Today's Cultural Warfare Update
Jul. 28th, 2005 11:16 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
solarbirdThe latest released draft of the Iraqi constitution declares Iraq an Islamic state and continues to place Iraqi women under Islamic law - Omar at IraqTheModel provides a partial translation;
Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney vetoes emergency contraception bill - some suspect he is building up his social conservatism cred in anticipation of a 2008 presidential run;
Boy scouts to be allowed to use military facilities again, despite religious requirements for membership;
Food Network reverses decision on Boy Scout promotion - claims the whole thing was a misunderstanding, but that doesn't sound true to me, to be honest; had originally decided not to be involved over Scout discrimination policies on gay scouts (ACTION ITEM);
Focus on the Family continues the hard-core promotion of Judge John Roberts - there's an action item out today (not this), there's entire daily shows dedicated to how he's the best judicial nominee ever - do they know something we don't, or is he just good enough, and are they just trying to make their constituency feel rewarded?;
FotF snipes at Democrats for wanting to see "every document" involving Roberts;
FotF quotes Atty. General Gonzales saying the Supreme Court is not bound by precedent - Roberts's appeals court confirmation statement about Roe v. Wade being settled law do not necessarily apply to the Supreme Court position, which is, of course, correct - my personal suspicion is that he will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade within a few years of confirmation;
Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts opposes providing birth certificate forms that gender-neutral for parents, meaning children born of same-sex parents have to cross-out-and-write-in; this pleases Focus on the Family;
Concerned Women for America claims there's a huge campaign to imply that John Roberts is gay - I haven't seen a lot of this except for the photo of him in plaid slacks being passed around because, well, it _is_ funny - claims it's intended to make conservatives "hate him" and goes "He's NOT GAY! NOT NOT NOT NOT!!!1!" etc;
CWFA continues to demand RU-486 be pulled from the market;
CWFA looks towards enacting Federal legislation to allow pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions they find morally objectionable;
CWA of Washington State is forming "prayer action chapters," presumably ramping up the organisation in anticipation of an anti-marriage amendment next year;
Sen. Richard Durbin asks Judge John Roberts, "what he would do if the law required a ruling that his church considers immoral"; FRC condemns this as a "religious litmus test," condemns Senator Durbin; personally, I think that if the nominee in question were Islamic, you'd get a very different reaction and I think it's a pretty fucking valid question, myself;
Family Research Council's version of the call-in action item on John Roberts - I think they're trying to prevent anyone from digging too deeply, which is a very interesting strategy and bad sign (ACTION ITEM);
Traditional Values Coalition demands Patrick Leahy not consider abortion rights(!) when considering John Roberts, denouncing those concerns as a "litmus test";
WorldNetDaily condemns "gay" billboards promoting gay.com website in Massachusetts;
Cybercase News Service also condemns Senator Durbin's question, also using the phrase "religious litmus test";
Thomas Sowell condemns Democratic attempts to get Roberts documents, mocks the idea of privacy rights, notes the Supreme Court is not bound by precedent;
Focus on the Family's action item to support John Roberts (ACTION ITEM).
----- 1 -----
If this is going to be the final draft, then I'm going to say "NO".
Iraq, the Model (an Iraqi citizen's blog, reporting from Baghdad)
Tuesday, 26 July 2005 (27 July our time, I think)
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2005/07/if-this-is-going-to-be-final-draft.html
This morning, Al-Sabah had the exclusive right to publish the current draft of the constitution. This draft will be submitted to the national Assembly to get the Assembly's approval before putting it to the October referendum.
Of course the draft is tool long to fully translate and it would've taken me a few more days to do that so I have chosen the most important parts of it and translated them. Here are they for you to read:
*Words in between brackets are still not agreed upon by all members of the CDC.
*My comments are in Italics.
Section One:
Fundamental principles:
1-the republic of Iraq (the Islamic, federal) is a sovereign, independent country and the governing system is a democratic, republican, federal one.
The Islamic republic of Iraq!? NO WAY.
2-Islam is the official religion of the state and it is the main source of legislations and it is not allowed to make laws that contradict the fundamental teachings of Islam and its rules (the ones agreed upon by all Muslims) and this constitution shall preserve the Islamic identity of the majority of the Iraqi people (with its Shea't majority and its Sunni component) and respect the rights of all other religions.
This is the deadliest point if approved; Islam or any religion cannot and must not be the main source of legislation.
3-The Iraqi community is made of two main ethnicities; these are Arabic and Kurdish and of other main ethnicities; these are Turkmen, Chalideans, Assyrian, Armenian, Shabak and (Persian) and Yazidi and Mendayeen, all of which are equal in rights and duties of citizenship.
Why is it that no one heard of this ethnic component before? Or at least lets say that no one heard them (if they exsited) say that they want to be recognized as Persian Iraqis!
[...]
9-The family is the bas of the community and the state preserves the family's genuine Iraqi identity that is based on patriot, religious and ethical values and the state also is responsible for protecting maternity and childhood and looks after the youths and provide the appropriate environment to assure the development of their skills and capabilities.
I don't know for sure what they mean by saying "the state preserves the family's genuine Iraqi identity that is based on patriot, religious and ethical values" but it doesn't sound great anyway
...
Section Two
Basic rights and public freedoms
[...]
6-The state protects the basic rights of women including equality with men in accordance to the Islamic share'at and the state helps the women in creating balance between their duties within their families and their duties within the community.
Equality according to Islamic Share'at? Thia is totally new to me!
[...]
Although this document will be subject to further negotiations and modifications, my first look at it made me decide that I'm going to say "NO" to this constitution. Islam has been introduced in many clauses and not only Islam, sectarianism was introduced into the draft in a disgusting way and frankly speaking, such things will make me feel so unsafe if results of the referendum came positive for this draft.
[Much more at URL]
----- 2 -----
Emergency Contraception Bill Vetoed in Bay State
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
July 26, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney vetoed legislation Monday that
would have allowed pharmacies in the state to sell
emergency contraception without a prescription and
required hospitals to offer it to victims of sexual
assault, The Associated Press reported.
Emergency contraception can sometimes cause a very early
abortion -- that's what led to Romney's veto.
"If it only dealt with contraception," he said, "I
wouldn't have a problem with it."
The state legislature passed the bill with enough votes to
override the governor's veto, though it is not clear if
lawmakers, who have already adjourned for the summer, will
be called back to vote on it.
----- 3 -----
Senate Votes: Scouts Can Use Military Bases to Meet
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
July 26, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
The U.S. Senate voted 98-0 today in favor of an amendment
to the Defense Authorization Bill that would permit
military bases across the country to allow the Boy Scouts
of America access to facilities for scouting events, The
Associated Press reported.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., sponsored the
Support Our Scouts Act of 2005, in response to lawsuits
and a federal court ruling seeking to dissolve the
relationship between the government and the 3.2 million
member youth organization. The use of federal property by
Scouts was condemned by many because members are required
to swear an oath of duty to God and the group bans openly
homosexual leaders.
"I'm proud that my colleagues from both sides of the aisle
chose to uphold the Boy Scouts' fundamental right of fair
and equal access to public facilities," Frist said. "This
amendment protects a unique American tradition that
teaches our youth the importance of honesty, integrity and
character. It enables the Scouts to continue their public
service without the distraction of senseless legal and
political attacks."
----- 4 -----
REVERSAL: FOOD NETWORK TO CARRY BOY SCOUT 'IRON CHEFS'
Cable channel changes mind and will include Scout Troop.
http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0037329.cfm
by Aaron Atwood, assistant editor
SUMMARY: Cable channel changes mind and will include Scout
Troop in TV promotion.
Accepted, rejected and accepted again. Colorado Springs
Boy Scout Troop 99 will now be included in a Food Network
promotion, a decision that comes after more than 1,000
CitizenLink readers urged network executives not to
discriminate against the Boy Scouts of America (BSA).
The promotion invites viewers to apply for the chance to
have a camera crew capture them cooking like the
contestants on the TV show, "Iron Chef America."
While initial attempts to contact key people at the Food
Network, as well as parent-company Scripps Networks, were
unsuccessful, the deluge of e-mail prompted executives to
contact CitizenLink to tell their side of the story, and
ultimately announce they would include the Scouts on the
network.
[More at URL]
----- 5 -----
EDITOR'S PICKS: Resources for Impacting (and Living in) Your World.
"Supreme Court Nominee John Roberts"
with Dr. James Dobson, Tony Perkins & Dr. Robert George
Focus on the Family
http://www.family.org/resources/itempg.cfm?itemid=5549&refcd=CE05GCZL&tvar=no
Is Judge John Roberts a good choice for the Supreme Court
and for our nation? A political battle is looming over the
Senate confirmation of Roberts as the next U.S. Supreme
Court Justice. Everyone in Washington is concerned about
how his opinions might affect the high court's rulings and
ultimately our nation -- and you should be, too. Find out
why as law professor Robert George and family advocate
Tony Perkins join Dr. Dobson for an informative discussion
about Judge John Roberts on this CD of a recent Focus on
the Family broadcast.
----- 6 -----
Dems Mad They Can't See Every Roberts Document
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
July 27, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
Despite the release of more than 75,000 documents prepared
by Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts during the Reagan
administration, Democrats continue to voice disappointment
over the news they won't see papers prepared by Roberts
while working for the first Bush administration, CBS News
reported.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said providing the
documents in question would violate attorney-client
privilege and adversely affect the decision-making process
in the solicitor general's office -- the office for which
Roberts was working at the time.
"Democratic and Republican solicitors general have said
that to make that information available would really
stifle their ability to have a candid and independent and
honest assessment from attorneys in their office,"
McClellan said. "These future solicitors general might as
well put up a sign that says, 'Do not apply if you are
thinking about going through a Senate confirmation
process.' "
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., a member of the Judiciary
Committee, said it is too early for the committee to know
if it will even need the documents. "(But) I hope the
White House will keep an open mind on documents requests,"
he said.
McClellan said the documents already released are "more
than sufficient for members of the Senate to do their
job."
----- 7 -----
Roe v. Wade Said to Be Not Binding for Supreme Court Justices
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
July 27, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
According to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the legal
right to abortion is settled law for lower courts but the
Supreme Court "is not obliged to follow" precedent set by
the Jan. 22, 1973, decision known as Roe v. Wade, Fox News
reported.
During a 2003 confirmation for his current seat on the
U.S. Court of Appeals, Roberts said nothing would prevent
him from upholding Roe v. Wade because it was "settled
law." In briefs he prepared as deputy solicitor general in
the administration of President George H. W. Bush, Roberts
argued that Roe was "wrongly decided and should be
overruled."
Gonzales said Roberts answered as he should have in 2003
but said as a Supreme Court justice, things could be
different.
"If you're asking a circuit court judge, like Judge
Roberts was asked, yes, it is settled law because you're
bound by precedent," Gonzales said. "If you're a Supreme
Court justice, that's a different question, because a
Supreme Court justice is not obliged to follow precedent
if you believe it's wrong."
----- 8 -----
Massachusetts Governor Opposes 'Parent A / Parent B'
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
July 27, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
As a result of the legalization of homosexual marriage in
Massachusetts, the state now faces a related dilemma: How
should hospitals list same-sex "parents" on a birth
certificate?
Gay marriage advocates are asking the state to amend the
certificates to read "Parent A" and "Parent B" in place of
the traditional "Mother" and "Father."
Michele Granda, staff attorney for Gay and Lesbian
Advocates and Defenders, said records should accurately
reflect "the true nature of Massachusetts families and
that includes same-sex couples."
Gov. Mitt Romney disagrees.
"I'm opposed to taking the Massachusetts birth certificate
and removing the term 'Mother' and 'Father'," Romney said.
"Look, each child has a mother and a father. They should
have the right to have that mother and father known to
them, and that's something I'd like to preserve on a birth
certificate."
Romney has told hospitals to cross out either "Mother" or
"Father" and replace it with "Second Parent" if the issue
arises.
Romney, who has also expressed opposition to same-sex
marriage, said he's voicing his conscience.
The issue will likely end up in a Bay State court.
----- 9 -----
Presence of Malice: Attacking Judge Roberts and Family
Concerned Women for America
7/28/2005
By Jan LaRue, Chief Counsel
We all knew the war against President Bush's Supreme Court nominee would be vicious, but ...
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8624/LEGAL/scourt/index.htm
Who didn’t know that the extreme left’s all-out war against whomever President Bush picked for the Supreme Court would be vicious? But nothing could possibly have prepared Judge John Roberts, his wife, Jane, and their two adopted children, Josie, age five, and Jack, age four, for attacks as contemptible as those we’ve seen already. Hopefully, they will take comfort in knowing that Judge Roberts is so overwhelmingly favorable his opponents have to resort to vile innuendoes in their frantic attempt to take him down.
Conservative commentator Charmaine Yoest called attention on July 21 to the absurd buzz among some left-of-the-universe Web bloggers:
It started with Manhattan Offender in a post yesterday asking “How Gay is This Guy?” and then he quoted Wikipedia's entry for Judge Roberts. He zeroed in on some really damning evidence from Roberts’ youthful past: the all-male boarding school, studying French and Latin (gasp!), being a wrestler and, oh the horror, participating in choir and drama.
To support their folly, the bloggers include a photo from around 1972 of John Roberts wearing plaid slacks. Truly, the fashion nightmare of the ’70s should have kept men wearing polyester leisure suits, “Nehru” jackets, plaid pants, white belts and shoes in the closet, so to speak. But according to the logic of these blogger-buffoons, we should pull dad and grandpa out of the closet along with Judge Roberts.
[More at URL]
----- 10 -----
WA Says New RU-486 Study Proves Need for Drug’s Suspension
Concerned Women for America
7/28/2005
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8626/MEDIA/life/index.htm
Washington, D.C. – Concerned Women for America (CWA) called “insufficient” the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) recent decision to strengthen the language on RU-486’s warning label after reports that two more women have died after taking the abortion pill. Five women in the United States and Canada have died from septic shock after taking RU-486, or mifepristone.
“The FDA allows the death toll to mount and confesses to being ‘baffled’ by the deaths,” said Wendy Wright, CWA’s senior policy director. “Thanks to the hard work of Brown University professor Ralph P. Miech, MD, PhD, we may have the answer to why RU-486 causes harm to women as well as their babies.”
[More at URL]
----- 11 -----
Congressional Hearing Focuses on Pharmacists’ Right of Conscience
Concerned Women for America
7/27/2005
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8619/CWA/freedom/index.htm
Following the enactment of legislation in Illinois to force all pharmacists to fill all prescriptions, even for abortion drugs, the U.S. House of Representatives looking into the matter with a hearing in the House Small Business Committee, chaired by Rep. Don Manzullo (R-Illinois). Wendy Wright, CWA’s senior policy director has more on this hearing and the members of Congress who stood for righteousness. Click here to listen.
[Wendy Wright, seniour policy director. House Small Business committee "has been very concerned for years on the morning-after pill and how it's being FORCED on all of us." "They're trying to force through every avenue possible to make it easily available." "They must fill any morning-after pill prescription presented to them... or accommodate" - Ed. Note: "accommodation" means bringing in another pharmacist to fill the prescription. They actually do admit this and find it unacceptable, of course. Glosses over reports of pharmacist abuse of customers. "This drug could end a new human right." Manzullo should be "commended" for such. Claims prescriptions "could easily have been filled plenty of times beforehand," apparently implying that people will get a single prescription and use it over and over again, going on with the "only sluts get abortions" implication often found in this movement. Says doctors "could easily give a list of pharmacists who would fulfill it." Claims that "activists" have "systematically gone to pharmacy to pharmacy to try to 'catch' a pharmacist who wouldn't fulfill it." Calls it "a targeted campaign to smoke out people who have a conscience." "They want to use government coercion to force people to violate their conscience... they want 100% compliance with the abortion agenda."
"The women who testified came across as very demanding and selfish;" Marylin Musgrave (Colorado) called it "unseemly that this woman puts her inconvenience above other peoples' very deeply held moral convictions." Congratulates Musgrave did a "wonderful job" at "holding this witness to account." "How dare she make a federal case" out of this. Steve King (Iowa) "brought out what is really the underlying issue" - the whole "life begins at contraception" thing, about how the morning-after pill can prevent an egg from implanting in the womb. King "challenged" people who had other ideas. "You have a special interest lobby... they don't want any respect for embryos, for new human life." "They want to drive home that we as a society should have no respect at all for embryos." Jeff Thortonberry (Nebraska) also "did a fine job of questioning the witnesses." "Life does begin at contraception and that's what this is all about."]
Promises additional updates when legislation comes from this hearing.
----- 12 -----
Urgent Prayer Needed!
Concerned Women for America of Washington State
7/21/2005
Urgent Need!
Prayer Action Chapter Leaders and Home Teams Captains
http://states.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=8600&department=FIELD&categoryid=misc
Prayer Action Chapters and Home Teams are the Foundation and Strength of CWA!
Prayer/Action Chapters give members of CWA a voice in their communities. Local chapters consist of faithful women and men who meet regularly to become informed, pray, and take action on community, state, and federal issues. Home Teams are similar. The main difference is that information is distributed by e-mail, phone, fax, or mail, rather than by meeting. A team or chapter can consist of friends, family, church members, co-workers and general acquaintances, to name a few. Leaders receive a monthly newsletter from the National office that provides pertinent information on federal legislation on which CWA is currently focused. They also will receive Washington Legislative Updates, which provide information about issues at the state level.
Washington State now has 12 Chapters and 3 Home Teams. We are endeavoring to build a strong and far reaching foundation. By binding together in prayer, and taking appropriate action –we can stand strong for Judeo Christian values in our state and country. At the moment, there are 4 new applications that have been sent out. We praise God for each new leader and are praying for many more. Would you please pray and consider becoming a Prayer/Action Leader (PAL) or Home Team Captain (HTC)?
Together –we can make our voice heard and make a difference!
To Start or join a Prayer/Action Chapter or a Home Team—please call 425-869-1923 or email Maureen at director_wa_cwfa@hotmail.com
----- 13 -----
FRC Rejects Sen. Durbin's Religious Litmus Test
Family Research Council
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=PR05G13
Washington, D.C. - Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, reported today in an LA Times op-ed that Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill) asked Judge John Roberts last week "what he would do if the law required a ruling that his church considers immoral."

FRC Pres. Tony Perkins responds: "Sen. Durbin's questioning is clearly an attempt to place Judge Roberts in the position of choosing between his faith and the law."
[Link jump required]
Last April, I called on viewers and listeners who joined our nationwide simulcast -- 'Justice Sunday -- Stopping the Filibuster Against People of Faith,' to contact their senators and urge them to oppose the unconstitutional use of religious litmus tests. Unfortunately, Senator Durbin has chosen to ignore the Constitution and is seeking to impose a religious litmus test on Judge John Roberts.
"Repeatedly, judicial nominees have been blocked for 'deeply held beliefs' on moral issues. Senator Durbin's questioning is clearly an attempt to place Judge Roberts in the position of choosing between his faith and the law. However, the Constitution forbids the disqualification of judicial nominees on the basis of religious and moral convictions.
"Once again, I call on Senator Durbin's colleagues to immediately pledge that they will not oppose judicial nominees on the basis of their religious views.
"This should also include a promise not to impose a 'stealth' religious test, by disqualifying a nominee for personal moral convictions that may be informed by his or her religious faith."
Family Research Council is hosting a nationwide broadcast on Sunday, August 14 for Justice Sunday II "God save the United States and this Honorable Court" which is the follow-up to "Justice Sunday -- Stopping the Filibuster Against People of Faith." The broadcast will air in churches across the nation in addition to being carried on hundreds of radio stations, via satellite and webcast. The broadcast will air live from 7:00 to 8:30 p.m. ET from Two Rivers Baptist Church in Nashville, Tennessee.
For more information on Justice Sunday II please visit www.justicesunday.com.
----- 14 -----
Call Your Senators to Confirm Judge Roberts
July 27, 2005 - Wednesday
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=AL05G13
Forward to a Friend!
Despite the Bush Administration's acquiescing to Democrat's demands and releasing 75,000 pages of documents, the left is still not satisfied. Seventy five thousand pieces of paper, according to the Wisconsin Paper Council, weighs close to 1,000 lbs - equivalent to the amount of paper you can get from one tree. My question is how many trees must die during this fishing expedition before the environmentalists are up in arms? I am not sure who the Democrats think they are fooling but it certainly isn't the American people.

On Thursday please look up your Senator below and join in a major call-in effort to Senators in support of Judge John Roberts and a fair confirmation process. Each Senator's phone number in Washington DC is listed, and clicking on a Senator's name will bring you to additional phone numbers for local offices.
[More at URL]
----- 15 -----
Americans Must Reject Senator Pat Leahy’s Abortion Litmus Test
Traditional Values Coalition
For Immediate Release July 28, 2005
Contact: Amy Skeen (202) 547-8570
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2359
Washington, DC – “Senator Patrick Leahy’s abortion litmus test for Judge John Roberts isn’t going to work,” said Traditional Values Coalition Executive Director Andrea Lafferty today. “Leahy’s new standard for Supreme Court Justices is an offensive and inappropriate effort to insist Judge Roberts prejudge cases that come before him. Leahy’s obscene standard for judges must be rejected by the American people.”
Mrs. Lafferty is responding to Senator Leahy’s announcement on July 27 that he will vote against Judge Roberts for the Supreme Court unless Roberts agrees to vote for abortion on cases that come before him.
Mrs. Lafferty urges Senators to condemn Senator Leahy’s effort to force nominees to submit to his litmus test. “American deserves a Constitutionalist on the Court who understands his role as an interpreter, not legislator of law,” said Lafferty.
----- 16 -----
Massachusetts billboard promotes 'gay' website
Group ties development to legalization of same-sex marriage
Posted: July 28, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45473
A billboard advertising a provocative homosexual website has been posted on a Cambridge, Mass., street near the famed school MIT.
A Massachusetts advocacy group battling the homosexual agenda, Article 8 Alliance, says the ad's placement is evidence that the legal sanctioning of same-sex "marriage" is the "green light to push [homosexuality] in your face – in the schools, government, businesses, and the public square."
[More at URL]
----- 17 -----
Conservatives Complain of Stealth Religious Litmus Test
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
July 26, 2005
http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\Politics\archive\200507\POL20050726b.html
(CNSNews.com) - Some conservatives see sure signs that Senate Democrats are planning to consider Judge John Roberts' religious beliefs as part of his confirmation process. Roberts has been described as a devout Roman Catholic.
The Family Research Council points to a recent Los Angeles Times op-ed by George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley, in which Turley said Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) has asked Judge John Roberts, "what he would do if the law required a ruling that his church considers immoral."
"Unfortunately, Senator Durbin has chosen to ignore the Constitution and is seeking to impose a religious litmus test on Judge John Roberts," said Family Research Council President Tony Perkins.
"Repeatedly, judicial nominees have been blocked for 'deeply held beliefs' on moral issues," Perkins said.
"Senator Durbin's questioning is clearly an attempt to place Judge Roberts in the position of choosing between his faith and the law. However, the Constitution forbids the disqualification of judicial nominees on the basis of religious and moral convictions."
[More at URL]
----- 18 -----
July 26, 2005
Judge's "Views"
By Thomas Sowell
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-7_26_05_TS.html
Preliminary indications are that both we and Judge John G. Roberts may be spared the ugly food fights that confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee can become. However, if Judge Roberts has ever been guilty of jay-walking, you can believe that some shrill special interest group will dig that up and try to make him seem like a threat to the republic.
Even if all goes well and Judge Roberts is confirmed, there are virtually certain to be liberal Senators trying to get his "views" on all sorts of issues and probably demanding confidential government documents that nobody is entitled to get, in order to dig deeper into his "views."
What makes all this a cheap farce is that the very Senators who demand to see confidential memoranda from John Roberts' days in the Justice Department know in advance that no administration of either party is likely to release such confidential material -- not if they ever expect people to speak candidly in the future when their advice is sought.
[More at URL]
----- 19 -----
**CITIZENLINK ACTION ALERT**
Call Your Senators Now to Urge a Fair Hearing for Judge
Roberts
Focus on the Family
July 27, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
Liberals are pulling out all the stops in their campaign
to upend the nomination of Circuit Judge John Roberts to
the U.S. Supreme Court, suggesting that his conservative
judicial philosophy makes him unsuitable to replace Sandra
Day O'Connor.
It's a ridiculous argument -- and one you can take a few
minutes right now to counter.
Today is the day leftist pressure groups like the
pro-abortion NARAL Pro-Choice America are urging
supporters to tell their two U.S. senators to vote against
Judge Roberts -- before he's even had a hearing. They
maintain Roberts shouldn't be confirmed to the court, in
large part, because "radical right" leaders like Dr. James
Dobson believe he is highly qualified to serve and that he
understands that his role as a judge is to interpret law
-- not make it.
Your voice is needed to provide senators a different, more
honest perspective. Please take a few minutes right now to
call both of your U.S. senators and remind them that all
nominees to the federal bench, especially one with Judge
Roberts' credentials in government and the private sector,
deserve a fair Senate hearing and an up-or-down
confirmation vote.
To reach your senators in Washington, you can call --
toll-free -- 877-762-8762. If that number isn't working or
is busy, dial the Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121.
If you'd like to have extra impact, please consider
placing calls to your senators' district offices, as well.
You can find those phone numbers by visiting the
CitizenLink Action Center, typing your ZIP code into the
space provided and clicking on the profile page for each
of your senators.
http://www3.capwiz.com/fof/dbq/officials/
Thank you for willingness to spend your most valuable
commodity -- time -- to stand for fairness and against
judicial tyranny.
Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney vetoes emergency contraception bill - some suspect he is building up his social conservatism cred in anticipation of a 2008 presidential run;
Boy scouts to be allowed to use military facilities again, despite religious requirements for membership;
Food Network reverses decision on Boy Scout promotion - claims the whole thing was a misunderstanding, but that doesn't sound true to me, to be honest; had originally decided not to be involved over Scout discrimination policies on gay scouts (ACTION ITEM);
Focus on the Family continues the hard-core promotion of Judge John Roberts - there's an action item out today (not this), there's entire daily shows dedicated to how he's the best judicial nominee ever - do they know something we don't, or is he just good enough, and are they just trying to make their constituency feel rewarded?;
FotF snipes at Democrats for wanting to see "every document" involving Roberts;
FotF quotes Atty. General Gonzales saying the Supreme Court is not bound by precedent - Roberts's appeals court confirmation statement about Roe v. Wade being settled law do not necessarily apply to the Supreme Court position, which is, of course, correct - my personal suspicion is that he will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade within a few years of confirmation;
Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts opposes providing birth certificate forms that gender-neutral for parents, meaning children born of same-sex parents have to cross-out-and-write-in; this pleases Focus on the Family;
Concerned Women for America claims there's a huge campaign to imply that John Roberts is gay - I haven't seen a lot of this except for the photo of him in plaid slacks being passed around because, well, it _is_ funny - claims it's intended to make conservatives "hate him" and goes "He's NOT GAY! NOT NOT NOT NOT!!!1!" etc;
CWFA continues to demand RU-486 be pulled from the market;
CWFA looks towards enacting Federal legislation to allow pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions they find morally objectionable;
CWA of Washington State is forming "prayer action chapters," presumably ramping up the organisation in anticipation of an anti-marriage amendment next year;
Sen. Richard Durbin asks Judge John Roberts, "what he would do if the law required a ruling that his church considers immoral"; FRC condemns this as a "religious litmus test," condemns Senator Durbin; personally, I think that if the nominee in question were Islamic, you'd get a very different reaction and I think it's a pretty fucking valid question, myself;
Family Research Council's version of the call-in action item on John Roberts - I think they're trying to prevent anyone from digging too deeply, which is a very interesting strategy and bad sign (ACTION ITEM);
Traditional Values Coalition demands Patrick Leahy not consider abortion rights(!) when considering John Roberts, denouncing those concerns as a "litmus test";
WorldNetDaily condemns "gay" billboards promoting gay.com website in Massachusetts;
Cybercase News Service also condemns Senator Durbin's question, also using the phrase "religious litmus test";
Thomas Sowell condemns Democratic attempts to get Roberts documents, mocks the idea of privacy rights, notes the Supreme Court is not bound by precedent;
Focus on the Family's action item to support John Roberts (ACTION ITEM).
----- 1 -----
If this is going to be the final draft, then I'm going to say "NO".
Iraq, the Model (an Iraqi citizen's blog, reporting from Baghdad)
Tuesday, 26 July 2005 (27 July our time, I think)
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2005/07/if-this-is-going-to-be-final-draft.html
This morning, Al-Sabah had the exclusive right to publish the current draft of the constitution. This draft will be submitted to the national Assembly to get the Assembly's approval before putting it to the October referendum.
Of course the draft is tool long to fully translate and it would've taken me a few more days to do that so I have chosen the most important parts of it and translated them. Here are they for you to read:
*Words in between brackets are still not agreed upon by all members of the CDC.
*My comments are in Italics.
Section One:
Fundamental principles:
1-the republic of Iraq (the Islamic, federal) is a sovereign, independent country and the governing system is a democratic, republican, federal one.
The Islamic republic of Iraq!? NO WAY.
2-Islam is the official religion of the state and it is the main source of legislations and it is not allowed to make laws that contradict the fundamental teachings of Islam and its rules (the ones agreed upon by all Muslims) and this constitution shall preserve the Islamic identity of the majority of the Iraqi people (with its Shea't majority and its Sunni component) and respect the rights of all other religions.
This is the deadliest point if approved; Islam or any religion cannot and must not be the main source of legislation.
3-The Iraqi community is made of two main ethnicities; these are Arabic and Kurdish and of other main ethnicities; these are Turkmen, Chalideans, Assyrian, Armenian, Shabak and (Persian) and Yazidi and Mendayeen, all of which are equal in rights and duties of citizenship.
Why is it that no one heard of this ethnic component before? Or at least lets say that no one heard them (if they exsited) say that they want to be recognized as Persian Iraqis!
[...]
9-The family is the bas of the community and the state preserves the family's genuine Iraqi identity that is based on patriot, religious and ethical values and the state also is responsible for protecting maternity and childhood and looks after the youths and provide the appropriate environment to assure the development of their skills and capabilities.
I don't know for sure what they mean by saying "the state preserves the family's genuine Iraqi identity that is based on patriot, religious and ethical values" but it doesn't sound great anyway
...
Section Two
Basic rights and public freedoms
[...]
6-The state protects the basic rights of women including equality with men in accordance to the Islamic share'at and the state helps the women in creating balance between their duties within their families and their duties within the community.
Equality according to Islamic Share'at? Thia is totally new to me!
[...]
Although this document will be subject to further negotiations and modifications, my first look at it made me decide that I'm going to say "NO" to this constitution. Islam has been introduced in many clauses and not only Islam, sectarianism was introduced into the draft in a disgusting way and frankly speaking, such things will make me feel so unsafe if results of the referendum came positive for this draft.
[Much more at URL]
----- 2 -----
Emergency Contraception Bill Vetoed in Bay State
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
July 26, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney vetoed legislation Monday that
would have allowed pharmacies in the state to sell
emergency contraception without a prescription and
required hospitals to offer it to victims of sexual
assault, The Associated Press reported.
Emergency contraception can sometimes cause a very early
abortion -- that's what led to Romney's veto.
"If it only dealt with contraception," he said, "I
wouldn't have a problem with it."
The state legislature passed the bill with enough votes to
override the governor's veto, though it is not clear if
lawmakers, who have already adjourned for the summer, will
be called back to vote on it.
----- 3 -----
Senate Votes: Scouts Can Use Military Bases to Meet
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
July 26, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
The U.S. Senate voted 98-0 today in favor of an amendment
to the Defense Authorization Bill that would permit
military bases across the country to allow the Boy Scouts
of America access to facilities for scouting events, The
Associated Press reported.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., sponsored the
Support Our Scouts Act of 2005, in response to lawsuits
and a federal court ruling seeking to dissolve the
relationship between the government and the 3.2 million
member youth organization. The use of federal property by
Scouts was condemned by many because members are required
to swear an oath of duty to God and the group bans openly
homosexual leaders.
"I'm proud that my colleagues from both sides of the aisle
chose to uphold the Boy Scouts' fundamental right of fair
and equal access to public facilities," Frist said. "This
amendment protects a unique American tradition that
teaches our youth the importance of honesty, integrity and
character. It enables the Scouts to continue their public
service without the distraction of senseless legal and
political attacks."
----- 4 -----
REVERSAL: FOOD NETWORK TO CARRY BOY SCOUT 'IRON CHEFS'
Cable channel changes mind and will include Scout Troop.
http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0037329.cfm
by Aaron Atwood, assistant editor
SUMMARY: Cable channel changes mind and will include Scout
Troop in TV promotion.
Accepted, rejected and accepted again. Colorado Springs
Boy Scout Troop 99 will now be included in a Food Network
promotion, a decision that comes after more than 1,000
CitizenLink readers urged network executives not to
discriminate against the Boy Scouts of America (BSA).
The promotion invites viewers to apply for the chance to
have a camera crew capture them cooking like the
contestants on the TV show, "Iron Chef America."
While initial attempts to contact key people at the Food
Network, as well as parent-company Scripps Networks, were
unsuccessful, the deluge of e-mail prompted executives to
contact CitizenLink to tell their side of the story, and
ultimately announce they would include the Scouts on the
network.
[More at URL]
----- 5 -----
EDITOR'S PICKS: Resources for Impacting (and Living in) Your World.
"Supreme Court Nominee John Roberts"
with Dr. James Dobson, Tony Perkins & Dr. Robert George
Focus on the Family
http://www.family.org/resources/itempg.cfm?itemid=5549&refcd=CE05GCZL&tvar=no
Is Judge John Roberts a good choice for the Supreme Court
and for our nation? A political battle is looming over the
Senate confirmation of Roberts as the next U.S. Supreme
Court Justice. Everyone in Washington is concerned about
how his opinions might affect the high court's rulings and
ultimately our nation -- and you should be, too. Find out
why as law professor Robert George and family advocate
Tony Perkins join Dr. Dobson for an informative discussion
about Judge John Roberts on this CD of a recent Focus on
the Family broadcast.
----- 6 -----
Dems Mad They Can't See Every Roberts Document
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
July 27, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
Despite the release of more than 75,000 documents prepared
by Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts during the Reagan
administration, Democrats continue to voice disappointment
over the news they won't see papers prepared by Roberts
while working for the first Bush administration, CBS News
reported.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said providing the
documents in question would violate attorney-client
privilege and adversely affect the decision-making process
in the solicitor general's office -- the office for which
Roberts was working at the time.
"Democratic and Republican solicitors general have said
that to make that information available would really
stifle their ability to have a candid and independent and
honest assessment from attorneys in their office,"
McClellan said. "These future solicitors general might as
well put up a sign that says, 'Do not apply if you are
thinking about going through a Senate confirmation
process.' "
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., a member of the Judiciary
Committee, said it is too early for the committee to know
if it will even need the documents. "(But) I hope the
White House will keep an open mind on documents requests,"
he said.
McClellan said the documents already released are "more
than sufficient for members of the Senate to do their
job."
----- 7 -----
Roe v. Wade Said to Be Not Binding for Supreme Court Justices
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
July 27, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
According to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the legal
right to abortion is settled law for lower courts but the
Supreme Court "is not obliged to follow" precedent set by
the Jan. 22, 1973, decision known as Roe v. Wade, Fox News
reported.
During a 2003 confirmation for his current seat on the
U.S. Court of Appeals, Roberts said nothing would prevent
him from upholding Roe v. Wade because it was "settled
law." In briefs he prepared as deputy solicitor general in
the administration of President George H. W. Bush, Roberts
argued that Roe was "wrongly decided and should be
overruled."
Gonzales said Roberts answered as he should have in 2003
but said as a Supreme Court justice, things could be
different.
"If you're asking a circuit court judge, like Judge
Roberts was asked, yes, it is settled law because you're
bound by precedent," Gonzales said. "If you're a Supreme
Court justice, that's a different question, because a
Supreme Court justice is not obliged to follow precedent
if you believe it's wrong."
----- 8 -----
Massachusetts Governor Opposes 'Parent A / Parent B'
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
July 27, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
As a result of the legalization of homosexual marriage in
Massachusetts, the state now faces a related dilemma: How
should hospitals list same-sex "parents" on a birth
certificate?
Gay marriage advocates are asking the state to amend the
certificates to read "Parent A" and "Parent B" in place of
the traditional "Mother" and "Father."
Michele Granda, staff attorney for Gay and Lesbian
Advocates and Defenders, said records should accurately
reflect "the true nature of Massachusetts families and
that includes same-sex couples."
Gov. Mitt Romney disagrees.
"I'm opposed to taking the Massachusetts birth certificate
and removing the term 'Mother' and 'Father'," Romney said.
"Look, each child has a mother and a father. They should
have the right to have that mother and father known to
them, and that's something I'd like to preserve on a birth
certificate."
Romney has told hospitals to cross out either "Mother" or
"Father" and replace it with "Second Parent" if the issue
arises.
Romney, who has also expressed opposition to same-sex
marriage, said he's voicing his conscience.
The issue will likely end up in a Bay State court.
----- 9 -----
Presence of Malice: Attacking Judge Roberts and Family
Concerned Women for America
7/28/2005
By Jan LaRue, Chief Counsel
We all knew the war against President Bush's Supreme Court nominee would be vicious, but ...
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8624/LEGAL/scourt/index.htm
Who didn’t know that the extreme left’s all-out war against whomever President Bush picked for the Supreme Court would be vicious? But nothing could possibly have prepared Judge John Roberts, his wife, Jane, and their two adopted children, Josie, age five, and Jack, age four, for attacks as contemptible as those we’ve seen already. Hopefully, they will take comfort in knowing that Judge Roberts is so overwhelmingly favorable his opponents have to resort to vile innuendoes in their frantic attempt to take him down.
Conservative commentator Charmaine Yoest called attention on July 21 to the absurd buzz among some left-of-the-universe Web bloggers:
It started with Manhattan Offender in a post yesterday asking “How Gay is This Guy?” and then he quoted Wikipedia's entry for Judge Roberts. He zeroed in on some really damning evidence from Roberts’ youthful past: the all-male boarding school, studying French and Latin (gasp!), being a wrestler and, oh the horror, participating in choir and drama.
To support their folly, the bloggers include a photo from around 1972 of John Roberts wearing plaid slacks. Truly, the fashion nightmare of the ’70s should have kept men wearing polyester leisure suits, “Nehru” jackets, plaid pants, white belts and shoes in the closet, so to speak. But according to the logic of these blogger-buffoons, we should pull dad and grandpa out of the closet along with Judge Roberts.
[More at URL]
----- 10 -----
WA Says New RU-486 Study Proves Need for Drug’s Suspension
Concerned Women for America
7/28/2005
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8626/MEDIA/life/index.htm
Washington, D.C. – Concerned Women for America (CWA) called “insufficient” the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) recent decision to strengthen the language on RU-486’s warning label after reports that two more women have died after taking the abortion pill. Five women in the United States and Canada have died from septic shock after taking RU-486, or mifepristone.
“The FDA allows the death toll to mount and confesses to being ‘baffled’ by the deaths,” said Wendy Wright, CWA’s senior policy director. “Thanks to the hard work of Brown University professor Ralph P. Miech, MD, PhD, we may have the answer to why RU-486 causes harm to women as well as their babies.”
[More at URL]
----- 11 -----
Congressional Hearing Focuses on Pharmacists’ Right of Conscience
Concerned Women for America
7/27/2005
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8619/CWA/freedom/index.htm
Following the enactment of legislation in Illinois to force all pharmacists to fill all prescriptions, even for abortion drugs, the U.S. House of Representatives looking into the matter with a hearing in the House Small Business Committee, chaired by Rep. Don Manzullo (R-Illinois). Wendy Wright, CWA’s senior policy director has more on this hearing and the members of Congress who stood for righteousness. Click here to listen.
[Wendy Wright, seniour policy director. House Small Business committee "has been very concerned for years on the morning-after pill and how it's being FORCED on all of us." "They're trying to force through every avenue possible to make it easily available." "They must fill any morning-after pill prescription presented to them... or accommodate" - Ed. Note: "accommodation" means bringing in another pharmacist to fill the prescription. They actually do admit this and find it unacceptable, of course. Glosses over reports of pharmacist abuse of customers. "This drug could end a new human right." Manzullo should be "commended" for such. Claims prescriptions "could easily have been filled plenty of times beforehand," apparently implying that people will get a single prescription and use it over and over again, going on with the "only sluts get abortions" implication often found in this movement. Says doctors "could easily give a list of pharmacists who would fulfill it." Claims that "activists" have "systematically gone to pharmacy to pharmacy to try to 'catch' a pharmacist who wouldn't fulfill it." Calls it "a targeted campaign to smoke out people who have a conscience." "They want to use government coercion to force people to violate their conscience... they want 100% compliance with the abortion agenda."
"The women who testified came across as very demanding and selfish;" Marylin Musgrave (Colorado) called it "unseemly that this woman puts her inconvenience above other peoples' very deeply held moral convictions." Congratulates Musgrave did a "wonderful job" at "holding this witness to account." "How dare she make a federal case" out of this. Steve King (Iowa) "brought out what is really the underlying issue" - the whole "life begins at contraception" thing, about how the morning-after pill can prevent an egg from implanting in the womb. King "challenged" people who had other ideas. "You have a special interest lobby... they don't want any respect for embryos, for new human life." "They want to drive home that we as a society should have no respect at all for embryos." Jeff Thortonberry (Nebraska) also "did a fine job of questioning the witnesses." "Life does begin at contraception and that's what this is all about."]
Promises additional updates when legislation comes from this hearing.
----- 12 -----
Urgent Prayer Needed!
Concerned Women for America of Washington State
7/21/2005
Urgent Need!
Prayer Action Chapter Leaders and Home Teams Captains
http://states.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=8600&department=FIELD&categoryid=misc
Prayer Action Chapters and Home Teams are the Foundation and Strength of CWA!
Prayer/Action Chapters give members of CWA a voice in their communities. Local chapters consist of faithful women and men who meet regularly to become informed, pray, and take action on community, state, and federal issues. Home Teams are similar. The main difference is that information is distributed by e-mail, phone, fax, or mail, rather than by meeting. A team or chapter can consist of friends, family, church members, co-workers and general acquaintances, to name a few. Leaders receive a monthly newsletter from the National office that provides pertinent information on federal legislation on which CWA is currently focused. They also will receive Washington Legislative Updates, which provide information about issues at the state level.
Washington State now has 12 Chapters and 3 Home Teams. We are endeavoring to build a strong and far reaching foundation. By binding together in prayer, and taking appropriate action –we can stand strong for Judeo Christian values in our state and country. At the moment, there are 4 new applications that have been sent out. We praise God for each new leader and are praying for many more. Would you please pray and consider becoming a Prayer/Action Leader (PAL) or Home Team Captain (HTC)?
Together –we can make our voice heard and make a difference!
To Start or join a Prayer/Action Chapter or a Home Team—please call 425-869-1923 or email Maureen at director_wa_cwfa@hotmail.com
----- 13 -----
FRC Rejects Sen. Durbin's Religious Litmus Test
Family Research Council
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=PR05G13
Washington, D.C. - Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, reported today in an LA Times op-ed that Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill) asked Judge John Roberts last week "what he would do if the law required a ruling that his church considers immoral."

FRC Pres. Tony Perkins responds: "Sen. Durbin's questioning is clearly an attempt to place Judge Roberts in the position of choosing between his faith and the law."
[Link jump required]
Last April, I called on viewers and listeners who joined our nationwide simulcast -- 'Justice Sunday -- Stopping the Filibuster Against People of Faith,' to contact their senators and urge them to oppose the unconstitutional use of religious litmus tests. Unfortunately, Senator Durbin has chosen to ignore the Constitution and is seeking to impose a religious litmus test on Judge John Roberts.
"Repeatedly, judicial nominees have been blocked for 'deeply held beliefs' on moral issues. Senator Durbin's questioning is clearly an attempt to place Judge Roberts in the position of choosing between his faith and the law. However, the Constitution forbids the disqualification of judicial nominees on the basis of religious and moral convictions.
"Once again, I call on Senator Durbin's colleagues to immediately pledge that they will not oppose judicial nominees on the basis of their religious views.
"This should also include a promise not to impose a 'stealth' religious test, by disqualifying a nominee for personal moral convictions that may be informed by his or her religious faith."
Family Research Council is hosting a nationwide broadcast on Sunday, August 14 for Justice Sunday II "God save the United States and this Honorable Court" which is the follow-up to "Justice Sunday -- Stopping the Filibuster Against People of Faith." The broadcast will air in churches across the nation in addition to being carried on hundreds of radio stations, via satellite and webcast. The broadcast will air live from 7:00 to 8:30 p.m. ET from Two Rivers Baptist Church in Nashville, Tennessee.
For more information on Justice Sunday II please visit www.justicesunday.com.
----- 14 -----
Call Your Senators to Confirm Judge Roberts
July 27, 2005 - Wednesday
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=AL05G13
Forward to a Friend!
Despite the Bush Administration's acquiescing to Democrat's demands and releasing 75,000 pages of documents, the left is still not satisfied. Seventy five thousand pieces of paper, according to the Wisconsin Paper Council, weighs close to 1,000 lbs - equivalent to the amount of paper you can get from one tree. My question is how many trees must die during this fishing expedition before the environmentalists are up in arms? I am not sure who the Democrats think they are fooling but it certainly isn't the American people.

On Thursday please look up your Senator below and join in a major call-in effort to Senators in support of Judge John Roberts and a fair confirmation process. Each Senator's phone number in Washington DC is listed, and clicking on a Senator's name will bring you to additional phone numbers for local offices.
[More at URL]
----- 15 -----
Americans Must Reject Senator Pat Leahy’s Abortion Litmus Test
Traditional Values Coalition
For Immediate Release July 28, 2005
Contact: Amy Skeen (202) 547-8570
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2359
Washington, DC – “Senator Patrick Leahy’s abortion litmus test for Judge John Roberts isn’t going to work,” said Traditional Values Coalition Executive Director Andrea Lafferty today. “Leahy’s new standard for Supreme Court Justices is an offensive and inappropriate effort to insist Judge Roberts prejudge cases that come before him. Leahy’s obscene standard for judges must be rejected by the American people.”
Mrs. Lafferty is responding to Senator Leahy’s announcement on July 27 that he will vote against Judge Roberts for the Supreme Court unless Roberts agrees to vote for abortion on cases that come before him.
Mrs. Lafferty urges Senators to condemn Senator Leahy’s effort to force nominees to submit to his litmus test. “American deserves a Constitutionalist on the Court who understands his role as an interpreter, not legislator of law,” said Lafferty.
----- 16 -----
Massachusetts billboard promotes 'gay' website
Group ties development to legalization of same-sex marriage
Posted: July 28, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45473
A billboard advertising a provocative homosexual website has been posted on a Cambridge, Mass., street near the famed school MIT.
A Massachusetts advocacy group battling the homosexual agenda, Article 8 Alliance, says the ad's placement is evidence that the legal sanctioning of same-sex "marriage" is the "green light to push [homosexuality] in your face – in the schools, government, businesses, and the public square."
[More at URL]
----- 17 -----
Conservatives Complain of Stealth Religious Litmus Test
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
July 26, 2005
http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\Politics\archive\200507\POL20050726b.html
(CNSNews.com) - Some conservatives see sure signs that Senate Democrats are planning to consider Judge John Roberts' religious beliefs as part of his confirmation process. Roberts has been described as a devout Roman Catholic.
The Family Research Council points to a recent Los Angeles Times op-ed by George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley, in which Turley said Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) has asked Judge John Roberts, "what he would do if the law required a ruling that his church considers immoral."
"Unfortunately, Senator Durbin has chosen to ignore the Constitution and is seeking to impose a religious litmus test on Judge John Roberts," said Family Research Council President Tony Perkins.
"Repeatedly, judicial nominees have been blocked for 'deeply held beliefs' on moral issues," Perkins said.
"Senator Durbin's questioning is clearly an attempt to place Judge Roberts in the position of choosing between his faith and the law. However, the Constitution forbids the disqualification of judicial nominees on the basis of religious and moral convictions."
[More at URL]
----- 18 -----
July 26, 2005
Judge's "Views"
By Thomas Sowell
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-7_26_05_TS.html
Preliminary indications are that both we and Judge John G. Roberts may be spared the ugly food fights that confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee can become. However, if Judge Roberts has ever been guilty of jay-walking, you can believe that some shrill special interest group will dig that up and try to make him seem like a threat to the republic.
Even if all goes well and Judge Roberts is confirmed, there are virtually certain to be liberal Senators trying to get his "views" on all sorts of issues and probably demanding confidential government documents that nobody is entitled to get, in order to dig deeper into his "views."
What makes all this a cheap farce is that the very Senators who demand to see confidential memoranda from John Roberts' days in the Justice Department know in advance that no administration of either party is likely to release such confidential material -- not if they ever expect people to speak candidly in the future when their advice is sought.
[More at URL]
----- 19 -----
**CITIZENLINK ACTION ALERT**
Call Your Senators Now to Urge a Fair Hearing for Judge
Roberts
Focus on the Family
July 27, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
Liberals are pulling out all the stops in their campaign
to upend the nomination of Circuit Judge John Roberts to
the U.S. Supreme Court, suggesting that his conservative
judicial philosophy makes him unsuitable to replace Sandra
Day O'Connor.
It's a ridiculous argument -- and one you can take a few
minutes right now to counter.
Today is the day leftist pressure groups like the
pro-abortion NARAL Pro-Choice America are urging
supporters to tell their two U.S. senators to vote against
Judge Roberts -- before he's even had a hearing. They
maintain Roberts shouldn't be confirmed to the court, in
large part, because "radical right" leaders like Dr. James
Dobson believe he is highly qualified to serve and that he
understands that his role as a judge is to interpret law
-- not make it.
Your voice is needed to provide senators a different, more
honest perspective. Please take a few minutes right now to
call both of your U.S. senators and remind them that all
nominees to the federal bench, especially one with Judge
Roberts' credentials in government and the private sector,
deserve a fair Senate hearing and an up-or-down
confirmation vote.
To reach your senators in Washington, you can call --
toll-free -- 877-762-8762. If that number isn't working or
is busy, dial the Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121.
If you'd like to have extra impact, please consider
placing calls to your senators' district offices, as well.
You can find those phone numbers by visiting the
CitizenLink Action Center, typing your ZIP code into the
space provided and clicking on the profile page for each
of your senators.
http://www3.capwiz.com/fof/dbq/officials/
Thank you for willingness to spend your most valuable
commodity -- time -- to stand for fairness and against
judicial tyranny.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-07-29 12:13 am (UTC)That's worrisome, and more suspicious than anything in his record, which is pretty mixed on the surface and can be twisted to look moderate or extreme depending upon one's agenda. Personally, I believe he's probably a good (and thus extreme) social conservative, and they've vetted that in private, and that's why they want to get him through without asking any questions.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-29 04:12 am (UTC)a) It's an empty gesture, because the MA Democrats have a veto-proof majority in the legislature.
b) It's an especially empty gesture, becuase I suspect the neocon establishment views Romney as being to the left of John McCain. He's a dark horse even for vice-president.
Hmm, actually, he's an even darker horse for VP than for president, because he has nothing to offer as a running mate. He couldn't deliver MA for the Republicans, and the Republicans don't need MA (unless we get a third Mexican standoff election).
On the birth certificate...
Date: 2005-07-29 04:50 pm (UTC)And no, I do not support putting adoptive parent's names on birth certificates.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-29 04:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-29 04:59 pm (UTC)As for the Ginsburg hearings - honestly, I didn't pay much attention. I was busy with other things. I do know that as long as I've been paying attention, Supreme Court nominees have made a habit out of answering as little as possible in confirmation hearings. That, to my mind, makes it more important, not less, to research them.
I'm a big fan of research, as you might know. I think knowing things is good.
Re: On the birth certificate...
Date: 2005-07-29 05:08 pm (UTC)These are the cases we're talking about. I have no objection to continuing to provide gendered forms if all three possible marriage combinations are available. (And no, I don't actually consider this a big deal. I think Mitt's kind of a wanker for thinking he has any chance in hell as president in 2008, and for playing up to the fundamentalists, but this is a pretty trivial issue. Mmm, political fuck-yous.)
I see the adoptive certificate as kind of unrelated, tho' I can see that there's a bit of a connection. And as someone who has personal reasons to care about the adoptive-certificate thing, I kind of agree with you, but kind of don't; I'd have been just as happy with an adoptive cert that kept the original cert available to me.
But even then, I don't care about the genetics. It's more about finding out what the fuck happened, given how fucked up things got.
But this is getting a bit personal for a public post.
Re: On the birth certificate...
Date: 2005-07-29 05:36 pm (UTC)And when it becomes possible for doctors to create a child using material from two women, or two men, then -those- are the people who should go on the birth certificate. But until then, gender neutral is just dumb.
And I don't think Mitt is playing up to Fundies on this one, it's just an incredibly stupid issue and any politician backing it is the one doing the pandering and should be tossed out. Ones standing up and saying enough is enough to PC BS are the ones in the right.
And I'm sorry if this might be getting personal, that is in no way my intention.
Re: On the birth certificate...
Date: 2005-07-29 05:54 pm (UTC)Birth certificates aren't supposed to be about who the husband is, it's supposed to be about who the mother and father are.
I think you'll find that most people don't use "mother" and "father" strictly to mean biological. I personally know a lot of adopted children who certainly don't see it that way.
I think existing law regarding the adoption process and birth certificates indicates that most people - certainly not most governments - see it differently; that the legal purpose of birth certificate is for legal, not biological, parentage. And that's not at all a new thing; that goes back quite some time - back to the 1920s, or something? It was about eliminating the then-heavy-stigma of adoption on the child, something I obviously find punitive and strange.
What the same-gender married couples are asking for seems to me to be very much in line with birth certificate processes maintained in the United States for the last 80 or so years. Mitt's position seems to ride against that.
Re: On the birth certificate...
Date: 2005-07-29 05:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-29 07:13 pm (UTC)I think one reason she had a relatively easy confirmation is that the Democrats controlled the Senate at the time, and the starkly partisan atmosphere that exists now really only got underway with the Republican victory in the 1994 elections. Note that Antonin Scalia was confirmed in 1988 by Reagan and a Democratic Senate by a vote of something like 98-0. Contested nominations like Bork and Thomas were rare.
Also, she's got a moderate record and ideology, and only seems liberal by comparison to most of the rest of the court. She's certainly not as liberal a judge as Scalia is conservative. For that, you need someone like Thurgood Marshall, and he was one of the very few real liberals ever to be on the court.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-29 07:21 pm (UTC)And she's as liberal as Scalia is conservative. Actually she should be removed from the court because she violated her oath when she said the she looks to the laws of other countries for legal solutions. That's not allowed and I was stunned that she could be so stupid to admit something like that publically.
Re: On the birth certificate...
Date: 2005-07-29 07:25 pm (UTC)If we're going to start playing games with who goes on them, why not just do away with ANYONE's name on the certificate other than that of the Baby?
This is just dumb (IMHO).
no subject
Date: 2005-07-29 07:41 pm (UTC)Democrats did probably tell her to avoid answering questions. That's been standard practice for a long time, and after 12 years of Republican administrations and very few nominations to the court in Carter's years, the Democrats didn't want anything to keep them from getting a non-conservative on the court.
I disagree with their stance, even though I'm a liberal Democrat at my most conservative, because I think more information is always better than less.
As for the reason you say she should be removed from the court, that's a distortion of her actual position. She, like any other judge, bases legal decisions on the Constitution and legal precedent. However, on some points, such as the meaning of phrases like "cruel and unusual punishment," the legal situation around the world is quite relevant, and in fact enters into legal decisions quite commonly. By doing that, she is not violating her oath to the Constitution, and she is not committing any crime, much less one that is worthy of impeachment. That's just useless partisan rhetoric and isn't very helpful.
The fact is, Ginsburg is a moderate, who was a disappointment to pro-choice activists during her nomination because she had made comments criticizing Roe v. Wade as the wrong way to legally advance reproductive rights. She favored a legislative and incremental approach, but like more moderate conservatives like O'Connor and Kennedy, realizes that Roe is settled law. That's a moderate position. That's more characteristic of her approach than the liberal activism of a Thurgood Marshall, who everyone would agree is the standard of judicial liberalism. Well, some might claim Justice Warren, but no one like him is on the court either. Stevens, a Ford appointee, is probably more liberal than Ginsburg, though in legal terms it's hard to use the terms "conservative" and "liberal" because legal philosophies usually don't map to that scale very well.
Re: On the birth certificate...
Date: 2005-07-29 07:57 pm (UTC)Does the state have an interest in a biological father if he is not also the guardian of the child? I don't think so.
Your incest rationale seems unsupported and frankly bizarre. Why incest is a taboo is a complicated question, but I'd suggest it has little to do with biology. The chance of inherited disorders through inbreeding is relatively low and usually only accumulates with inbreeding over time, and can occur even with non-taboo sexual matings such as second cousins, or in some countries and cultures first cousins. The royalty of Europe rarely married siblings or broke the incest taboo, but yet they accumulated many genetic disorders. So the taboo doesn't relate to biology. It seems more likely that incest is taboo because of the social disruption that would be caused in there was a conflict of interest between potential mates and mating competition and fellow family members who were part of a family supporting one another. Human socialization would be very difficult if brothers were fighting among themselves over who gets to mate with their sister, much less their mother and daughters. It's creepy because it's a direct threat to the very nature of human society. This also explains why there's a taboo against sex between step-siblings, who are socialized to view each other as family members rather than potential sex partners.
Are there any other biological factors that matter to the state? I don't think so. What matters is which people and families take care of a child. Then identity, inheritance, legal guardianship, and legal responsibility all work themselves out to the bureaucratic satisfaction of government.
I suppose if the state were actively racist it would matter who the biological parents were. There are plenty of examples of such governments that collected that information for all the wrong reasons. But I don't think those are examples we should use when forming our own government's policies.
Re: On the birth certificate...
Date: 2005-07-29 08:03 pm (UTC)Ummm, sorry but you obviously have no clue as to what you are talking about here. Having seen the effects of incest on human children it has everything to do with biology. That's why in most states you're not even allowed to marry a first cousin.
Re: On the birth certificate...
Date: 2005-07-30 12:04 am (UTC)"Some have suggested that the incest taboo is a social mechanism to reduce the chances of congenital birth-defects that can result from inbreeding. Scientists have generally rejected this as an explanation for the incest taboo for two reasons. First, in many societies partners with whom marriage is forbidden and partners with whom marriage is preferred are equally related in genetic terms; the inbreeding argument would not explain the incest taboo in these societies. Second, the inbreeding argument oversimplifies the consequences of inbreeding in a population...In large populations with good health care...it is likely that there will be consistently high levels of heterozygosity despite periodic inbreeding."
That is the science on which I'm basing my argument. It's simply not true to say that inbreeding is a common problem, so it doesn't make sense to track biological parents on those grounds. That's not to say that taboos against incest don't have some biological component from human evolutionary history, but it's clearly not relevant to birth certificates, and is a secondary effect at most because different cultures have widely differing definitions of incest. Note that I'm not denying the very real psychological and social impact of incest, which is socially forbidden for good reason. What I am saying is that incest is simply not relevant to birth certificate procedures in the least.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-30 05:12 am (UTC)Re: On the birth certificate...
Date: 2005-07-30 05:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-30 08:30 pm (UTC)Ginsburg definitely leans left, but she's a moderate. She's not a judicial activist. She's cautious, and she's been known to find common ground with other moderates on the court such as O'Connor and Kennedy. O'Connor and Kennedy are both moderates, despite leaning strongly in the conservative direction. But like Ginsburg, they are not typically activist judges and often find themselves in the common ground between the two activist extremes. Breyer and Souter are two examples of judges that are both moderate in approach, like O'Connor and Kennedy and Gisburg, and moderate in ideology. Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist are all some degree of conservative activist judges, whereas Ford appointee Stevens is liberal by current standards and arguably somewhat activist.
There are very few if any consistent liberal activists on the court. From a conservative point of view, I could see Stevens painted that way, but in his case it's more about building on previous liberal rulings than legislating from the bench. On the current court, the activists are mostly on the right. The history of activist liberal judges is over. Marshall, Warren, and Brennan, and maybe a few others, are prime examples. It's been ten years since there's been anything close to a consistent liberal activist on the court. This is why liberals are freaking out about the court. The brief period where the court could be relied upon as a check against conservative action in the legislative and executive branches is over, and it's taking a long time for liberals to realize the court is no longer their friend, if it ever was.