Cut the Crime Rate, Kill Yourself

When it serves the left, they freely admit that blacks are not often rich. Poor people are more likely to commit crimes, for the obvious reason that they cannot own the things they want through their legal income. So a recently published book recommended legal abortion for the reason that abortion killed many future criminals. Which is a lot like the environmental spoof bumper sticker, "Save the Planet, Kill yourself". When a caller to William Bennett's radio show mentioned the aborted criminal theory, Bennett rightly said that abortion for reducing the number of criminals was "morally reprehensible." He was rewarded for his pro-life defense of black children by a number of prominent Democrats crying "Racism!" Democrats have no honor when it comes to abortion, but it also recieved criticism from the president's lackey Scott McClellan as "not appropriate." This is another sign that Bush doesn't really care about abortion- - he just likes Catholic votes. This comes at the same time as Bush's Supreme Court appointee says he believes in "the right to privacy," which is the basis for Roe v. Wade. For Bush to condemn Bennett's anti-abortion remark indicates he has only a facile, superficial commitment to restricting the institution of legalized abortion.

She Should Be Grateful He Isn't Henry VIII!

When asked why she wants an annulment for her marriage to Kenny Chesney, Renee Zellweger said "I don't think his tractor's sexy."

When Did I Vote for This?

Since we are in the middle of confirming two justices to the U.S. Supreme Court, I felt I should talk about the scariest issue for our country. That is that of Justices Ginsburg and O' Connor using foreign laws to decide cases in this country. No, it isn't enough merely to make up American laws, but now we need to let legislatures in other countries vote on American laws. In an address to the American Society of International Law, Ginsburg said we, "should not. . .abandon the effort to learn what we can from the experience and good thinking foreign sources may convey." This isn't a philosophical debating society we're talking about. This is the law of the United States, and looking for clever sophisms to justify creating law is a threat to the very nature of what our republican democracy is. Are we going to import laws from Red China? Maybe women should live under Iranian law. This is insane! Why have a U.S. Congress if the Supreme Court is going to force us to live under other nations' laws? The main reason against this is the reason we fought England to form our country- -the founding fathers didn't want us to live under laws we had no voice in creating. So unless we get to vote for politicians in Sweden, Swedish laws should have no bearing on our laws.

Real Clear Obfuscation

I just read some really vile sarcasm from some inbred Protestant who apparently spends all his time "proving" my church is wrong, and that if you read enough of the Church Fathers (and really, who hasn't?) you'll find out that you're justified by faith alone. This Protestant derisively kept referring to my church as "the holy, apostolic, created by Christ," as though this title really belongs to whatever snake-charming assembly he belongs to. Here's a little hint to people who think like you: Get a grip, and start fighting the people in this country who want religion gone from American life. We really (false erudition and "real simple" theology aside) agree on most issues aside from the paltry, hair-splitting ones. Or would you be happier with a country of athiests, created by your petty combats?

The Check Isn't In the Mail

I will preface what I am about to write by saying that I thank God Almighty John Kerry is far away from the levers of power. I will also say that I absolutely support him on stem cell research. This being said, I would like to know what separates Judge John Roberts from a person John Kerry would have nominated for the Supreme Court. Today I smelled an Anthony Kennedy in the works. "Roberts says he believes in right to privacy," the Chicago Tribune said on the front page. Everyone over age 15 knows that in courtspeak, "right to privacy" means abortion, in all three trimesters, no limits. It isn't even a euphemism- - it's a synonym. All this doesn't square with the president's Christian image.

This month I recieved a piece of mail from the Republican National Commitee. "But Democrats in the U.S. Senate and House are already talking tough. Desperate for a partisan edge, they're vowing to torpedo the President's agenda with stonewalling and obstructionist tactics." Obstructing what- - a judicial nominee that thinks just like the Democrats? If Bush wants money to campaign for Roberts, he'll have to wait a long time.

A Religion Condemning Religion

It's always interesting to read the thoughts of liberal activists. When they pretend to speak as a religious group it's actually funny. So it goes with a group calling themselves the "National Council of Jewish Women." They oppose the nomination of Judge John Roberts for two supposed reasons. First, like any liberal advocacy group, they think abortion is great, and oppose any who don't believe in a "right to privacy." Second, they oppose Roberts for the "inclusion of religious activities and prayer in public schools. " So it's ok to do everything else in school (teach environmental propaganda, pick up free condoms, humiliate others in gym class), but students can't have religious after-school activities? Their docent, Carole Levine, goes on to say, "As Jews, we know what it means to have fundamental rights and freedoms stripped away." So the Holocaust happened because of "Meet You At the Flagpole" events? I'll just say that, as an Irishman, I know what it means to be unable to worship without systematic interference by the government. And it's a lot like what liberals do today.