Mitt Romney won Nevada's GOP caucuses by a wide margin Saturday, a victory that was long expected and helps further his campaign's argument that he is the inevitable nominee. Romney held a big lead in early voting results, and The Associated Press and TV networks projected him to win when the last caucus locations closed.Tweet
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Romney Wins Big In Nevada
Friday, February 3, 2012
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: “I Would Not Look To The US Constitution If I Were Drafting A Constitution In The Year 2012.”
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg actually said the above to Egyptians on Al-Hayat TV on January 30, 2012. Of course this actually sounds like someone who does not belong on the Supreme Court and does not have the healthy respect for our Constitution that should be demanded by someone on the highest bench. It is disturbing that a sitting Supreme Court Justice would actually say this when being interviewed by an Egyptian TV channel. See http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/3295.htm to see excerpted remarks from the interview.
I am sure a potential Constitution drafted by the Muslim Brotherhood is bound to be loads better than the one ratified by the American Founders.
Tweet
Thursday, February 2, 2012
The Same Battle Over Religious Freedom Against Government Mandates Has Already Been In Federal Court For Years: Pharmacists And The Morning After Pill
Much has been reported in recent days regarding the Obamacare mandate that would require religious institutions to provide health insurance whose services include contraception, including "Plan B" or the "morning after pill." But few realize that a case with essentially the same underlying principle and challenge has been working its way through the federal court system for a couple years already.
The L.A. Times reported in 2009:
Pharmacists are obliged to dispense the Plan B pill, even if they are personally opposed to the 'morning after' contraceptive on religious grounds, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday. In a case that could affect policy across the western U.S., a supermarket pharmacy owner in Olympia, Wash., failed in a bid to block 2007 regulations that required all Washington pharmacies to stock and dispense the pills. Family-owned Ralph's Thriftway and two pharmacists employed elsewhere sued Washington state officials over the requirement. The plaintiffs asserted that their Christian beliefs prevented them from dispensing the pills, which can prevent implantation of a recently fertilized egg. They said that the new regulations would force them to choose between keeping their jobs and heeding their religious objections to a medication they regard as a form of abortion. Ralph's owners, Stormans Inc., and pharmacists Rhonda Mesler and Margo Thelen sought protection under the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion and won a temporary injunction from the U.S. District Court in Seattle pending trial on the constitutionality of the regulations. That order prevented state officials from penalizing pharmacists who refused to dispense Plan B as long as they referred consumers to a nearby pharmacy where it was available. On Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals lifted the injunction. Other constitutional challenges are pending with the district court, which had been waiting for the Ninth Circuit ruling on the injunction, said Chad Allred, a Seattle lawyer whose firm represents Stormans and the pharmacists. In anticipation of the injunction being vacated, Stormans and the two pharmacists secured an agreement with the state that it would not pursue sanctions against them until the other issues were decided at trial, Allred said.The Ninth Circuit in 2009 indicated that they think Washington's law is Constitutional. Fox News reported in 2012 that in light of the Ninth Circuit decision the federal District Court is once again:
Considering whether Washington state can require pharmacies to stock and sell Plan B or other emergency contraceptives, even in the face of religious objections by druggists who believe they destroy human life. U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton heard closing arguments Wednesday in a lawsuit that claims state rules violate the constitutional rights of pharmacists by requiring them to dispense such medicine. The state requires pharmacies to dispense any medication for which there is a community need and to stock a representative assortment of drugs needed by their patients... The judge blocked the state dispensing rule in 2007, finding that it would violate the plaintiffs' freedom of religion. But a Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel overruled him, saying that he applied the wrong legal standard and that the rule appeared constitutional because it was neutral and did not directly target religious views. The appellate court sent the case back to Leighton, telling him to apply the correct standard. He held an 11-day trial to flesh out the matter, and in court Wednesday, he expressed little patience for the state's enforcement of the rules, which he said reminded him of the federal government's arbitrary enforcement of the now-repealed rule against gays serving openly in the military. The issue is more important than many other freedom-of-religion cases, such as those concerning religious dress or other ceremonial matters, he said.
Fox News continues:
By the tone this judge is taking with State attorneys, it is likely he will defy the Ninth Circuit ruling. What exactly did the Ninth Circuit say? The Ninth Circuit held that Washington's Pharmacy Board rules are neutral regulations of general applicability that need only meet a rational basis test rather than the strict scrutiny standard used by the district court. The Supreme Court had essentially ruled in the case of Employment Division v. Smith in 1988 that neutral laws of general applicability do not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Strict judicial scrutiny almost always results in the overturning of a law, while typically the judiciary applying a rational basis test results in the law being upheld. But within the very opinion itself the judges seem to contradict themselves on this very point.
The Ninth Circuit stated that the new pharmacy rules are neutral because they "do not aim to suppress, target, or single out in any way the practice of any religion because of its religious content." The Court said that the regulations are generally applicable because there was "no evidence" that the State "pursued their interests only against conduct with a religious motivation. Under the rules, all pharmacies have a 'duty to deliver' all medications 'in a timely manner'" and the challenged regulations in the case do not apply "to refusals only for religious reasons." Yet the opinion also included the following not long thereafter: "How much the new rules actually increase access to medications depends on how many people are able to get medication that they might previously have been denied based on religious or general moral opposition by a pharmacist or pharmacy to the given medication." In other words, the entire success of the law they declare "nuetral" and "generally applicable" will be determined by its effect on religious people.
The Ninth Circuit itself quotes Supreme Court precedent to support the idea that the district court should not have looked to legislative history to determine whether a law is nuetral. The Ninth Circuit writes that "Justice Scalia, the author of the [Employment Division v.] Smith [(1988)] opinion," one of the main cases the Ninth Circuit relies upon, "explained that the Free Exercise Clause 'does not refer to the purposes for which legislators enact laws, but to the effects of the laws enacted.'” How does that then square with the apellate court's own declaration that the increase in the avaliability of medication "depends on how many people are able to get medication that they might previously have been denied based on religious or general moral opposition by a pharmacist or pharmacy to the given medication"?
Business owners, including pharmacies, should be able to sell what they wish without government intervention forcing them to sell a product they find morally repulsive. The same should hold true for health insurance provided by religious employers or organizations that morally object to various forms of contraception. I obviously find these cases to be very similar in principle. That is because they clearly are. One of the key differences between this regulation and the new controversy surrounding the Obamacare mandate is that one can get lawsuits throughout the federal circuit courts if it is a challenge to a national Obamacare regulation, eventually creating possible splits in the courts thereby putting federal law in question, and therefore a much higher chance that it could end up with the Supreme Court.
When the government forces a religious person in a specific business to sell a specific product or provide a specific service, in violation of his legitimate and deeply held religious and moral convictions, then common sense dictates that there may in fact be a serious conflict with the First Amendment's ban on government laws that prohibit "the free exercise of religion." The Ninth Circuit has proven itself to lack this common sense. Other federal courts will soon hear the newer permutation of the very same issue with Obamacare and hopefully will not follow in the Ninth Circuit's footsteps. If "free exercise of religion" is to mean anything, then let us hope that the Ninth Circuit has not already been preaching to the judicial choir.
Tweet
"The question of life and death is serious," [Judge Leighton] thundered at an attorney for the state. "It's not facial hair, it's not a burka. ... I do not know when life begins, but I will not denigrate somebody's view of when life begins."
By the tone this judge is taking with State attorneys, it is likely he will defy the Ninth Circuit ruling. What exactly did the Ninth Circuit say? The Ninth Circuit held that Washington's Pharmacy Board rules are neutral regulations of general applicability that need only meet a rational basis test rather than the strict scrutiny standard used by the district court. The Supreme Court had essentially ruled in the case of Employment Division v. Smith in 1988 that neutral laws of general applicability do not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Strict judicial scrutiny almost always results in the overturning of a law, while typically the judiciary applying a rational basis test results in the law being upheld. But within the very opinion itself the judges seem to contradict themselves on this very point.
The Ninth Circuit stated that the new pharmacy rules are neutral because they "do not aim to suppress, target, or single out in any way the practice of any religion because of its religious content." The Court said that the regulations are generally applicable because there was "no evidence" that the State "pursued their interests only against conduct with a religious motivation. Under the rules, all pharmacies have a 'duty to deliver' all medications 'in a timely manner'" and the challenged regulations in the case do not apply "to refusals only for religious reasons." Yet the opinion also included the following not long thereafter: "How much the new rules actually increase access to medications depends on how many people are able to get medication that they might previously have been denied based on religious or general moral opposition by a pharmacist or pharmacy to the given medication." In other words, the entire success of the law they declare "nuetral" and "generally applicable" will be determined by its effect on religious people.
The Ninth Circuit itself quotes Supreme Court precedent to support the idea that the district court should not have looked to legislative history to determine whether a law is nuetral. The Ninth Circuit writes that "Justice Scalia, the author of the [Employment Division v.] Smith [(1988)] opinion," one of the main cases the Ninth Circuit relies upon, "explained that the Free Exercise Clause 'does not refer to the purposes for which legislators enact laws, but to the effects of the laws enacted.'” How does that then square with the apellate court's own declaration that the increase in the avaliability of medication "depends on how many people are able to get medication that they might previously have been denied based on religious or general moral opposition by a pharmacist or pharmacy to the given medication"?
Business owners, including pharmacies, should be able to sell what they wish without government intervention forcing them to sell a product they find morally repulsive. The same should hold true for health insurance provided by religious employers or organizations that morally object to various forms of contraception. I obviously find these cases to be very similar in principle. That is because they clearly are. One of the key differences between this regulation and the new controversy surrounding the Obamacare mandate is that one can get lawsuits throughout the federal circuit courts if it is a challenge to a national Obamacare regulation, eventually creating possible splits in the courts thereby putting federal law in question, and therefore a much higher chance that it could end up with the Supreme Court.
When the government forces a religious person in a specific business to sell a specific product or provide a specific service, in violation of his legitimate and deeply held religious and moral convictions, then common sense dictates that there may in fact be a serious conflict with the First Amendment's ban on government laws that prohibit "the free exercise of religion." The Ninth Circuit has proven itself to lack this common sense. Other federal courts will soon hear the newer permutation of the very same issue with Obamacare and hopefully will not follow in the Ninth Circuit's footsteps. If "free exercise of religion" is to mean anything, then let us hope that the Ninth Circuit has not already been preaching to the judicial choir.
Breast Cancer Advocacy Group Komen Foundation Faces Furor For Cutting Funding For Planned Parenthood
The nation’s leading breast cancer advocacy organization confronted the growing furor Thursday over its decision to largely end its decades-long partnership with Planned Parenthood, with rising dissension in its own ranks and a roiling anger on the Internet showing the power of social media to harness protest...Tweet
Komen’s founder and chief executive, Nancy G. Brinker, held a news conference Thursday and insisted that the organization’s decision had nothing to do with abortion or politics. Rather, she said, it resulted from improved grant-making procedures and was not intended to make a target of Planned Parenthood.
“We think this is the right thing to do from a stewardships standpoint,” Ms. Brinker said.
Washington Post: Defense Secretary Leon Panetta Believes There Is A "Strong Likelihood" That Israel Will Attack Iran This Summer
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has a lot on his mind these days, from cutting the defense budget to managing the drawdown of U.S. forces in Afghanistan. But his biggest worry is the growing possibility that Israel will attack Iran over the next few months.Tweet
Panetta believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June — before Iran enters what Israelis described as a “zone of immunity” to commence building a nuclear bomb. Very soon, the Israelis fear, the Iranians will have stored enough enriched uranium in deep underground facilities to make a weapon — and only the United States could then stop them militarily.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu doesn’t want to leave the fate of Israel dependent on American action, which would be triggered by intelligence that Iran is building a bomb, which it hasn’t done yet.
Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak may have signaled the prospect of an Israeli attack soon when he asked last month to postpone a planned U.S.-Israel military exercise that would culminate in a live-fire phase in May. Barak apologized that Israel couldn’t devote the resources to the annual exercise this spring.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
African American Racist Radio Host Thaddeus Matthews Berates And Belittles Black Republican Charlotte Bergmann
Memphis talk radio host Thaddeus Matthews insulted and humiliated Republican congressional candidate Charlotte Bergmann during a recent interview. He ended the interview by saying, "get your stupid, ignorant ass up out of my studio." As Bergmann was leaving the studio she extended her hand to the host and Matthews refused to shake hands because he didn't want the "whiteness" to "rub off" on him.
Tweet
Mark Levin’s Rebuttal of Ann Coulter’s “Three Cheers For RomneyCare” Article
Ann Coulter wrote an article today called “Three Cheers for RomneyCare” where she defended Mitt Romney and RomneyCare. Mark Levin ripped her apart. To listen to his 30 minute rebuttal visit http://www.therightscoop.com/mark-levins-rebuttal-of-ann-coulters-three-cheers-for-romneycare-article/ Tweet
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Bipartisan Group Urges Tougher Stance On Iran; Israelis Say Possible Strike Would Have To Come Middle Of This Year
Reuters reports:The United States should deploy ships, step up covert activities
and sharpen its rhetoric to make more credible the threat of a U.S. military strike to stop Iran's nuclear program, a bipartisan group said on Wednesday. Former U.S. politicians, generals and officials said in a report that the best chance of stopping Iran's suspected pursuit of nuclear weapons was to make clear American willingness to use force, although it stopped short of advocating military action. The report by a Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) task force of Democrats, Republicans and independents is to be formally issued on Wednesday and comes amid speculation about the possibility of an Israeli military strike against Iran.
The AP reports:
Israeli officials are quietly conceding that new international sanctions targeting Iran's suspect nuclear program, while welcome, are further constraining Israel's ability to take military action - just as a window of opportunity is closing because Tehran is moving more of its installations underground. The officials say that Israel must act by the summer if it wants to effectively attack Iran's program... Key Israeli defense officials believe that the time to strike, if such a decision is made, would have to be by the middle of this year.Tweet
Senate Panel Reveals Israeli Mossad Chief Held Secret U.S. Meetings On Iran Nuclear Threat
Mossad chief Tamir Pardo held secret talks with top U.S. officials in recent days, cursory comments made during a public Senate hearing indicated on Tuesday.Tweet
The clandestine Washington visit was exposed during a hearing of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which was participated by CIA Director David Petraeus, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and Dianne Feinstein, who chairs the Senate panel.
During the meeting, Feinstein asked Clapper whether or not Israel intended to strike Iran's nuclear facilities, with the top U.S. intelligence official answering that he would rather discuss the issue behind closed doors.
Feinstein then indicated that she had met Mossad chief Pardo earlier in the week in Washington, with Petraeus adding that he too met Pardo and cited what he called Israel's growing concern over Iran's nuclear ambitions.
The CIA chief also said that it was important to note that Israel considered a nuclear Iran as an existential threat.
The entire exchange was broadcasted live on American television.
Referring to the Iran's nuclear progress, Clapper told the Senate panel that "Iran's technical advancement, particularly in uranium enrichment, strengthens our assessment that Iran has the scientific, technical, and industrial capacity to eventually produce nuclear weapons, making the central issue its political will to do so."
"These advancements contribute to our judgment that Iran is technically capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium for a weapon, if it so chooses," Clapper added, saying that the U.S. judged "Iran would likely choose missile delivery as its preferred method of delivering a nuclear weapon."
Clapper also indicated that the 2011 Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi envoy to the U.S. indicated that the Iranian leadership "changed their calculus and are now more willing to conduct an attack in the United States in response to real or perceived U.S. actions that threaten the regime."
"We are also concerned about Iranian plotting against U.S. or allied interests overseas. Iran's willingness to sponsor future attacks in the United States or against our interests abroad probably will be shaped by Tehran's evaluation of the costs it bears for the plot against the ambassador as well as Iranian leaders' perceptions of U.S. threats against the regime," Clapper added.
News of the Mossad chief's reported Washington visit came as, also on Tuesday, President Shimon Peres said that Iran's "evil" leadership mustn't be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons capability.
Referring to Iran's contentious nuclear program, the president called the issue "ours and the world's central problem at this time, accusing Iran of attempting to achieve regional and "even global hegemony."
"Nuclear weapons mustn't be allowed to fall into the hands of Iran's Ayatollah regime," Peres said, calling Iran's religious leadership the "most morally corrupt regime in the world."
Hinting at the possibility of a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities, the president reiterated the Israeli stance, according to which "no option should be ruled out in our dealing with the Iranian danger. This is an existential threat."
"It is the duty of the international community to prevent evil and nuclear [weapons] from coming together. That is the obligations of most of the leaders of the free world, one which they must meet," Peres said.
Obama's Fourth Budget Once Again More Than 1 Trillion Dollars
President Obama's pledge to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term will fall short, according to the latest economic outlook released Tuesday by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.
The president said in February 2009 that the $1.3 trillion deficit he inherited would be cut in half under his budget blueprint, but according to CBO the deficit in 2012 will continue to hover around $1 trillion, and fall to just under $1 trillion next year if current tax laws are extended, as expected. An overall sluggish economy is expected to continue with unemployment stuck around 8% through 2013...
"Today's report is further confirmation that the president's record has failed to live up to his rhetoric," said Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas.
The New York Times reports:
The Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday that the economy would remain sluggish, with high unemployment, and that the federal budget deficit would exceed $1 trillion in 2012 [with a $1.1 trillion deficit in the current fiscal year] for the fourth consecutive year.Tweet
Catholics Push Back: Obamacare Birth Control And "Morning After Pill" Coverage Mandate Violates Conscience And Constitution
Churches and other religious organizations are pushing back against President Barack Obama's new health insurance policy mandate for birth control.Tweet
The measure would require religious employers to cover contraception and abortion as part of preventive care.
Many religious groups say the rule forces them to go against their convictions.
Now, a movement is underway to repeal the law -- especially among Catholic leaders.
"We believe it is a violation of the first fundamental right: freedom of religion," Catholic Diocese of Cleveland Robert Tayek said.
The new requirement includes coverage of emergency contraception like Plan B, a drug many conservatives call the abortion pill.
"It's the first time the federal government ever put out a mandate that asks people to violate their conscience," Tayek said.
"Where does it end?" Ohio resident and Catholic Joanne Gibbon asked. "If you cross the line and allow a little bit, I mean where does it end?"
Florida GOP Sen. Marco Rubio, who said the law violates religous liberties, is sponsoring a bill to repeal the mandate.
"This is a common sense bill that simply says the government can't force religious organizations to abandon the fundamental tenets of their faith," Rubio said in a statement.
"The Obama administration needs to be really careful with taking such extreme positions that marginalize religious freedoms," Hannah Smith, legal counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, added.
Smith is leading a lawsuit against the Obama administration on behalf of a Belmont Abbey College.
"We are challenging the mandate on several grounds, constitutional grounds," she explained.
"Also a federal rights statute called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which prohibits the federal government from imposing a substantial burden on religious groups," she said.
The government claims the mandate will provide greater access to birth control, which will in turn reduce unwanted pregnancies and abortions.
But church leaders disagree. They call the law simply discrimination.
Monday, January 30, 2012
Sunday, January 29, 2012
The Number Of Scientific "Heretics" On Global Warming Growing With Each Passing Year
From the WSJ, signed by 16 scientists:
In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter
Tweet
of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the
American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not
renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy]
statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is
occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions
in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security
and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of
greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether
the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe
behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"
In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.
Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for
well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as
one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin
Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming
at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." But the warming is
only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks
involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of
CO2.
The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic
climate to be ascribed to CO2. ...
Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many
young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts
about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear
of not being promoted—or worse. ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
RSS Feed (xml)