Category: News

Know what you’re buying: Judges who have empathy vs. rule of law

TBLeave a comment

Lady JusticeFrom Thomas Sowell in National Review Online:

That President Obama has made “empathy” with certain groups one of his criteria for choosing a Supreme Court nominee is a dangerous sign of how much farther the Supreme Court may be pushed away from the rule of law and toward even more arbitrary judicial edicts to advance the agenda of the Left and set it in legal concrete, immune from the democratic process.

Would you want to go into court to appear before a judge with “empathy” for groups A, B, and C, if you were a member of groups X, Y, or Z? Nothing could be farther from the rule of law. That would be bad news, even in a traffic court, much less in a court that has the last word on your rights under the Constitution of the United States.

Appoint enough Supreme Court justices with “empathy” for particular groups and you would have, for all practical purposes, repealed the 14th Amendment, which guarantees “equal protection of the laws” for all Americans. 

We would have entered a strange new world, where everybody is equal but some are more equal than others. The very idea of the rule of law becomes meaningless when it is replaced by the empathies of judges.

Barack Obama solves this contradiction, as he solves so many other problems, with rhetoric. If you believe in the rule of law, he will say the words “rule of law.” And if you are willing to buy it, he will keep on selling it.

Those people who just accept soothing words from politicians they like are gambling with the future of a nation. If you were German, would you be in favor of a law “to relieve the distress of the German people and nation”? That was the law that gave Hitler dictatorial power.

He was just another German chancellor at the time. He was not elected on a platform of war, dictatorship, or genocide. He got the power to do those things because of a law “to relieve the distress of the German people.”

When you buy words, you had better know what you are buying.

In case you’re obsessed about swine flu

TB2 Comments

Here are some things for you to check out in case you don’t get enough of this on cable television:

Track the Swine Flu Outbreaks on Google Maps

10 Things You Should Know about Swine Flu

The CDC’s Page on the Flu

The WHO’s Factsheet on Influenza

Hysteria about torture answered soberly

TB1 Comment

Porter Goss, who served as director of the CIA from September 2004 to May 2006 and was chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence from 1997 to 2004, wrote Saturday in the Washington Post about the current political climate concerning perceived torture by U.S. interrogators dealing with al-Qaeda suspects:

A disturbing epidemic of amnesia seems to be plaguing my former colleagues on Capitol Hill. After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, members of the committees charged with overseeing our nation’s intelligence services had no higher priority than stopping al-Qaeda. In the fall of 2002, while I was chairman of the House intelligence committee, senior members of Congress were briefed on the CIA’s “High Value Terrorist Program,” including the development of “enhanced interrogation techniques” and what those techniques were. This was not a one-time briefing but an ongoing subject with lots of back and forth between those members and the briefers.

Today, I am slack-jawed to read that members claim to have not understood that the techniques on which they were briefed were to actually be employed; or that specific techniques such as “waterboarding” were never mentioned. It must be hard for most Americans of common sense to imagine how a member of Congress can forget being told about the interrogations of Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed. In that case, though, perhaps it is not amnesia but political expedience.

Let me be clear. It is my recollection that:

  •  The chairs and the ranking minority members of the House and Senate intelligence committees, known as the Gang of Four, were briefed that the CIA was holding and interrogating high-value terrorists.
  • We understood what the CIA was doing.
  • We gave the CIA our bipartisan support.
  • We gave the CIA funding to carry out its activities.                              
  •  On a bipartisan basis, we asked if the CIA needed more support from Congress to carry out its mission against al-Qaeda.

I do not recall a single objection from my colleagues. They did not vote to stop authorizing CIA funding. And for those who now reveal filed “memorandums for the record” suggesting concern, real concern should have been expressed immediately — to the committee chairs, the briefers, the House speaker or minority leader, the CIA director or the president’s national security adviser — and not quietly filed away in case the day came when the political winds shifted. And shifted they have.

Related to that, in the video below, Liz Cheney absolutely destroys MSNBC’s Norah O’Donnell as O’Donnell tries to feed more slop about the whole torture debate. Watch as Cheney uses sound argument to head off hysterical bluster.

Liz Cheney
Click on image to view video

Tyranny of the minority in Iowa

TBLeave a comment

This article points to what the decision last week in Iowa comes down to:

The problem with the Iowa decision is that there isn’t a strong legal rationale for this decision. The Iowa Constitution cannot require the recognition of gay marriage because gay marriage was not acceptable at the time that the Iowa Constitution was written. In essence, the judges are reading their own personal feelings into the law. While the Iowa Constitution is more broadly worded than the federal Constitution, there is still no plausible argument that it was designed to allow for same-sex marriages. What the Iowa Supreme Court has done amounts to going back and changing the words of the Iowa Constitution to mean something that it never was intended to.

Even those who want gay marriage should be troubled by this. There are seven members of the Iowa Supreme Court. There are nearly 3 million Iowans. In a democratic state, 7 people should not be presumed to have the power to set sweeping social policy for the other 2,999,997 people.

Yet that is what happened. The Iowan people did not vote to have gay marriages recognized in their state. In fact, a clear majority of Iowans oppose gay marriage. Yet the voice of the people have been overruled by just 7 people. That is troubling, not only from a standpoint of separation of powers, but because it ultimately hurts the cause of gay marriage. The likely outcome of all of this will be another Prop 8, and even if the Iowa Constitution’s amendment process means that the vote won’t take place until 2012, having this decision essentially forced upon the people of Iowa will not make gay marriage more popular.

This is a clear case of judicial activism. Judges should follow the law, and avoid legislating from the bench. The legal case for gay marriage presented in this opinion is woefully thin—rather the judges decided to enforce a set of social norms on Iowans by their will rather than the legislative process. Even those who support gay marriage should be troubled by that. This is an example of the tyranny of the minority, where the few use judicial overreach to enforce their views in a way they otherwise could not. No matter what the outcome, that kind of circumvention of the democratic process is wrong. The very foundation of our government is based on fundamental values like separation of powers and the consent of the governed. The Iowa Supreme Court has made a sweeping change to Iowa’s social policies and laws without the consent of the people. If such a thing were to stand, it would mean that states are governed not by voters, but by the few.

MacArthur’s answer on gay marriage

TBLeave a comment

This was John MacArthur’s answer after the California court ruling last year (which was later amended by California voters), I think it still applies after the ruling in Iowa today regarding gay marriage:

As you interact with homosexuals and their sympathizers, you must affirm the Bible’s condemnation. You are not trying to bring damnation on the head of homosexuals, you are trying to bring conviction so that they can turn from that sin and embrace the only hope of salvation for all of us sinners—and that’s through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Homosexuals need salvation. They don’t need healing—homosexuality is not a disease. They don’t need therapy—homosexuality is not a psychological condition. Homosexuals need forgiveness, because homosexuality is a sin. …

What should be your response to the homosexual agenda? Make it a biblical response—confront it with the truth of Scripture that condemns homosexuality and promises eternal damnation for all who practice it. What should be your response to the homosexual? Make it a gospel response—confront him with the truth of Scripture that condemns him as a sinner, and point him to the hope of salvation through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. Stay faithful to the Lord as you respond to homosexuality by honoring His Word, and leave the results to Him.

When all hope fails, God stands

TBLeave a comment

Keep the people of Fargo in your prayers these next days, as they face disaster:

North Dakota’s largest city moved to the brink of potentially disastrous flooding Thursday, with earlier optimism fading as officials predicted the Red River would reach a record-high crest of 41 feet by the weekend.

Thousands of volunteers who have been piling sandbags for days scrambled to add another foot to Fargo’s dike protection, and official briefings lost the jokes and quips that had broken the tension earlier in the week. Instead, Thursday’s meeting opened with a prayer.

“We need all the help we can get,” Mayor Dennis Walaker said.

The city of 92,000 unveiled a contingency evacuation plan Thursday afternoon, but at least four nursing homes already had begun moving residents by then.

And here is some place you can help if you can’t fill sandbags:

American Red Cross

One little problem for Obama: Dickey Amendment

TBLeave a comment

The other day I posted about President Obama’s executive order on March 9 overturning restrictions on embryonic stem cell research put in place by former President Bush. In it, I said that Obama had carefully constructed his words to allow for the scientific destruction of embyos (killing of humans) for research.

A reader pointed out that, two days later, Obama signed an omnibus spending bill containing a clause which seemed in direct contradiction with his executive order. Like others, I wondered what this meant since the president’s words on March 9 were explicit about where he stood.

After his press conference last night, when he was asked about stem cell research he seemed ready to leave the issue to scientists — that is, those who are strongly in the embryonic stem cell research corner. What is clear is that, despite his words, the only thing he’s wrestled with is on this issue is with what political constituency he wants to keep his allegiances .

The complicating part is the Dickey amendment, which was part of the Omnibus bill. Found of page 280 of the bill, its says:

SEC. 509. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act may be used for—

(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or

(2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.204(b) and section 498(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289g(b)).

(b) For purposes of this section, the term ‘‘human embryo or embryos’’ includes any organism, not protected as a human subject under 45 CFR 46 as of the date of the enactment of this Act, that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes or human diploid cells.

The White House said the  amendment, which has been in appropriations bills since 1996, only means that federal funds can’t be used for the killing of embryos, it can still be used for research on embryos that are killed with private funds. Others, however, say that it’s not that simple. Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee, told CNSNews.com the White House is too narrowly defining the amendment:

It does not merely say you can’t use federal funds to kill an embryo, it’s much broader than that. It says the federal government can’t fund research in which embryos are harmed. We should interpret that to mean the federal government can’t fund any research project if that project involves or requires harm to human embryos.

It is not consistent with the Dickey amendment for NIH to say, ‘OK, we’re going to approve this study, which involves taking 100 embryos out of the freezer in some in vitro lab and killing them and taking their stem cells, and using their stem cells in the federally funded study, and by the way, we’re going to pay for all of that, and we approve it in advance. The only part we’re not going to pay for is the part where you kill the embryo.’ That’s not what the Dickey amendment says.

And, because there is this doubt out there and actual law is at stake, Congress has already started acting on the possibility of repealing Dickey. Already this month, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) has said lawmakers may look at passing a stem cell research bill before the April 4 recess. You can bet that getting rid of Dickey will be part of that measure, as Colorado Democrat Diana Degette told the N.Y. Times that they will look at how Dickey restricts research. In other words, it would mean the government could once and for all pour money into research that kills humans for the sake of science. Again, Josef Mengele would approve.

A debate on what Obama really said: When killing is OK

TB3 Comments

I don’t think President Obama is that stupid. He says what he means, even when it comes off sounding insensitive. So, when he came out in a ceremony to announce that he was reversing policy by former President Bush to lift restrictions on embryonic stem cell research and said he strongly opposed reproductive cloning, I think he meant it.

I think he meant what he said because, narrowly defined, this would mean that he opposes the creation of embryonic stem cells for the purpose of implanting them in a womb for the birth of a cloned human. What he didn’t say, however, was he opposed therapeutic cloning of embryonic stem cells — human beings — for the purpose of destroying them later for research reasons. Is that a stretch? Consider this: When he was a senator from Illinois, he signed on in support of a bill to ban human reproductive cloning but would have allowed for therapeutic cloning.

Conservative Catholic scholars Robert George and Douglas Kmiec recently debated Obama’s executive order and their exchange was published in U.S. News and World Report online. Kmiec, although conservative, is an enthusiastic Obama supporter and argued from the position that Obama’s position is not as harsh as it sounds. George argues as I have above only much more thoroughly. The exchange is enlightening in that George shows how conservatives like Kmiec have overlooked much in their rush to support Obama.

Reuniting victim with potential killer

TBLeave a comment

This is bizarre:

WELLINGTON, New Zealand (AFP) – A woman who gave birth in mid-air left the baby behind when she disembarked in Auckland, Television New Zealand reported Thursday.

Police and Pacific Blue — the airline which operated the flight from the Samoan capital Apia — were saying little about their investigation Thursday, but mother and child were said to be recovering in hospital.

Television New Zealand reported that the Samoan woman gave birth in one of the aircraft’s toilets during the flight to Auckland early Thursday.

The infant was found by an airline worker in the toilet rubbish bin more than an hour after the plane landed.

And then comes the troubling part:

Pacific Blue’s website says women need medical clearance to board a flight if they have passed the 36-week mark in their pregnancy.

“We are relieved to have been informed that both mother and child are reunited, are well and are now being looked after in hospital,” the airline said in a statement.

It’s good that the woman and child are being treated at the hospital, but is anyone else concerned that this child, which miraculously survived a murder attempt, is now reunited with the person who sought to end the child’s life?

Handling explosives: Teens and dating

TBLeave a comment

The news released recently that Bristol Palin and fiance Levi Johnston broke off their engagement probably was greeted a few ways — glee from those who hate her mother and everything they think she stands for, scorn from those who have strong feelings about what a women’s role is as far as family, cynicism because “that’s what kids do” or indifference. There has been much scrutiny and much discussion about this issue.

I look at this as another sad instance of how we get things out of order in our society and how our view of marriage is too low. We want to assume that young people are mature enough to have sex, yet not to be married. After all, how many failed marriages have we heard being chalked up to “I was young and immature”? So, maybe we should not be so quick to allow them to pair off with one another. After all, wouldn’t it be better to not put them in a position that they are not ready to be in? Of course, that assumes that you think that sex is more than just a pleasurable release for those involved. Even the best of kids can be in this situation. What to do?

Consider this advice from John Piper:

Pairing off is a powerful thing. If the relationship here means groups of 4, 8, or 20 people doing stuff together without the dynamic of “she and I are a thing,” you know, that’s great. But this question is talking about pairing off.

Pairing off is hormonally charged, psychologically charged, physically charged, spiritually charged, and it is meant to be! It’s meant to lead somewhere! And it’s beautiful where it is meant to lead.

Therefore my counsel is that as the electric charge begins to happen between two seventeen-year-olds, they better think really clearly about how to manage that. And if they don’t intend to get married in the next year or so, they better not pair off but keep it in groups and step back from it.