Since we know where most of our enimies originate from, we should not accept students from those places. Case in point:
HILLSBOROUGH, N.C. -- A suspect who is accused of hitting students with a sport utility vehicle at the University of North Carolina made his first court appearance Monday.
Mohammad Taheri-azar, a 2005 UNC-Chapel Hill graduate, smiled and waved before his hearing Monday. Taheri-azar told the courtroom that he was "thankful for the opportunity to spread the will of Allah."
As he left court, Taheri-Azar told reporters, "the truth is my lawyer." When asked if he was trying to kill people, he said yes.
Taheri-Azar was appointed a public defender in court. A young woman believed to be Taheri-Azar's sister did not comment on the case as she left to get into her car.
In court, Taheri-azar did not deny driving a rented silver Jeep Grand Cherokee into The Pit, a central area on the UNC-CH campus around noon Friday. Six people were taken to UNC Hospitals with non-critical injuries, and three people were treated at the scene.
Campus police said Taheri-azar, a 2005 UNC-Chapel Hill graduate, admitted to them Friday that he acted to "avenge the death of Muslims around the world." The Federal Bureau of Investigation is also investigating the incident from Friday.
Investigators believe he acted alone and they don't know of any groups in which he associates. Search warrants showing what investigators found inside his apartment have not yet been released.
The Raleigh Islamic Center and UNC's Muslim Student Association condemn Taheri-azar's actions.
Taheri-azar spent most of his life in the Charlotte area. Officials with the Charlotte-Mecklenburg school system confirmed that he graduated from South Mecklenburg High School in 2001.
On Friday, authorities searched the SUV that Taheri-azar rented as well as his apartment and his personal vehicle.
Taheri-azar remains in Central Prison under a $5.5 million bond. He is charged with nine counts of attempted first-degree murder and nine counts of assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury with intent to kill.
Reporter: Kelcey Carlson Photographer: Richard Adkins OnLine Producer: Kamal Wallace
Copyright 2006 by WRAL.com.
Monday, March 6, 2006
Monday, January 2, 2006
Truth Hurts
I found this at http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c040.html
The issue of homosexual behavior has had a lot of publicity of late. Homosexuals say that the slaves have been freed and women have been liberated, so gay rights are long overdue. Society does seem to be moving in that direction. Many homosexuals are "coming out" and openly declaring their homosexuality. In many parts of the western world, homosexual couples receive the same recognition as heterosexual couples with regard to social security benefits. Some church leaders are giving their blessing to homosexual relationships, homosexual church members and even homosexual ministers.
Many homosexuals' claim that...
They are made that way.
Homosexuality is of no harm to the participants or to anyone else.
If it feels right to those involved, it is nobody else's business.
Homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships are equally valid. (Some even claim that the Bible condones homosexual relationships.)
Made that way?
Since other groups who have been discriminated against (such as women, blacks and the disabled) have been given equal opportunity, homosexuals claim that they, too, should be liberated. However, as one Christian expert has said...
"Gender, race and impairment all relate to what a person is, whereas homosexuality relates to what a person does."1
In contrast, homosexuals claim that scientific studies have shown that there is a biological basis for homosexuality.
Three main studies are cited by "gay rights" activists in support of their argument2—Hamer's X-chromosome research,3 LeVay's study of the hypothalamus,4 and Bailey and Pillard's study of identical twins who were homosexuals.5
In all three cases, the researchers had a vested interest in obtaining a certain outcome because they were homosexuals themselves. More importantly, their studies did not stand up to scientific scrutiny by other researchers. Also, "the media typically do not explain the methodological flaws in these studies, and they typically oversimplify the results".6 There is no reliable evidence to date that homosexual behavior is determined by a person's genes.
To the extent that biological or social factors may contribute to a person's bent toward homosexual behavior, this does not excuse it. Some people have a strong bent towards stealing or abuse of alcohol, but they still choose to engage or not engage in this behavior—the law rightly holds them accountable.
The final report of the Baptist Union of Western Australia (BUWA) Task Force on Human Sexuality states 'that a person becomes a homosexual ultimately by choosing to be involved in same-sex activity... This is in contrast to innate characteristics such as gender and ethnicity.'7 The report affirms that 'the Bible is clear that sin involves choice, and it unequivocally condemns homosexual behavior as sin'.7
The foundational teaching on marriage and sexual issues is found in Genesis chapters 1 and 2. When Jesus was questioned about marriage, He referred to these 2 chapters (Matthew 19:1-12; Mark 10:1-12). Genesis teaches us that 'male and female He created them' (Genesis 1:27). We were created to a plan—male and female complementing each other. That is, God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, nor Madam and Eve.
Genesis also teaches that God instituted and designed marriage between a man and a woman (Genesis 2:18-25). There are a number of reasons why He did so.
The complementary structure of the male and female anatomy is obviously designed for the normal husband-wife relationships. Clearly, design in human biology supports heterosexuality and contradicts homosexuality.
The combination of male and female enables man (and the animals) to produce and nurture offspring as commanded in Genesis 1:28—'Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth'. This command is repeated to Noah after the Flood (Genesis 8:15-17). But procreation is not the only reason God made humans as sexual beings. The BUWA report affirms 'that sexual intimacy between husband and wife is good, and is intended by God for bonding, pleasure and procreation.'7
Thirdly, God gave man and woman complementary roles in order to strengthen the family unit. Woman was to be the helper that man needed (Genesis 2:18). However, the woman's role as the helpmate is certainly not an inferior one. The enterprising God-fearing woman in Proverbs 31:10-31 is an inspiring role model.
No harm?
Andrew Lansdown points out that 'homosexual activity is notoriously disease-prone. In addition to diseases associated with heterosexual promiscuity, homosexual actions facilitate the transmission of anal herpes, hepatitis B, intestinal parasites, Kaposi's Sarcoma and AIDS.'1 Research on the life expectancy of a group of homosexual men in Canada in the early 1990s indicated that they could expect 8-21 years less lifespan than other men.8
Effect on others
Secular psychologists assure us that 'children raised in lesbian and gay households are similar to children raised in heterosexual households on characteristics such as intelligence, development, moral judgments, self-concepts, social competence and gender identity'.6 The humanists have, however, forgotten one important ingredient.
'Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it' (Proverbs 22:6).
You cannot faithfully teach God's Word to your children while living a lifestyle specifically condemned by God's Word. All Christians are sinners forgiven by God's grace, but living in a homosexual relationship constitutes habitual, unrepented sin.
Nobody else's business?
Gay activists claim that homosexual activity is nobody's business other than those involved in the relationship. However, this is not true. God, our Designer and Creator, has authority over all aspects of our lives. He makes the rules, and He quite specifically forbids homosexual behavior.
'You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination' (Leviticus 18:22; see also Leviticus 20:13).
Disobedience of such a clear command indicates rejection of God's authority.
Some people argue that the Old Testament law (including Leviticus 18 and 20) was superseded with the coming of Christ. However, we should at least consider as binding those aspects of the law that are renewed in the New Testament. The teaching of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 was certainly reaffirmed in the New Testament.
Equally valid?
Some people claim that homosexual behavior was only condemned in the Bible because it was associated with idolatry (e.g. 1 Kings 14:24). However, it is clearly condemned apart from idolatry as well (e.g. Leviticus 18:22). It is described in Scripture as an unnatural, immoral perversion.
'For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another...' (Romans 1:26-27).
The Greek word arsenokoitai used in 1 Timothy 1:10 literally means 'men who sleep with men'. It is the same Greek word used for 'homosexual offender' in 1 Corinthians 6:9, variously translated as 'abusers of themselves with mankind' (KJV), homosexuals (NASB) or homosexual offender (NIV).
Some people claim that the sin involved in Sodom was rejecting hospitality customs or selfishness rather than homosexual behaviour. Certainly, the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah was great and their reported sin was grievous to God (Genesis 18:20). God sent angels to Sodom and...
'Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have sex with them”' (Genesis 19:4-5).
"While it is true that the Hebrew word yadha does not necessarily mean 'to have sex with,' nonetheless in the context of Sodom and Gommorah, it clearly had this meaning. ...It means 'to know sexually' in this very chapter when Lot refers to his two daughters not having 'known' a man (19:8)."9 You would not offer virgins to appease a mob if their sin was lack of hospitality, but only if their desire was sexual.
Although Ezekiel 16:49 condemns Sodom for its selfishness with regard to poverty etc., this does not contradict its condemnation for homosexual practices. "The very next verse of Ezekiel (v. 50) calls their sin an "abomination". This is the same Hebrew word used to describe homosexual sins in Leviticus 18:22."10
It is also used in Scripture to describe such things like the practice of offering children to Moloch, but never such things as mere selfishness or lack of hospitality. Even in legal parlance, the word used to refer to one aspect of homosexual practice is 'sodomy'.
Another argument is that Jonathon and David were homosexuals as 'Jonathan “loved” David (1 Sam. 18:3), that Jonathan stripped in David's presence (18:4), [and] that they kissed each other (20:41)'.11
However, 'David's “love” for Jonathan was not sexual (erotic) but a friendship (philic) love. And Jonathan did not strip himself of all his clothes, but only of his armor and royal robe (1 Sam. 18:4).'12 Also, a kiss was a normal greeting in that day, such as when Judas kissed Jesus. In several cultures today, men normally greet each other with a kiss, too. Further, David's love for his wives, especially Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11), clearly reveals his heterosexual orientation.
Isaiah 56:3 states that eunuchs will not be excluded from God's presence ('my temple'), but practising homosexuals are not eunuchs. Eunuchs have no sexual relations at all.
Other scriptural arguments for homosexuality can similarly be easily refuted. It is clear that heterosexual marriage is the only form of marriage sanctioned in the Bible and that homosexual practice is always condemned.
Punishment
The Bible not only describes homosexual behavior as detestable, but it also calls for the punishment of those involved (Leviticus 20:13). Their unrepentant attitude caused God to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:24-25).
Just as homosexual conduct has been punished in the past, so it will also be punished by God in the future.
"...Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).
Hope
However, there is hope for the homosexual. God forgives and cleanses a person who repents and turns from their sin, including the sin of homosexual behavior (1 Corinthians 6:11). As well as forgiveness, God's grace brings with it the power to live a life that is pleasing to God (Romans 6:6-7). If repentance and reform are genuine, prior homosexual actions should not be a bar to church membership or ministry, as all Christians are reformed sinners.
'Liberal' churches espouse tolerance of homosexual behavior in the name of 'love'. They plug for the acceptance of homosexual conduct as normal, 'because they can't help it'. They are not only wrong about the latter, but they are actually not being at all loving towards homosexuals, because, contrary to the Bible, they reduce the homosexual person to the level of an animal, driven by instinct. In removing moral responsibility from the person, they dehumanize them, whereas the Bible says we are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27), with the power of moral choice.
Furthermore, the gospel proclaims liberation from the bondage of sin, including homosexual sin, whereas the 'liberals' tell the homosexual that they cannot help it, and they can't help them either, so they will accept them as they are! However, many a person has been gloriously rescued from the bondage of homosexual sin (and other sin) by the power of the Holy Spirit, but only Bible-believing Christians can offer such hope.13
Conclusion
As with all moral issues, our beliefs about our origin determine our attitude. If we believe that we arose from slime by a combination of random chance events and the struggle for survival, it is understandable to say that there is no higher authority, and we can make our own rules. However, if there is a loving God who planned us and gave commands for us to follow, then we must do so. God has set forth His standards in the Bible, beginning with the foundational teaching in the book of Genesis.
The issue of homosexual behavior has had a lot of publicity of late. Homosexuals say that the slaves have been freed and women have been liberated, so gay rights are long overdue. Society does seem to be moving in that direction. Many homosexuals are "coming out" and openly declaring their homosexuality. In many parts of the western world, homosexual couples receive the same recognition as heterosexual couples with regard to social security benefits. Some church leaders are giving their blessing to homosexual relationships, homosexual church members and even homosexual ministers.
Many homosexuals' claim that...
They are made that way.
Homosexuality is of no harm to the participants or to anyone else.
If it feels right to those involved, it is nobody else's business.
Homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships are equally valid. (Some even claim that the Bible condones homosexual relationships.)
Made that way?
Since other groups who have been discriminated against (such as women, blacks and the disabled) have been given equal opportunity, homosexuals claim that they, too, should be liberated. However, as one Christian expert has said...
"Gender, race and impairment all relate to what a person is, whereas homosexuality relates to what a person does."1
In contrast, homosexuals claim that scientific studies have shown that there is a biological basis for homosexuality.
Three main studies are cited by "gay rights" activists in support of their argument2—Hamer's X-chromosome research,3 LeVay's study of the hypothalamus,4 and Bailey and Pillard's study of identical twins who were homosexuals.5
In all three cases, the researchers had a vested interest in obtaining a certain outcome because they were homosexuals themselves. More importantly, their studies did not stand up to scientific scrutiny by other researchers. Also, "the media typically do not explain the methodological flaws in these studies, and they typically oversimplify the results".6 There is no reliable evidence to date that homosexual behavior is determined by a person's genes.
To the extent that biological or social factors may contribute to a person's bent toward homosexual behavior, this does not excuse it. Some people have a strong bent towards stealing or abuse of alcohol, but they still choose to engage or not engage in this behavior—the law rightly holds them accountable.
The final report of the Baptist Union of Western Australia (BUWA) Task Force on Human Sexuality states 'that a person becomes a homosexual ultimately by choosing to be involved in same-sex activity... This is in contrast to innate characteristics such as gender and ethnicity.'7 The report affirms that 'the Bible is clear that sin involves choice, and it unequivocally condemns homosexual behavior as sin'.7
The foundational teaching on marriage and sexual issues is found in Genesis chapters 1 and 2. When Jesus was questioned about marriage, He referred to these 2 chapters (Matthew 19:1-12; Mark 10:1-12). Genesis teaches us that 'male and female He created them' (Genesis 1:27). We were created to a plan—male and female complementing each other. That is, God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, nor Madam and Eve.
Genesis also teaches that God instituted and designed marriage between a man and a woman (Genesis 2:18-25). There are a number of reasons why He did so.
The complementary structure of the male and female anatomy is obviously designed for the normal husband-wife relationships. Clearly, design in human biology supports heterosexuality and contradicts homosexuality.
The combination of male and female enables man (and the animals) to produce and nurture offspring as commanded in Genesis 1:28—'Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth'. This command is repeated to Noah after the Flood (Genesis 8:15-17). But procreation is not the only reason God made humans as sexual beings. The BUWA report affirms 'that sexual intimacy between husband and wife is good, and is intended by God for bonding, pleasure and procreation.'7
Thirdly, God gave man and woman complementary roles in order to strengthen the family unit. Woman was to be the helper that man needed (Genesis 2:18). However, the woman's role as the helpmate is certainly not an inferior one. The enterprising God-fearing woman in Proverbs 31:10-31 is an inspiring role model.
No harm?
Andrew Lansdown points out that 'homosexual activity is notoriously disease-prone. In addition to diseases associated with heterosexual promiscuity, homosexual actions facilitate the transmission of anal herpes, hepatitis B, intestinal parasites, Kaposi's Sarcoma and AIDS.'1 Research on the life expectancy of a group of homosexual men in Canada in the early 1990s indicated that they could expect 8-21 years less lifespan than other men.8
Effect on others
Secular psychologists assure us that 'children raised in lesbian and gay households are similar to children raised in heterosexual households on characteristics such as intelligence, development, moral judgments, self-concepts, social competence and gender identity'.6 The humanists have, however, forgotten one important ingredient.
'Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it' (Proverbs 22:6).
You cannot faithfully teach God's Word to your children while living a lifestyle specifically condemned by God's Word. All Christians are sinners forgiven by God's grace, but living in a homosexual relationship constitutes habitual, unrepented sin.
Nobody else's business?
Gay activists claim that homosexual activity is nobody's business other than those involved in the relationship. However, this is not true. God, our Designer and Creator, has authority over all aspects of our lives. He makes the rules, and He quite specifically forbids homosexual behavior.
'You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination' (Leviticus 18:22; see also Leviticus 20:13).
Disobedience of such a clear command indicates rejection of God's authority.
Some people argue that the Old Testament law (including Leviticus 18 and 20) was superseded with the coming of Christ. However, we should at least consider as binding those aspects of the law that are renewed in the New Testament. The teaching of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 was certainly reaffirmed in the New Testament.
Equally valid?
Some people claim that homosexual behavior was only condemned in the Bible because it was associated with idolatry (e.g. 1 Kings 14:24). However, it is clearly condemned apart from idolatry as well (e.g. Leviticus 18:22). It is described in Scripture as an unnatural, immoral perversion.
'For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another...' (Romans 1:26-27).
The Greek word arsenokoitai used in 1 Timothy 1:10 literally means 'men who sleep with men'. It is the same Greek word used for 'homosexual offender' in 1 Corinthians 6:9, variously translated as 'abusers of themselves with mankind' (KJV), homosexuals (NASB) or homosexual offender (NIV).
Some people claim that the sin involved in Sodom was rejecting hospitality customs or selfishness rather than homosexual behaviour. Certainly, the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah was great and their reported sin was grievous to God (Genesis 18:20). God sent angels to Sodom and...
'Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have sex with them”' (Genesis 19:4-5).
"While it is true that the Hebrew word yadha does not necessarily mean 'to have sex with,' nonetheless in the context of Sodom and Gommorah, it clearly had this meaning. ...It means 'to know sexually' in this very chapter when Lot refers to his two daughters not having 'known' a man (19:8)."9 You would not offer virgins to appease a mob if their sin was lack of hospitality, but only if their desire was sexual.
Although Ezekiel 16:49 condemns Sodom for its selfishness with regard to poverty etc., this does not contradict its condemnation for homosexual practices. "The very next verse of Ezekiel (v. 50) calls their sin an "abomination". This is the same Hebrew word used to describe homosexual sins in Leviticus 18:22."10
It is also used in Scripture to describe such things like the practice of offering children to Moloch, but never such things as mere selfishness or lack of hospitality. Even in legal parlance, the word used to refer to one aspect of homosexual practice is 'sodomy'.
Another argument is that Jonathon and David were homosexuals as 'Jonathan “loved” David (1 Sam. 18:3), that Jonathan stripped in David's presence (18:4), [and] that they kissed each other (20:41)'.11
However, 'David's “love” for Jonathan was not sexual (erotic) but a friendship (philic) love. And Jonathan did not strip himself of all his clothes, but only of his armor and royal robe (1 Sam. 18:4).'12 Also, a kiss was a normal greeting in that day, such as when Judas kissed Jesus. In several cultures today, men normally greet each other with a kiss, too. Further, David's love for his wives, especially Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11), clearly reveals his heterosexual orientation.
Isaiah 56:3 states that eunuchs will not be excluded from God's presence ('my temple'), but practising homosexuals are not eunuchs. Eunuchs have no sexual relations at all.
Other scriptural arguments for homosexuality can similarly be easily refuted. It is clear that heterosexual marriage is the only form of marriage sanctioned in the Bible and that homosexual practice is always condemned.
Punishment
The Bible not only describes homosexual behavior as detestable, but it also calls for the punishment of those involved (Leviticus 20:13). Their unrepentant attitude caused God to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:24-25).
Just as homosexual conduct has been punished in the past, so it will also be punished by God in the future.
"...Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).
Hope
However, there is hope for the homosexual. God forgives and cleanses a person who repents and turns from their sin, including the sin of homosexual behavior (1 Corinthians 6:11). As well as forgiveness, God's grace brings with it the power to live a life that is pleasing to God (Romans 6:6-7). If repentance and reform are genuine, prior homosexual actions should not be a bar to church membership or ministry, as all Christians are reformed sinners.
'Liberal' churches espouse tolerance of homosexual behavior in the name of 'love'. They plug for the acceptance of homosexual conduct as normal, 'because they can't help it'. They are not only wrong about the latter, but they are actually not being at all loving towards homosexuals, because, contrary to the Bible, they reduce the homosexual person to the level of an animal, driven by instinct. In removing moral responsibility from the person, they dehumanize them, whereas the Bible says we are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27), with the power of moral choice.
Furthermore, the gospel proclaims liberation from the bondage of sin, including homosexual sin, whereas the 'liberals' tell the homosexual that they cannot help it, and they can't help them either, so they will accept them as they are! However, many a person has been gloriously rescued from the bondage of homosexual sin (and other sin) by the power of the Holy Spirit, but only Bible-believing Christians can offer such hope.13
Conclusion
As with all moral issues, our beliefs about our origin determine our attitude. If we believe that we arose from slime by a combination of random chance events and the struggle for survival, it is understandable to say that there is no higher authority, and we can make our own rules. However, if there is a loving God who planned us and gave commands for us to follow, then we must do so. God has set forth His standards in the Bible, beginning with the foundational teaching in the book of Genesis.
Thursday, November 24, 2005
No Football Games or Parades Here
I found this this info on http://pilgrims.net/plymouth/thanksgiving.htm Take a read:
Thanksgiving and the Pilgrims seem to go together, just like Christmas and Santa Claus--but the truth is, the Pilgrims never held an autumnal Thanksgiving feast. Before you cancel the turkey, take a look at the origin of that particular myth. In some ways, the truth is even more intriguing.
The Pilgrims did have a feast in 1621, after their first harvest, and it is this feast which people often refer to as "The First Thanksgiving". This feast was never repeated, though, so it can't be called the beginning of a tradition, nor was it termed by the colonists or "Pilgrims" a Thanksgiving Feast. In fact, to these devoutly religious people, a day of thanksgiving was a day of prayer and fasting, and would have been held any time that they felt an extra day of thanks was called for. Nevertheless, the 1621 feast has become a model that we think of for our own Thanksgiving celebration and we do know something of the truth about it.
We can assume, for example, that the harvest feast was eaten outside based on the fact that the Colonists didn't have a building large enough to accommodate all the people who came. Native People were definately among the invited guests, and it's possible. even probable, that turkey (roasted but not stuffed) and pumpkin in some form, found their way to the table. And it gets better. This is the way the feast was described in a first-hand account presumably by a leader of the colony, Edward Winslow, as it appears in Mourt's Relation:
"Our harvest being gotten in, our governor sent four men on fowling, that so we might after a special manner rejoice together after we had gathered the fruit of our labors. They four in one day killed as much fowl as, with a little help beside, served the company almost a week. At which time, amongst other recreations, we exercised our arms, Many of the Indians coming amongst us, and among the rest their greatest King Massasoit, with some ninety men, whom for three days we entertained and feasted, and they went out and killed five deer, which they brought to the plantation and bestowed on our governor, and upon the captain and others. And although it be not always so plentiful as it was this time with us, yet by the goodness of God, we are so far from want that we often wish you partakers of our plenty."
From this we know that the feast went on for three days , included ninety "Indians", and food was plentiful. In addition, to the vensison provided by the Indians, there was enough wild fowl to supply the village for a week. The fowl would have included ducks, geese, turkeys and even swans.
Much of the information we have about the feast, and this period in the lives of these people, is the result of research conducted by the staff at Plimoth Plantation, the living museum in Plymouth, Massachusetts, that re-creates the lives of the Pilgrims with Mayflower II, the 1627 Pilgrim Village, and a native homesite. From this research we know about the foods and recipes that would have been available to them, and from two first hand accounts(the second was written by William Bradford, Governor of the colony for 33 years, and can be read in Of Plymouth Plantation 1620-1647), we have a good idea of how the village looked, what the colonists wore, how they spoke, what animals they owned and how they lived. We even know what games they played, what their views may have been on everything from their new home to religion and politics. And with all this knowledge, we piece together what foods would have been served at the feast, how the table looked, how the setting looked, even perhaps what the conversation was like.
Thanksgiving and the Pilgrims seem to go together, just like Christmas and Santa Claus--but the truth is, the Pilgrims never held an autumnal Thanksgiving feast. Before you cancel the turkey, take a look at the origin of that particular myth. In some ways, the truth is even more intriguing.
The Pilgrims did have a feast in 1621, after their first harvest, and it is this feast which people often refer to as "The First Thanksgiving". This feast was never repeated, though, so it can't be called the beginning of a tradition, nor was it termed by the colonists or "Pilgrims" a Thanksgiving Feast. In fact, to these devoutly religious people, a day of thanksgiving was a day of prayer and fasting, and would have been held any time that they felt an extra day of thanks was called for. Nevertheless, the 1621 feast has become a model that we think of for our own Thanksgiving celebration and we do know something of the truth about it.
We can assume, for example, that the harvest feast was eaten outside based on the fact that the Colonists didn't have a building large enough to accommodate all the people who came. Native People were definately among the invited guests, and it's possible. even probable, that turkey (roasted but not stuffed) and pumpkin in some form, found their way to the table. And it gets better. This is the way the feast was described in a first-hand account presumably by a leader of the colony, Edward Winslow, as it appears in Mourt's Relation:
"Our harvest being gotten in, our governor sent four men on fowling, that so we might after a special manner rejoice together after we had gathered the fruit of our labors. They four in one day killed as much fowl as, with a little help beside, served the company almost a week. At which time, amongst other recreations, we exercised our arms, Many of the Indians coming amongst us, and among the rest their greatest King Massasoit, with some ninety men, whom for three days we entertained and feasted, and they went out and killed five deer, which they brought to the plantation and bestowed on our governor, and upon the captain and others. And although it be not always so plentiful as it was this time with us, yet by the goodness of God, we are so far from want that we often wish you partakers of our plenty."
From this we know that the feast went on for three days , included ninety "Indians", and food was plentiful. In addition, to the vensison provided by the Indians, there was enough wild fowl to supply the village for a week. The fowl would have included ducks, geese, turkeys and even swans.
Much of the information we have about the feast, and this period in the lives of these people, is the result of research conducted by the staff at Plimoth Plantation, the living museum in Plymouth, Massachusetts, that re-creates the lives of the Pilgrims with Mayflower II, the 1627 Pilgrim Village, and a native homesite. From this research we know about the foods and recipes that would have been available to them, and from two first hand accounts(the second was written by William Bradford, Governor of the colony for 33 years, and can be read in Of Plymouth Plantation 1620-1647), we have a good idea of how the village looked, what the colonists wore, how they spoke, what animals they owned and how they lived. We even know what games they played, what their views may have been on everything from their new home to religion and politics. And with all this knowledge, we piece together what foods would have been served at the feast, how the table looked, how the setting looked, even perhaps what the conversation was like.
Monday, October 17, 2005
Genius' Need Not Apply
I have always wondered what makes a person want to run for elected office. On the local level it makes sense; your child goes to the school so you run for the school board. The city you live in does not run to your liking so you run for a council seat. Or even mayor. The state senate or assembly becomes a little more dicey, ie money and time and you must lick many a boot just to receive a few crumbs for your district. But in my non-humble opinion the governors' seat is the place to really make change. But unfortunately, you have to be independently wealthy or owe your soul to many a devil. So I have devised a plan to vault myself into the Mansion: Map out four promises of change and stick to them. Don't lie or waiver or make deals. Each of the promises will represent each year I am in office. Since I have never held office special interest and long time moss growing incumbents can take a flying leap. The 9th circus court will be reminded that the majority rule. Plus I am bigger and stronger and we can take "it out side" if need be...Pencil necks! So here I go with promise number one:
1. NO STATE PROGRAMS FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS. This will include deportation for the illegals who are incarcerated. Nothing personal it is just the law. Non profit organizations may provide services while people are relocated to their country of origin.
2. SECURE THE MEXICAN BORDER. I would reallocate monies saved from promise one to pay for state law enforcement. Also secure all ports of entry.
3. RESTRUCTURE DMV. A one time registration fee and no smog checks for vehicles newer than 1995. Driver's license renewal will be once every five years, subject to driving record.
4. ALL STATE REPRESENTATIVES WILL BE PART -TIME EMPLOYEES. That is right, they are OUR employees. Even the governor!
5. I know, I said four but my 5th would be not to run for a 2nd term.
With all the surplus funds schools and social programs can be properly funded.
You may not agree with all or any of the above and that is fine, but it would sure be nice if our future elected officials would clearly state their positions! It does not take a genius to be a politician, sorry for stating the obvious. But we sure deserve someone who is honest.
1. NO STATE PROGRAMS FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS. This will include deportation for the illegals who are incarcerated. Nothing personal it is just the law. Non profit organizations may provide services while people are relocated to their country of origin.
2. SECURE THE MEXICAN BORDER. I would reallocate monies saved from promise one to pay for state law enforcement. Also secure all ports of entry.
3. RESTRUCTURE DMV. A one time registration fee and no smog checks for vehicles newer than 1995. Driver's license renewal will be once every five years, subject to driving record.
4. ALL STATE REPRESENTATIVES WILL BE PART -TIME EMPLOYEES. That is right, they are OUR employees. Even the governor!
5. I know, I said four but my 5th would be not to run for a 2nd term.
With all the surplus funds schools and social programs can be properly funded.
You may not agree with all or any of the above and that is fine, but it would sure be nice if our future elected officials would clearly state their positions! It does not take a genius to be a politician, sorry for stating the obvious. But we sure deserve someone who is honest.
Thursday, October 13, 2005
Thank God and a Vet for What You Have.
The only difference between our fighting men of today and those in WWI,II, Korea, Vietnam, GI,and II is the way they are allowed to fight. Watching the alphabet news channels' coverage of the war and listening to most politicians and commentators, it is apparent our boys have their hands tied behind their back. Car bombs? If it moves blow it up. If a shot comes out of a building, level it. If a city is hostile, raze it! War is not a social experiment. And as Truman posted on his desk," The Buck Stops Here." Unfortunatley, President Bush is no Truman.
On D-Day, the Allies landed around 156,000 troops in Normandy. The American forces landed numbered 73,000: 23,250 on Utah Beach, 34,250 on Omaha Beach, and 15,500 airborne troops. In the British and Canadian sector, 83,115 troops were landed (61,715 of them British): 24,970 on Gold Beach, 21,400 on Juno Beach, 28,845 on Sword Beach, and 7900 airborne troops.
11,590 aircraft were available to support the landings. On D-Day, Allied aircraft flew 14,674 sorties, and 127 were lost.
In the airborne landings on both flanks of the beaches, 2395 aircraft and 867 gliders of the RAF and USAAF were used on D-Day.
Operation Neptune involved huge naval forces, including 6939 vessels: 1213 naval combat ships, 4126 landing ships and landing craft, 736 ancillary craft and 864 merchant vessels. Some 195,700 personnel were assigned to Operation Neptune: 52,889 US, 112,824 British, and 4988 from other Allied countries.
By the end of 11 June (D + 5), 326,547 troops, 54,186 vehicles and 104,428 tons of supplies had been landed on the beaches.
As well as the troops who landed in Normandy on D-Day, and those in supporting roles at sea and in the air, millions more men and women in the Allied countries were involved in the preparations for D-Day. They played thousands of different roles, both in the armed forces and as civilians.
How many Allied and German casualties were there on D-Day, and in the Battle of Normandy?
“Casualties” refers to all losses suffered by the armed forces: killed, wounded, missing in action (meaning that their bodies were not found) and prisoners of war. There is no "official" casualty figure for D-Day. Under the circumstances, accurate record keeping was very difficult. For example, some troops who were listed as missing may actually have landed in the wrong place, and have rejoined their parent unit only later.
In April and May 1944, the Allied air forces lost nearly 12,000 men and over 2,000 aircraft in operations which paved the way for D-Day.
Total Allied casualties on D-Day are estimated at 10,000, including 2500 dead. British casualties on D-Day have been estimated at approximately 2700. The Canadians lost 946 casualties. The US forces lost 6603 men. Note that the casualty figures for smaller units do not always add up to equal these overall figures exactly, however (this simply reflects the problems of obtaining accurate casualty statistics).
Casualties on the British beaches were roughly 1000 on Gold Beach and the same number on Sword Beach. The remainder of the British losses were amongst the airborne troops: some 600 were killed or wounded, and 600 more were missing; 100 glider pilots also became casualties. The losses of 3rd Canadian Division at Juno Beach have been given as 340 killed, 574 wounded and 47 taken prisoner.
The breakdown of US casualties was 1465 dead, 3184 wounded, 1928 missing and 26 captured. Of the total US figure, 2499 casualties were from the US airborne troops (238 of them being deaths). The casualties at Utah Beach were relatively light: 197, including 60 missing. However, the US 1st and 29th Divisions together suffered around 2000 casualties at Omaha Beach.
The total German casualties on D-Day are not known, but are estimated as being between 4000 and 9000 men.
Naval losses for June 1944 included 24 warships and 35 merchantmen or auxiliaries sunk, and a further 120 vessels damaged.
Over 425,000 Allied and German troops were killed, wounded or went missing during the Battle of Normandy. This figure includes over 209,000 Allied casualties, with nearly 37,000 dead amongst the ground forces and a further 16,714 deaths amongst the Allied air forces. Of the Allied casualties, 83,045 were from 21st Army Group (British, Canadian and Polish ground forces), 125,847 from the US ground forces. The losses of the German forces during the Battle of Normandy can only be estimated. Roughly 200,000 German troops were killed or wounded. The Allies also captured 200,000 prisoners of war (not included in the 425,000 total, above). During the fighting around the Falaise Pocket (August 1944) alone, the Germans suffered losses of around 90,000, including prisoners.
Today, twenty-seven war cemeteries hold the remains of over 110,000 dead from both sides: 77,866 German, 9386 American, 17,769 British, 5002 Canadian and 650 Poles.
Between 15,000 and 20,000 French civilians were killed, mainly as a result of Allied bombing. Thousands more fled their homes to escape the fighting.http://www.ddaymuseum.co.uk/faq.htm
On D-Day, the Allies landed around 156,000 troops in Normandy. The American forces landed numbered 73,000: 23,250 on Utah Beach, 34,250 on Omaha Beach, and 15,500 airborne troops. In the British and Canadian sector, 83,115 troops were landed (61,715 of them British): 24,970 on Gold Beach, 21,400 on Juno Beach, 28,845 on Sword Beach, and 7900 airborne troops.
11,590 aircraft were available to support the landings. On D-Day, Allied aircraft flew 14,674 sorties, and 127 were lost.
In the airborne landings on both flanks of the beaches, 2395 aircraft and 867 gliders of the RAF and USAAF were used on D-Day.
Operation Neptune involved huge naval forces, including 6939 vessels: 1213 naval combat ships, 4126 landing ships and landing craft, 736 ancillary craft and 864 merchant vessels. Some 195,700 personnel were assigned to Operation Neptune: 52,889 US, 112,824 British, and 4988 from other Allied countries.
By the end of 11 June (D + 5), 326,547 troops, 54,186 vehicles and 104,428 tons of supplies had been landed on the beaches.
As well as the troops who landed in Normandy on D-Day, and those in supporting roles at sea and in the air, millions more men and women in the Allied countries were involved in the preparations for D-Day. They played thousands of different roles, both in the armed forces and as civilians.
How many Allied and German casualties were there on D-Day, and in the Battle of Normandy?
“Casualties” refers to all losses suffered by the armed forces: killed, wounded, missing in action (meaning that their bodies were not found) and prisoners of war. There is no "official" casualty figure for D-Day. Under the circumstances, accurate record keeping was very difficult. For example, some troops who were listed as missing may actually have landed in the wrong place, and have rejoined their parent unit only later.
In April and May 1944, the Allied air forces lost nearly 12,000 men and over 2,000 aircraft in operations which paved the way for D-Day.
Total Allied casualties on D-Day are estimated at 10,000, including 2500 dead. British casualties on D-Day have been estimated at approximately 2700. The Canadians lost 946 casualties. The US forces lost 6603 men. Note that the casualty figures for smaller units do not always add up to equal these overall figures exactly, however (this simply reflects the problems of obtaining accurate casualty statistics).
Casualties on the British beaches were roughly 1000 on Gold Beach and the same number on Sword Beach. The remainder of the British losses were amongst the airborne troops: some 600 were killed or wounded, and 600 more were missing; 100 glider pilots also became casualties. The losses of 3rd Canadian Division at Juno Beach have been given as 340 killed, 574 wounded and 47 taken prisoner.
The breakdown of US casualties was 1465 dead, 3184 wounded, 1928 missing and 26 captured. Of the total US figure, 2499 casualties were from the US airborne troops (238 of them being deaths). The casualties at Utah Beach were relatively light: 197, including 60 missing. However, the US 1st and 29th Divisions together suffered around 2000 casualties at Omaha Beach.
The total German casualties on D-Day are not known, but are estimated as being between 4000 and 9000 men.
Naval losses for June 1944 included 24 warships and 35 merchantmen or auxiliaries sunk, and a further 120 vessels damaged.
Over 425,000 Allied and German troops were killed, wounded or went missing during the Battle of Normandy. This figure includes over 209,000 Allied casualties, with nearly 37,000 dead amongst the ground forces and a further 16,714 deaths amongst the Allied air forces. Of the Allied casualties, 83,045 were from 21st Army Group (British, Canadian and Polish ground forces), 125,847 from the US ground forces. The losses of the German forces during the Battle of Normandy can only be estimated. Roughly 200,000 German troops were killed or wounded. The Allies also captured 200,000 prisoners of war (not included in the 425,000 total, above). During the fighting around the Falaise Pocket (August 1944) alone, the Germans suffered losses of around 90,000, including prisoners.
Today, twenty-seven war cemeteries hold the remains of over 110,000 dead from both sides: 77,866 German, 9386 American, 17,769 British, 5002 Canadian and 650 Poles.
Between 15,000 and 20,000 French civilians were killed, mainly as a result of Allied bombing. Thousands more fled their homes to escape the fighting.http://www.ddaymuseum.co.uk/faq.htm
Save Our People From Whom?
I am tired of people who will use any type of problem to not only self promote, but also create a "Racial" issue where none exsist. Being poor is not a racial issue, it is a work issue. Being an illegal alien is not a racial issue, it is a legal issue. If you want racial issues just Google Farrakhan quotes. You want racial issues check out La Raza. The partial article is from a 10-09-05 article posted by MSNBC.
10 years after march, new storms roil America
Updated: 7:57 p.m. ET Oct. 9, 2005
Farrakhan's customary incendiary comments
“The need to save our people — it’s so much bigger than the personality or the baggage that has been heaped on Louis Farrakhan or others,” Farrakhan said. “Katrina has focused this agenda.”
In recent weeks, Farrakhan has raised eyebrows by speculating that New Orleans’ levees did not collapse beneath the rising waters of Lake Pontchartrain, but that they were bombed.
“Is this a means of getting rid of the poor? The black?” Farrakhan asked in a telephone interview with The Associated Press. “Is this a means of ensuring that in the elections there will never again be a black or Creole mayor of that city?”
Hispanic, Asian groups weigh inOfficials with the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic civil rights group, are battling the deportation of some undocumented hurricane survivors http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9644203/
10 years after march, new storms roil America
Updated: 7:57 p.m. ET Oct. 9, 2005
Farrakhan's customary incendiary comments
“The need to save our people — it’s so much bigger than the personality or the baggage that has been heaped on Louis Farrakhan or others,” Farrakhan said. “Katrina has focused this agenda.”
In recent weeks, Farrakhan has raised eyebrows by speculating that New Orleans’ levees did not collapse beneath the rising waters of Lake Pontchartrain, but that they were bombed.
“Is this a means of getting rid of the poor? The black?” Farrakhan asked in a telephone interview with The Associated Press. “Is this a means of ensuring that in the elections there will never again be a black or Creole mayor of that city?”
Hispanic, Asian groups weigh inOfficials with the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic civil rights group, are battling the deportation of some undocumented hurricane survivors http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9644203/
Thursday, October 6, 2005
Our Boy Does Disappoint
President Bush's decision not to nominate a true conservative should finally prove to everyone that he is not what he says he issue refuses to close the borders. He refuses to fight an all out war in Iraq. He refuses to veto any spending bill. He refuses to fully support Israel. He refuses to cut foreign aid. And his refusal to nominate Janice Rogers Brown is just plain wrong. The article below is awesome.
One-Sided 'Balance' If Ruth Bader Ginsburg could replace Byron White, Janice Rogers Brown can replace Sandra Day O'Connor. BY MANUEL MIRANDA Wednesday, September 28, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT
As soon as Justice Sandra Day O'Connor announced her retirement in June, Democrats called on the president to name a moderate "consensus" replacement that would preserve the balance of the court. Now they are at it again.
By her voting record, Justice O'Connor was toe to toe with the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist 80% of the time, but where she parted with him, on key social issues such as Roe v Wade, is exactly where politically-minded Americans draw the battle lines. So naturally she has become the judicious voice of moderation for liberals. The president probably should have left John Roberts as Justice O'Connor's replacement. Unfortunately, we now have to hear Democrats and Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter make calls for balance.
But in the second round of replacing Justice O'Connor, liberals have adapted and added a second tactic. As I wrote in a previous column, Democrats, having neither a majority nor a viable filibuster threat, are launching a targeted pre-emptive strike by naming the potential nominees they will fight against. Coincidentally these are the only potential nominees that conservatives will likely lift a finger to fight for.
The left's main target is the jurist liberals know is the president's ultimate Katrina exit strategy, Judge Janice Rogers Brown. Although at her hearing she was a model of grace and intellect and she wrote more majority opinions than any of her colleagues on the California Supreme Court, liberals paint Brown as "unrelenting" and a "lightning rod." Her critics say that she has not been on the federal appellate court very long, even though she has now been on as long as David Souter had been when he was elevated, and she would have had more than two years' experience had Democrats not filibustered her nomination.
Last week, even the reputedly honest Russ Feingold of Wisconsin could not resist taking a gratuitous swipe at Judge Brown while announcing his support for Judge Roberts. Mr. Feingold suggested that Judge Brown would bring back the Lochner era. That was a reference to a 1905 Supreme Court decision in which the court replaced the economic policy judgment of a legislature with its own. It was like saying no more ice cream to a room full of children.
In truth, Judge Brown has written disapprovingly of Lochner: "The name has come to symbolize judicial usurpation of power . . . using the due process clause as though it provided a blank check to alter the meaning of the Constitution as written." Despite this, liberals insist that Judge Brown favors the Lochner decision because she criticized a small part of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes's dissent. Holmes said the U.S. Constitution did not reflect an economic structure, such as respect for private property. Judge Brown thinks that it does.
The call for balance is vapid given that a president is elected with the understanding that he will nominate someone to the Supreme Court in keeping with his judicial philosophy. George W. Bush made this a cornerstone of his campaigns. If a national election is not sufficient to gauge public opinion, a Gallup poll in July found that 70% of Americans want the high court either to be more conservative or to stay as conservative as they perceive it now to be. An Opinion Dynamics poll one week later asked this question: "When a Supreme Court justice retires, do you think the president has an obligation to replace the retiring justice with another justice with similar legal and political views?" An overwhelming 67% said no. The president is on sound footing if he leans to the right.
Not surprisingly, there is also a double standard. In 1993, when President Clinton needed to replace the retiring associate justice Byron White, a John Kennedy appointee who had been one of two dissenters in 1973 (together with Justice Rehnquist) on Roe v. Wade, no one called on him to maintain the "balance" of the court. He nominated the most pro-abortion feminist activist he could find. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was then confirmed by the Senate with a vote of 96-3.
But the left is so reliant on its balance argument that when Republican senators, and this writer, pointed out that Justice Ginsburg had posited that prostitution was constitutionally protected and that the age of consent should be lowered to 12, the same people who have distorted the records of Bush judicial nominees echoed in outrage and obfuscation. The problem is that it's true.
In papers Ms. Ginsburg wrote while she worked for the ACLU, she argued against criminalized prostitution and said that it was "arguably within the zone of privacy protected by recent constitutional decisions." In lawyer-speak that means that she, at least, tended to think prostitution fell under the constitutional right to privacy. She did not say "some would argue" or that it was "arguably not within the zone of privacy." And if arguably Mrs. Ginsburg did not aim, as her defenders say, to lower the age of consent, she was guilty of sloppy lawyering when she recommended that a statutory-rape law that had the consent age at 16 be replaced by a proposal that had it at 12.
But that is not all. The woman nominated to replace Roe's leading dissenter, Byron White, was not only pro-abortion, she wrote that the federal government should be constitutionally required to subsidize elective abortions. She urged coed prisons; criticized the Boy and Girl Scouts for perpetuating "gender" stereotypes; and suggested that "Parents Day" might replace Mother's and Father's day. Ms. Ginsburg had also opined that a law restricting the rights of bigamists "is of questionable constitutionality since it appears to encroach impermissibly upon private relationships."
Of course, when they confirmed Justice Ginsburg, liberals did not worry about balance. Actually, if not for their double standard, one might think that they had no standards at all.
Mr. Miranda, former counsel to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, is founder and chairman of the Third Branch Conference, a coalition of grassroots organizations following judicial issues. His column appears Monday, Wednesday and Friday. http://www.opinionjournal.com/nextjustice/?id=110007324
One-Sided 'Balance' If Ruth Bader Ginsburg could replace Byron White, Janice Rogers Brown can replace Sandra Day O'Connor. BY MANUEL MIRANDA Wednesday, September 28, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT
As soon as Justice Sandra Day O'Connor announced her retirement in June, Democrats called on the president to name a moderate "consensus" replacement that would preserve the balance of the court. Now they are at it again.
By her voting record, Justice O'Connor was toe to toe with the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist 80% of the time, but where she parted with him, on key social issues such as Roe v Wade, is exactly where politically-minded Americans draw the battle lines. So naturally she has become the judicious voice of moderation for liberals. The president probably should have left John Roberts as Justice O'Connor's replacement. Unfortunately, we now have to hear Democrats and Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter make calls for balance.
But in the second round of replacing Justice O'Connor, liberals have adapted and added a second tactic. As I wrote in a previous column, Democrats, having neither a majority nor a viable filibuster threat, are launching a targeted pre-emptive strike by naming the potential nominees they will fight against. Coincidentally these are the only potential nominees that conservatives will likely lift a finger to fight for.
The left's main target is the jurist liberals know is the president's ultimate Katrina exit strategy, Judge Janice Rogers Brown. Although at her hearing she was a model of grace and intellect and she wrote more majority opinions than any of her colleagues on the California Supreme Court, liberals paint Brown as "unrelenting" and a "lightning rod." Her critics say that she has not been on the federal appellate court very long, even though she has now been on as long as David Souter had been when he was elevated, and she would have had more than two years' experience had Democrats not filibustered her nomination.
Last week, even the reputedly honest Russ Feingold of Wisconsin could not resist taking a gratuitous swipe at Judge Brown while announcing his support for Judge Roberts. Mr. Feingold suggested that Judge Brown would bring back the Lochner era. That was a reference to a 1905 Supreme Court decision in which the court replaced the economic policy judgment of a legislature with its own. It was like saying no more ice cream to a room full of children.
In truth, Judge Brown has written disapprovingly of Lochner: "The name has come to symbolize judicial usurpation of power . . . using the due process clause as though it provided a blank check to alter the meaning of the Constitution as written." Despite this, liberals insist that Judge Brown favors the Lochner decision because she criticized a small part of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes's dissent. Holmes said the U.S. Constitution did not reflect an economic structure, such as respect for private property. Judge Brown thinks that it does.
The call for balance is vapid given that a president is elected with the understanding that he will nominate someone to the Supreme Court in keeping with his judicial philosophy. George W. Bush made this a cornerstone of his campaigns. If a national election is not sufficient to gauge public opinion, a Gallup poll in July found that 70% of Americans want the high court either to be more conservative or to stay as conservative as they perceive it now to be. An Opinion Dynamics poll one week later asked this question: "When a Supreme Court justice retires, do you think the president has an obligation to replace the retiring justice with another justice with similar legal and political views?" An overwhelming 67% said no. The president is on sound footing if he leans to the right.
Not surprisingly, there is also a double standard. In 1993, when President Clinton needed to replace the retiring associate justice Byron White, a John Kennedy appointee who had been one of two dissenters in 1973 (together with Justice Rehnquist) on Roe v. Wade, no one called on him to maintain the "balance" of the court. He nominated the most pro-abortion feminist activist he could find. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was then confirmed by the Senate with a vote of 96-3.
But the left is so reliant on its balance argument that when Republican senators, and this writer, pointed out that Justice Ginsburg had posited that prostitution was constitutionally protected and that the age of consent should be lowered to 12, the same people who have distorted the records of Bush judicial nominees echoed in outrage and obfuscation. The problem is that it's true.
In papers Ms. Ginsburg wrote while she worked for the ACLU, she argued against criminalized prostitution and said that it was "arguably within the zone of privacy protected by recent constitutional decisions." In lawyer-speak that means that she, at least, tended to think prostitution fell under the constitutional right to privacy. She did not say "some would argue" or that it was "arguably not within the zone of privacy." And if arguably Mrs. Ginsburg did not aim, as her defenders say, to lower the age of consent, she was guilty of sloppy lawyering when she recommended that a statutory-rape law that had the consent age at 16 be replaced by a proposal that had it at 12.
But that is not all. The woman nominated to replace Roe's leading dissenter, Byron White, was not only pro-abortion, she wrote that the federal government should be constitutionally required to subsidize elective abortions. She urged coed prisons; criticized the Boy and Girl Scouts for perpetuating "gender" stereotypes; and suggested that "Parents Day" might replace Mother's and Father's day. Ms. Ginsburg had also opined that a law restricting the rights of bigamists "is of questionable constitutionality since it appears to encroach impermissibly upon private relationships."
Of course, when they confirmed Justice Ginsburg, liberals did not worry about balance. Actually, if not for their double standard, one might think that they had no standards at all.
Mr. Miranda, former counsel to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, is founder and chairman of the Third Branch Conference, a coalition of grassroots organizations following judicial issues. His column appears Monday, Wednesday and Friday. http://www.opinionjournal.com/nextjustice/?id=110007324
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)