Kerfuffles

Is Not Always Good For You
Today, according to Breitbart.com and WaPo, the White House felt compelled to condemn as “not appropriate” a comment from someone who happens to be a Republican, but is in no way connected to the current Bush administration, William Bennett.

Bennett said on his radio show, in response to a caller; “But I do know that it’s true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country and your crime rate would go down.” He added that it would be a “morally reprehensible thing to do.”

The comments were not appropriate because neither Bennett nor anyone else can know that the statement is true, as it has never been applied and will not be. Even though, he posited the statement as a fact, it really is only his opinion, which he, like everyone else should be entitled to have. Needless to say, the usual suspects jumped on the rolling wagon of hell-bent condemnations.

• Senate Democratic Searchlight, Harry Reid of Nevada, said he was “appalled” by Bennett’s comments and said he hoped Republicans would condemn him.
• Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said the comments were “hateful, inflammatory” and asked whether they represented the values of the Republican party.
• Civil rights activist Rev. Al Sharpton said on CNN that Bennett’s comments were “blatantly racist … stated as a fact that if you did this it would in fact lower the crime rate which clearly is him making blacks and crime synonymous.”

Bennett later explained: “I was putting forward a hypothetical proposition … and then said about it, it was morally reprehensible to recommend abortion of an entire group of people.”

Notwithstanding all the huffing and puffing and outrage from the president on down, the fact of the matter is that the unmentionable elephant in the abortion debate is exactly what William Bennet spotlighted. Eugenics. Everyone knows that in the privacy of their Park Avenue high rises and Hamptons cottages, the pro-abortion supporters will whisper that the nation is better served if many of these black babies are prevented from being born.

William Bennett is unabashedly pro-life, as am I, and those on our side do not support the view that black babies are better off aborted. We believe that no babies should be aborted, as they all, black, brown, white and handicapped, deserve the right to life. Many on the other side, the “Pro-Choice” side, do wish for young black mothers-to-be to make that choice. That is a fact and “I do know that it’s true“.

UPDATE: If you doubt me, if you doubt that the pro-abortion movement targets black babies, watch this Planned Parenthood Promotional Video (WMV), hosted by CNSNews.com, because Planned Parenthood finally removed it from their site. It is a cartoon targeting black children by featuring sex and violence. A Christian preacher is told that he is ugly and dresses funny and called “trash” and then drowned. Pro-life demonstrators outside of an abortion clinic are blown up. Reverend Jerry Falwell is referred to by an Yiddish vulgarity and the Washington Monument is swathed in a giant condom. Every “good” person in the film is a person of color. Almost all of the villians are white. Why do you suppose that is? If you watch until the ending credits you will see Planned Parenthood, using a giant condom as a weapon, blast a U.S. Army helicopter out of the sky and behead a pro-life demonstrator.

Tracked at Sister Toldjah and WizBang’s Carnival of Trackbacks XXXI.

The Searchlight was on … however, it could not stop the 17th Chief Justice of the United States of America!

Here’s a list of the Senators who followed the “dimming” searchlight of their leader Harry Reid and voted against the nomination of John Roberts for the Chief Justice of the United States. With all that illumination, these guys and gals are unable to see the light. They have brought shame to themselves for placing partisanship before the good of the country. Not one could find fault with his impressive qualifications, yet they proclaimed that he was not fit to serve. If you are a voter in their states, you should make them pay for their malfeasance. Shame on these 22 Senators — Democrats All:

Akaka (D-HI)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Boxer (D-CA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)

Cartoon created by Mark Dean, from Mass Hypocrisy.

Words of President George Bush, 13 April 2004

• “Iraq will either be a peaceful, democratic country or it will again be a source of violence, a haven for terror and a threat to America and to the world.”
• “We seek an independent, free and secure Iraq.”
• (T)hese acts … are the work of a fanatical political ideology. The servants of this ideology seek tyranny … the death of Jews and Christians and every Muslim who desires peace over theocratic terror.”
• “America’s commitment to freedom in Iraq is consistent with our ideals and required by our interests. […] Now is the time, and Iraq is the place, in which the enemies of the civilized world are testing the will of the civilized world. We must not waver.”
• “Over the last several decades, we’ve seen that any concession or retreat on our part will only embolden this enemy and invite more bloodshed. And the enemy has seen, over the last 31 months, that we will no longer live in denial or seek to appease them.”
• “We will succeed in Iraq. We’re carrying out a decision that has already been made and will not change. Iraq will be a free, independent country, and America and the Middle East will be safer because of it.”
• “We serve the cause of liberty, and that is always and everywhere a cause worth serving.”

WELCOME to readers of Patrick Ruffini’s SCOTUS Wire.

Other SCOTUS Posts

• Evan Bayh Goes True Blue
• Hillary’s Grievous Wrong.
• Message from WaPo
• Write Your Senator!
• The Inquisition
• Iran Contra Looms
• Supreme Court Shocker!
• Synopsis of Posts Above
• Pot Calls Kettle White
• Kerfuffles’ Writings on the Nominee

According to the Pirate’s Cove, “People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals” (PETA) rallied in front of the Australian embassy recently in an attempt to force Australian sheep farmers to stop a controversial farming practice. THIS is going to stop them? The Pirate pokes fun at their cellulite and tells the “PETA wackjobs” that they need to exercise more and eat a balanced diet. I wouldn’t mind looking as “out of shape” as the so-called PETA wackjobs! I suspect that PETA hired models for the job, eh?

To Heck with those RED STATE Hoosiers!

Bayh to oppose Roberts for chief justice, by Sylvia A. Smith, Washington editor:

John Roberts is too much of an enigma, Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., said Friday, saying he “regrettably” will oppose the fellow Hoosier next week when the Senate votes on Roberts’ confirmation to be chief justice.

Roberts grew up in northwest Indiana, where he lived and went to private grade school and high school before moving east to attend Harvard and start a legal career that included a Supreme Court clerkship, work in two Republican administrations, a private law practice and an appointment as a federal judge.

Senator Evan Bayh, along with Senator Lugar, introduced John Roberts to the Judiciary Committee before the panel began its questioning. Bayh has not challenged Roberts’ legal credentials to serve on the nation’s highest court. He said he would vote against the nominee because Robert’s personal views on important issues are an enigma. He said that Roberts was presented the opportunity to disavow the positions of legal memos written in his early law career, but that Roberts refused.

There you have it, according to Evan Bayh and other out-of-the-mainstream liberals, unless your personal views agree with theirs, especially on abortion, you cannot be trusted to defend and uphold the Consititution of the United States of America. Is this the view of most Hoosiers from the Red State of Indiana? Somehow, I doubt it.

Does anyone now believe that George Bush could pick any Supreme Court nominee who would receive support from the Democrats? Are Republicans dumber than Democrats, or are they more respectful of the U.S. Constitution? Did Republicans refuse to vote for ultra liberal Clinton nominee Ruth Bader Ginsberg because of her ACLU views? The Washington Times editorial today reports:

Within their eight-member contingent on the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, the number of Democrats who voted against John Roberts to be chief justice exceeded the number of Republicans in the entire Senate caucus who opposed Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s 1993 nomination. Five of the Democrats’ eight committee members opposed Judge Roberts, a conservative who would replace the late William Rehnquist, who arguably was more conservative. Twelve years ago, only three of the 44 Republican senators voted against Justice Ginsburg, the extremely liberal former general counsel of the American Civil Liberties Union who replaced the centrist Byron White.

Tracked at It’s A Pundit and Chateau d’If.

And Carnivorous Cannibals
Hurricannibalism! A great new word. Who would have ever thunk that the demonstrably “well-fed” citizens of New Orleans would have resorted to cannibalism during the third day of hurricane deprivation? Author Randall Robinson, the former head of TransAfrica, thunk it, as he said someone told him about it. “It is reported that black hurricane victims in New Orleans have begun eating corpses to survive .. This is what we have come to. This defining watershed moment in America’s racial history.” He later retracted the statement, but he never revealed who told him the lie. One has to wonder about the successful, well-to-do black Americans, such as Robinson and Jesse Jackson, who would even think that other black Americans who happened to be poor, would engage in such unmentionable behavior after just a few days of hunger.

Now, taking his cue from “The Washington Post,” Don Surber is calling Louisiana’s congressional delegation — looters! for demanding a quarter-trillion dollars on top of, as the Post points out, $60+ billion already in appropriations.

Senator Hillary Clinton, along with a number of other extreme liberal Senators, has gotten it wrong. The voters of America should make these disgraceful Senators pay for their actions against the President’s qualified nominee. Clinton has published a long tome on her reasons for voting against Judge John Roberts’ nomination for chief justice. Nowhere in the rant does she cite any “disqualifications” of the judge for serving on the highest court in the land.

Instead, she cites:

• “… the Judge has (not) presented his views with enough clarity and specificity for me to in good conscience cast a vote on his behalf.” (He has stated that his view of his role is to interpret the Constitution. Therefore, why should his personal views matter?)
• She is not “convinced (he) will be steadfast in protecting fundamental women’s rights, civil rights, privacy rights, and who will respect the appropriate separation of powers among the three branch“. (He has already sworn oaths to support the Constitution.)
• Senator Clinton cites legal memoranda that Judge Roberts wrote for his clients while a practicing attorney. “Was he just being an advocate for a client or was he using his position to advocate for positions he believed in? The record is unclear.” (Apparently Senator Clinton, the nation’s “supposed” smartest woman lawyer, believes that a lawyer’s advocacy for a client, should disqualify him/her from the bench.)
• The New York Senator’s final reason for voting against the eminently qualified judge is because “President Bush has said the Justices he most admires are the two most conservative justices, Justices Thomas and Scalia. It is not unreasonable to believe that the President has picked someone in Judge Roberts whom he believes holds a similarly conservative philosophy, and … could further limit the power of the Congress, expand the purview of the Executive, and overturn key rulings like Roe v. Wade.” (The Republican president is not permitted to have his picks respected, although her husband’s two Supreme court nominees were overwhelmingly supported by Republican Senators, not because they approved of their ultra-liberal views, but because both of them were judicially qualified. That last citing, “Roe v. Wade” is the be-all and end-all of the liberal mantra. The country is doomed if abortion on demand is curtailed, they believe. However, there is no indication that Judge Roberts would vote against it. I suspect that just as Sandra Day O’Connor, Roberts will vote to uphold it, even though it goes against his personal moral beliefs.)

As China Attempts to Control Internet

BEIJING (AP) - China said Sunday it is imposing new regulations to control content on its news Web sites and will allow the posting of only “healthy and civilized” news. (My Way News)

Great try, China. Now, let us see just how successful you will be with trying to overcome natural law; man’s innate yearning to be free. It will be interesting but perhaps a bit bloody to watch China’s attempts to reign in the country’s 100-million Internet population, which is second to only the United States, with 135 million users.

The new rules take effect immediately to “standardize the management of news and information” regarding current events and politics. The stated goals of censorship are certainly laudatory: “healthy and civilized news and information that is beneficial to the improvement of the quality of the nation, beneficial to its economic development and conducive to social progress“. However, as humankind’s experience shows, quashing of the freedom to speak against the state does not lead to such dreams, only to the nightmares of human intellectual slavery.

The communist government already blocks Internet material it deems to be critical of the state, subversive, or pornographic. Online dissidents expressing contrary opinions are regularly arrested. Just this month, according to WaPo, e-mail account information provided by Yahoo Inc. (YHOO) helped lead to a 10-year prison term for a Chinese journalist who had written about media restrictions in an e-mail.

In a recent post I found that the believers in freedom of the “international” Internet community are finding stealth methods for the Chinese cyber freedom fighter to successfully use:

Blogging Anonymously
Bloggers are often the only real journalists in countries where the mainstream media is censored, such as in Iran and China. If they displease the government, they could be arrested. Reporters Without Borders has produced a PDF handbook to help them, with handy tips and technical advice on remaining anonymous and to bypass censorship. The “Handbook for Bloggers and Cyber-dissidents“also covers how to set up and make the most of a blog, to publicise it using search-engines and to establish its credibility through the observing of ethical and journalistic principles. How to Blog Anonymously

In addition, bloggers living in the free world will be more than willing to publish onto their own blogs, news and commentary coming from the Chinese freedom-fighters.

To the Liberals in the United States Senate:

IT SHOULDN'’T BE necessary to write in praise of the three Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee who this week voted in committee to confirm John G. Roberts Jr. as chief justice of the United States. Supporting overwhelmingly qualified members of the opposite party for the Supreme Court used to be the norm, not an act of courage. Yet, set against the general opposition from Democrats to the nomination, and truly intense pressure from interest groups, the votes cast by ranking Democrat Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.) and Wisconsin’’s Herb Kohl and Russell Feingold took guts. Their votes ensure that Judge Roberts will not take the helm of the judiciary perceived as the representative of only one party, and they guarantee that at least some Democrats — albeit sadly few — will have the moral authority to demand Republican support for qualified liberal nominees in the future.

The larger Democratic opposition to Judge Roberts represents a disturbing departure from longtime Senate practice. Of the current members of the court, only Justice Clarence Thomas had substantial opposition. The other seven, including Justices John Paul Stevens and Antonin Scalia, received among them only one no vote in committee; six of them, in other words, received unanimous committee endorsement. The seven received, again among all of them, only 21 negative votes on the floor. In refusing to support an indisputably qualified conservative, Democrats send a message that there is a strongly partisan component of the task of judging — something those who believe in independent, apolitical courts must reject. (9/23/2005 - The Washington Post, Page A22)

As of this evening, according to The Washington Post, each one of the following Democrat senators is a disgrace to the states that they represent. I am truly stunned to see Evan Bayh’s name among this anti-Constitutional bunch.

• Harry Reid of Nevada
• Barbara Boxer of California
• John Kerry of Massachusetts
• Jon Corzine of New Jersey
• Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey
• Barack Obama of Illinois
• Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York
• Evan Bayh of Indiana
• Mark Dayton of Minnesota
• Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts
• Joseph Biden of Delaware
• Dianne Feinstein of California
• Charles Schumer of New York
• Dick Durbin of Illinois
• Barbara Mikulski of Maryland
• Debbie Stabenow of Michigan