.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

The Asylum

Welcome to the Asylum. This is a site devoted to politics and current events in America, and around the globe. The THREE lunatics posting here are unabashed conservatives that go after the liberal lies and deceit prevalent in the debate of the day. We'd like to add that the views expressed here do not reflect the views of other inmates, nor were any inmates harmed in the creation of this site.

Location: Mesa, Arizona, United States

Who are we? We're a married couple who has a passion for politics and current events. That's what this site is about. If you read us, you know what we stand for.

Tuesday, April 19, 2005

Constitutional Option Update: Going For The Jugular

http://hughhewitt.com/ (Hat-Tip to Hugh for leading the charge)
http://www.radioblogger.com/ (And Hat-Tip for Duane on his transcriptions)

OK. I think I’ve got my ducks in a row on this one, so here we go, and hold on. This isn’t going to just be a blog. This is about to become a rant.
Hugh Hewitt reported at the beginning of his show today that Frist is readying himself to challenge the Democrats on the Constitutional Option. He stated several times throughout his show that the move could come as early as Monday or Tuesday of next week, though Frist hasn’t said what day, exactly, this challenge will come. He does assure the base that time is running out for the Democrats.

And I think the Democrats know it.

Over the weekend, the MSM came out—guns blazing—against Frist for a forum he’s about to participate in with Dr. James Dobson, Al Mohler, and Chuck Colson sponsored by the Family Research Center. They are addressing 1000 churches on the issue of the Constitutional Option, and breaking the illegal Democrat filibuster. They stand behind the idea that judges shouldn’t be denied based solely on their religious beliefs, which is occurring. William Pryor is an excellent jurist; possibly the best of the ones up for appointment. Janice Rogers Brown is another nominee with a deep understanding of her faith. These people aren't going to rule based on their faith. They're going to rule on the proper interpretation of the law.

But the Left doesn’t want them anywhere near a bench. They’re afraid that they might end up playing the game that they’ve been playing for years now. They’re afraid that these jurists might legislate from the bench, themselves, or worse, they’ll interpret the law. See, the Left can’t win in the realm of ideas because they literally are that far outside the mainstream. They accuse conservatives of being "outside of the mainstream". We’re extremists if we don’t agree with them. If you’re Michael Moore, we conservatives live in "Jesusland". This is how they react when people have different outlooks on things. Worse, everything is solid in stone except two things. Faith and religion.

These two things scare the hell out of the Left more than anything. Take what Mort Kondracke said on Hugh Hewitt’s show last Friday.

"I mean, Democrats, broadly speaking, are scared to death of religious faith. They just think that it's something that ought to be left in private. That it ought to be kept in secret almost."

Yet, they can invoke the name of God in public, and no one bats an eyelash. The moment someone else invokes God’s name, they jump all over them for crossing a line; for crossing that "wall of separation" that Hugo Black discovered in 1947. They’re not just afraid of faith, they’re hypocritical in regard to it.
Think that’s bad. Here’s what Chuck Schumer had to say about this.

The whole purpose of this telecast, according to Tony Perkins, who organized it, is in the New York Times. It says it. People of faith versus Democrats. People of faith versus the filibuster. That again, I would say, is un-American. Deeply un-American to say that people...you know, that religion is here and it dictates that you be a Republican, that you be against the filibuster. There are people of faith, as I've said, of all different parties, of all different political views, and the beauty of America is we've separated the two. We have our deeply held faith. That's wonderful. We have our politics. And I'll tell you one thing, George. Whenever people try to do this and overreach, the American people sniff something. That's the whole thing that's going on here. Something is in the air. That something is wrong, different than the traditions of America.

First off, the flyers being passed out for this forum do not boast that this is "People of faith vs. Democrats". The flyer simply states that one should not have to choose. In other words, Hugo Black was wrong. (Personally, I believe he was wrong on the issue of church and state from the get go, but hey, what do I know? Right?) Government and religion can coexist. They have for 229 years. But when it comes to a judge going through the nomination process where every aspect of his private and public life is scrutinized, the Democrats are basically forcing them into making a decision.

"Either you serve the master, God, or you serve the master, Government."

Hey, Chuckie, I’ll be waiting in the car heading to heaven because government can’t give me what God can. And therein lies the central problem with the Democrats of today. The extreme Left. The Chuck Schumers, the Diane Feinsteins, the John Kerrys, the Ted Kennedys, the Barbara Boxers. They don’t want people putting their faith in a God that no one can see, directly interact with, or directly talk to. And that goes to further show how idiotic their stance on this is. I can do all three with God. I see him in the eyes of a newborn, innocent baby. I directly interact with his world. And I talk to him everyday; sometimes, depending on the day, multiple times.

But the Left can’t comprehend that. They don’t see God the way many religious people do. And this isn’t saying that the Democrats are devoid of any faith. Many are quite religious. Others have opted to put their faith in the government. It’s something tangible to them. The problem is government is ever-evolving (unlike our rock-solid Constitution). There is no "right" or "wrong" because both can be legislated away. Faith says that there is a difference—an inherent difference—between the two concepts. Christianity is now as it stood over 2000 years ago. Don’t argue a church’s doctrine with me. That’s not what I’m talking about. I am referring to the basic tenets of Christianity, which originated in the Ten Commandments. Those tenets are still alive and well today. Some of us may have a problem holding true to all of them (we are only human, and quite capable of error), but they’re still there.

But Democrats don’t want to put our faith in anything other than the government. The government can provide everything for everyone if the people would just quit being greedy, and give up more of their money. But it can’t provide EVERYTHING for EVERYONE. Some of us have needs greater than the government. Some of us have needs that transcend this world of crude flesh. I’m not a regular churchgoer. As a matter of fact, aside from last Christmas, I hadn’t been to a Mass in almost ten years. But my faith is still there. I still believe in God and Christ. And I believe that They believed in freedom. So do I. But if one were to research the comments made by Schumer, Feinstein, the vicious attacks against Frist, and those that have attacked the judicial nominees over where they place their faith, I think one could see what I’m pointing at when it comes to the Left.

They despise us because we put our faith and beliefs where they don’t want us to. Well, you know what? Too damned bad. I might have a bit more faith in my government if yahoos like them quit gumming up the works, and making life veritably unbearable. Of course, if they’d just grow up and start thinking, we could be well on our way to a government I envision. One limited in power and scope, ready to protect it’s citizens, and far less intrusive in our daily lives. Funny, isn’t that what the Founding Fathers created?

Publius II


Post a Comment

<< Home

weight loss product