smith (R-OR)
404 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
Phone (202) 224-3753 Fax: (202)228-3997
Web Form: gsmith.senate.gov/webform.htm

Arlen Specter (R-PA)
711 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
Phone (202) 224-4254 Fax: (202) 228-1229
Web Form: specter.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactInfo.Home

*George Voinovich (R-OH) *
524 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3353 Fax: (202) 228-1382
Web Form:voinovich.senate.gov/contact/index.htm

INTERNATIONALS - You’ve got the DEMOCRATS! There ALL YOURS!

AMERICANS - You’ve got the REPUBLICANS!

WE have 2 more weeks at the most! It’s a good thing to send follow-ups, and to ask for responses!

And when we’re not writing, let’s pray, esp. to the Blessed Mother.

Blessed are they who act to spare God’s Little Ones, Michael
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top