The Barber Shoppe Gazette

Wednesday, October 25, 2006

Republicans Making a Comeback - Surge Ahead

POLITICS / ELECTION 2006: REPUBLICANS MAKING A COMEBACK - SURGING AHEAD

NewsMax Mast Head

Smiley Flag Waver Zogby reports that the generic Democratic edge is down to four points, having been as high as nine two weeks ago.

The Republican base seems to be coming back home. This trend, only vaguely and dimly emerging from a variety of polls, suggests that a trend may be afoot that would deny the Democrats control of the House and the Senate.

Control of Congress has gone from "lean Democrat" to a "toss-up." And that's progress for the Republicans.

Election Now a Toss-Up

~ Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
Tuesday, Oct. 24, 2006

The latest polls show something very strange and quite encouraging is happening: The Republican base seems to be coming back home. This trend, only vaguely and dimly emerging from a variety of polls, suggests that a trend may be afoot that would deny the Democrats control of the House and the Senate.
With two weeks to go, anything can happen, but it is beginning to look possible that the Democratic surge in the midterm elections may fall short of control in either House.
Here's the evidence:
Pollsters Scott Rasmussen and John Zogby both show Republican Bob Corker gaining on Democratic Rep. Harold Ford Jr. in Tennessee, a must-win Senate seat for the Democrats. Zogby has Corker ahead by seven, while Rasmussen still shows a Ford edge of two points.

Zogby reports a "turnaround" in New Jersey's Senate race with the GOP candidate Tom Kean taking the lead, a conclusion shared by some other public polls.

Even though Sen. Jim Talent in Missouri is still under the magic 50 percent threshold for an incumbent, Rasmussen has him one point ahead and Zogby puts him three up. But unless he crests 50 percent, he'll probably still lose.

Even though he is a lost cause, both Rasmussen and Zogby show Montana's Republican Sen. Conrad Burns cutting the gap and moving up.
In Virginia, Republican embattled incumbent Sen. George Allen has now moved over the 50 percent threshold in his internal polls. (He'd been at 48 percent.)
Nationally, Zogby reports that the generic Democratic edge is down to four points, having been as high as nine two weeks ago.
None of these data indicates that the Republicans are out of trouble yet, but Democrats must win one of these three races: Ford in Tennessee, Menendez in New Jersey or Webb in Virginia. If not, they'll fall at least one seat short of controlling the Senate even if they succeed in knocking off all five vulnerable GOP incumbents in Montana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Missouri.
Why are Republican fortunes brightening?
The GOP base, alienated by the Foley scandal and the generally dismal record of this Congress, may have fast forwarded to the prospect of a Democratic victory and recoiled. They may have pondered the impact of a repeal of the Patriot Act, a ban on NSA wiretapping and a requirement of having an attorney present in terrorist questioning - and decided not to punish the country for the sins of the Republican leaders.
Bush's success in dealing with North Korea and his willingness to reassess tactics in Iraq could also play a part in the slight shift now underway.
Then, too, some in the Democratic Party must be finally realizing what a disastrous decision it was to put Howard Dean in as party chairman. The Democratic National Committee is broke and borrowing, while the GOP can afford to fund fully its key races.
Right now, we would have to say that control of Congress has gone from "lean Democrat" to a "toss-up." And that's progress for the Republicans.

Send A Link For This Article To A Friend

Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

CRINO's: [C]hristian [R]epublicans [I]n [N]ame [O]nly

POLITICS & RELIGION / CINO'S + RINO'S = CRINO'S: [C]HRISTIAN [R]EPUBLICANS [I]N [N]AME [O]NLY

Chuck Baldwin Live

Smiley Flag Waver Many of our pastors and Christian leaders today are far more interested in not offending the powers that be than they are in speaking the uncompromising message of truth. This is especially true if the political power has an "R" behind his name. It doesn't seem to matter to a tinker's dam whether that man promotes policies that expand abortion-on-demand, that further legitimize aberrant sexual lifestyles, that leave our borders open to terrorists, that eviscerate constitutional freedoms, or that explode the size and scope of the federal government. Because he is a Republican, he is "good" and must not be opposed.

Dear Brother Pastor: Dare To Be A Micaiah

~ By Chuck Baldwin
October 24, 2006

Today's column is a heart-felt appeal to my pastor-brethren. If there was ever a time when God's men in America needed to stand independently and courageously for that which is right, it is now. And if we, the pastors and preachers of America, will not stand for what is right, how can anyone else be expected to stand? Specifically, are we God's men, or have we become the lackeys for powerful politicians? I fear that in far too many instances, it is the latter.

Throughout history, God's true champions were stalwart, independent men. Men who could not be bought or bribed. Men who chose the life of unpopularity or even prison rather than kowtowing to kings or potentates. Men such as the Old Testament prophet Micaiah.

We all remember the story of Micaiah, don't we? Micaiah was the prophet who warned Ahab and Jehoshaphat regarding their imminent battle at Ramoth-gilead recorded for us in II Chronicles chapter 18.

What fascinates me about the story of Micaiah is that all the rest of the prophets, some 400 of them, said only what the king wanted to hear. Not one of them was willing to speak the truth. Not one of them was willing to defy the king's wishes. Not one of them was willing to put their allegiance to God above their friendship with the king. Then Micaiah entered the story.

Micaiah stood boldly before the king of Judah and the king of Israel and courageously told the truth. He did not try to curry favor with the king. He did not try to ingratiate himself with the king. He courageously spoke truth to power. And, as one might expect, he was not rewarded for it-at least not in this life. In spite of this, Micaiah stood as a true champion of God. A man among men. God's man.

Where are the Micaiahs today? Especially among our national Christian leaders, where is Micaiah?

It seems that many of our pastors and Christian leaders today are far more interested in not offending the powers that be than they are in speaking the uncompromising message of truth. This is especially true if the political power has an "R" behind his name. It doesn't seem to matter to a tinker's dam whether that man promotes policies that expand abortion-on-demand, that further legitimize aberrant sexual lifestyles, that leave our borders open to terrorists, that eviscerate constitutional freedoms, or that explode the size and scope of the federal government. Because he is a Republican, he is "good" and must not be opposed.

In such a case, have we preachers not become glorified politicians? Have we not become the servants of men?

In the story of Micaiah, it was both the "good" king Jehoshophat and the "evil" king Ahab that had made the decision to disobey God and imperil the lives of their countrymen. Both the "good" king and the "evil" king needed to hear the truth. And while they heard it not from the rest of Israel's prophets, they heard the truth from Micaiah. Both men heard the truth from Micaiah.

Whether a president, senator, or congressman is a "good" Republican or an "evil" Democrat, they need to hear a consistent message of truth from God's preachers. Our political leaders (of both parties) need to be held accountable for their misdeeds, their erroneous policies, and their unconstitutional decisions. If today's pastors would be as concerned about speaking the truth as they are about who is being elected and about not offending Republicans, our country would be much better off. Much better.

I dare say that if Al Gore or John Kerry had been elected President, they would not have been allowed to do half of what George W. Bush has gotten away with, because pastors and Christian leaders of every stripe would have shouted their disapproval from the housetops. But because Mr. Bush has an "R" behind his name, those same pastors and Christian leaders sit fat and happy-and silent. The result: George W. Bush has inflicted more lasting harm on America than Bill Clinton ever thought about inflicting. That's not an affront to George W. Bush, nor is it praise for Bill Clinton. It's an indictment upon America's pulpits.

There is another element to this discussion, one that almost everyone seems to have forgotten. When the Jewish leaders brought accusation against Jesus to Pilate, do you remember what their charge was? It was, "If you don't crucify Jesus, you are not a friend to Caesar, because Jesus is not a friend to Caesar." The fear that Pilate might be regarded as unfriendly to Caesar and that Jesus was already regarded as not being a friend to Caesar caused Pilate to consent to Jesus' death.

Forget that Caesar had enslaved the Jewish people. Forget that he was their oppressor. Forget that they labored under the heavy hand of Caesar's tyranny and taxation. They, the Jewish leaders, had formed a friendly alliance with Caesar, an alliance from which they personally greatly benefited. Therefore, they would let no one, not even their Messiah and Savior, jeopardize their friendship with Caesar.

It grieves me deeply to report that, in my estimation, this desire to be Caesar's friend has eclipsed the willingness of many of today's pastors and preachers to speak the truth. More than that, they even seem willing to join those forces that seek to silence anyone who dares challenge Caesar. Once again, especially if Caesar has an "R" behind his name.

We preachers must remain independent from the fetters of the desire for popularity or political approval. We must not give in to the temptation to become glorified politicians. As preachers, we have but one task: preach the truth, stand for the truth, and defend the truth. Whether the truth hurts Democrats or Republicans should not concern us. Whether we are considered "friends" to presidents should not matter. Who knows how Israel's history might have been changed for the better if those 400 prophets had followed Micaiah's example and not groveled before Ahab. Who knows how Germany's history might have been changed for the better if that nation's 14,000 pastors had followed the example of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and not groveled before Hitler.

By the same token, America's future will be largely determined by which example today's pastors and preachers decide to follow. Dear brother pastor: dare to be a Micaiah.

Chuck Baldwin's commentaries are copyrighted and may be republished, reposted, or emailed providing the person or organization doing so does not charge for subscriptions or advertising and that the column is copied intact and that full credit is given and that Chuck's web site address is included.

Editors or Publishers of publications charging for subscriptions or advertising who want to run these columns must contact Chuck Baldwin for permission. Radio or television Talk Show Hosts interested in scheduling an interview with Chuck should contact chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com.

When responding, please include your name, city and state. And, unless otherwise requested, all respondents will be added to the Chuck Wagon address list.


Please visit Chuck's web site at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com.

Send A Link For This Article To A Friend

Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below

Democrat Smokescreen Avoids Real Issues

POLITICS / A DEMOCRAT-CONTROLLED CONGRESS MEANS EVEN BIGGER TROUBLE LIES AHEAD FOR AMERICAN PEOPLE

Democrat Smokescreen Avoids Addressing The Real Issues Facing The American People . . .

David Limbaugh

Smiley Flag Waver Democrats have a potentially masterful plan for removing Republicans from majority control, but what is their plan for action if they win?

The agenda-less party has become infected with a paralyzing negativity.

Democrats and the mainstream media are engaged in an elaborate scam. They have undisguised contempt for traditional values voters. On immigration, no matter how poorly Republicans have performed, the Democrats' approach would be significantly worse. They would open the borders wider, discourage assimilation further and promote amnesty harder. On the economy, they would increase domestic spending even more. They would raise their taxes at the inevitable expense of choking the life out of our robust growth and increasing the deficit and national debt. The middle class and poor would be hurt. They would compromise the security of every American in the war on terror.

"I hope this election is going to mark the demise of values voters ... that they don't determine the election the way they were seen to have the last time around." ~~ Newsweek's liberal Jonathan Alter

Christian conservatives are blind to the left's contempt for them or self-destructive enough to contribute to the ascension of the party that boos the Boy Scouts and filibusters Constitution-honoring judges.

New Column: Without Conservative Help, Democrats Shouldn't Bet The Farm

~ By David Limbaugh
October 23, 2006

The real question facing voters in November is whether Democrats will be able to do to the entire legislative branch what they've done to their party. The agenda-less party has become infected with a paralyzing negativity born of its singular hatred for President Bush. Will that mindset be permitted to seize control of our legislative branch? Will disgruntled conservatives collude to make this happen?

How many times have you heard Democrats decrying the Bush administration for having no plan to win the peace in Iraq? We might have executed the initial phase of the war masterfully by removing Saddam, they now grudgingly concede, but we didn't anticipate and plan for the problems that would arise after his removal.

Putting aside a debate over that assertion, let's apply the same standard to their agenda for America today. Shouldn't we ask: "Democrats have a potentially masterful plan for removing Republicans from majority control, but what is their plan for action if they win?

Let's just look at the most important issues: the war on terror, including Iraq, the economy, social issues and immigration. In each category, they either have no plan or are unwilling to publicize it for fear that Rovian Republicans will pick it apart and expose its flaws.

On immigration, no matter how poorly Republicans have performed, the Democrats' approach would be significantly worse. They would open the borders wider, discourage assimilation further and promote amnesty harder.

On the economy, they would increase domestic spending even more. And in their compulsion to punish the "rich," they would raise their taxes at the inevitable expense of choking the life out of our robust growth and increasing the deficit and national debt. Though the middle class and poor would be hurt, the rich would feel it, too -- and that would be almost as gratifying as hating President Bush.

On social issues, Democrats and the mainstream media are engaged in an elaborate scam. I've been saying for years that they have undisguised contempt for traditional values voters. They are proving it daily through their concerted drive to suppress the values voter turnout.

Their inconsistent pretense to represent this very block of voters was revealed as the fraud it is by recent comments of Newsweek's liberal Jonathan Alter, who said, "I hope this election is going to mark the demise of values voters ... that they don't determine the election the way they were seen to have the last time around."

It is inconceivable that Christian conservatives are blind to the left's contempt for them or self-destructive enough to contribute to the ascension of the party that boos the Boy Scouts and filibusters Constitution-honoring judges.

On national security generally, Democrats would ratchet up even further their opposition to almost every tool we use to prosecute the war.

On Iraq, if you concede that conditions there are discouraging, you still -- as a responsible voter -- must ask yourself what Democrats would do differently -- unless you are just too angry to care. Democrats are irreversibly committed to the myth that Iraq is not part of the war on terror -- never mind that all global jihadists themselves radically disagree.

This commitment requires Democrats to deny the consequences our precipitous withdrawal would necessarily have on the war on terror -- and thus on America's security. The April 2006 NIE report concludes that our withdrawal from Iraq would embolden terrorists and make us more vulnerable at home. Other experts who Democrats are fond of citing, like James Baker, also warn that it would create worse civil and ethnic strife and cause Iraq to become more of a hotbed for terrorist mischief. But, hey, reversing Bush's policy and discrediting him must take priority over the national interest.

Not only would the Democrats' Bush-hating and policy-bankruptcy be demonstrated in their approach to the issues; it would also play out in their endless investigations against the president and possible efforts to impeach him upon taking control.

Don't discount the possibility that all this hype about conservatives staying home is a carefully orchestrated ruse to suppress their turnout. Even if it isn't, the liberals' arrogance and premature boasting will surely motivate to the polls all but those rare, implacable conservatives, because even disgruntled conservatives know we can't afford to teach big-spending Republicans a lesson in the middle of a war.

Consider also that Republicans are better organized and funded and possess more intensity, that many polls have oversampled Democrats and that as the election approaches, voters will more seriously compare the parties' respective fitness to protect America. Democrats better not bet their farms just yet.

Send A Link For This Article To A Friend

Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below

Monday, October 23, 2006

Anticipating A Democratic Blowout

POLITICS / ELECTION 2006: ANTICIPATING A DEMOCRAT BLOWOUT

Times Watch

TimesWatch Tracker
Documenting and Exposing the Liberal
Agenda of the New York Times

Smiley Flag Waver "There is something unusual bubbling in Democratic political waters these days: optimism.

"With each new delivery of bad news for Republicans -- another Republican congressman under investigation, another Republican district conceded, another poll showing support for the Republican-controlled Congress collapsing -- a party that has become so used to losing is considering, disbelievingly and with the requisite worry, the possibility that it could actually win in November.

TimesWatch Tracker: Our Latest Analysis
Monday, October 23, 2006

Today in TimesWatch:

Anticipating A Democratic Blowout

The Democrats (And The Times) Are Getting Giddy Together As November 7 Looms

~ Posted By: Clay Waters
10/23/2006 1:51:21 PM

The Democrats and their media allies are getting a bit giddy as the congressional elections loom, all but declaring victory before the opening whistle.

You can almost taste the anticipation in the headline to Sunday's front-page story by Adam Nagourney and Robin Toner, "With Guarded Cheer, Democrats Dare to Believe This Is Their Time," just one of several pro-Democratic stories to appear over the weekend and Monday.

"There is something unusual bubbling in Democratic political waters these days: optimism.

"With each new delivery of bad news for Republicans -- another Republican congressman under investigation, another Republican district conceded, another poll showing support for the Republican-controlled Congress collapsing -- a party that has become so used to losing is considering, disbelievingly and with the requisite worry, the possibility that it could actually win in November.

Democrats seem free to speak freely among sympathetic media types: "'I’ve moved from optimistic to giddy,' said Gordon R. Fischer, a former chairman of the Iowa Democratic Party. 'I really have.'

"Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, who is in line to become chairman of the Financial Services Committee in a Democratic House, offered wry evidence of the changing perception of the race. His office, Mr. Frank said, has been contacted by a portrait-painting firm offering to talk about possibilities for the traditional committee chairman’s painting, one of those perks of power long absent from the lives of House Democrats.

"'I’ve acquired a lot of new friends this year,' Mr. Frank said. 'And I haven’t gotten any nicer.'

"For Democrats these days, life is one measure glee, one measure dread and one measure hubris. If they are as confident as they have been in a decade about regaining at least one house of Congress -- and they are -- it is a confidence tempered by the searing memories of being outmaneuvered, for three elections straight, by superior Republican organizing and financial strength, and by continued wariness about the political skills of President Bush’s senior adviser, Karl Rove."

They conclude: "All this has put Democrats in an unfamiliar place, but one they seem to be enjoying. 'I’m a congenital pessimist,' said Howard Wolfson, a consultant advising Democrats in several competitive contests in upstate New York. 'But I’m as bullish on our chances as I have been at any time over the last 12 years.'"

There are more hoorays for the Democrats in Saturday's A1 story by congressional correspondent Carl Hulse, "Open Seats Lift Democratic Hopes in the House." That echoes a September 28 story by Robin Toner, "New Hope for Democrats in Bid for Senate."

Surveying a House race in Colorado, Hulse opines: "This year, there are 33 open House seats, including three that are vacant at the moment but had been held steadily by one party, and polls suggest that Democrats have a good chance to capture enough Republican-held districts to put them well on their way to tilting the balance of power in Washington."

Hulse implies that Republican issues are stern fear-mongering, while painting Democratic positions in more flattering terms: "In their closely watched race, Mr. O’Donnell has sought to emphasize a hard line on immigration and raise the specter of Democratic tax increases while Mr. Perlmutter has pressed the need for change in Republican-controlled Washington and emphasized stem-cell research, an issue he has personalized, saying it represents the potential for treatment of his daughter’s epilepsy."

Another story on Saturday from Joyce Purnick sees Democratic gains in the Republican state of Indiana ("In a G.O.P. Stronghold, 3 Districts in Indiana Are Now Battlegrounds").

Then there's Sunday's story by correspondent Lizette Alvarez, "In Two New Mexico Towns, Voices of Concern About the Party in Power."

Alvarez leads off with several paragraphs profiling the paper's favorite kind of Republican -- an ex-Republican: "Jerry Eller, a Republican engineer who built his own house in this small town with big mountain views, voted twice for President Bush.

"But his disenchantment with the Republican Party cuts so deeply that if the 2004 presidential election were being held this year, Mr. Bush would not get his vote. 'If Kerry was running this time,' said Mr. Eller, 53, referring to Senator John Kerry, the Democratic nominee in 2004, 'I would vote for him.'''

Abby Goodnough reports from Fort Lauderdale, Fla., in Monday's "Running on Experience, a Longtime Incumbent Finds Himself on the Defensive," on Republican Rep. Clay Shaw Jr.'s race with Democrat Ron Klein: "But whether Mr. Shaw’s strategy will save him or sink him on Election Day is anyone’s guess.

"Mr. Klein has called Mr. Shaw a lackey of President Bush, prompting Mr. Shaw to emphasize his differences with the president, whose popularity four years ago helped Mr. Shaw beat back another tough challenger."

The tone is more negative and foreboding when it comes to a story on Republicans trying to take over a Democratic stronghold, West Virginia. Ian Urbina writes from Charleston, in Sunday's "Wealthy Coal Executive Hopes To Turn Democratic West Virginia Republican." (As opposed to those impoverished coal executives, we guess.)

"Don L. Blankenship is not the governor of West Virginia. But here in coal country some say he may as well be, considering the power he wields.

"Mr. Blankenship, the chief executive of the state's largest coal producer, Massey Energy, has promised to spend 'whatever it takes' to help win a majority in the State Legislature for the long-beleaguered Republican Party in a state that is a Democratic and labor stronghold.

"In a state where candidates who win typically spend less than $20,000, Mr. Blankenship has poured more than $6 million into political initiatives and local races over the past three years. Mr. Blankenship has spent at least $700,000 in his current effort to oust Democrats, and the state is awash with lawn signs, highway billboards, radio advertisements and field organizers paid for by him."

Urbina brings up unrelated personal issues: "Mr. Blankenship, who received about $34 million in compensation last year (roughly four times the industry standard) runs the company from a double-wide trailer just across the state line in Belfry, Ky. In April, Mr. Blankenship’s personal housekeeper filed a lawsuit seeking unemployment benefits in which she accused him of responding with angry fits to infractions like getting the wrong McDonald’s order or stocking the freezer with the wrong ice cream."

Urbina lets Democrats paint Blankenship in unflattering terms as a union-buster and despoiler of the environment, while letting Republicans praise him as a combination of Karl Rove and political donor Richard Mellon Scaife, making the GOP come off rather cynical.

TimesWatch is a division of the Media Research Center.

Media Research Center
325 S. Patrick Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
(800) 672-1423 | Fax: 703-683-9736
E-mail: tgolab@mediaresearch.org (Thom Golab, Director of Development)

Send A Link For This Article To A Friend

Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below

Supreme Court Rejects Scouts Constitutional Rights

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW & RIGHTS / U.S. SUPREME COURT REJECTS BOY SCOUTS / SEA SCOUTS FIRST AMENDEMENT RIGHTS TO EXPRESSIVE ASSOCIATION

Another In The Bush, Republican Party, Liberal Supreme Court Appointee, Christian / Conservative Betrayals ... A Liberal, Democrat-Controlled House And Senate In 2007 Will Guarantee A Deluge Of The Same ...

Thomas Moore Law center Mast Head

Smiley Flag Waver The United States Supreme Court, in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, recognized that the Scout’s policy was an exercise of expressive association protected by the First Amendment. In the aftermath of Dale, the City of Berkeley demanded that the Sea Scouts repudiate its association with BSA’s policy and, when the Sea Scouts’ failed Berkeley’s litmus test, the City stripped the Sea Scouts of the free berth extended to public service organizations. The California Supreme Court rejected the Sea Scout’s claim that Berkeley’s decision to strip them of free berths violated their First Amendment right to expressive association.

“It is disappointing that the Supreme Court did not take this opportunity to reverse an outrageous example of how homosexuals use the powers of government to discriminate against an outstanding youth group in order to force compliance with their worldview on sex, marriage and religion.”

News Alert

Thomas More Law Center Decries Supreme Court Refusal To Review Decision Penalizing Sea Scouts For Policy Excluding Gays And Atheists

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, expressed its disappointment that last week the United States Supreme Court declined to review a California Supreme Court decision allowing the City of Berkeley, CA to deprive the Sea Scouts of free berthing privileges given to other nonprofit organizations because the Sea Scouts refused to repudiate their association with the Boy Scouts of America and its policy requiring exclusion of gays and atheists.

The Sea Scouts are a public service organization that serves local youth by teaching them to sail and learn other skills such as carpentry and plumbing. It is associated with the Boy Scouts of America and must abide by BSA’s policy excluding gays and atheists.

The Law Center had filed a friend of the court brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case of Evan v. City of Berkeley. The Law Center’s brief argues that Berkeley’s decision to strip the Sea Scouts of a benefit extended to other public service organizations because the City disagrees with BSA’s policy places an unconstitutional condition on receipt of public benefits that violates the First Amendment.

Patrick T. Gillen, the Thomas More Law Center attorney who authored the brief, observed that Berkeley’s policy is a blatant effort to penalize the Sea Scouts for an exercise of their First Amendment rights. “The Supreme Court’s decision lets a truly tragic injustice stand. In this case militant homosexual activists have victimized the underprivileged in a vindictive effort to punish anyone associated with the Boy Scouts of America.”

The United States Supreme Court, in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, recognized that the Scout’s policy was an exercise of expressive association protected by the First Amendment. In the aftermath of Dale, the City of Berkeley demanded that the Sea Scouts repudiate its association with BSA’s policy and, when the Sea Scouts’ failed Berkeley’s litmus test, the City stripped the Sea Scouts of the free berth extended to public service organizations. The California Supreme Court rejected the Sea Scout’s claim that Berkeley’s decision to strip them of free berths violated their First Amendment right to expressive association.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, commented, “It is disappointing that the Supreme Court did not take this opportunity to reverse an outrageous example of how homosexuals use the powers of government to discriminate against an outstanding youth group in order to force compliance with their worldview on sex, marriage and religion.”

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.

Thomas More Law Center 24 Frank Lloyd Wright Drive
P.O. Box 393
Ann Arbor, MI 48106
© 2006 Thomas More Law Center
about us | resources | newsroom | donate |

Send A Link For This Article To A Friend

Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below

Democrat-Sponsored Bills Reveal Liberal Agenda

POLITICS / DEMOCRAT-SPONSORED BILLS REVEAL A LIBERAL AGENDA

CNS News Mast Head

Smiley Flag Waver
Democrats keep criticizing the Republican agenda, so let's look at some -- just some -- of the bills introduced in 2005 or 2006 by House Democrats, the Republican Study Committee says.

Politics

Democrat-Sponsored Bills Tell A Liberal Story

~ By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
October 20, 2006

(CNSNews.com) - Democrats keep criticizing the Republican agenda, so let's look at some -- just some -- of the bills introduced in 2005 or 2006 by House Democrats, the Republican Study Committee says.

(The Republican Study Committee is a group of about 110 House Republicans organized for the purpose of advancing a conservative social and economic agenda in the House of Representatives. It says it is dedicated to limited government, a strong national defense, the protection of individual and property rights, and the preservation of traditional family values.)

What follows is straight from the Republicans' press release:

Justice for the Unprotected against Sexually Transmitted Infections among the Confined and Exposed Act (JUSTICE) Act (Lee, D-CA)-H.R. 6083. Requires community organizations to be allowed to distribute sexual barrier protection devices (e.g. condoms) in federal prisons. Also prohibits a federal prison from taking adverse action against a prisoner who possesses or uses a sexual barrier protection device.

Crack-Cocaine Equitable Sentencing Act (Rangel, D-NY)-H.R. 2456. Eliminates the mandatory minimum sentence for crack-cocaine convictions.

Tupac Shakur Records Release Act of 2006 (McKinney, D-GA)-H.R. 4968. Enshrines copies of government records concerning rapper Tupac Shakur in a specially created collection at the National Archives.

Antibullying Campaign Act (Nadler, D-NY)-H.R. 3787. Creates a new federal grant program aimed at reducing bullying in public schools "based on any distinguishing characteristic of an individual."

To provide for coverage under the Medicare and Medicaid Programs of incontinence undergarments (Frank, D-MA)-H.R. 1052. Makes adult diapers a covered item under Medicare and Medicaid.

Gas Stamp Act (McDermott, D-WA)-H.R. 3712. Creates billions of dollars in gas stamps each year for people to get free gas, to be distributed to those already eligible for food stamps.

States' Rights to Medical Marijuana Act (Frank, D-MA)-H.R. 2087. Allows physicians in states with medical marijuana laws to prescribe marijuana without violating federal law.

Ex-Offenders Voting Rights Act (Rangel, D-NY)-H.R. 663. Allows those convicts who are just out of prison to vote.

Department of Peace and Nonviolence Act (Kucinich, D-OH)-H.R. 3760. Establishes a U.S. Department of Peace and Nonviolence, as well as a Peace Day. The department would promote "human rights," international conflict prevention, nonviolent intervention, structured mediation, and peaceful conflict resolution.

National Health Insurance Act (Dingell, D-MI)-H.R. 15. Institutes a new 5% value-added tax on property and services and creates a board to oversee payment to any individual for medical services not covered by Medicare.

Freedom of Choice Act (Nadler, D-NY)-H.R. 5151. Creates a right to unrestricted pre-viability abortions, and late terms abortions for the life and health of the mother.

End the War in Iraq Act (McGovern, D-MA)-H.R. 4232. Defunds the War in Iraq, forcing immediate troop withdrawal.

Public Interest Lawyer Assistance Relief Act (Andrews, D-NJ)-H.R. 1753. Forgives the law school debt for attorneys working for a tax-exempt organization or the government.

A Living Wage, Jobs for All Act (Lee, D-CA)-H.R. 1050. Builds on and strengthens FDR's "Economic Bill of Rights," creating rights to "decent" jobs, income for individuals unable to work, a "decent" living for farmers, freedom from monopolies, "decent" housing, "adequate" health care, Social Security, education, work training, collective bargaining, a safe working environment, information on trends in pollution sources and products and processes that affect the well-being of workers throughout the world, voting, and personal security. The bill also requires the Attorney General to create a registry of all corporations convicted of violating state or federal law.

Social Security Forever Act (Wexler, D-FL)-H.R. 2472. Imposes a new income tax on workers, employers, and self-employed businessmen to fund Social Security.

Health Security for All Americans Act (Baldwin, D-WI)-H.R. 2133. Requires states to create programs to ensure universal health coverage, and allows states to force employers to pay for health insurance for their employees.

Universal National Service Act (Rangel, D-NY)-H.R. 4752. Makes it an obligation of every U.S. citizen, and every other person residing in the U.S., between the ages of 18 and 42, to perform a two-year period of national service, either as a member of an active or reserve component of the armed forces or in a civilian capacity that promotes national defense.

Living American Wage Act (Green, D-TX)-H.R. 5731. Mandates that the federal minimum wage be equal to or greater than 112% of the federal poverty threshold beginning in 2007, and states that the minimum wage should be revised every four years.

Media Ownership Reform Act (Hinchey, D-NY)-H.R. 3302. Restricts ownership of radio and television stations, forcing some owners to divest their holdings, and regulates broadcast content.

Universal Education Act (Kind, D-WI)-H.R. 3930. Creates a Universal Education Corporation that provides taxpayer dollars to foreign countries that enter into education reform agreements with the U.S.

Medicare for All Act (Dingell, D-MI)-H.R. 4683. Increases taxes on workers and employers to offer to all citizens, and other individuals legally present in the U.S., Medicare benefits equivalent to the health care plans federal employees receive.

Menu Education and Labeling Act (DeLauro, D-CT)-H.R. 5563. Regulates what certain restaurants must print on their menus.

And then there are the proposed amendments to the U.S. Constitution:

-- regarding the right of all citizens of the United States to a public education of equal high quality (Jackson, D-IL)-H.J.Res. 29. Creates a constitutional right to equal public education.

-- regarding the right of citizens of the United States to health care of equal high quality (Jackson, D-IL)-H.J.Res. 30. Creates a constitutional right to equal health care.

-- respecting the right to decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable housing (Jackson, D-IL)-H.J.Res. 32 and Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States respecting the right to a home (Rangel, D-NY)-H.J.Res 40. Creates a constitutional right to housing.

-- respecting the right to full employment and balanced growth (Jackson, D-IL)-H.J.Res. 35. Creates a constitutional right to full employment.