www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Alito Confirmed and Sworn in as Supreme Court Justice

Read the story from the Washington Times [washingtontimes.com]

Will this be a good thing or a bad thing for us serious Christians?

It could be VERY good for us, Christians!

A new conservative era could be dawning upon us. He joins Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas as the 5th Catholic justice in the current U.S. Supreme Court (9 justices en banc), unprecedented in its august history!

From 33% before Judge Roberts' confirmation to 44% after his confirmation as Chief Justice last year, then to 55% Catholic representation with Justice Alito's swearing in IS a dramatic jump, by all measures!

Justice Kennedy, though, seems to be perceived as the "inheritor" of retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's "swing vote." Even then, the conservative bloc is clearly on the upper hand!

Thanks be to God!

Amado

HOORAY!!!!!

I wonder if the Democrats who voted for him are Pro-Life all the way. This is their chance to speak up and help change things.

I think it's a great day for us, sure. Now we've got like 5 Catholics on the Court or something. We've taken over.

however, I'm seriously afraid of what this can mean for our freedom. I'm not at all in favor of crowning GW king. Security is not as important as freedom. I think right now we should be seriously afraid about the lack of checks and balances in the Federal government.

There's a quote by Benjamin Franklin that's been heavy on my mind lately:

�Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.�

This time around, only 4 Democratic Senators voted for Justice Alito, while 1 Republican voted against!

The final tally: 58-42 in favor.

Amado

P.S. Did you know that Justice Antonin Scalia has a son who is a Catholic priest?

I knew that.

Will they overturn Roe vs Wade?

California will still allow abortion and sodomy. So will New York and Massachussets.

"Before Kingdoms change, hearts must change."- uttered in the movie Jesus of Nazareth

Hmmm, the man has more years on the bench than any other supreme court justice has had in what 70 years?
Anyway, it's great, he'll do a good job.
John Roberts' parents are originally from Johnstown, PA.
The good thing Domilsean is that there are the other justices to help keep each other in check, so I don't predict a shift in the defining of these security measure as constituitonally granted powers to the executive branch.
Hmm, anyone guess what my undergrad degree is in?

But we Christians who do not consider ourselves "conservatives" in the modern-day American political sense of the term could be very troubled with the rise of a new "conservative era."

If Roe v. Wade is overturned, then I say it's worth it. Honestly, though, I don't see Roe v. Wade (or Casey) being overturned in the foreseeable future.

So, those of us who aren't conservative would ask, What will this mean for the poor in our country? The underprivileged? The environment that God entrusted to us? Education, housing, food, opportunity for those who cannot afford it?

Logos Teen

LT,

I have to agree with you. I can't consider myself politically conservative or liberal, because I've got issues in both camps that I support and oppose. I've gotten blasted from both sides for my views. I also feel that there are many values and positions out there that Christians espouse that are rather contrary to the Gospel, but they're put forth as "conservative" and therefore, somehow by neo-conservative proxy, Christian.

Personally, I'm tired of the evanglical protestants hoarding the name "Christian" (and abandoning the term Protestant), as if we Catholics and Orthodox were somehow NOT Christian. I'd better start before a rant forms.

Most of us have to work for a living.

The workplace is, or should be, one place where everyone's interests converge. This is particularly true for public workers: government should lead the way and not discriminate against anyone. The government workplace should look like society at large.

Because of this, everyone who works for a living has a dual set of interests and needs to think clearly about their own interests and goals at work and in their community as well as their religous, family and social obligations. We need to think about paying our bills and raising families.

There are no Justices on the Court now who have any real familiarity with the many workplace problems workers face every day. Judge Alito is not just another potential Supreme Court Justice with no obvious worker-advocacy background, however. Instead, his judicial decisions reveal that he consistently votes against the interests of workers.

Among Judge Alito's many anti-worker decisions: he voted against Family and Medical Leave Act coverage for state employees; he voted against overtime pay for newspaper workers; he voted against holding high level corporate officers responsible for unpaid wages and benefits once their companies have filed for bankruptcy; he voted against enforcement of workplace safety standards in the chemical and mining industry; he voted against worker interests by excusing businesses from giving WARN act notices that they are closing down and limiting the damages available when companies violate WARN act standards. Other anti-worker votes included setting aside an arbitration award reinstating a discharged worker, overturning various positive NLRB rulings and ruling against "no docking" collective bargaining agreement provisions that permit employers to allow union stewards to receive their regular pay and benefits while handling grievances. This doesn't sound at all christian to me or in line with Catholic teaching.

Judge Alito's decisions indicate that his views are far, far right of the mainstream. We need a Supreme Court Justice who will be fair to everyone, not biased in favor of corporate and business interests.

We may indeed be happy about a Catholic majority on the Court and his votes on abortion. But, at the end of the day, if our workplaces aren't safe, if workplace discrimination is upheld and institutionalized, if we lose wage and hour law protections and government stops looking like society at large because FMLA is reinterpreted the other issues won't matter so much to many of you.

Judge Alito will NOT vote to uphold your rights if you work for a living.

Be well.

bob r.

Logos Teen,
Do you mean to imply that those of us who are "Conservative" dont have concern for those issues?
Stephanos I

as opposed to the unserious kind? I think he will make hard core right-wingers happy but like Mr Rossi , I worry about the fate of ordinary workers in his decisions which favored corporate power.

Hallelujah! Salvation and glory and power belong to our God,for his judgements are true and just...
Praise our God , all you his servants, you who fear him small and great.. Hallelujah! For the Lord our God the Almighty reigns. Let us rejoice and exult and give him the glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his Bride has made herself ready."
Stephanos I

Stephanos,

No, and I realize that's what my post might imply so I want to make it clear that I don't think that.

I do think, however, that the "liberals" have made it their niche to "fight for the common worker/man" whereas the "conservatives" have made it their niche to fight for "moral values." Neither is totally accurate, of course.

Logos Teen

When I read Feminist Majority's reasons why you should write to your Senators and urge them to vote NO on Alito's nomination, they at least in my estimation, make him sound like a great guy. Still I get this ominous feeling that Roe vs Wade is not about to be overturned.

No profound thoughts here---just a gut-level reaction given without proof or documentation and admittedly an outsider's point of view:

The pro-life fight is pretty much won, or won to the extent that it can legally and economically be for now.

Some time ago the so-called "pro-life" leadership realized this and decided that their movement could be a vehicle for moving other agendas. They had a mass of good people following them on faith for noble reasons. Big money is involved here.

Their have largely won the pro-life fight and also created a conservative subculture. But victories need to create victories in order to win power and it is the nature of subcultures to dissemble if they are not constantly renewed and set in opposition to something larger. And there is big money involved in maintaining the conservative subculture also.

They have not been able to follow up their victory and this has created financial, intellectual and political crises in the conservative movements. The pro-life cause is reaching the end of the line and the conservative subculture is contracting and turning on itself.

The agendas they're left moving are pro-corporate, anti-labor, opposed to civil rights and, in many cases, "Christian zionist."

They built a movement that could not compromise, that sees things as either good or evil. Now they either need to negotiate a compromise and move on or switch issues.

A compromise on pro-life issues will split the conservative movement.

They can't move their agendas without dividing society. And they keep hitting walls.

Civil rights issues got stomped into the ground years ago but most people are still too decent to be overtly racist. If they take on unions directly they run up against the working class support they get. Since they're Christian zionists they won't take on the Jews. Education can be underfunded, privatized or "reformed" but their corporate backers and the military see the crisis this creates and objects and the NEA does a credible job defending education. They've railed against a mythic "big government" and enacted "taxpayers bills of rights" which have caused such crises that even Colorado and California conservatives backed off. The hand-wringing over the worst trends in youth culture had to stop: the kids are on their way to Iraq.

They need a new means of moving the message in order to recoup their money and power.

Its relatively easy to kick around immigrants and gays so they become the targets of the day. These social divisions accomplish the leader's hidden agenda of dividing society for the time being. And thus we get comments here about sodomy as if that is the problem.

Its not that these leaders have anything against immigrants and gays personally. Its not about principles. Its about money and power.

We get Alito as a kind of intellectual cover or counterpart for drowning government in the bathtub and moving the pro-corporate agenda. The pro-life leadership trots out the line, gets him appointed and goes off to deal with their crises and search for more enemies and more ways to divide society. Their power comes in shorter bursts, however, and the dollars don't quite stretch as far as they used to. They're under great pressure to produce issues and enemies.

Meanwhile, good pro-life followers start having problems getting their retirement benefits; their pension funds get raided; they can't access FMLA; their workplaces aren't as safe as they used to be; their work gets sent overseas; they can't go to college; they come back from Iraq and the VA system can't cope with their PTSD.

None of this has anything to do with abortion. None of this has anything to do with gays or immigrants.

It has everything to do with some bad court decisions which slipped by when no one was looking and a tilt in the balance of power between corporations and workers.

And these followers get justifiably upset. They still see things as either good or evil. They wonder if the energy put into getting Alito in was the right thing to do. They experience a crisis of values because they were misled.

Then what?

To all crying liberals on this forum,

Do you all realize that we have had a catastrophy such as 911, which could have sent this country and the world into a depression, as well as natural disasters that were beyond measure and could have completely destroyed this nation...and yet our economy is still greater than Japan and the EU combined.

What in the world are you people 'crying' about? Frankly from where I sit, I can't see the soup lines, so let's start giving credit where credit is due.

As for Judge Alito, I was surprised to read a newspaper that said Bush 'won'. Shouldn't it have been the 'people' won. After all, didn't we vote for Pres. Bush and 'his' judgement on who 'he' wanted to place on the Supreme Court.

A staunch conservative Republican,

Zenovia

Why must you provoke and be so offensive? You're going to bring others down to your juvenile level...

Oh, wait. And what's our deficit again?

Then I'd advise you to get off your high horse and check out a soup kitchen this Saturday. Maybe then you can see! There are millions of them!!!

I'm sorry.

See, I've been brought down to your level.

Logos Teen

No one can say for sure what will happen. My guess is that as we get more justices on the Supreme Court that interpret the Constitution based upon original intent rather then legislating from the bench we will see more and more decisions that allow laws upholding life.

I liked the way (now) Chief Justice Roberts made the point about original intent. He said that if the Constitution supported the case of the little guy then he would follow the Constitution and side with the little guy. And that if the Constitution sided with big business he would follow the Constitution and side with big business. That is exactly what the courts are supposed to do under our Constitution. Desired societal change (of whatever type) is not to be legislated from the bench but accomplished by the legislatures, amending the Constitution if need be.

I might be very wrong (and I hope I am) but my guess is that there will not be a formal overturn of Roe vs Wade in the next few years. Progress will be incremental. We�ll see some states first prohibiting abortions after the viability of the child (and it will be upheld). Then we�ll see some states prohibiting doctors (and anyone else) from performing abortions without actually criminalizing the mother from getting an abortion. In other words, progress will be incremental. But, of course, places like California will almost certainly continue to allow abortions for any reason. There is still much work ahead for the coming generations. In the end, we still need to work for a human life amendment to the Constitution.

We should also expect to see restored rights in the free speech when the speech has religious content. Justice Thomas (one of my favorites) noted that right now you can burn a cross on public land and that�s protected because it�s hate speech but you can�t plant a cross on public land because that�s considered to be an establishment of religion. In this area I expect there to be common sense regarding voluntary school prayer, manger scenes, and etc. Speech should not be restricted in public places merely because it has religious content.

These appointments are a big win for the little guys � especially for the littlest among us who are still in their mothers� wombs.

Dear Teen of the Incarnate Logus,

I am sorry if I offended you by using the term 'crying liberals'. The problem is that 'utopia', simply doesn't exist. We probably are as close to it today than anyone will ever be...at least in this country. Wasn't it our Lord that said we will always have the poor among us.

The point is that we could be in a much worse situation. That this nation has continued to prosper under the adverse circumstances of these past years, is certainly to his credit. Obviously this administration must be doing something right.

As for the decifit, that will solve itself if we continue to prosper. It's the way of economics. Which reminds me of the 'voodoo' economics of the Reagan years. That's what it was called by the Democrats, yet that so called 'voodoo' economics pulled us out of a recession, and we have been growing since.

All I meant was let's start giving credit where credit is do.

Zenovia

Am I wrong to notice that there are a number of practicing Catholic Christians on the court, perhaps more than ever before in history?

I hope and pray that the Holy Spirit will guide them, and all justices of the Court with his own gifts of prudence and wisdom, for the good of our nation, and all its citizens.

the unworthy,
Elias

Zenovia,
You are not far from the Kingdom of God.

Stephanos I

Dear Zenovia,

An extremely graceful and Christ-like reply, even for a conservative . We do love seeing your posts.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

Bob,

Interesting post. A few comments:

1. You state that the pro-life movement has basically - for all intents and purposes - won the war for life. Hardly. The numbers of abortions in the US still are in the millions (that is not to mention the incalculable deaths wrought by abortifacient contraceptives, such as "the pill"...yes, it has an abortifacient effect Article on Pill - How It Works [pfli.org] , IUD's and "morning after pills"). I believe that there is definitely a generational shift - a growing awareness among young people that something is really amiss with the practice of abortion...not to mention the growing body of medical evidence based upon studies that have been done on the measurable effects of abortion on women. Having an advocate in the White House has been a positive thing for our country. Bill and Hillary did nothing but throw money and resources into the international industrial abortion complex, beholden as they are to the blood money generated by this industry. As abortion numbers start to slow down in the US, expect to see even more efforts to fill the abortionist coffers through oversees abortions. At least in this administration , taxpayers dollars are not funding such efforts to exploit the women of third-world nations.

Of course, I have not even begun to mention the growing euthanasia movement, treated with great fondness it seems in the state of Oregon. (Did I mention that I met Ann Humphry of the Hemlock Society - the faithful RTD warriors of the Northwest now based in Denver? Here's an interesting read on their beliefs article [normemma.com] and Hemlock Society name and image change article [nrlc.org] She had terminal cancer at the time, and was visiting a Catholic leader in the pro-life movement who had reached out to her with real compassion. I heard the tape recordings of her husband's voicemails, Derek, the British founder of the Hemlock Society and author of "Final Exit" - a how to book on suicide - basically asking her to do everyone a favor and end her life after her terminal diagnosis. Unfortunately, she eventually succummed to her husband's badgering to do herself in a few months after I met this poor woman. (He had already helped his first wife with her "final exit", I believe. Marriage to Derek seems to have a terminal effect on women.) Years later we are now faced with battles to protect the dignity of brain-injured people (such as Terri Schiavo, another victim of a "compassionate husband" - oh yeah, except with this one he had a sweetie in the wings) as well as end-of-life issues. For the most part, liberals (apart from a few brave souls like Nat Henthoff) never met an early death advocate they didn't like. Add to that the rising costs of health care, and we've got quite a bit of social-darwinistic and capitalistic anti-life momentum to counteract.

So no - we've won some and lost some battles, but certainly the war for a civilzation of love is far from over.

2. You state that the pro-life movement has been coopted by conservatives and is pushing agendas that are far removed from their original good intent - that is, a "conservative subculture". Could not the same be said for the pro-labor movement? How many unions and union bosses actively campaign for "rights" and agendas that are far removed from the concerns of the average worker and his need for representation in collective bargaining?

3. As far as pro-corporate agendas, I think you'll find that Democrats have their own pet pro-corporate agendas...perhaps in different industries (such as the one mentioned above). Add to that the large and ever expanding numbers of unionized government workers on both the national and state levels, and you've got a large "public-sector" interest group that has its own demands and agendas...and a voracious appetite for tax revenue.

As to the other conspiracy theories you mentioned, I guess I don't have any response. Your sweeping and strange accusations (including the one about shipping out our men and women to Iraq to cure social ills) reflect a worldview that seems alien. How do taxpayers rights negatively impact the country again? And why would we want to take on the Jews?

Perhaps your advocacy for a party that supports your livelihood and a cause you deeply believe in (as do I for that matter - I'm pro-union and have worked in labor relations) but is bereft of an ethical core on an issue fundamental to your faith has caused you to resort to mental contortions to justify you staying in it. It sounds like a painful place to be. I hope you are able to make peace within yourself someday.

Peace,

Gordo

The Catholics are so blinded by the abortion issue that they fail to see the real danger in judges like Alito, Scalia, Rhenquist. (yes I know Renquist is dead, but he represents a type of justice that is extremely dangerous) The politicians don't care about abortion, what they care about is pushing federal rights over individual rights, the power of the police over the people, the power of big business over little business, the power of the executive over the congress.


I studied Renquists opinions, and learned that I never really needed to read the body of the opinion once I knew who the parties were, He was so artful a dodger that he could twist the argument so that the State always won.
Renquist could argue that a black cow was actually white.

Hmmm...I don't believe I am "blinded by the abortion issue". Perhaps you can enlighten us as to the dangerous opinions you discovered?

And the last time I checked, it was the liberals who sought to expand the reach of the state into the private lives of citizens through regulation. (Hence the late Sony Bono's "conversion" to the Republican party after experiencing the negative effects of liberalism's over-regulated paradise in California when he tried to open a restaurant.)

And what are we to say of the liberal, unelected federal and state judges who "legislate from the bench" on a whole host of issues, from gay marriage to starving brain-injured women in Florida at the request of their greedy two-timing husbands? Not to mention undermining legislation which create reasonable restrictions on abortion. Any danger there?

Perhaps your fears are misplaced...perhaps not. I'd like to hear what you have uncovered.

Gordo

Nonna,

I hate to say that I do not think this is an appropriate way to start off a post, especially on this forum. I know as Christians we need to be pro-life, but let us not peg one segment.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

We, Catholics, are not blinded by the fact that the addition of Justice Alito to the Supreme Court, making it "Catholic" for the first time in U.S. history, does not ipso facto lead to the overturn of Roe v. Wade.

Abortion is just one of the many issues involved!

But the appointment of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito could be the first small step to a giant leap for the U.S., as a nation, to abandon this "culture of death" she has been in for so long and to embrace the "culture of life" held dear by Catholics and other Christians.

A "Catholic" Supreme Court is just an added bonus in our continuing fight for the sanctity of life!

Amado

Dear Father Anthony,

I should have worded it differently. Please see my post under the Democrat Response to the Union thread below.

Zenovia: I might say that characterization of all Liberals here as "crying" does a disservice to loving and open debate on these matters.

Peace and Love,
Nonna

Guess what?

In his first act as the newest member of the Supreme Court, Justice Alito splits with the "conservative bloc" and votes to stop the State of Missouri from executing a death-row inmate (for kidnapping and murder) who was questioning the propriety of lethal injection in putting him to death, i.e., the inmate argued that it was an "unjust and cruel punishment!"

Earlier, the Supreme Court, without Justice Alito who was awaiting confirmation by the Senate, affirmed the constituionality of the death penalty in Missouri, which was the other issue raised by the said inmate.

So, in this particular case, Justice Alito voted in favor of the maintenance of life, albeit temporarily, in order to determine whether "lethal injection" is a form of "unjust and cruel punishment" proscribed by the U.S. Constitution.

It is not clear whether he would have voted to keep the death penalty in Missouri.

Full story: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11136502/

Amado

"Original Intent versus Legislating from the Bench"

Who here has studied jurisprudence? What do you understand "original Intent" to mean? How do judges discern original intent from words and sentences that are at times deliberately ambiguous and at times organically ambiguous?

Judges are called judges because they must make judgements, they must make decisions when faced with greyness. Is it closer to Black or White in this instance, they must ask themselves.

Certainly the Warren court (I believe that's the court that decided Roe v. Wade) was creative in its interpretation of the law, but so was the Rehnquist court.

As to what state courts have done with respect to the interpretation of state laws I haven't read those decisions. Can any of you objecting to them provide me with a citation? (you know it would be in the form of somthing like this:Czapinski v. St. Francis Hosp., Inc., 2000 WI 80, 236 Wis. 2d 316, 613 N.W.2d 120.)

And we can talk about legislating from the bench.

With regard to homosexual "marriage" Don't make the error of confusing the Religious sanctified marriage practiced by the Church with the State's action of recognizing civil unions.
Iknew a priest in fact who refused to sign the State marriage license. He performed the marriage, the couple was married in the eyes of God and the church. The state thing was not his concern.

Dear Nonna you said:

"The politicians don't care about abortion, what they care about is pushing federal rights over individual rights, the power of the police over the people, the power of big business over little business, the power of the executive over the congress."

I say:

Actually, Judge Alito was chosen by Pres. Bush and I always believed that the Republican Party is the party for state rights...which basically means more rights for the people and less for the Federal government.

I also believe that the Republican Party is the party for small businesses rather than corporations. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me they have always ran on those programs.

As for large corporations, if I recall, small family owned farms were being bought up by large corporations because of inheritance taxes. Also, small businessmen are really stifled by all the regulations and taxes which have been imposed on them by the Democrats.

These small businesses must pay exorbitant amounts to companies for medical insurance in order to cover their workers. I believe this admistration has passed legislation to help solve that problem by allowing them to combine with others, and thereby lower their insurance. Mind you, more small businesses means more jobs in this country.

Now to get to the bottom of some of this, the high price of medical insurance is due to law suits. Obviously we have too many lawyers, and they can only subsist through law suits. Unless I'm sadly mistaken, (I'm sure I'm not on this one), the lawyers lobby supports the Democratic Party.

Now Hillary Clinton a lawyer, wanted a government funded medical insurance. My logic tells me that if we were to have had that happen at that time, without the 'tort' reform (that certainly the Democrats would not have wanted since they were being supported by the lawyers lobby), we tax payers would have been helping the lawyers become wealthy overnight. Also wouldn't that have increased the size of the Federal government...including taxes and all that goes with it?

I'm going to give you a personal example of womething I received once. One day something came from a law firm asking me to sign a paper so that they can proceed with a lawsuit against a very well known auction house. They said I was due more money for something I sold, because of some small legality.

Well I signed it, and lo and behold, one day I received $300. Well what I sold was worth $12,000, and yet this auction house sold things worth millions. I could just imagine the losses they incurred, or rather the losses their insurance company incurred. Now tell me, when the insurance rates go up, who pays for it? We do!

By the way, that was not the only time I received such papers for law suits. When I read the fine print on one of them, I realized that each lawyer involved, (and there were many), was making something in the amount of ten million. Again I ask, what party backs them?

Of course this is only one of many things I could mention. We also have the teachrs union with it's agenda's, and AARP and it's agenda, and so on.

I just read your new post, and I have to say: Okay, okay! I'm sorry for the labeling of 'crying liberals'.

You said:

"With regard to homosexual "marriage" Don't make the error of confusing the Religious sanctified marriage practiced by the Church with the State's action of recognizing civil unions."

I say:

Actually, I heard in Canada where civil unions are allowed that it is an economic disaster. Remember that many of these homosexuals can have many partners and are prone to deseases that others are not prone to. .. not that it means that I am against it. Just wondering if recognizing civil unions are placing more burdens on people in some way or other, and thereby limiting our freedoms.

Zenovia

Dear Nonna where you said:

"With regard to homosexual "marriage" Don't make the error of confusing the Religious sanctified marriage practiced by the Church with the State's action of recognizing civil unions."

I would like to add more:

I have another problem with civil unions for homosexuals. I can't help but feel that the more acceptable homosexuality becomes, the more it influences children in the formative ages of 13,14 and 15 to 'experiment'. Of course it influences college students too.

If a boy happens not to have a strong sex drive, they are 'encouraged' to accept themselves as being homosexual. So even if no disorder existed within them, it then becomes one.

It is false to believe that these 'homosexuals' were hiding in the closet. Of course some were, but on the whole I don't see how it possibly could exist in a society where it 'never' entered one's mind.

Zenovia

-------------------------------------------------
Dear Caelim, Jr. you said:

"Of course, I have not even begun to mention the growing euthanasia movement, treated with great fondness it seems in the state of Oregon."

I say:

This is very frightening. Do these people in the euthanasia movement realize that it is not the elderly or the sick that usually commit suicide. It is the teenagers. Do they have any idea what they are doing?

Zenovia

A quick response to CaelumJR:

The post from me that you are responding to was not particuarly insightful or articulate, as I said. It attempts to describe how your movement is seen from the standpoint of someone deeply involved in other movements. With a lock on the Supreme Court and the Presidency--the next President will certainly be a Republican as well--you should be secure enough in power to hear a few critical insights.

1. Your first point replying to my post is too full of rhetoric and emotion for me to respond to.

2. I never said "ccopted." I said that your leadership, which is backed by big money and is relatively intelligent and has some foresight, is using you. I also said, or meant to say, that they need to turn off the tap they opened for political reasons and they can't. This is a core part of the crisis facing American conservatives.

3. I never doubted that there are conflicting or differing agendas. So what?

4. Union jobs in Federal government are certainly NOT expanding. Read the DHS rules.

5. I don't believe in conspiracy theories.

6. I never said that people were being shipped to Iraq in order to avoid social ills. I said that the attacks led by conservatives on the worst aspects of youth culture have hit the wall because the kids are getting sent off to war.

7. "Taxpayers rights" defunds government services and transforms government into being a very easily hustled business. This is the libertarian ideology, an opening to anarchism, and any Christian taking the libertarian position must have a hard time reconciling the libertarian ideal or utopia with the historic Christian understanding of government and Church teaching.

8. I never said that there was a conservative plan to take on the Jews. I said that the Jews, civil rights, unions and others are the usual targets of the right. The rise of Christian zionism has changed the equation somewhat. The targets of the day seem to be immigrants and gays and I get this from listening to people like Grover Norquist, Tancredo & Co. If you disagree, take it up with them.

9. I am indeed at peace. Thanks for your good wishes.

bob r.