In a church activities flyer I found in my church's bulletin, I read that St. Monica's Church in Rochester NY is going to show two environmental alarmist propaganda films in (presumably) their church hall. As a Knight of Columbus I was distressed by this and wrote this email to the pastor, Father Raymond Fleming:
Dear Father,
I was distressed to learn that your church is beginning to show movies on environmental issues which are largely exercises in propaganda and dubious science. Before you show the movie on "climate change", you ought to read
http://heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/CCR-II/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf
Likewise, before you show the movie on the "deadly dangers" of plastics such as BPA, I suggest going to
http://thebpafile.blogspot.com/
Our church has credibility problems today, Father. Lending church facilities for the propagation of designing lies cannot help us. As Catholics, we are called upon to witness both to The Truth and the truth. If we pass on misleading information about the latter, who will believe us on the former?
Sincerely,
David Williams
Knight of Columbus
St. Leo Council #9461
The movies scheduled to be shown are "Bag It" and "Do the Math". I've been unable to find an accurate review of either of these films, which reminds us of the insidious dangers of films like this, which elude the attention of our heavyweights (like Marc Morano and Steve Milloy), so they creep unchallenged into our church groups and other small gatherings, sewing seeds of falsehood that soon grow into vines that may strangle our economy before we know it.
Read your church bulletinm, including the inserts. You may be appalled at what you find.
Monday, September 30, 2013
Sunday, September 29, 2013
The Obamacare Mandate Decision is Null and Void
(I wrote this for my old TownHall blog in August of 2012, and since I still think it's pertinent today, I repost it here. I hope you enjoy it. THC)
I read a report the day after the Supreme Court handed down its execrable decision on the Destroying Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act that Governor Bobby Jindal declared that Louisiana still will not bow down to this infernal law. I hope he sticks to his determination, and I hope the other governors follow his lead. This decision carries no moral weight, and does not need to be followed. I have been waiting for three days for some big-time conservative commentor to point out why this is so, but no-one has, so I will.
This decision is of no legal or moral force because Chief Justice John Roberts (the new poster child for Beltway Fever) was not the deciding vote.
B.O.'s Solicitor General Elena Kagan was.
In one of the most flagrant cases of stacking the judicial deck in American history, Barack Obama placed his own Solicitor General on the Supreme Court. It was a more modest strategic move than FDR's infamous court-packing scheme in the 1930s or Jimmy Carter's federal court expanding of the late 1970s (less famous than FDR's scheme, this nearly doubled the number of federal court judges – all appointed by Democrat Carter, of course). However, this scheme of Obama's took court-packing in a new, dangerous direction, for it gave him another solicitor in the chamber. Not only would he have his official Solicitor General making the case for this freedom-crushing edict, but he would also have his “former” Solicitor filling in the gaps and correcting the mistakes in the official argument. Anyone who heard the oral argument of the case knows that Kagan was still representing the administration, and not impartial justice. Several times Donald Verrilli seemed to be losing ground defending the indefensible, and “former” Solicitor General Kagan would get him “back onto the rails”. Many commentors claimed that it has not been uncommon for Justices to suggest lines of argument to attorneys arguing before the court. Perhaps, but it is not common for the person who had been tasked with building the argument to be presented to the court in the future to then be placed on the court to here and rule on the argument that they themselves actually built!
I am frankly astounded that the same pundits who argued that Kagan must recuse herself from any role in any case stemming from the Obama-doesn't-care law because she had held the Solicitor General post in the administration during that crucial period when the legal strategy for defense was being formed all seem to have suddenly forgotten her name now that the decision is here. They mainly have targeted Chief Justice John Roberts for his seeming cringing turnaround, and indeed there is much to be criticized in his decision. (His decision, that is, to please the Beltway mob instead of defend the Constitution, which is his sworn duty.) Roberts' decision is at least apparently honestly wrought, but Kagan's very involvement was corrupting from the start.
I urge the governors of the states that joined together to oppose this monstrous law in open court to follow Governor Jindal's lead and declare that since the court which decided this case was not legally constituted to hear this particular case, due to the taint of partiality on Justice Kagan, their states are not obligated to respect this decision, and that they will not.
The future of America may depend on it.
I read a report the day after the Supreme Court handed down its execrable decision on the Destroying Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act that Governor Bobby Jindal declared that Louisiana still will not bow down to this infernal law. I hope he sticks to his determination, and I hope the other governors follow his lead. This decision carries no moral weight, and does not need to be followed. I have been waiting for three days for some big-time conservative commentor to point out why this is so, but no-one has, so I will.
This decision is of no legal or moral force because Chief Justice John Roberts (the new poster child for Beltway Fever) was not the deciding vote.
B.O.'s Solicitor General Elena Kagan was.
In one of the most flagrant cases of stacking the judicial deck in American history, Barack Obama placed his own Solicitor General on the Supreme Court. It was a more modest strategic move than FDR's infamous court-packing scheme in the 1930s or Jimmy Carter's federal court expanding of the late 1970s (less famous than FDR's scheme, this nearly doubled the number of federal court judges – all appointed by Democrat Carter, of course). However, this scheme of Obama's took court-packing in a new, dangerous direction, for it gave him another solicitor in the chamber. Not only would he have his official Solicitor General making the case for this freedom-crushing edict, but he would also have his “former” Solicitor filling in the gaps and correcting the mistakes in the official argument. Anyone who heard the oral argument of the case knows that Kagan was still representing the administration, and not impartial justice. Several times Donald Verrilli seemed to be losing ground defending the indefensible, and “former” Solicitor General Kagan would get him “back onto the rails”. Many commentors claimed that it has not been uncommon for Justices to suggest lines of argument to attorneys arguing before the court. Perhaps, but it is not common for the person who had been tasked with building the argument to be presented to the court in the future to then be placed on the court to here and rule on the argument that they themselves actually built!
I am frankly astounded that the same pundits who argued that Kagan must recuse herself from any role in any case stemming from the Obama-doesn't-care law because she had held the Solicitor General post in the administration during that crucial period when the legal strategy for defense was being formed all seem to have suddenly forgotten her name now that the decision is here. They mainly have targeted Chief Justice John Roberts for his seeming cringing turnaround, and indeed there is much to be criticized in his decision. (His decision, that is, to please the Beltway mob instead of defend the Constitution, which is his sworn duty.) Roberts' decision is at least apparently honestly wrought, but Kagan's very involvement was corrupting from the start.
I urge the governors of the states that joined together to oppose this monstrous law in open court to follow Governor Jindal's lead and declare that since the court which decided this case was not legally constituted to hear this particular case, due to the taint of partiality on Justice Kagan, their states are not obligated to respect this decision, and that they will not.
The future of America may depend on it.
Saturday, September 28, 2013
The Hermit Crab is Back
I must start again. TownHall.com has dropped their user blogs, and for the third time in my years of occasional blogging I must start afresh. The good news is that I am away from the squeamish blog posting program at TownHall, which wouldn't even let me call former Vice President Dick Cheney "Dick".
I'll start posting more soon, once I've figured this program out and think of something worth saying.
I think I'm going to like it here.
I'll start posting more soon, once I've figured this program out and think of something worth saying.
I think I'm going to like it here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)