We want to thank our readers for their patience in our not publishing an article since last Saturday, April 30th.

We have been in the process of moving our site to a public hosting service provided by our Sponsor, Computers & Things, Inc. and their web hosting division, C & T Free BSD Web Hosting Services.

We also want to thank WordPress, who develops one of the finest blogging software packages in existence. Their programmers along with the Open Source Community manufacture, and maintain the software which results in what you see before you.

WordPress also has a community of developers who make themes for use with WordPress. The theme you see now is called Journalized-Sand, and is programmed by Mike Little, and a big thanks go to him as well.

C & T Web Hosting Services employs a sub-contractor from time to time to perform tasks they need assistance with. Travis Owens of Linux MD’s, is one of those sub-contractors. Travis has been invaluable with his help exporting the old MySql data, and importing it into the new. Travis also helped with the modifications to the Journalized-Sand theme.

We want to end this post, by thanking you for your continued reading and encouragement as we strive to make a difference in our government, and our society.

We will resume our regular publishing later this afternoon, or tomorrow morning.

The problem with absurdity is that at some point people will no longer believe what you have to say.

For instance, in this article entitled, Clear skies end global dimming, the writer tells us that because of major steps taken in the last two decades, our skies have cleared up immensely. More sunlight is reaching the earth’s surface now than it was in 1980.

The article then hypothesizes the following:

“Researchers will now focus on working out the long-term effects of clearer air. One thing they do know is that black particulate matter in the air has been contributing a cooling effect to the ground. “It is clear that the greenhouse effect has been partly masked in the past by air pollution,” says Andreas Macke, a meteorologist at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in Kiel, Germany. “

So now what are we to think? We have been told for the last thirty years to decrease pollution in the air because it causes global warming and the green-house effect. Now we are told we have done our job, and have cleaned up the air immensely, and that causes global warming as well.

We wonder just how much “science” people have the gullibility to swallow. The most fascinating thing is that they do.

Building upon last week’s assertion, that today’s SCOTUS opinions are built on non-existent precedents, we want to further explore the ramifications of such practices.

We want to explore the issue of the nonexistent “right to privacy”. You may read the United States Constitution from beginning to end, and will not find any general right to privacy clause in it. It simply is not there. The framers did not assume such a right to exist, because criminal and evil activity could take place behind such a cloak of darkness, and individuals would escape accountability for such acts. There are numerous statutes on the books against such crimes as murder, incest, or rape among many others. If such crimes as the above were committed in the privacy of one’s own home, with a general right to privacy, the offending individuals would never face prosecution based on a broad right to (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

The writer of Proverbs says the following of a virtuous woman:

10 ¶ Who may make discovery of a woman of virtue? For her price is much higher than jewels.
11 The heart of her husband has faith in her, and he will have profit in full measure.
12 She does him good and not evil all the days of her life.
13 She gets wool and linen, working at the business of her hands.
14 She is like the trading-ships, getting food from far away.
15 She gets up while it is still night, and gives meat to her family, and their food to her servant-girls.
16 After looking at a field with care, she gets it for a price, planting a vine-garden with the profit of her work.
17 She puts a band of (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

Captain Ed over at Captain’s Quarters Blog has a story entitled, Singapore Shuts Down A Critical Blogger about a Blogger being shutdown by his government for criticizing one of their agencies. The downed site, along with the apology to the agency can be found here.

Captain Ed’s response is the following:

“Both Reporters Without Borders and the Committee to Protect Journalists have taken a look at Chen’s battle with Singapore’s elite. Chen’s surrender is certainly understandable, but unfortunate. Less understandable is the acquiescence of traditional media outlets in paying these judgements, as the article implies, and their silence to this point about the practice of Singapore’s leaders. Rather than comply with these blatant attempts to stifle free speech, the larger outlets should simply stop reporting from Singapore and give better coverage to the government’s opposition movements from bases outside Singapore.

Sometimes I wonder if (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

Hugh Hewitt, has an excellent article today entitled, Old Media tries to cover the radicalism of Senate Democrats. That article does an excellent job of describing the “smoke and mirrors” of MSM, and their reasons for trying to provide a cover for their favorite political party. As for the reason to gloss over the Democrat obstructionism of the judicial nominees, he writes this:

“The reason the Post and others in old media refuse to tell this story in an objective way is because it throws a harsh light on their favored party. (See Patterico for one example of how the Los Angeles Times twists the facts.) But ignoring the history doesn’t change the history (Daly Thoughts has a lot of the history) and intoning that a Republican majority blocked 60 of Clinton’s judges in committee doesn’t change the history of the filibuster. (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

In an E-Mail sent out on Monday by Ken Mehlman, Chairman of the RNC, he asked for a petition to be signed. The petition was to ask all Senators to support Majority Leader Frist’s compromise. We did not sign the petition, because we don’t want a compromise.

Several articles in blogs, and newspapers have mentioned Senate Minority Harry Reid’s statement yesterday found here, which includes the following:

” This fight is not about seven radical nominees; it’s about clearing the way for a Supreme Court nominee who only needs 51 votes, instead of 60 votes. They want a Clarence Thomas, not a Sandra Day O’Connor or Anthony Kennedy or David Souter.”

That’s the first completely honest statement ever spoken from Senator Reid, and that is indeed the whole point. If we are to expect a constitutional up or down vote on a Supreme Court Nominee, the (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

From all we have read concerning John Bolton, most of the criticism has come from charges that have no basis in fact. Is he tough minded? Is he no non-sense? Does he speak his mind? The answers to all these questions are yes.

These are qualities few people at the United Nations understand or appreciate, but they are qualities that are desperately needed by the next ambassador to that body. We need him to communicate to the UN, just how irrelevant they have become, and to force the corruption to be cleaned up. The UN has become a cesspool of scandal, and criminality which must be dealt with. The corruption ranges from unbridled sexually perverted peacekeepers in Africa, to unethical fraudulent oil-for-food criminals, which reaches to the highest levels.

Our next Ambassador to the UN, must take a message from the majority of the American people who are tired of paying taxes supporting the kind of conduct which is currently taking place there now.

The Senate needs to confirm him today, and let him take his place alongside all the other true leaders who have represented us in the past.

You have got to hear this speech made on the Senate Floor by Senator Robert Byrd, to bolster his support in maintaining the unconstitutional use of the filibuster against judicial nominees. The speech, which is basically a commentary on the Book of Esther from the Bible, contains one of the most radical applications ever set forth from this book of Holy Scripture.

Radio Blogger writes the following concerning this speech and Senator Byrd:

“The chief proponent to save the judicial filibuster, the filibuster that never existed before the year 2000, is Robert Byrd of West Virginia. He was once a Kleagle in the Ku Klux Klan. He once filibustered against the Civil Rights Act. He acted without any reservation four times to restrict the minority’s rights to filibuster by way of a rule interpretation through the Chair four times, exactly like Frist wants to do now once. He wants unlimited debate. He wants to be able to filibuster endlessly. Keep that in mind. Then listen to this:

byrdesther“

We hope the American public takes the opportunity to hear the kind of logic being used by Democrat Senators such as Senator Byrd. Once they really listen to speeches like this one, how can they refrain from supporting the movement to eliminate the filibuster on judicial nominees?

As we examine once again the right to privacy issue which we began exploring last week, we want to look at the next step taken by the SCOTUS in “legislating” this right and all related rights into law.

We left off last week with Griswold v. Connecticut, and how a case involving contraceptives evolved into this issue. In 1972, seven years after Griswold, the Court took under consideration, contraceptives and unmarried couples. Griswold was about the use of contraceptives, but Massachusetts had laws restricting their distribution. William Baird, during the course of a speech at Boston University on birth control and overpopulation, gave a contraceptive to a young lady. He was promptly arrested and convicted with the case ending up in the SCOTUS on the lone issue of distribution in Eisenstadt v. Baird, and the Fourteenth Amendment on equal protection grounds.

Mark Levin, quoting Justice William (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

So often we travel through life just drifting, flowing with the wind wherever it blows. We then reach a point where we ask ourselves why are we here? Who am I?. What am I supposed to do with my life? What is my purpose?

Did you ever buy a new car and actually read the owner’s manual? Did you ever buy a new TV and read the user’s manual? How about a computer? Did you ever read the manual that comes with a computer?

You would be amazed at the amount of information contained in the manuals mentioned above. If you want to know how to set the radio properly in your car, look it up in the owner’s manual. If you want to know how to hook up your TV to your surround sound system, just look it up in the user’s manual.

We remember a story that our (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

We are going to start off with an editorial published in the Wall Street Opinion Journal today entitled, How We Got Here: Why Republicans can’t let the judicial filibuster succeed. The writer’s main point is as follows:

“As for Republicans who want to preserve the option of filibustering a future nominee, it’d be just as wrong for them to do so. And Democrats willing to use the filibuster to block judges would not have any qualms about using the nuclear option themselves to kill a filibuster in the future. Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer believe in the “whatever it takes” school of politics.

This is at its core a political fight, and elections ought to mean something. Republicans have gained Senate seats in two consecutive elections in which judicial nominations were among the most important issues, including against the Senate Minority Leader. The one Democrat from (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

The “paper of record”, the New York Times, has pronounced a detonation of the “constitutional - nuclear - Byrd” option to take place tomorrow. In an article published today entitled, Senate Leaders Break Off Talks on Judicial Nominees, Carl Hulse states the following:

“Dr. Frist and Mr. Reid have been exploring similar approaches in proposals and counterproposals over a few weeks. Dr. Frist now intends to advance two nominees, two state Supreme Court justices, Priscilla R. Owen of Texas and Janice Rogers Brown of California, on Wednesday.”

CBS News also indicates the showdown is imminent. Their article is here.

Finally, Radio Blogger thinks it will happen tomorrow as well if the Times story above is true. See his comments here.

If the day of reckoning has finally come and you have not made your opinions known to your Senators. DUH! (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

Bellicose is the word to describe what is currently happening on the Senate Floor with the pronouncements being made by Senate Democrats. Their desperate attempt to hold onto their tyrannical minority obstructionism is not only unconstitutional, it is wrong. The accusations being made against the Republican Majority, and Judicial Nominees Owen and Brown are no longer an attempt to debate the qualifications of the nominees, but a smear campaign against them personally, and each Republican Senator who supports the option to end nominee filibusters.

The whole idea of filibustering judicial nominees is a ploy to govern by minority rule in a nation where the majority is granted the constitutional right to govern. The same avenue of tyrannical minority rule is the chosen vehicle of Liberal Democrats through activist judges in the courts. Thus the sparks, outbursts, tantrums, and vehement blustering are spewing forth in the futile hope of hanging (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

While we wait for the Senate to finally finish debate on the two current judicial nominees before them, we should take a look at how it is progressing.

On the one hand, Red State is reporting here that Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., has finally gotten the fence post pulled out, and is now supporting Senate Majority Leader Frist’s effort to end judicial nominee filibustering. Here is the excerpt:

“Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., for weeks said he was undecided on whether to back a move by Frist, if it comes. Wednesday, he officially rejected signing on to a compromise.

“I believe that all of the president’s nominees deserve an up or down vote,” Hagel said, quoted by spokesman Mike Buttry. “The agreement that has been proposed calls for three of the president’s nominees not to get a vote. I could not agree to that. That is (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

Senator Elizabeth Dole, writes these words via the Washington Times, in an op-ed piece entitled, Nominees deserve better. Here is the excerpt:

“Resorting to half-truths and invective to advance a political objective — the establishment of a new 60-vote supermajority requirement for the confirmation of federal judges — is deeply unfair to those who have spent a lifetime building reputations for fairness and intellectual probity.”

She further writes the following:

“While the Democrats cannot plausibly justify overturning more than 200 years of Senate tradition by filibustering the president’s judicial nominees, let’s also remember it is equally unacceptable to treat these nominees as political pinatas to further this aim.
Justices Owen and Brown, and Judge Boyle have earned their reputations as common-sense jurists who apply the law fairly and impartially. Attacking their good names will not diminish the simple fact that they (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

As we continue to wait for what could be one of the most historic votes ever taken in the United States Senate, it would be a good idea to review what some in the past have said concerning the Senate’s role of advice and consent. If Senate Democrats continue to insist on “minority” rule, Senate Republicans are poised to force on option to enforce majority rule, that would restore constitutionality to the process involving judicial nominees.

During the debate for ratifying the Constitution in the State of Virginia, James Monroe had the following to say concerning the appointment of judicial nominees by the President of the United States. Along with the President’s role, he enumerates the Senate’s role in advice and consent. Here is the excerpt from the debate held on June 10, 1788:

“He is to nominate, and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

Robert Novak has a commentary on Real Clear Politics this morning which backs our theory we published here, yesterday. His commentary, Senate’s Sham Debate outlines the following:

“Senators droned on last week, supposedly debating two female nominees for the U.S. appellate bench, but it was a sham. The real issue was the future makeup of the Supreme Court, which explains the audacious Democratic strategy of blocking President Bush’s choices for lower courts. The focus on the high court also has resulted in failure so far in seeking a negotiated settlement.”

Sen. Allen predicts showdown will end in ‘nuclear option’ in a Washington Times article written by James G. Lakely and Charles Hurt.

Confirm Them has all the latest on the filibuster, here.

As we have written here before, filibustering is about power, control of the (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

What follows is the Oath of Office taken by every Senator prior to being seated in the Senate of the United States of America.

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

The source of the oath is taken from the Senate website found here.

These seven Republican Senators broke their oath of office and defied the constitution, when signing onto the “compromise deal”. The States they represent are in parentheses.

John McCain (AR)
John Warner (VA)
Mike DeWine (OH)
(Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

Time is running our for public comment to the FEC in their proposed rulemaking regarding the internet. The deadline is June 3, 2005.

If you are a blogger, blog reader, or a friend to blogs, you should make your opinion known to the FEC.

You may sign on to the 11 Principles for Online Freedom already written up with the Center for Democracy & Technology and the Institute for Politics, Technology, and The Internet. The address for their sign-up is Center for Democracy and Technology.

If you would like to write your own comments, you can find help and instruction from Red State.org, here, or from DailyKos.com, here.

Please visit the The Online Coalition and help them to educate the FEC.

Our thanks to Confirm Them for their editorial today, On the constitutionality of Senate Rule XXII:, which points to the John Jay Hooker Center for Election and Campaign Finance Reform.

Mr. Hooker wrote in an artical yesterday, entitled, Senator Frist is Right - Compromise is Wrong, where he makes a compelling case that judicial nominee filibustering is un-constitutional. This is what he wrote:

“Sen. Frist has every right, and indeed the duty, to see that every presidential nominee for the Federal bench at every level gets an up or down vote. That is the constitutional requirement, notwithstanding the fact that the Senate for 200 years has failed to acknowledge the constitutional requirement set out in Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2, which mandates that the Senate advise and consent with respect to all judicial nominees. The requirement is (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

Peggy Noonan is at her finest in this piece in the Wall Street Opinion Journal, entitled, Mr. Narcissus Goes to Washington. This is just enough to make you go read the whole article:

“John McCain wryly reminded us not to miss A&E’s biography of his heroic Vietnam experience. Joe Lieberman referred to the group as “this band of brothers, and sisters.” But my favorite was Lindsey Graham, who said, “I know there will be folks ‘back home’ who will be angry, but that’s only because they’re not as sophisticated and high-minded as I am. Actually they’re rather stupid, which is why they’re not in the Senate and I am. But I have 3 1/2 years to charm them out of their narrow-minded resentments, and watch me, baby.”

Oh, excuse me, that’s not what he said. That’s only what he meant. It was the invisible scroll as (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

Just like the writers at Red State, we too have a day job, and have to make a living for our family, so here are a couple of interesting links.

First, Hugh Hewitt has two great articles. The first is, A house on fire. Here is a part:

“Whether this was a blunder or a plan to recover from a blunder, we won’t know for years. Mr. McCain at first said he would “listen to the leadership” regarding judicial nomination procedure, only to suddenly, on an apparent impulse, declare to Chris Matthews that he would vote against ending the disfigured filibuster. The backlash against him was immediate and intense. Perhaps he thought he could undo the damage to his carefully planned political rehabilitation with a bold “compromise.” The result seems just the opposite. Not only is his political house on fire, so too is (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

Today, we want to continue our discourse on the “right to privacy” issue we have been exploring in our previous Saturday Evening Judicial Review Posts, which can be read by clicking on that category on your left. We have already noted how we got to the point where we are, and how that has been done by bits and pieces in both majority and minority opinions handed down by the SCOTUS in various cases up to the issue before us today.

Today we want to look at Roe v. Wade. We will only give a synopsis of how Roe became Constitutional law. If you want to know more concerning the influences which effected the minds and opinions of the Justices who supported this decision, you will need to purchase and read Men In Black written by Mark R. Levin. You can purchase the book by clicking (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

We found a story in the Washington Times, which we would like to relay to you here. The story is entitled, Empty table honors all U.S. MIAs, POWs. It is a great story, and it promotes what might be a new tradition in the US. It could be used to honor our fallen heroes in a way which will help our children remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice to insure our freedom and democracy today.

Our thanks to Bruce Smith, who originally wrote it for the Associated Press. Here is the story:

“MOUNT PLEASANT, S.C. — The table is set with a white tablecloth, a black napkin and white candle, and a plate with only a slice of lemon and salt. An empty chair leans against the table.

The tradition, little known to the general public, of setting an empty table (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

It’s not too early to be thinking about who will run on the Republican ticket in 2008. If you pay any attention to MSM outlets, one would think Senator Hillary Clinton has it all wrapped up, and is ready to move back in to the White House.

Two different perspectives today should peak our interest in the 2008 Presidental race even at this early date.

First, from the Wall Street Opinion Journal, an article written by Brendan Miniter entitled, The McCain Myth. We will only look at a very crucial part of the article which says the following:

“Now, however, the answer to the question is obvious: Conservatives can and do win elections for the Republican Party. What the McCain Myth ignores is that for now a majority of voters nationwide embrace conservative principles. Talk of being a “compassionate conservative” notwithstanding, it wasn’t maverick moderatism that (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)