About Hardliner4freedom


Gender:
male
Member Since:
July 14, 2006
Last Signed In:
March 15, 2008
Profile Views:
26807
Blog Views:
13713
View Profile
Send a Message
Send To A Friend
Sign Guestbook
Add as a Friend

Previous Posts
Gay Marriage Based On Religious Freedom Must Be Consistent
A "Christian Nation" -- Impossible Even By Religious Right's Criteria
The Only Gay Marriage Argument You'll Ever Need
My Thoughts on the In God We Trust Scare
A Spooky (And True) Story of Precognition
World's 3rd Richest Man Says Taxes on the Rich Are Too Low
New Right's War on the Constitution: The Under-Reported Truth
Religious Right Group's Belief in Religious Freedom Does Not Extend to Others
Take The Time To Fight Phishing
Creationist Betrays True Motives (Again)
Archives
July 06
August 06
September 06
October 06
November 06
December 06
January 07
February 07
March 07
April 07
May 07
June 07
July 07
August 07
September 07
October 07
November 07
December 07
January 08
February 08
March 08
April 08
May 08
June 08
July 08
August 08
September 08
October 08
November 08
December 08
January 09
Onward Bound

News, views, and professional iconoclasm from the green side of libertarianism.

About the graphic:  Created by Yours Truly using Ray Dream Studio.

-

Take The Time To Fight Phishing

 

Subscribe!
RSS 2.0 feed RSS 2.0
Add to My Yahoo
Add to My Google
Add to Bloglines
Add to My AOL

Share!


Hardliner4freedom - > Starship Sigma +5 -> Extreme Negligence: Mainstream media ignore far right's TOP election issue. Again.
Extreme Negligence: Mainstream media ignore far right's TOP election issue. Again.

What's really at stake this November?  For about 13 percent of Americans -- the 13 percent that President Bush caters heavily to -- the stake is the intentional destruction of Constitutional liberty in the United States.  The 13 percent that, in the form of James Dobson and Ted Haggard, enjoy the President's private ear for an unbelievable hour every week.
.
Nobody outside the Beltway, and few people inside the Beltway, enjoy such an extraordinary level of catered, red carpet service by this President.
.
And I'm about to tell you why.

.

Focus on the Family, a big-government, anti-freedom Religious Right group, warns as follows:

http://www.citizenlink.org/...
"Conservative pundits and pro-family legal analysts say if liberals gain control of Congress on Tuesday, the fate of future conservative judicial nominees will hang in the balance.
.

With them, according to Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst of Focus on the Family Action, will hang the fates of pre-born babies, marriage and religious liberty.
.

"The success of the president's judicial appointments depends on conservative control of the Senate," he said."
.
Concerned Women for America notes:
http://www.cwfa.org/article...
"But there is nothing more problematic for America’s future than the threat of judicial activism. It is no secret how the left would handle that challenge; they promoted 22 filibusters of qualified conservative judicial nominees. "
.
That's the far right's top priority: pack the federal courts with corrupt, biased judges who have little to zero respect for the Constitution and its guaranteed individual rights.
.
Don't be fooled by the term, "conservative judicial nominees."
.
The definition these Religious Right groups impart to "conservative" is infuriatingly deceptive -- and is the exact opposite of what "conservative" used to mean.
.
"Conservative" used to mean "limited government."
Religious Right-friendly "conservative" judges believe in nearly unlimited government.
.
The logic is simple to follow:
.
1.  The Religious Right, America's Taliban, hates personal freedom with every fiber of their being.
2.  The Constitution represents an absolute line in the sand against government intrusion and mistreatment -- the Constitution, the highest law in the land, tells government what it may and may not do to the citizens that it governs.  The Constitution enshrines rights and freedoms that no government may lawfully violate.
3.  The judges appointed to the federal courts -- especially the Supreme Court -- are the Constitution's enforcers.  They are, in effect, the police to enforce Constitutional law upon government.
4.  Therefore, the far Religious Right must disable the Constitution and its system of checks and balances.  One of their means of trying to nullify our Constitutional liberties is to pack the courts with judges who will refuse to uphold it.
.
Judges serve lifetime appointments.  Therefore, our Constitutional rights will suffer a lifetime of damage unless the far right is stopped.
.
Stopping them requires a Democratic majority in the Senate.
.
When you vote next Tuesday, vote not just for yourself, but for your children.  And your grandchildren.  Don't jeopardize the freedoms that they grew up to take for granted.
.
For more detailed information on the grave danger that our Constitutional liberties face, see my recent blog post:
http://people.bakersfield.c...
.

Posted in these Groups:
Topics:
posted by Hardliner4freedom on Friday, November 3, 2006 at 09:43 PM
Report a Violation
Viewed 294 times
22 comments from 7 users

1

posted by Hardliner4freedom on Nov 3, 2006 at 08:18 PM
Vote early.  Vote paper.
posted by coochee on Nov 3, 2006 at 09:58 PM

Vote absentee.

posted by mattloch on Nov 3, 2006 at 11:16 PM
Anyone else see "Hacking Democracy" on HBO? I'm asking for a paper ballot on Tuesday. I hope they have them...
posted by mattloch on Nov 4, 2006 at 12:51 AM
I just read this. Any bets if Bush is stupid or desperate enough to send some boats "accidently" into their maneuvers and manufacture a Gulf of Tonkin situation? The man is beyond all rationality. It is election season, and he is surrounded by crowds unaffected by reality or by facts. They have the Truth, which is all they think they need to win. Worse than a bubble, this is groupthink of the highest order. A cheep amplifier with feedback will go until someone shuts the power off.

There's a certain dumb logic to it; there are calculations made in his head and within the political idiot-savant mind of Karl Rove that could see a certain perverse upside to it. Like the advice to the new prisoner: go up to the biggest, baddest guy in the joint and break your lunch tray across the bridge of his nose. Either you'll take him by surprise and knock him out cold, after which you're not to be messed with; or you enrage him and he puts you into the infirmary, after which you'll be known as certifiably crazy and won't have to worry about being hassled.
posted by tkozy on Nov 4, 2006 at 04:54 AM

 

Regrets of Iraq Stance

In an issue of Vanity Fair that was published in November of 2006, Adelman indicated that he regrets urging military action in Iraq and feels that he overestimated the abilities of the Bush administration leadership. He was quoted of saying "I just presumed that what I considered to be the most competent national security team since Truman was indeed going to be competent." He also added, "They turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the postwar era. Not only did each of them, individually, have enormous flaws, but together they were deadly, dysfunctional."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

posted by Hardliner4freedom on Nov 4, 2006 at 06:43 AM

I don't get HBO.
.
Since there aren't any on-topic comments, I've got nothing to lose.  Here's my two cents:
.
Basic cable is now costlier than what Cable+HBO+TMC+Showtime was in 1995.  And deregulation was supposed to be this magic panacea.
.
It was.  Just not for consumers.

posted by Hardliner4freedom on Nov 4, 2006 at 11:34 AM
Even if Dems don't retake the Senate, some really vicious freedom-hating bad-asses are looking pretty doomed in the polls.
.
Rick Santorum, a traitor to American values by definition, looks all but dead.
Webb is pulling ahead of cutthroat George Allen.
The low-key but dangerous James Talent is trailing.
Conrad Burns is in deep doo-doo.
.
Though less likely to lose than the above, I would love to see the smarmy, freedom-hating Arizona senator Jon Kyl get the boot.  I get sick of seeing his smug, condescending head rocking back and forth as if pivoted from behind as he speaks.
.
Lincoln Chafee, while the best of the Reps and not at all a freedom hater, is in trouble.  While Chafee is a good guy to have around, what matters in 2006 is numbers.  Another "D" in the Senate matters more for America's future right now than the retention of a decent Republican.
posted by allRED on Nov 5, 2006 at 08:41 AM

Santorum, Conrad, Allen, Talent,  Kyl, will win and I hope Chafee loses. You will lose New Jersey.

Ron.

posted by TomW on Nov 5, 2006 at 08:55 AM
Santorum, Burns, Allen, Talent, and Chaffee lose for sure.  Corker probably loses (based on polls and weather) and Kyl is tossup.  We keep NJ.
posted by TomW on Nov 5, 2006 at 09:03 AM
Also, Lamont wins in CT, and Dems take 42 house seats.
posted by dusty1215 on Nov 5, 2006 at 11:16 AM
I am not counting on Lamont..he is still behind in every poll I have seen Tom.
posted by dusty1215 on Nov 5, 2006 at 11:18 AM
Hardliner..why do the religious right think conservative judges will give them everything they want?

Mattloch, I tivo's the HBO special..I will watch it later this evening..if I am still up with this horrid cold I have.
posted by Hardliner4freedom on Nov 5, 2006 at 11:23 AM

"Conservative" judges won't physically give them what they want.
.
But "conservative" judges will refuse to uphold and enforce our fundamental and Constitutional rights.  They will refuse to stand in the way of the Religious Right.
.
By refusing to uphold and enforce the Constitution, these judges enable legislatures and majority vote to take away whatever freedoms they wish.  In other words, if you claim that your rights are being violated, these judges will simply ignore you.
.
Remember that states' rights discussion?  Same principle.  The Religious Right groups want to disable the Constitution by hand-picking corrupt judges who will not stop them as they rape, pillage, and plunder our freedoms.
.
At this moment, there are many, many state legislatures that are so overwhelmed by the far right that they will snap like mousetraps on their citizens' freedoms the moment the Constitution is no longer enforced.  States like Mississippi will turn in to mini-Iran's the very moment a Constitution-hating majority occupies the federal judiciary.
.
The Constitution is their barrier.  The judiciary is the Constitution's enforcer.  By hand-picking judges who will refuse to enforce it, they remove the last barrier to tyranny.

posted by Hardliner4freedom on Nov 5, 2006 at 11:32 AM
Out here on the West Coast (and the northern East Coast), we're pretty safe from a fascist state government.  Go into "America heartland," and there are at least a dozen states that will transform into instant theocracies if the Constitution ceased to be enforced.
.
Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennesee, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Utah -- even Kansas, West Virginia, the Carolinas -- all waiting for a "conservative" majority in the federal judiciary to permit them to come crashing down like a ton of bricks on their citizens' freedoms.
posted by TomW on Nov 5, 2006 at 11:43 AM
Dusty, CT polling is bad because there are no good models.  Three way race where the incumbant is 3rd party, I think they don't know how to put together the percentages.  Also, all the polls rely on Republican turnout being the same as 2002.  If the trend goes strong indy and Dem, Lamont will carry it.  And they have 70 some thousand new dems in the state since the primary.  Along with Lieberman's ballot position, etc. I think it'll be close and I think Lamont will squeak it out.
posted by Hardliner4freedom on Nov 5, 2006 at 11:53 AM
I don't...  We get Lieberman.
.
Question is:  Can we count on him to protect the Constitution when judges are nominated?
.
Or will be be an embittered little twit who will vote far right to "punish" the Democratic voters who bumped him off in the primary?
.
His decision to run anyway as an independent is one tick mark in the "embittered twit" column.
posted by dusty1215 on Nov 5, 2006 at 09:39 PM
Won't the Supreme Court protect the Constitution? I ask these dumb questions because I just can't believe this could possibly happen. I am not being a smart ass Hardliner. Isn't there a backlash against the religious right that is taking our country back from them? People are really getting tired of this minority trying to rule the world.
posted by Hardliner4freedom on Nov 6, 2006 at 06:58 AM
Dusty, Dusty, Dusty...
.
I know you're not being a smartass, but I'm deeply concerned nonetheless, when the people on "our side" just don't get it.  What you and so many progressives say "simply can't happen" is happening -- in part because it's simply so unbelievable.  (I feel like the people in early Nazi Germany warning about the concentration camps, and having a devil of a time getting good people to believe it!)
.
The Supreme Court is supposed to protect and enforce the Constitution.
.
The far right is insisting on judges who will simply, wilfully ignore it.  It's like the Mafia infiltrating law enforcement and only hiring cops who will look the other way when they break the law.
.
I don't know how much plainer I can make it.  They want judges who will ignore the law (Constitution) when it's being broken (our rights taken away).
.
Read my post that I linked to within the body of this article.  Think it through.  It's all true.
posted by Hardliner4freedom on Nov 6, 2006 at 07:06 AM
And where are our Democratic Senators on this?  They know all about this -- they debate it on the Senate Floor!
.
They have heard Rick Santorum, Sam Brownshirt, and others, claim that we should have no right to privacy.  They have heard Tom DeLay and others claim that the Supreme Court shouldn't even have the authority to overturn illegal laws!!!
.
Why the F aren't our Democratic Senators demanding a ton of media time to explain this to the American people???
.
Forgive my French, but this is the most important goddammed issue facing America -- and I have a devil of a time getting progressives to take it seriously!
.
(Sorry for the outburst.)
posted by Hardliner4freedom on Nov 6, 2006 at 07:18 AM
Resident Bush has said that he wants to appoint judges like Antonin Scalia.
.
Here is Scalia himself saying that the federal courts should not even have the power to overturn unconstitutional laws:
.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.c...
CITY OF CHICAGO, PETITIONER v.
JESUS MORALES et al.

on writ of certiorari to the supreme court of illinois

[June 10, 1999]

Justice Scalia , dissenting.

"Respondents' consolidated appeal presents a facial challenge to the
Chicago Ordinance on vagueness grounds. When a facial challenge is
successful, the law in question is declared to be unenforceable in all
its applications, and not just in its particular application to the
party in suit. To tell the truth, it is highly questionable whether
federal courts have any business making such a declaration...."

.
I know it's a lot of legal-speak, but that's exactly what he is saying.
.
He's saying that the courts should simply stop overturning illegal laws!!!
.
All of this information is available on my Yahoo group which you and Tom belong to. 
posted by TomW on Nov 6, 2006 at 08:29 AM
H4F, the evangelical block is splitting now based on a lot of them wanting to return to Christian values, ie helping the poor, compassion and caring.  I am doing my part as a Christian to evangelize my beliefs where it will do some good.  I've always had a hard time with the Church of American Exceptionalism and the Church of Theocracy.  I fully understand what you're talking about.  Thomas and Alito are the worst judges on the Supreme Court.  Even Scalia, though he's an arrogant SOB, serves a purpose on the court, hopefully only to provide minority opinions.  He defined the hard right wall, while Alito and Thomas are devoid of judicial philosophy and simply rule in favor of corporations and money, no matter what the law says.  I would like to see a judge that was as far to the left as Scalia is to the right for balance.  I'd also like to see another Earl Warren type get in there.
posted by Hardliner4freedom on Nov 6, 2006 at 08:39 AM
People like you are the future of the Democratic Party.  You get it.  And you know how to make it relevant to moderates and even conservatives.
.
And Jon Tester rocks.
.
I'm sorry , but it just drives me to despair when most all I hear from the Left is Iraq, Iraq, Patriot Act, torture, Iraq, torture, NSA, Patriot Act, and a sprinkling of Halliburton.
.
You're [general "you're"] preaching to a small choir, when you should be recruiting a bigger choir.
.
Sure, there is a teeny, itsy-bitsy, 0.00001% chance that you'll be arrested and charged with conspiracy to commit terrorism.  You can't move people on that, the fear of an infinitesimal chance of being arrested and tortured.  People are willing to take tetanus shots in the face of more risk than that.
.
If the Left were moving people on the right issues -- the pertinent-in-today's-world issues -- we wouldn't have Prop. 22 (the restrict marriage initiative).  We'd have medical marijuana.  We'd have the right to die with dignity -- because the Supreme Court would have recognized it.
.
Again, I write this directed generally and not personally -- but it's not the 1960s any more.  You're not going to motivate people on this NSA and Patriot Act stuff.
.
You will motivate them on this.
1

  (You need to be signed in to leave a comment)

BAKERSFIELD.COM HOT TOPICS:

Advertisement