This from the Susan B Anthony list:

The Obama Administration's roll-out of Department of Justice appointments has been like a greatest hits parade of abortion advocates.

The latest pro-abortion lawyer to go before the Senate for confirmation is the worst yet.

While it comes as no surprise that President Obama would nominate administration officials who share his pro-abortion beliefs, it is shocking that he would nominate someone as radical as Dawn Johnsen.

Here is a just a short list of Dawn Johnsen's pro-abortion record.

- Dawn Johnsen has worked for the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project and she was the legal director for the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL).

- Johnsen has compared pregnancy to slavery. In 1989, she wrote that abortion restrictions such as the partial-birth abortion ban and parental notification laws result in “forced pregnancies,”which she claimed amounts to “involuntary servitude."

- She has argued that the government should strip the Catholic Church and other religious denominations of their tax exempt status because of their pro-life advocacy.

- She was heavily involved in the authorship of the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), which would repeal every state and federal restriction on abortion and further enshrine abortion as the law of the land.

- In a paper given to mark the 35th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, she said the first priority of the progressive agenda was to “focus on the courts as the vehicle of desired change.”

The Office of Legal Counsel advises the federal government on how to interpret policy, law, and regulations in light of the Constitution. In other words, Dawn Johnsen will determine the legal course of the entire government.

I see nothing bi-partisan here!

Hello gal:

I'm sorry. Abortion in this country is legal. It should be no surprise that he appoints lawyers to the Justice Department who support the present law. As a matter of fact, it would be surprising if he appointed people to the Justice Department who DIDN'T believe in the law.

That's was what Gonzales did, and he STILL doesn't have a job after he disgraced himself like that.

excon

Excon,

That's the correct answer, here you go: 17922

Abortion in this country is legal. It should be no surprise that he appoints lawyers to the Justice Department who support the present law.

She was heavily involved in the authorship of the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), which would repeal every state and federal restriction on abortion and further enshrine abortion as the law of the land.


Ex what happened to your defense of federalism ?

Ex what happened to your defense of federalism ?Hello again, tom:

There are some things that are the states business and other things that aren't. One's civil rights, as guaranteed to us under the Constitution, aren't the states business.

excon

What about the civil rights of the murdered baby ?

what about the civil rights of the murdered baby ?There is no murdered baby so the question is moot.

what about the civil rights of the murdered baby ?Hello again, tom:

Show me where they are in the Constitution, and I'll be right there with you.

But, this isn't about Roe v Wade. It's about using the Justice Department to forward a political philosophy...

It's true. Alberto Gonzales still doesn't know that what he did, isn't something he should have done. Apparently, you guys are STILL lost about stuff like that. I don't know why.

excon

It's about using the Justice Department to forward a political philosophy...


Or SCOTUS imposing national solutions on what previously was a federalism issue. I contend that some kind of national consensus on this issue would've been achieved ,or closer to resolution, if Roe had not ruled on by SCOTUS .


Show me where they are in the Constitution, and I'll be right there with you

Ummm first words in the Preamble about the right to life.

Show me where taking another life is a civil right.

Hello again, tom:

Roe v Wade isn't good law. But, it's better than what we had before.

Hard as it may be to believe, you're preaching to the choir.

Many of my political positions distinguish between how I, personally, would act, and how I want my government to act. This would be one of those.

excon

Show me where taking another life is a civil right.

You have no problem when your government takes anothers life on your behalf.

Correct . When someone serves notice on society that he/she is a predator then I have no moral qualm with the death penalty because they have forfeited their right to life. Maybe that distinction escapes you because of relativism but to me there is a big difference between that person and the most innocent of society .

Maybe by the end of the Obama years this writer will have his wish.

It's Time for an Abortion Pride Movement (http://www.opposingviews.com/articles/opinion-it-s-time-for-an-abortion-pride-movement)


Somehow, many supporters of abortion rights have been lulled into accepting the rhetoric that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare.” That may be good language for winning elections, but it does a profound disservice to the millions of women who have abortions in this nation each year. Abortions should be safe and legal. That goes without saying. But rare? Abortions should be as frequent or as infrequent as are unwanted pregnancies. I dream of the day when women are not afraid to walk the streets with pins reading, “I had an abortion and it was the right decision,” and when station wagons bear bumper-stickers announcing, “Thank me for having an abortion when I wasn’t ready to be a parent.” I admire those individuals who work to ensure a women’s right to choose. But choice is a merely a foundation. Ultimately, women—if they so desire—should feel comfortable expressing public pride in their brave and wise choices.

This "bioethicist" apparently thinks there should be one abortion for every unwanted pregnancy. And that my friends is why we should proceed with caution in endorsing such radical judges. Regardless of your view of abortion we should all be able to agree that the fewer the better, as opposed to the day when "Honk if you had an abortion" bumper stickers are something to be proud of.

There is no murdered baby so the question is moot.

This is only tangent to the OP, but since you brought it up, I want to say something.

You claim to have a lot of respect for science, but science does NOT support your statement. I have read posts where you called a baby a blob of cells.

From the moment of conceptiion, every cell has a purpose, is not misplaced. That is a human life, perfect and complete for that moment in its development. All it needs is time to become an adult.

How much time? We consider a person adult when they become 18 years old.

Shall we say it is OK to terminate that life at the age of 17 years? After all, it is not fully developed yet.

But we have Obama and his appointee calling for return to even partial birth abortion. Surely you do not think that is right, do you?

Babies move and respond to stimuli very early in the pregnancy. By the time life is felt by the mother, the brain is already being formed. At what point does the baby feel pain?

When the killer with the degree cuts that baby into pieces, does it feel anything?

When that baby comes to birth, and that doctor plunges scissors into its head and proceeds to vacuum the brain out, do you think it might hurt?

But of course as long as you can deceive yourself that it is just a blob of cells, you won't be disturbed.

Hello Righty's:

Roe v Wade is NOT going to get overturned. If it EVER was going to be, it would have been in the dufus administration, while the court was 5 to 4.

But, that shot is LONG gone. It's time you got over it. Oh, you should keep on mentioning it as a wish list, kind of like I wish pot would be legal.

But, to expect that your views will get a hearing in the Obama administration, is like whistling Dixie.

excon

But, to expect that your views will get a hearing in the Obama administration, is like whistling Dixie.

Gee, then he shouldn't have made so much about how "bipartisan" he would be if he had no intention of listening to us at all.

Gee, then he shouldn't have made so much about how "bipartisan" he would be if he had no intention of listening to us at all.Hello again, Steve:

No. YOU shouldn't make so much about it. I don't know why you think bipartisanship means voting for Republican stuff. It doesn't.

Certainly, the Republicans in congress aren't voting for any Democrat stuff.

Maybe the days of bipartisanship are gone. Oh well.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

No. YOU shouldn't make so much about it. I don't know why you think bipartisanship means voting for Republican stuff. It doesn't.

I'm still amazed at how quickly minds have changed since Jan. 20. Before that it was an OUTRAGE that the president didn't keep his promise of reaching across the aisle... now we should just sit down and shut up and not expect the president to keep his promises. Sorry, but it's still MY America, too, just like it was for the other side all those agonizing Bush years.

I think I've posted the definition of bipartisan (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bipartisan) twice now, so once more for posterity:


of, relating to, or involving members of two parties ; specifically : marked by or involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties

I have never spoken from the position that bipartisan means "voting for Republican stuff," unlike the left who ALWAYS speaks of bipartisan from the position of voting for liberal stuff.

Many of my political positions distinguish between how I, personally, would act, and how I want my government to act. This would be one of those.

That's a cop-out Excon, and you know it.

If something is wrong, then it is wrong, and whether it is done by the government or by individuals doesn't change that fact. It isn't wrong for individuals but right for the government. It's just wrong.

I believe that ponzi schemes are wrong. I believe they are wrong whether they are done by individuals (Bernie Madoff) or by the government (Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid).

I believe that necessary killing in self defense or defense of others is RIGHT, whether done by an individual (Bernie Goetz) or by the government (cops and soldiers and capital punishment).

I believe that murdering babies is wrong, whether done by individuals (the Texas Mom murders) or by government sanction (abortion).

This whole concept of "I believe it is wrong but I grant others the right to do it" is just an excuse to not stand up for what I believe in. Its an excuse to back down from principals... or perhaps not have principals at all on this issue.

Elliot

Why, oh why is the right to life the domain of either political party?

Go ahead, then, ignore your conscience and kill off all those future taxpayers.

Then be prepared when the survivors (those not deleted) embrace your philosophy about life and pass laws to delete all you over the age of maybe 65.

After all, that would be fair wouldn't it? You delete those under the total age of 9 months and then you get deleted at age 65.

PS: Be sure to provide well for what little retirement you may get because there will be no younger generation able to help you.

This is why I expect my views to get a hearing in the Obama administration (besides the fact that I am an American), this was his promise from his acceptance speech:


I will listen to you, especially when we disagree.

ESPECIALLY when we disagree. Apparently not.

And right on cue, Democrat Senator Patty Murray gives a prime example of liberal "bipartisanship." Instead of having any discussion on Obama's $3.55 trillion dollar budget she said "now is not the time to sit back and criticize (http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE52G3OX20090324?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&rpc=22&sp=true)... in a open warning to Republicans."

Yep, that's the left's idea of "bipartisanship," shut up and let us screw up your country. I intend to E-Mail Senator Murray (http://murray.senate.gov/email/index.cfm) right now and get in her face about the proposed budget.

Hello again, speech:

Criticism and just saying no, isn't bipartisanship either...

excon

Speech.. Please.. You guys got whooped. There is no mandate for your policies whatsoever. He can listen to you but it doesn't mean he has to agree. That doesn't make him a liar. He just disagrees with you. That's why you didn't vote for him. But you got beat! You had your chance and blew it.

Yeah I get it, because my guy lost (even though my guy wasn't even in the running) I should follow the example of all the losers over the past 8 years and just watch my country go to hell without uttering a peep.

Go ahead, then, ignore your conscience and kill off all those future taxpayers.

Then be prepared when the survivors (those not deleted) embrace your philosophy about life and pass laws to delete all you over the age of maybe 65.


Excellent observation. If you can't reach them on the immorality of their position then you have to convince them on the logical conclusion to their actions.
The depleted generation will be expected to fund the statist generation's old age with higher taxes. Eventually they will be the generation in control... then watch out!

Speaking of "deleting" people, one of Gordon Brown's "green advisers" says the UK must delete some people to save the environment (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5950442.ece).


JONATHON PORRITT, one of Gordon Brown’s leading green advisers, is to warn that Britain must drastically reduce its population if it is to build a sustainable society.

Porritt’s call will come at this week’s annual conference of the Optimum Population Trust (OPT), of which he is patron.

The trust will release research suggesting UK population must be cut to 30m if the country wants to feed itself sustainably.

“Each person in Britain has far more impact on the environment than those in developing countries so cutting our population is one way to reduce that impact.”

Population growth is one of the most politically sensitive environmental problems. The issues it raises, including religion, culture and immigration policy, have proved too toxic for most green groups.

However, Porritt is winning scientific backing. Professor Chris Rapley, director of the Science Museum, will use the OPT conference, to be held at the Royal Statistical Society, to warn that population growth could help derail attempts to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

I say everyone with Porritt's view should be the first to volunteer for deletion. But of course they won't, they will note where the problem lies however...


Many experts believe that, since Europeans and Americans have such a lopsided impact on the environment, the world would benefit more from reducing their populations than by making cuts in developing countries.

Of course! Pare down the western world, I'm sure they'll suggest Americans be "cut" first. This article uses the term as if people are just earmarks to be slashed out of the budget.

I think with our own demographic decline , fortified by the genocide of 50 million babies since 1973, that we have already made strides in culling our herd. That is one argument the pro-illegal immigrant crowd uses ;that we don't have enough workers to fund future entitlements.

Speech.. Please.. You guys got whooped.

Skell... please... a 52% to 48% election result doesn't constitute a "whoopin".


There is no mandate for your policies whatsoever.

Per Rasmussen as of today (3/25/09) the "Strongly Approve" rating of Obama is 36%, compared to the "Strongly Disapprove" rating of 31%. 59% of Americans think that the US is on the wrong track. As of 3/17, 44% favor Obama's budget, while 45% view it unfavorably. 49% are very concerned and 27% are somewhat concerned that the budget will increase government spending too much.

If Republicans don't have a mandate for their policies, then neither does Obama.


He can listen to you but it doesn't mean he has to agree. That doesn't make him a liar. He just disagrees with you. That's why you didn't vote for him. But you got beat! You had your chance and blew it.

All true. But then don't get all gooshy over Obama's supposed "bipartisanship" and "a post-partisan America". It doesn't exist, and Obama never intended to be bipartisan. I have no issue with that. Just call it what it is.

Elliot

Many experts believe that, since Europeans and Americans have such a lopsided impact on the environment, the world would benefit more from reducing their populations than by making cuts in developing countries.

Certainly a Brit baby will leave a bigger carbon footprint than an African baby.
But since the largest growth of population in England is immigration ;I just wonder how Porritt squares that to his views.

certainly a Brit baby will leave a bigger carbon footprint than an African baby.
But since the largest growth of population in England is immigration ;I just wonder how Porritt squares that to his views.

I was wondering the same thing - and yes I'll say it this time - considering the rate of Muslim immigration in Europe and their high birth rate (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,510364,00.html). I can't wait for Porritt to target specific areas of concern such as this.

Hello again:

Let's talk about that for a minute...

You righty's seem to have a problem with Europe being overwhelmed with Muslims, the southwest being overwhelmed by Mexicans, and Israel being overwhelmed by Palestinians.

That bothers you a lot, and you want to DO something about it.

What?

excon

Hello again:

Let's talk about that for a minute.....

You righty's seem to have a problem with Europe being overwhelmed with Muslims, the southwest being overwhelmed by Mexicans, and Israel being overwhelmed by Palestinians.

That bothers you a lot, and you want to DO something about it.

What?

excon

1) Border control.
2) Border control.
3) Border control.
4) Stop listening to what other countries say we shuld be doing or what they think is fair and just do what needs doing. Even if other people don't like us for it.
5) Stop trying to fight using marquise of queensbury rules. Stop trying to be nice and honorable to the enemy. They don't fight using honorable rules. Ergo, we should not be using them either.
6) Border Control.
6) Stop being PC in defense of our country. We should not be looking at the blue-haired old lady as a terrorism suspect. We SHOULD be profiling based on ethnicity, religion, age, and anything else that makes it likely that certain people are terrorist. Almost every major terrorist attack against the USA in the past 20 years or so has been committed by Muslim males between the ages of 18 and 40. It simply makes sense for us to be looking at such people closer than everyone else. Political correctness be damned.
7) BORDER CONTROL.
8) Stop treating Muslims and Mexicans like a protected spieces. They are not endangered animals in need of our protection. The fact that CAIR complains about the fact that 4 people who were deliberately attempting to scare people on an airplane by acting suspicious got kicked off the plane is not a reason for us to cowtow to the sensibilities of radical Muslims with a political agenda. The fact that the Mexican consolate or some La Raza attorney complains that Mexicans' personal rights were abrogated as they were being captured by American officials or citizens as they crossed our border illegally is not a reason for us to be worried about what they think. If they want to be treated with respect, they should act respectably. Till then, any "rights" that are trod upon by those who are attempting to keep the peace and maintain security in our country should not be a factor in our decision making..
9) Have I mentioned BORDER CONTROL.
10) BORDER CONTROL

That is what I would like to do about it.

Elliot

Hello again, El:

Closing ANY of the aforementioned borders won't stop those areas from being overwhelmed by the "enemy". They'll take them over by propagation alone.

The problem, as I've outlined it, isn't going away.

Certainly, there's NO Palestinian immigration into Israel, yet the Jews will be overwhelmed by the Israeli Arabs sometime in the near future.

Same thing with the others... Whatcha going to do about that?

excon

Hello again, El:
Certainly, there's NO Palestinian immigration into Israel, yet the Jews will be overwhelmed by the Israeli Arabs sometime in the near future.
excon

I can't say about the others, but you are wrong about Israel. She will remain a country from now on. It is written in the Book. She will be bloodied and diminished temporarily, but will endure as a Jewish state.

Hello again, El:

Closing ANY of the aforementioned borders won't stop those areas from being overwhelmed by the "enemy". They'll take them over by propagation alone.



So the Arabists would like us to believe. I don't buy it.

First of all, the birth rates are not as disparate as some would have us believe. Have you ever seen a Chasidic family in Meah Shearim? Very few such families have fewer than 10 children, and most have more than that. Orthodox Jews in particular (especially chasiddim) are growing significantly in number.

Secondly, the Palestinians Arabs keep killing themselves off either through infighting between their factions, or by attacking superior military forces. Having lots of people willing to committ suicide is not conducive to population growth. Israeli Arabs, however, have significantly smaller families than Palestinian Arabs. They tend to be wealthier, and as in most parts of the third world, wealth equates to smaller family units, whereas being poor seems to create larger families.

Israel does have the problem of a fifth column from within. But it is not a growing problem, it's a stable problem. However, if Israel grants Palestinian Muslims the Right of Return, it WILL be a growing problem. So border control is the best and most efffective method to stop the problem.

Finally, you ignored much of my response regarding how to treat those enemies who are among you already. Not treating them like as special group to be handled with kid gloves, not giving them special rights and considerations, not worrying about what others thinks about how we treat them, not being PC in our treatment of them... all of these are part of the solution to keep the enemy from being able to act against us from within. Closing the border just keeps the problem from growing. Handling those who are among us properly makes the problem more manageble.

Elliot

Speaking of Obama nominees, take a look at Harold Koh (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025455.php), set to become the State Department's legal adviser.


President Obama has nominated Koh -- until last week the dean of Yale Law School -- to be the State Department's legal adviser. In that job, Koh would forge a wide range of international agreements on issues from trade to arms control, and help represent our country in such places as the United Nations and the International Court of Justice.

It's a job where you want a strong defender of America's sovereignty. But that's not Koh. He's a fan of "transnational legal process," arguing that the distinctions between US and international law should vanish.

What would this look like in a practical sense? Well, California voters have overruled their courts, which had imposed same-sex marriage on the state. Koh would like to see such matters go up the chain through federal courts -- which, in turn, should look to the rest of the world. If Canada, the European Human Rights Commission and the United Nations all say gay marriage should be legal -- well, then, it should be legal in California too, regardless of what the state's voters and elected representatives might say.

He even believes judges should use this "logic" to strike down the death penalty, which is clearly permitted in the US Constitution.

The primacy of international legal "norms" applies even to treaties we reject. For example, Koh believes that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child -- a problematic document that we haven't ratified -- should dictate the age at which individual US states can execute criminals. Got that? On issues ranging from affirmative action to the interrogation of terrorists, what the rest of the world says, goes.

Including, apparently, the world of radical imams. A New York lawyer, Steven Stein, says that, in addressing the Yale Club of Greenwich in 2007, Koh claimed that "in an appropriate case, he didn't see any reason why sharia law would not be applied to govern a case in the United States."

Seriously now, what do libs have against national sovereignty and living under the constitution they complain Bush emasculated? And this one really gets me, how can they complain of blurring the lines between church and state but be fine with a little Sharia law?

In Roper v. Simmons, the 2005 decision that struck down the death penalty for juvenile offenders Justice Kennedy wrote this drivel :
“The opinion of the world community, while not controlling our outcome, does provide respected and significant confirmation for our own conclusions.”

He then cited the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, and the Criminal Justice Act from the United Kingdom.
In Lawrence v. Texas Kennedy cited three decisions of the European Court of Human Rights,that homosexual conduct was accepted as “an integral part of human freedom” in many countries.

Too frequently our black robed oligarchs look to cite international norms when deciding cases and making precedential rulings.

Recently retired Justice O'Conner said citing international norms is just good pr .

“I suspect that with time we will rely increasingly on international and foreign law in resolving what now appear to be domestic issues,” ...“Doing so may not only enrich our own country's decisions; it will create that all-important good impression. When U.S. courts are seen to be cognizant of other judicial systems, our ability to act as a rule-of-law model for other nations will be enhanced.”

Yeah ,great idea!! Let's use the decisions of the Mullahs in Tehran as a guide. Even if one says that they only want to cite specific Western nation laws; the fact is that it may be good for them but turn our legal system upside down .

As Justice Scalia said in his dissent of Roper
“The basic premise of the court's argument — that American law should conform to the laws of the rest of the world — ought to be rejected out of hand,”....or as Chief Justice Scalia said in his confirmation hearing .
“Looking at foreign law for support is like looking out over a crowd and picking out your friends.”

Hello again:

I don't know what you guys are sweating... We don't even obey our OWN laws, so I don't think you got anything to worry about.

Who cares what they write down in their books? I only care about the law that is enforced... And, we got PLENTY that aren't being enforced, and aren't going to BE enforced.

Yeah, I'm talking about putting war criminals on trial. We DO have a law against that, don't we?

excon

Koh in 2007 told the Yale Club of Greenwich that "in an appropriate case, he didn't see any reason why Shariah law would not be applied to govern a case in the United States."


He also said "I'd rather have [Supreme Court Justice Harry] Blackmun, (who uses flawed reasoning in Roe v. Wade)... get the right results, and let other people figure out the right reasoning."

Worse then him being in State ;He's on many liberals' short lists for SCOTUS .If he has no problems in his Senate confirmation hearings for this post ,expect him to be nominated to the Supremes when a position opens.

Koh could be Dingy Harry and Barney Frank's chance to get a real moderate on the court as opposed to that liar John Roberts (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20560.html) or that homophobe Scalito (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/25/frank.qanda/). Koh seems the perfect choice to get those "right results" without all that legal reasoning those guys bring.

Koh could be Dingy Harry and Barney Frank's chance to get a real moderate on the court as opposed to that liar John Roberts (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20560.html) or that homophobe Scalito (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/25/frank.qanda/). Koh seems the perfect choice to get those "right results" without all that legal reasoning those guys bring.

Be careful Speech. You know some of these people just don't understand saracasm!