The most important race in Utah two months from now in November won't be Governor Herbert's triumph over Carroon. Instead, it will be the story of how a common man named Morgan Philpot took down a powerful political dynastic incumbent named Jim Matheson.
I'd like to introduce Jim Matheson to you. He is a politician who shrouds his votes carefully, masking his true liberal spend-and-tax philosophies. No better example of this comes to mind than Matheson's vote this spring for Obamacare.
Oh, you counter, Matheson did not vote for Obamacare (HR 3590)! Ahh, I rebut, but in the real vote for Obamacare he did vote to unconstitutionally ram it through! Please, allow me to elaborate and take us back to March of this year.
Back in the third week of March the Senate had already passed Obamacare and Speaker Nancy Pelosi was frantically twisting arms to get votes to get Obamacare passed in the House. Out of desperation, scheming, or both, Louise Slaughter (D-NY28 "gerrymandered earmuffs" and Chair of the House Rules Committee; Jill Rowland is in a good fight to unseat her) came up with an idea which would become to be ignominiously known as the "Slaughter Solution": deem Obamacare to have passed without actually voting on it. The Slaughter Solution provided Pelosi twofold objectives: first, a backup plan to pass Obamacare in case Democrats couldn't force enough of their members to vote for it on a direct vote and second, to provide Pelosi a true test vote on Obamacare to see what kind of margin they could get on Obamacare. Many Democrats were "fence sitters" knowing Obamacare was massively unpopular at home but desired to both partisanly please their leader as well as further the expansion of big government and power. Such was the case with supposed fence sitter Democrat Jim Matheson.
On Thursday, March 18th, the infamous "Slaughter Solution" (H RES 1190) passed the house 222-203 providing Pelosi a good indication about how fence sitters were sitting. Joining all the Republicans in opposing the "Slaughter Solution" were 28 so-called "Blue Dog" Democrats who are considered more moderate than the Nancy Pelosi and Louise Slaughters of the political world. Publicly that week even beyond Thursday, Matheson kept saying how he was undecided about Obamacare while protesters were held daily outside his office. Yet Matheson revealed his desire for government healthcare takeover by voting "aye" on the Obamacare "Slaughter Solution" which is nothing worse than passing unconstitutional Obamacare unconstitutionally (ie Congress has to actually vote on law, they can't deem it to have passed.)
Pelosi kept working the Democrats and prepping them for a Sunday--yes a rare Christian Sabbath Day vote--on Obamacare to be held when Christians across the nation would in their homes and churches praying for deliverance from Sin and Obamacare. The morning of Saturday the 20th broke and I joined a few hundred protestors on the steps of our state capitol for a Code Red Rally. Even after the rally ended Saturday mid-dayish, protestors went over to "undecided" Matheson's empty office to protest. It was after this--less than 24 hours before the vote--that Matheson announced he would be voting no on HR3590 and Pelosi got Bart Stupak to cave in on the anti-abortion measures freeing up some of the Democratic fence sitters like Matheson to vote against the leadership knowing that the vote for HR3590 "Obamacare" would be scrutinized historically far more than H RES 1190 "Slaughter Solution."
Utah needs a better Congressman than Matheson. I have better things to do with my Saturdays than to protest a supposed "fence-sitter" who has already voted for Obamacare in the worse form of the Slaughter Solution.
But let's just say I'm a nutjo who has no idea what I'm talking about. You say Matheson's vote against Obamacare HR3590 proves he is against it. I say the vote was a run for cover and can prove it with one final blow: if Matheson is SO against Obamacare that he didn't vote for it, then why doesn't Matheson sign the pledge to repeal it? Republican Morgan Philpot signed the pledge a long time ago.
The answer to that question reveals the true nature of liberal Democrat Matheson and why we must make every effort to ensure Morgan Philpot defeats him this November.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Sunday, September 5, 2010
CTSen: Integrity of McMahon vs. Blumenthal Lies
I'm not a big Pro-Wrestling fan. Not that I have anything against Pro-Wrestling in general (although all forms of entertainment can be packaged in forms appropriate for different audiences, some not appropriate for children or myself). Suffice to say Connecticut Senate candidate Linda McMahon's 30-year WWE experience from a purely wrestling perspective for me is neither a pro nor a con.What I love about McMahon is her sense of taking her WWE business acumen to town for CT. She knows that the Obama philosophy of spending one's way out of debt is a bunch of horse-dung. And that Obama-touted candidate Blumenthal is a Chris Dodd re-tread with respect to this crucial area of fiscal responsibility. Haven't Nutmeggers borne enough of this fiscal nonsense and irresponsibility?
McMahon is largely self-financing with both her and her opponent Blumenthal vowing not to take PAC money. Knowing the deceitful history of CT politicians, I was quite skeptical about the Blumenthal vow (below).
A review of the Federal Elections Commission site for available donations from the first two quarters of 2010 (Jan-Jun) shows that Blumenthal has received nearly $500,000 in PAC money from 158 PACs including:
- A myriad of union groups including the Teamsters
- Several big businesses and insurance companies such as Comcast, General Dynamics, AFLAC, and Blue Shield of California
- Planned Parenthood
Surprisingly from a candidate that purports to have "never taken PAC money", less than 15% of Blumenthal's PAC donors were even based in Connecticut!
Not knowing McMahon, I was also somewhat skeptical about her promise to not take PAC money and to not take individual contributions over $100. I was very pleasantly surprised to see she had with honor kept true to her word. If you look at her page on the FEC site under the "Other Committees Contributions" line (this is where PAC money is listed) the line is $0. Furthermore, if you examine her FEC individual contributions list, no one has contributed over $100.
I have examined several FEC documents this season and McMahon's documents are impeccable and prominently stand out in a positive way. McMahon has proven to me, an out-of-stater, she is a candidate of integrity and will keep her promises of restoring fiscal discipline to our nation.
To further contrast the integrity of McMahon vs the apparent pathological lying of Blumental let us turn back our memories to the spring of this year when Blumenthal purported to have served in Vietnam. The story broke in the liberal New York Times and even progressive MSNBC covered Blumenthal's lie:
Although I don't share some of McMahon's moderate social values, she is against partial-birth abortion and hasn't taken money from Planned Parenthood which is a step in the right direction over Blumenthal. Thus in light of her strong commitment to restoring sanity to our financial house, I am pleased to announce that for Connecticut Senate in 2010 Linda McMahon earns a strong Nacilbupera endorsement.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Discerning Racial Minorities
Would someone tell me how to define "racial minority?"
I think generally people would say Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians are all American racial minorities. It seems pretty clear-cut. So in order to fathom if I'm a "racial minority," I just need to figure out what race I am. Yet in America, land of equality, figuring that out might not be quite so easy...
Let's and say I'm half black, half white. Am I black or white? Am I a racial minority or do I claim to be part of the racial majority? (Personally, I'd call it mulatto but that historic term as long since fallen out of favor.) What if one of my grandparents is black and all my other grandparents are white. Am I black or white? What if I know one of my distant ancestors is black and the rest white. Am I then black or white? What if I suspect but cannot prove as is the case in many a genealogical inquiry that one of my ancestors is black. Am I black or white? Where is the line drawn, and just who has the authority to make these racial determinations? I have used black as an example but we could easily substitute Hispanic or Asian for illustration.
What about adoption? Is a child born to white parents and legally adopted and raised by two black parents since birth a black or white child? And what happens when the parentage of the child is unknown or uncertain: is race then judged by the color of the skin?
Then let's talk about some other races that are even less common in the U.S., for instance how about Russians: are they racial minorities? And what about Latvians, Czechs, Poles, Lithuanians, Greeks, Slovenians, Armenians, and Hungarians? Seems to me they would all qualify as "racial minorities." And aren't Jews a racial minority as well? So if Poles are a racial minority, surely we can't exclude the Germans which were a well-recognized 19th century American racial minority.
Continuing on, if Poles and Germans living in America are a racial minority, then surely the French, Italians, Swedes, Irish, Finnish, and Dutch are certainly racial minorities in and of themselves!
So what to do with all the mulattoes? For example pro golfer Tiger Woods is "one-quarter Chinese, one-quarter Thai, one-quarter African American, one-eighth Native American, and one-eighth Dutch." (Wikipedia) Whatever race he is, I think most would classify him as a "racial minority" despite the apparent racial perplexity. Thus we see the confluence of recognized "racial minorities" does little to preclude our application of the term "racial minority."
As an amateur genealogist, I have performed an inquiry into my personal racial makeup and have found myself to be a strong racial makeup of Irish, German, Swedish, Scottish, and English, with--disputably--a pinch of other races thrown in the pot for good riddance. Surely with this strong and diverse racial makeup--easily to rival Tiger Woods'--I am a "racial minority." What might come as a surprise to most Americans that consider themselves in the "racial majority" is that they are simply a confluence of diverse racial minorities--excluding perhaps the English race which seems to be the accepted "racial majority" for Americans.
In honor of the 47th commemoration of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech on August 28th and the rally to be held this year, I went and read the text of that stirring oration:
I think generally people would say Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians are all American racial minorities. It seems pretty clear-cut. So in order to fathom if I'm a "racial minority," I just need to figure out what race I am. Yet in America, land of equality, figuring that out might not be quite so easy...
Let's and say I'm half black, half white. Am I black or white? Am I a racial minority or do I claim to be part of the racial majority? (Personally, I'd call it mulatto but that historic term as long since fallen out of favor.) What if one of my grandparents is black and all my other grandparents are white. Am I black or white? What if I know one of my distant ancestors is black and the rest white. Am I then black or white? What if I suspect but cannot prove as is the case in many a genealogical inquiry that one of my ancestors is black. Am I black or white? Where is the line drawn, and just who has the authority to make these racial determinations? I have used black as an example but we could easily substitute Hispanic or Asian for illustration.
What about adoption? Is a child born to white parents and legally adopted and raised by two black parents since birth a black or white child? And what happens when the parentage of the child is unknown or uncertain: is race then judged by the color of the skin?
Then let's talk about some other races that are even less common in the U.S., for instance how about Russians: are they racial minorities? And what about Latvians, Czechs, Poles, Lithuanians, Greeks, Slovenians, Armenians, and Hungarians? Seems to me they would all qualify as "racial minorities." And aren't Jews a racial minority as well? So if Poles are a racial minority, surely we can't exclude the Germans which were a well-recognized 19th century American racial minority.
Continuing on, if Poles and Germans living in America are a racial minority, then surely the French, Italians, Swedes, Irish, Finnish, and Dutch are certainly racial minorities in and of themselves!
So what to do with all the mulattoes? For example pro golfer Tiger Woods is "one-quarter Chinese, one-quarter Thai, one-quarter African American, one-eighth Native American, and one-eighth Dutch." (Wikipedia) Whatever race he is, I think most would classify him as a "racial minority" despite the apparent racial perplexity. Thus we see the confluence of recognized "racial minorities" does little to preclude our application of the term "racial minority."
As an amateur genealogist, I have performed an inquiry into my personal racial makeup and have found myself to be a strong racial makeup of Irish, German, Swedish, Scottish, and English, with--disputably--a pinch of other races thrown in the pot for good riddance. Surely with this strong and diverse racial makeup--easily to rival Tiger Woods'--I am a "racial minority." What might come as a surprise to most Americans that consider themselves in the "racial majority" is that they are simply a confluence of diverse racial minorities--excluding perhaps the English race which seems to be the accepted "racial majority" for Americans.
In honor of the 47th commemoration of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech on August 28th and the rally to be held this year, I went and read the text of that stirring oration:
Surely then when big brother EEOC steps in to regulate business hiring based on skin color or "racial minority" rather than allowing business to fire employees for illegal activity, this flies in the face of what Dr. King sought for America and spits in the face of lady justice. And surely this should merit strong condemnation and intervention from the so-called "post-racial" President.I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Nancy Pelosi: Teacher-bribing
Today Nancy Pelosi held a special session of Congress to pass HR1586, another $26B stimulus bill. The bill comes as a de facto admission of the failure of previous tax-and-spend stimuli to generate jobs. (Why would you need to save jobs if you have already saved them?)
What is particularly onerous are the constitutional overreaches of the federal government in bailing out state union jobs, in particular the teachers' unions. The federal government has no business in education let alone raising federal taxes to pay for states who are unwilling or unable to manage their own fiscal houses (like Pelosi's own Democratically-dominated California).
The bottom line is that the last thing Americans need are more taxes during a prolonged recession. Yet Pelosi and the Democrats think that offering a monetary bribe to unconstitutionally dole out other people's money will garnish them votes with the teachers in what portends to be significant Democratic losses this November.
People are smart enough to see past this awful and endless spending and to call it like it is: a bribe for votes. This will backfire.
The vote on HR1586 was 247-161 with Louisiana's freshman Cao (ignominiously the only GOP originally voting for Obamacare) and Delaware's Castle (one of the cap-n-tax 8 GOP) the only 2 GOP voting in favor while three southern Democrats opposed: Taylor (MS-04), Bright (AL-02), & Cooper (TN-05).
What this means for Utahans, this is more fuel to the fire to get rid of tax-raising, teacher-bribing, Constitution-shredding Jim Matheson (UT-02) and to get Morgan Philpot elected in his stead. Matheson along with 246 wreckless Representatives must be voted out.
What is particularly onerous are the constitutional overreaches of the federal government in bailing out state union jobs, in particular the teachers' unions. The federal government has no business in education let alone raising federal taxes to pay for states who are unwilling or unable to manage their own fiscal houses (like Pelosi's own Democratically-dominated California).
The bottom line is that the last thing Americans need are more taxes during a prolonged recession. Yet Pelosi and the Democrats think that offering a monetary bribe to unconstitutionally dole out other people's money will garnish them votes with the teachers in what portends to be significant Democratic losses this November.
People are smart enough to see past this awful and endless spending and to call it like it is: a bribe for votes. This will backfire.
The vote on HR1586 was 247-161 with Louisiana's freshman Cao (ignominiously the only GOP originally voting for Obamacare) and Delaware's Castle (one of the cap-n-tax 8 GOP) the only 2 GOP voting in favor while three southern Democrats opposed: Taylor (MS-04), Bright (AL-02), & Cooper (TN-05).
What this means for Utahans, this is more fuel to the fire to get rid of tax-raising, teacher-bribing, Constitution-shredding Jim Matheson (UT-02) and to get Morgan Philpot elected in his stead. Matheson along with 246 wreckless Representatives must be voted out.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Hatch: Leading the Charge Against Kagan?
Some time ago I realized that simply being a voter was an insufficient enough participation level for me to consider myself a defender of the Constitution. That is a fundamental reason why I created Nacilbupera.
Likewise, with the regard to the nomination of Elena Kagan, it is insufficient enough for me to have my two Senators--Hatch and Bennett--simply verbally oppose the nomination of yet another Constitiution-ripper-upper. I need action. Every legal action possible. And with a scheduled July 13th vote in Committee, time is drawning short.
Judiciary Committee veteran Hatch must be found "Leading the Charge" (as the title of my autographed Hatch biography states he does) of a massive filibuster of this nominee Kagan whose ideology would veer from the strict power granted the Federal Government by "We the People." Hatch's judicial nominee opinions seem to carry a large amount of weight in the Senate. If Hatch is unwilling to use the power we the citizens of Utah have vested in him to defend our Constitution, then then time is ripe in 2012 to find another more willing to do so.
Senators Hatch and Bennett: will accept your duty as vested you by the People of the State of Utah and Lead the Charge? Or, Senator Hatch, must we find another to Lead the Charge as we found Mike Lee to replace Bob Bennett?
Likewise, with the regard to the nomination of Elena Kagan, it is insufficient enough for me to have my two Senators--Hatch and Bennett--simply verbally oppose the nomination of yet another Constitiution-ripper-upper. I need action. Every legal action possible. And with a scheduled July 13th vote in Committee, time is drawning short.
Judiciary Committee veteran Hatch must be found "Leading the Charge" (as the title of my autographed Hatch biography states he does) of a massive filibuster of this nominee Kagan whose ideology would veer from the strict power granted the Federal Government by "We the People." Hatch's judicial nominee opinions seem to carry a large amount of weight in the Senate. If Hatch is unwilling to use the power we the citizens of Utah have vested in him to defend our Constitution, then then time is ripe in 2012 to find another more willing to do so.
Senators Hatch and Bennett: will accept your duty as vested you by the People of the State of Utah and Lead the Charge? Or, Senator Hatch, must we find another to Lead the Charge as we found Mike Lee to replace Bob Bennett?
Monday, July 5, 2010
The Evil of Eric Holder
US Attorney General Eric Holder is a evil man. For me, being evil as it applies to the political world unites two components: first, a person must pursue a pervasively wrong ideology such as socialism, communism, fascism, dismantling our sacred law-of-the-land the Constitution, or other form of tyranny. As horrible as these are, there are some folks who fall into this category that are simply "misguided" in their philosophy due to propaganda or indoctrination rather than meeting my benchmark of being "evil."The second part of being evil involves a breach of power, a trampling of law, bribe, or other form of corruption. An elected official having the second component but lacking the first is a guilty lawbreaker who should be punished, guilty of the human foibles of greed, lust, or vanity. Thus it takes the "ebony and ivory"* if you will of both wrong ideology and political corruption to qualify for this label of "evil" I feign from using. Just as foreign evil doers are omnipresent in world history, I too as a citizen must do my duty to "support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic" [emphasis mine] as my honeybunny committed to do during her recent naturalization.
Holder has a proven record of releasing criminals including the Puerto-Rican terrorists to buoy up Hillary Clinton's Senatorial bid in New York and Marc Rich, a fugitive on the FBI's 10-most-wanted list.
More recently, Holder tried to get 9/11 mastermind KSM tried in civilian court--in of all places, NYC of course! After considerable bipartisan outrage, Holder announced four months ago today that the trial for KSM was '"weeks away" and [would] not be made or announced before President Obama leaves for Guam, Indonesia and Australia on March 18.' Two weeks ago Josh Gerstein of the Politico.com had this update:
The trial of KSM by Holder in civilian court is one more example of Holder's incorrect ideology in wanting to try terrorists as civilians in civilian court, while at the same time potentially denying them the 6th Amendment right to a speedy trial by needlessly postponing it. Because of potential 6th Amendment violations in civilian court, the only legal means of prosecution remains military court as it should be done.Now advocates on both sides of the issue say they expect the Obama administration to punt the decision until after the November midterm elections— when the controversial plan could do less damage to the political fortunes of endangered Democrats and might face less resistance on Capitol Hill....
....While “swift and certain justice” once was a regular part of the White House lexicon on Guantanamo and detainee trials, that catchphrase has now vanished along with the prospect of anything swift happening to most of the prisoners slated for continued detention or trial.
"Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is going to meet justice and he's going to meet his maker" quipped Obama Press Secretary Robert Gibbs last February in a CBS news article with the Obama Administration pledging to seek swift justice. Sure thing, Obama! Just like you plugged the hole down in the Gulf, got the unemployed back to work, and held those Obamacare discussions on C-SPAN. (Obama's pre-election utter dearth of executive experience is glaring...)
All this brings us to some of the latest evil actions of Holder, this time clearly showing the level of corruption that exists in the DOJ for which he is at best guilty by apathy for looking the other way. This concerns the New Black Panthers (black equivalent of the KKK) voter intimidation case dismissed by the DOJ. You'll remember the famous video now with over 1M hits:
Only a few saw this racist clip: "That's why ya gonna be ruled by the black man."
In an important interview with Megyn Kelly during the last week, J. Christian Adams, a DOJ attorney who had resigned in disgust over the DOJ's dismissal of charges revealed all in two 10-minutes segments: Part 1 Part 2
These videos with Adams makes it clear that AG Eric Holder is running a culture of corruption in the DOJ. The New Black Panther Party should have been punished. I personally will continue to hold Eric Holder responsible for this miscarriage of justice. This corruption backed by a false, socialistic ideology of scrapping the Constitution shows that Eric Holder is Evil. Should Obama have any iota of executive competence in him, he should replace Evil Holder at once.
* Use of this phrase is devoid of innuendo of racial propensity towards either component. I am simply a big Stevie Wonder fan (Obama-loving McCartney not so much) and the racial overtones of the phrase were applicable to the theme of Black Panthers voter intimidation. I also got this vision of socialism and corruption sitting side-by-side on the piano in perfect harmony.
Sunday, July 4, 2010
SCOTUS: 6 Catholics, 3 Jews?
Imagine for a minute there were two sitting justices on the SCOTUS who were Mormon by religious affiliation. The only Protestant on the Supreme Court was retiring and the POTUS nominated yet another Mormon to the bench. How would you feel? Would you feel like somehow though the various Protestant denominations (Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Evangelicals) comprise a majority of religious adherents in the US that you had no representation? Would you wonder why a US religion registering around 2% was getting a third justice while your religion had no representation? Would you protest or accuse the POTUS of being a religious bigot? (SCOTUS religious stats here)
Yet in the nomination of Elena Kagan to replace Justice Stevens, Obama has done just this with one twist: substitute Jewish for Mormon and, Bingo! Actually, if anything I'm being generous because there are more Mormons than Jews in the US and there have historically been 7 Jews on the SCOTUS while representing Mormons there have been fewer: lets see there has been--hmm, let me think a moment--oh yeah! There hasn't EVER been a Mormon on the SCOTUS!
I use the example of the Mormon faith because I am one and it is the religion I am most familiar with, yet Mormons are hardly unique in their lament. Consider Baptists: they comprise nearly 20% of the population so roughly they should have a couple of Justices on the SCOTUS. Baptists have none. Conversely, Catholics are currently way over-represented comprising 6 of 9 SCOTUS seats (Sotomayor, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Roberts) while representing a mere 25% of the population.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not here to stir up religious fervor. I'm not here to mandate proportional religious equality on the SCOTUS. Indeed I have a deep respect for religions and am proud to have close family ties to members of Jewish, Mormon, Protestant, and Muslim faiths; and while there just aren't a bunch of Catholics in the family, I have numerous Catholic friends and people I admire.
What I am saying is that the POTUS should use more judgement in balancing out the deep diversity of religions and certainly the nomination of a third Jew to balance out six Catholics is about as skewed religiously as you can get. Those nine justices combined would represent only 26% of the US citizenry.
I vehemently oppose the nomination of Elena Kagan to the SCOTUS. Being the third Jew and having zero hours experience being a judge are just the writing on the wall of mene mene tekel upharsin: that Kagan fails to defend the Constitution as the citizenry adopted it. Show me where in these hearings has Kagan declared Obamacare unconstitutional because it mandates the purchase of a product (health insurance), something that has never been required of the citizenry before. And then show me where in Article 1, Section 8--the list of specific authorities granted the Federal Government--does it talk about health care? The nomination of unconstitutional Kagan must be stopped, by filibuster if necessary.
++++ Update 7/10
I wasn't the lone voice lamenting the cause of a another Jew being nominated. Consider this story from late June (h/t CNS news) in an interview with the Rabbinical Alliance of America:
You know, when considering Harry Reid's political views as Mormons are supposed to be similarly anti-abortion, strong supporters of traditional marriage, and against Socialism, I can see exactly where the Rabbinical Alliance of America is coming from.
Yet in the nomination of Elena Kagan to replace Justice Stevens, Obama has done just this with one twist: substitute Jewish for Mormon and, Bingo! Actually, if anything I'm being generous because there are more Mormons than Jews in the US and there have historically been 7 Jews on the SCOTUS while representing Mormons there have been fewer: lets see there has been--hmm, let me think a moment--oh yeah! There hasn't EVER been a Mormon on the SCOTUS!
I use the example of the Mormon faith because I am one and it is the religion I am most familiar with, yet Mormons are hardly unique in their lament. Consider Baptists: they comprise nearly 20% of the population so roughly they should have a couple of Justices on the SCOTUS. Baptists have none. Conversely, Catholics are currently way over-represented comprising 6 of 9 SCOTUS seats (Sotomayor, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Roberts) while representing a mere 25% of the population.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not here to stir up religious fervor. I'm not here to mandate proportional religious equality on the SCOTUS. Indeed I have a deep respect for religions and am proud to have close family ties to members of Jewish, Mormon, Protestant, and Muslim faiths; and while there just aren't a bunch of Catholics in the family, I have numerous Catholic friends and people I admire.
What I am saying is that the POTUS should use more judgement in balancing out the deep diversity of religions and certainly the nomination of a third Jew to balance out six Catholics is about as skewed religiously as you can get. Those nine justices combined would represent only 26% of the US citizenry.
I vehemently oppose the nomination of Elena Kagan to the SCOTUS. Being the third Jew and having zero hours experience being a judge are just the writing on the wall of mene mene tekel upharsin: that Kagan fails to defend the Constitution as the citizenry adopted it. Show me where in these hearings has Kagan declared Obamacare unconstitutional because it mandates the purchase of a product (health insurance), something that has never been required of the citizenry before. And then show me where in Article 1, Section 8--the list of specific authorities granted the Federal Government--does it talk about health care? The nomination of unconstitutional Kagan must be stopped, by filibuster if necessary.
++++ Update 7/10
I wasn't the lone voice lamenting the cause of a another Jew being nominated. Consider this story from late June (h/t CNS news) in an interview with the Rabbinical Alliance of America:
Rabbi Yehuda Levin, spokesman for the alliance, told CNSNews.com on Thursday that "a great deal has been made about the fact that she would be the second Jewish woman on the court, and we want to signal to people across the country that we take no pride in this.”
Levin said most people are happy when "one of their own" is nominated to such a high position. But, he added, "We feel that Elena Kagan turns traditional Judaism on its head--from a concept of a nation of priests and holy people, she is turning it into, ‘Let’s homosexualize every segment of society. And by the way, partial-birth babies
have no right to be delivered.’"“What exactly was Obama thinking, President Obama thinking, when he nominated Kagan? Because eventually, down the road, someone--or some group--is going to ‘take the hit’ for the crazy decisions that Kagan is bound to make. So we would have much preferred if President Obama had given this ‘distinction’ to another minority group, instead of singling out the Jews.”
"We’re waiting for the more courageous, decent senators--whether it’s a (Sen.) Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) or a (Sen.) Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) or a (Sen.) Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.)--we’re looking for them to stand up and filibuster this embarrassing endangerment of a nomination,” Levin said.
You know, when considering Harry Reid's political views as Mormons are supposed to be similarly anti-abortion, strong supporters of traditional marriage, and against Socialism, I can see exactly where the Rabbinical Alliance of America is coming from.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
