News, Information & Action
TCC in the News: | CNS
| WND | WashPost | Tuscaloosa
ACTION: Sign the Roy
Moore for Supreme Court Petition!
with Howard Phillips by Dan Flynn at FlynnFiles:
1 | Part
2 | Part 3 |
with Howard Phillips by LifeSite on Judge Roberts
CDs of TCC's 2005 Constitution Day
Event will be available soon
Tribute to Congressman
Duncan | August 31, 2005
In 1999, when the Constitution
Party was looking for a Presidential nominee, one of those I interviewed and
encouraged to run was Tennessee Congressman John J. "Jimmy"
Duncan, Jr., who represents the Knoxville district where my daughter,
Alexandra, is in graduate school at the University of Tennessee.
Congressman Duncan is one of
the unsung heroes of Constitutional conservatism, and I was, therefore,
delighted to see an excellent tribute paid to him in the September 12
edition of The American Conservative. As reported in an article by
Bill Kauffman, "John J. ‘Jimmy’ Duncan Jr. of Tennessee was one of
the noble sextet of House Republicans who voted against the Iraq War. (The
others were Ron Paul, John Hostettler, Amory Houghton,
Jim Leach, and Connie Morella.)
"The vote, Duncan says as
we chat in his Capitol Hill office, was ‘a tough one for me. I have a very
conservative Republican district. My Uncle Joe is one of the most
respected judges in Tennessee: when I get in a really serious bind I go to
him for advice. I had breakfast with him and my two closest friends and all
three told me that I had to vote for the war. It’s the only time in my
life that I’ve ever gone against my Uncle Joe’s advice. When I pushed
that button to vote against the war back in 2002, I thought I might be
ending my political career.’
"He wasn’t. Congressman
Duncan has won almost 80 percent of the vote in both elections subsequent to
his vote against Mr. Bush’s war. Not all acts of political courage
are suicide. …
"He is a Robert Taft
Republican in a party whose profligate and bellicose foreign policy today
melds the worst features of Nelson Rockefeller and Wendell Willkie.
"Jimmy Duncan’s paternal
grandparents were small farmers in Scott County, which in 1861 left
Tennessee, refusing to follow the Volunteer State into the Confederacy, and
declared itself ‘the Free and Independent state of Scott.’
"Duncan is a free and
independent member of Congress as well as that even rarer specimen in modern
American politics: a man who knows his place, which in this case is
Knoxville, Tennessee. His father, John Duncan Sr., ‘hitchhiked into
Knoxville with five dollars in his pocket,’ and after an education at the
University of Tennessee was elected mayor of Knoxville and then congressman.
"‘I supported the
first Gulf War because I went to all those briefings and heard Colin Powell
and all of them say that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the entire Middle
East. I saw his troops surrendering to CNN camera crews and I became
convinced that the threat had been greatly exaggerated.’
"Duncan was not going to
be fooled again. As Bush II readied his war, ‘I was called down to the
White House for a briefing with Condoleezza Rice and George Tenet and John
McLaughlin. I asked, ‘How much is Saddam Hussein’s total military
budget?’ It was a little over two-tenths of one percent of ours. He was no
threat to us whatsoever. He hadn’t attacked us. He hadn’t threatened to
attack us. He wasn’t capable of attacking us.’ The U.S. invasion, he
says, was ‘like the University of Tennessee football team taking on a
second-grade football team—it’s unbelievable.’
"The war has enshrined
foreign aid—once a conservative bête noire—as a virtual
sacrament of the 21st-century Washington Republican. Duncan notes
that the U.S. is draining its treasury into Iraq to ‘rebuild roads,
sewers, power-plants, railroads’ and subsidize a ‘small business loan
program, prisons, a witness protection program, free medical care. …I’ve
said all along that the war in Iraq was going to mean massive foreign aid
and huge deficit spending.’
"‘When I was called down
to that briefing at the White House,’ recalls Duncan, ‘Lawrence Lindsey
had just said a war would cost between $100 and $200 billion. I asked about
that. Condoleezza Rice said no, it wouldn’t cost anywhere close to that—and
now we’re going to be at $300 billion by the end of September.’ …
Republican support for the war to the straitjacketing exigencies of party
loyalty—that is, the subordination of one’s critical judgment to the
demands of Team Red and Team Blue…‘Eighty percent of the House
Republicans voted against the bombings in Bosnia, Kosovo, and all that,’
he points out. ‘I’m absolutely convinced that if Gore or Clinton had
been in the White House, 80 percent of the Republicans would have been
against this, too.’ …
"Duncan concedes that the
Republicans have become a party of Big Government. …
"The three leading
House Republican voices for withdrawal—Duncan, Ron Paul, and Walter Jones
of North Carolina—are all Southerners. …
"Duncan writes his own
newsletters—‘every word’—and he writes them on legal pads in
longhand, for he proudly admits to being a ‘holdout’ from the mousy
tyranny of Microsoft. ‘I do not use, and do not worship, the computer,’
he says. ‘One of my goals is to get to the end of my career without ever
learning how to turn on a computer.’ …
"I hope more of my
fellow conservatives will soon wake up and realize that an unnecessary war
and a greatly exaggerated threat of terrorism are being used to expand
government at a faster rate than any time in our history.’ He muses
about the ways in which computers sever people from their communities; he
criticizes the Patriot Act and No Child Left Behind; he praises the Tenth
Amendment and the civic-minded citizens of Knoxville. He urges the
University of Tennessee to hire professors who are able to speak
recognizable English. He is, in short, an intelligent, patriotic small-city
American who finds himself in Congress during a topsy-turvy age when down is
up, imperialist bullies masquerade as ‘conservatives,’ and dissent is
conservatives have been for small government, they’ve been supported by
small farmers, small business,’ he says. ‘Now what you have is this big
government-big business duopoly,’ through which ‘big business gets
government contracts, favorable tax rules, and all these things small
businesses don’t get.’ Thus he is a vocal critic of corporate welfare
ranging from the space station (‘the biggest boondoggle in the history of
Congress’) to the imposition of the metric system (a project of ‘multinational
companies’ scornful of American uniqueness)."
Questions for Judge
Roberts | August 29, 2005
Here are some of the questions
which I hope members of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee will ask Judge
Roberts during confirmation hearings with respect to his nomination to the
Supreme Court of the United States:
1. To what degree would a Justice
Roberts feel bound by precedent, even in cases which he acknowledges to have
been wrongly decided, such as Roe v. Wade?
2. Is Judge Roberts prepared to
set aside the "Lemon test" which requires that public acknowledgment
of God have a secular purpose?
3. What view does Judge Roberts
have concerning the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution?
4. Under what circumstances, if
any, would Judge Roberts reference foreign law, foreign constitutions, foreign
court rulings and "world opinion" in formulating his Supreme Court
5. How does Judge Roberts
interpret the proper application of the "good Behaviour" clause in
Article III of the Constitution?
6. Would Judge Roberts conclude
as a Justice that, even though Article III Constitutionally authorizes
restrictions on the Federal judiciary that it ought not be applied, for
reasons of prudence?
7. Does Judge Roberts believe
that Romer v. Evans was wrongly decided? What about Hardwick v.
Bowers? What about Lawrence v. Texas?
8. Is it legitimate, in Judge
Roberts’ view, for the Federal government to fund organizations which engage
in policy advocacy?
Enforce The Constitution | August
My friend, Casey Emerson, a
Montana State Senator, is determined to get the Federal government to
surrender its unconstitutional occupation of land for purposes unrelated to
the establishment of a Federal city or the maintenance of fortifications.
Here is what Casey has to say:
"Our goal is to get some state to sue our Federal Government for the
return of our lands. With a state suing, the suit will go directly to the
Supreme Court due to [sic] Art. 3, Sec. 2 of the constitution, middle
paragraph ("In all Cases
affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in
which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original
"The E.T.C. (Enforce
The Constitution) – Our Goal…The Federal Government has been breaking
the United States constitution in many, many ways. Our goal is to make them
follow the U.S. Constitution, starting with an issue concerning Federal land
ownership. The Federal Government unlawfully claims ownership to land in
numerous states. This land issue and others such as separation of Church and
State are just the beginning for us to reclaim our rights under the
Constitution of the United States of America. We want to stop the government
from illegally taking private property and stop them from making decisions
regarding state issues by far away government officials. We need to bring
the decision making back to the states and local government where decisions
are made by and for the citizens that will be affected. When the solutions
are made by people close to the problems, the solutions will be far
"Note: The crux of the
issue lies in Article 1, Section 8 which states, "The Congress shall
have Power To…exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases
whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, be
Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the
Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority
over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in
which the Same shall be for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals,
dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings ."
"The Constitution sets up
clear regulations regarding ownership of public lands by the Federal
government. Members of E.T.C. believe the states own all public land except
what is listed in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. That act says
the government can establish post offices and post roads, the District of
Columbia and purchase property, with the consent of the state legislature,
for the construction of necessary building such as forts, armories, etc. …
"ACTION WHICH NEEDS TO
BE TAKEN: Our goal is to get some state to sue our Federal Government
for the return of our lands. With a state suing, the suit will go directly
to the Supreme Court due to Art. 3, Sec. 2 of the constitution, middle
The mailing address for Senator
Casey Emerson is E.T.C., 5350 Love Lane, Bozeman, MT 59718. I know he’d
like to hear from you.
TCC's Constitution Day
Event | August 18, 2005
Dear Friend of The Conservative Caucus:
I hope you can join me in Columbus, Ohio on September 17
to commemorate the two hundred eighteenth anniversary of the completion of
the Convention that gave us our U.S. Constitution.
There is no admission fee, but, because attendance will be
limited by the size of the room, we must know as soon as possible whether
you plan to attend.
TCC is sponsoring Constitution Day for the fifth
consecutive year, in cooperation with The Conservative Caucus Foundation
and the U.S. Taxpayers Alliance.
Beginning at 1:00 P.M. at the Concourse Hotel and
Conference Center near the Columbus airport, and continuing until 5:00
P.M., you will have the opportunity to learn more about the Constitution
from several knowledgeable, compelling speakers.
Invited lecturers for this September 17 event include Dr.
Edwin Vieira (author of How to Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary),
Federal Election Commissioner Brad Smith, former Congressman William
Dannemeyer, and Charles Orndorff, a leading expert on U.S. Constitutional
I know that you and I share a love and respect for the
Constitution, and that we each want Constitution Day to have a powerful
That is why I hope you will support this event with a
donation of $25, $50, $100 or more. In fact, if you can send $1,000, you
will be listed as a Sponsor in the Constitution Day program.
TCC cannot afford to lose money on this event. We need to
receive enough donations, designated for Constitution Day, to pay the full
That is why I am asking you to help with a donation of $25,
$50, $100, or even a Sponsor’s fee of $1,000 to make TCC’s
Constitution Day possible.
Whether or not you provide financial support, I hope you
will be able to attend on September 17. Since we will have to stop
accepting reservations once we expect a full room, be sure to let me know
as soon as possible, so that I can have your name added to the attendance
P.S. If you contribute $100 or more, you will be listed in
the program as a
"Friend of the Constitution", and a $1,000 gift
makes you a Sponsor.
now to reserve your seat and to make a donation.
Information | E-Mail
| Donate On-Line! ]
"Bipartisanship" | August
"Bipartisanship" is a
term often used to deceive the gullible and undiscerning.
Simply because Republicans and
Democrats participate in a coalition does not mean their views on key issues
This is certainly the case with
respect to the "New World Order" establishment.
for August 3 reports "A new, bipartisan think tank aims to develop
national-security policies by harkening back to an era when there was broad
consensus on U.S. foreign policy.
"A group of 23 foreign-policy
luminaries representing both sides of the aisle will launch the Partnership for
a Secure America (PSA), dedicated to bridging the deep ideological divide that
dominates current foreign-policy making. Jamie Metzl, one of the group’s
chairmen, will announce the new think tank today at the National Press Club.
"The 11 Republican board
members are former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger; ex-Sens.
Warren Rudman (N.H.), Howard Baker (Tenn.), Nancy Kassebaum
Baker (Kan.) and John Danforth (Mo.), who served as Bush ‘s U.N.
ambassador and envoy to Sudan; former New Jersey Gov. Tom Kean; former
Massachusetts Gov. William Weld; former U.S. Trade Representative Carla
Hills; former National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane; Rita
Hauser, chairwoman of the International Peace Academy; and John Whitehead,
a former deputy secretary of state.
"The 11 Democratic board
members are former Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright and Warren
Christopher; former Defense Secretary William Perry; former National Security
Advisers Samuel Berger, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Tony Lake; former Ambassador
Richard Holbrook; former Sen. Gary Hart (Colo.); former Rep. Lee Hamilton
(Ind.); former U.N. Ambassador Donald McHenry; and lawyer Ted Sorenson.
Every one of these distinguished
personages is a shill for the "one world" New World Order
establishment advanced by super rich Big Media and Big Business moguls.
Henry Cabot Lodge | August
In 1970, as a candidate for
Congress from the Sixth Congressional District of Massachusetts, I had the
opportunity to spend a few hours with one of my prospective constituents,
Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge.
Lodge had been a U.S. Senator
until defeated in 1952 by John F. Kennedy. He was President Eisenhower’s
Ambassador to the United Nations and President Kennedy’s Ambassador to
Interestingly, when my
immigrant grandfather, Sam Goldberg, arrived in the United States in the
early 1900’s, one of his first jobs was driving a cab in Beverly Farms,
Massachusetts for Ambassador Lodge’s grandfather, U.S. Senator Henry Cabot
Lodge, the man who was instrumental in defeating Woodrow Wilson’s push for
the League of Nations.
During the course of a long,
fascinating conversation with the latter Ambassador Lodge on a cement bench
in his family compound at Beverly Cove, Massachusetts, the Ambassador
tearfully recounted to me his regret at having played a key role in the
assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem, the then President of South Vietnam.
Lodge told me that he had
virtually begged Diem to take refuge in the U.S. Embassy. Both he and Diem
knew that an assassination was about to be attempted and that it would
probably succeed. Diem, a patriot to the end, preferred to face death rather
"John Roberts - W's
Souter" by Don Feder | August 11, 2005
Don Feder’s commentary
concerning Supreme Court nominee John Glover Roberts, Jr. is well worth
considering. The complete text follows:
– W’S SOUTER
GrassTopsUSA Exclusive Commentary
By Don Feder
When the president announced John Roberts’ nomination to the United States
Supreme Court – the most powerful deliberative body in the world,
membership in which comes with lifetime tenure – I had doubts.
As I said in a previous column, I wanted a nominee whose professional life
was a 4-lane highway paved with paper. I wanted a picture window on his soul
– I mean an iron-clad guarantee that we weren’t getting another Souter
Everything we know about John Roberts says here is a man who’s been
polishing his resume since age six -- a go-to guy who wanted to be liked by
his colleagues, a savvy lawyer who put his conscience in a blind trust to
advance his career.
When the nomination was announced, the White House breathlessly informed us
that when Roberts was tapped for the DC Circuit Court, 152 members of the DC
Bar – prominent Democrats as well as Republicans – sang his praises to
the Senate Judiciary Committee. Never trust a man who’s universally loved.
Real conservatives are despised by the left.
Before last week’s revelations, it was still possible to give Roberts the
benefit of the doubt. Not any more.
In an August 4th article, the Los Angeles Times disclosed that as
a partner with the high-octane DC law firm of Hogan & Hartson, in the
mid-1990s, Roberts helped a homosexual group engineer one of the most
disastrous Supreme Court decisions of the past two decades.
In Romer v. Evans (1996), the Court overturned an amendment to the Colorado
Constitution – passed by 53% of the state’s voters – prohibiting
municipalities from enacting so-called gay rights laws (conferring special
status based on bedroom behavior). It was the first time the Court
recognized homosexuals as a protected class for civil rights purposes.
Romer led directly to Lawrence v. Texas (2003), which declared laws against
homosexual sodomy unconstitutional. If the Supreme Court ever finds a right
to same-sex marriage banging around in the 14th. Amendment’s
Equal Protection Clause, Romer will be the precedent.
In his blistering dissent,
Justice Antonin Scalia (supposedly the president’s model for Supreme Court
nominees) said the majority opinion in Romer: "has no foundation in
American constitutional law and barely pretends to. The people of Colorado
have adopted an entirely reasonable provision…. Amendment 2 (the
initiative the Court threw out) is designed to prevent piecemeal
deterioration of the sexual morality favored by a majority of Coloradans,
and is not only an appropriate means to that legitimate end, but a means
that Americans have employed before. Striking it down is an act, not of
judicial judgment, but of political will."
And Bush’s first Supreme Court nominee helped facilitate this national
According to Walter A. Smith Jr. (then the head of the firm’s pro-bono
department), when he approached Roberts to assist the Lambda Legal Defense
Fund in helping it to demolish the nation’s moral foundation, the Great
Right Hope didn’t hesitate, "Let’s do it!" Roberts reportedly
And do it he did. He read briefs, participated in a moot court session (to
prepare the Lambda lawyer for the kind of tough questions she might get in
oral arguments) and coached her on strategy. Jean Dubofsky, the plaintiff’s
lead attorney, recalls that Roberts instructed her, "You have to know
how to count and to get five votes. You’re going to have to pick up the
middle." Advising gay litigators on how to push their cause is like
giving Rommel a French road map.
Says Smith, who now runs a liberal interest group: "I would have
expected on these cases that he (Roberts) would turn them down. But none of
them raised so serious a concern to him personally."
Their conversation might have gone something like this:
Smith: "John, I’d like you to help us get civil-rights status for
homosexuals. We want to negate the will of Colorado voters, further eroding
representative government in this country. We hope to establish the
precedent that a state’s voters are to have no say over whether localities
can create special rights based solely on performing certain sex acts."
Roberts: "Delighted to help. I have no serious concern about
marshalling the troops for this particular assault on Judeo-Christian
Roberts’ apologists on the right (who are legion) are trying to
rationalize his participation in this case, arguing:
involvement was minimal. Supposedly, Roberts only spent 5 hours on the
2) As a lawyer
with Hogan and Hartson, Roberts was expected to take pro-bono cases,
regardless of his personal opinions.
3) There’s no
way that this can be taken as a sign that the nominee supports gay
rights. (In other words, Roberts has never actually been seen leaving a
motel with Barney Frank.)
In reality, Roberts’ contribution to the case was crucial. He worked in
the Reagan Justice Department, clerked for Chief Justice William Rehnquist
and argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court. Thus, he was perfectly
positioned to provide insights into the thinking of conservative justices
– how to counter the objections they’d likely raise to the
anti-Amendment 2 position.
If Smith had gone to one of the many liberal lawyers at Hogan & Hartson
and asked them to help Operation Rescue with a challenge to Roe v. Wade, or
to assist the NRA in trying to overturn the assault weapons ban – what do
you think the response would have been?
But for Roberts – a solid conservative and a strict constructionist, the
administration’s conservative cheerleaders assure us – assisting the
homosexual lobby to establish a lethal precedent raised "no serious
Romer isn’t Roberts’ only pandering to political correctness. He spent
over 200 hours representing DC welfare queens who saw their free-lunch
counter shut down during a budget crisis.
He also helped a Florida mass murderer (who gunned down eight people in two
drug-related shootings) in his attempts to have his death sentence vacated
on the grounds of temporary insanity (which certain conservative leaders may
be pleading after Roberts has been on the Court for a few years).
Smith discloses: "Unlike a lot of conservative lawyers at the firm, I
don’t think that John had a doctrinaire view about certain issues that
would cause him to say, ‘I shouldn’t work on that.’" This
suggests that other conservatives at Hogan and Hartson declined to be
involved in such cases, based on principle. Not John Roberts.
It makes you wonder what other issues – besides gay rights – Roberts
does not hold "doctrinaire views" (i.e., is morally flexible) on:
abortion, religious expression in the public square or applying European
standards to American justice?
I don’t know if John Roberts supports gay rights or welfare rights or the
rights of mass murderers. But neither do his conservative defenders.
And neither does George Bush.
After solemnly and repeatedly promising the right Supreme Court nominees who
are intellectual clones of Thomas and Scalia, the president gave us a man
without a paper trail, a 50-year-old lawyer who isn’t on record expressing
a conviction about anything more controversial than a preference for
tuna-fish sandwiches over BLTs– a moral tabula rasa.
Ann Coulter points out that, before he was confirmed, there was more in the
background of David Souter to suggest he would be a conservative vote on the
Court than there is in Roberts’ history.
Apparently, the president’s priority is less putting another conservative
on the Supreme Court, than getting one of his nominees confirmed without
much of a fight.
In 4 ½ years in office, Bush has shown no great passion for social
conservative causes (though, on the whole, his picks for the federal
appellate courts have been excellent). It took a good six months to get the
president to endorse the Federal Marriage Amendment. Initially, he
equivocated. (Let’s wait to see what the courts do with the 1996 Defense
of Marriage Act, he urged – which is rather like saying let’s wait and
see what Hamas does to the peace process.)
It wasn’t until Karl Rove began to worry about the president’s prospects
of winning reelection, that Bush embraced the issue -- wisely, it
transpires. The president probably owes his 2004 win to a state
marriage protection amendment that turned out tens of thousands of
evangelical voters in Ohio.
My take on Roberts: Ambitious, obsessively cautious, sociable and morally
flexible – not the temperament that produces a Thomas or a Scalia.
Souter me once, shame on you. Souter me twice, shame on me.
ROBERTS’ ASSISTANCE TO
HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVISTS IN KEY SUPREME COURT CASE SHOULD CAUSE CONSERVATIVES TO
WITHHOLD SUPPORT PENDING FURTHER INFORMATION
John Glover Roberts, Jr.,
George W. Bush’s nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, is no Antonin Scalia.
It appears he is more like an Anthony Kennedy.
There are several reasons for
conservatives, Christians, and Constitutionalists generally to be troubled
by the voluntary assistance provided to the homosexual activists by Mr.
Roberts. Among them are these:
1) Judge Roberts did not
disclose his involvement when he responded to a specific question on the
questionnaire he filed with the Senate Judiciary Committee;
2) Judge Roberts apparently
had no moral objection to using his skills to advance the homosexual
3) It suggests an absence of
an understanding by Mr. Roberts that homosexual conduct is sinful and
ought to be discouraged;
4) It suggests that, as a
Supreme Court Justice, Judge Roberts would divorce himself from common law
principles and Biblical morality in determining his position in particular
5) It is another example of
how Judge Roberts seems to go out of his way to pander to those on the
Left who might otherwise oppose him.
Pending further explanation, it
seems necessary to withhold support for the confirmation of Judge Roberts to
be a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. We do not need another Anthony
Kennedy, Sandra Day O’Connor, or David Souter.
Republicans in power are often
far more dangerous to the Constitution than even the Left-wing Democrats.
The 217 to 215 vote by which the U.S. House of Representatives approved the
Central American Free Trade Agreement is the latest example.
I like Tom Delay personally, and appreciate much that he has
done, but one reason I did not join with other heads of conservative
organizations in giving him comprehensive accolades and approbation is that,
as the Republican Majority Leader in the House, he very often is the
instrument for advancing unwise, unconstitutional Bush Administration
policies which he would be less able to advance if he couldn’t count on the
uncritical support of conservative and Christian leaders.
Saudi Ambassador | August
The Washington Post
on July 21 carried a Page 2 article indicating that "Saudi
Ambassador to U.S. Steps Down After 22 Years".
Although I was not an intimate of
Ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan, described as "the dean of Washington’s
diplomatic corps and confidant of presidents both Republican and Democratic over
the past 22 years", I have two interesting connections with him:
My daughter, Jennifer, as a young
girl, attended Green Hedges School with Prince Bandar’s daughter, Lulua, a
Saudi Princess, and, on various occasions, had the opportunity to visit with
Lulua at Prince Bandar’s residence. Similarly, I remember those occasions when
the Princess came to our home accompanied by South African and Rhodesian
bodyguards (always with a British nanny) in a Black Suburban. Prince Bandar’s
daughter in addition to being a Princess was a very nice young woman.
On the downside, I recall with fury
that, at the request of President Jimmy Carter, Prince Bandar intervened with
South Dakota Democrat Senator James Abourezk to persuade Abourezk to switch his
vote from opposing the Carter-Torrijos Panama Canal treaties to embracing them.
That switched vote by Senator Abourezk (like Prince Bandar a man of Middle
Eastern heritage) led to the loss of America’s Canal and Zone at the
strategically crucial Isthmus of Panama.
Prince Bandar did many things to
curry favor with whomever happened to be in power, and I shall not forget the
harm which he did (in the case of Panama) to the United States of America.
U.S. Senator Gaylord
Nelson | August 2, 2005
The death of former Wisconsin
Democratic U.S. Senator Gaylord Nelson, founder of Earth Day, brings back
memories of Mr. Nelson’s malignant leftism during the days when, as Director
of the U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity, I took on the Marxist malefactions
of the "Great Society". Was it coincidence that Earth Day was set by
Senator Nelson to occur on the anniversary of the birth of Vladimir Ilyich
Lenin? A radical environmentalist, Senator Nelson disdained the rights of
private property guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States.
Prodded by Nelson and others,
Richard Nixon established the un-Constitutional Environmental Protection Agency.
Nelson also had a lot to do with enactment of the un-Constitutional Clean Air
Act, Clean Water Act, and Endangered Species Act.
President Bill Clinton awarded Mr.
Nelson the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1995.
The Qualifications for a
Supreme Court Justice | August 1, 2005
Mark Sutherland, Public
Relations Director for Joyce Meyer Ministries, issued this statement on July 13:
It is our honor to stand
today with men like Howard Phillips and Ambassador Keyes, and to ask our
President to appoint Chief Justice Roy Moore to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Chief Justice Moore is a
solid example to all of us of a man who put everything on the line for the
Constitution, and who did not bow to political forces or party pressure. Our
nation would benefit from his service on the US Supreme Court. It is rare to
find a man who will put the rule of law above his own career, but Chief Justice
Moore did just that. He has shown that his fidelity and commitment is to the US
Constitution, even though it cost him everything.
As the President considers
whom to nominate to the current vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court, he is in our
prayers. This decision will affect the direction of our nation for the next half
century and beyond and we look forward to seeing the nomination of a justice
along the lines of Justice Scalia or Justice Thomas, just as the President
promised during his campaign.
The qualifications that
set Scalia, Moore, and Thomas apart, and which are essential to any future
members of the Court, are:
Fidelity to the
original intent/first principles of the U.S. Constitution
Fidelity to the
plain literal interpretation of the U.S. Constitution
Fidelity to the
separation/limitation of powers
Fidelity to state's
powers and the 10th Amendment
Rejection of foreign
law in their decisions
Rejection of the
doctrine of judicial legislating and judicial impunity
Rejection of the
doctrine that "the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it
Today we call upon the
President to nominate a jurist who will hold true to the Constitution, as Chief
Justice Moore did, and who will put our basic freedoms and liberty first, and
everything else never.
HowardPhillips.com every day for the latest commentary, news and action
items in support of restoring our Constitutional Republic
To support the many important projects of The Conservative Caucus with a donation,
please call 703-938-9626 or use your credit card.