the Centrist

Just when I thought I was ready to dump the Republicans because of the Abramoff bribery scandal Ted, Chuck, and Dick take arrogance to an all new level. These Senators seem not to be able to discern the difference between a qualification and a prejudice. Last week these mean spirited elites put the grandson of an Italian immigrant, Judge Sam Alito, through a gauntlet rather than an interview. Senator Kennedy was able to exceed even his level of ‘Borkism’ as Mrs. Alito was forced from the hearings in tears. According to the new Dons of my old party when a person works all of their lives to establish and maintain a good reputation, they are fair game, not in spite of, but because of their moral compass. All week we heard about an editorial written by somebody in a Princeton Conservative Club of which Alito was a member. Senator Schumer and his gang did all but call him a liar. The others insinuated he was a bigot. They publically worried about former affiliations, when the Dean of their party, Sen. Robert Byrd, (D. W. Vir), was a card carrying member of the Klu Klux Klan. Can you say, hypocrasy? Furthermore, Byrd voted against all of the early civil rights legislation Rev. Martin Luther King gave his life to pass and enforce.
Yet, these erudite bigots forgot to bring to this nation’s attention the other actions of Alito while in Princeton. According to the contemporary online encyclopedia Wikipedia: “Alito led a student conference in 1971 called “The Boundaries of Privacy in American Society” which, among other things, supported curbs on domestic intelligence gathering, called for the legalization of sodomy, and urged for an end to discrimination against homosexuals in hiring by employers. During said conference, Alito stated that “no private sexual act between consenting adults should be forbidden.” Does that sound like a bigot to you?
The problem with my former party is that insists on a litmus test. Their litmus test: ‘abortion on demand’. Talk about a single issue party. Is abortion their only concern? Perhaps it is because science has now proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that abortion ends the life of an unborn human being. And that every abortion, ends a life which can feel pain, has separate DNA, a heart beat, respiration, and brain waves … the very legal criterion for individuality and human life. That cannot be argued. Most pro-life advocates recognize the circumstances which may warrant a therapeutic abortion (medical necessity). Yet the numbers are very few … only 2-6%. But, I have long held that using abortion as a means of birth control is beyond the pale. What has become apparent with the Alito fiasco is that the fear of those knowing right from wrong, forces the left into the necessity of activist judges, rather than appealing to the hearts and minds of the people.
They seem to want accepted as dogma that Roe v. Wade is ‘settled law’. Then we hear “after all it is the law of the land”. But they apply this papal like infallibility to Roe alone. Think of what this nation would be like if our ancestors had agreed with the modern left.
One hundred and fifty or so years ago slavery was legal and income tax was not. In the past 8 months this court has decided that euthanasia is Constitutional, and Private Property Rights are not. Therefore, two things are apparent, the Supreme Court does make mistakes, and second, this Supreme Court is an activist court.
Since our Junior Senator has made “plantation” the buzz word of the week, perhaps we should re-visit a former slave by the name of Dred Scott. He was the African American who had freed himself just before the Civil War. He was returned to a life of slavery by order of the Supreme Court. According to the same source:
“In March of 1857, the United States Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, declared that all blacks — slaves as well as free — were not and could never become citizens of the United States. The court also declared the 1820 Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, thus permitting slavery in all of the country’s territories” The framers of the Constitution, Taney wrote, believed that African Americans: “had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the Negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever profit could be made by it.”
Furthermore, Taney’s argument was buoyed, in no small way, by the 19th century’s ‘new’ science of evolution. Darwin taught that African Americans were deemed ‘lower’ on the evolutionary scale than white Europeans. Besides, so the court argued, slavery was ‘settled law’. After all it had been around for over two hundred years and the Founders owned slaves. Do any of those statements sound familiar in the arguments against the unborn?