McCain putting national security at risk

Anything goes. Politics, religion and your neighbors spouse. No censors, no dictators. Any and all opinions welcome.
Post Reply
lbj
Part Timer
Posts: 220
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2004 11:38 am

McCain putting national security at risk

Post by lbj »

Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family believes Senator McCain put our national security at risk. Now Dr. Dobson is getting ready to endorse McCain. Dobson is just another hypocrite in a long list of right wing flip floppers.

--------------------------------

by James C. Dobson, Ph.D.

August 2002

Dear Friends:

By now, I would assume that almost every American has heard about the terrible decision handed down on June 26th by Judges Alfred Goodwin and Stephen Reinhardt in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.1 These arrogant men had the shocking audacity to rule that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional because it includes the term "under God" — a phrase which was inserted by the U.S. Congress in 1954 and signed into law by then-President Dwight D. Eisenhower. No federal court in the intervening years has seen fit to issue such an order. Only now, with the liberal judiciary running amok in this land, have these two unelected and unaccountable judges had the temerity to do something this out of step with the nation. Although Judge Goodwin stayed (or suspended) his own order after receiving an unprecedented barrage of criticism, he remained unrepentant. He complained a few days after the ruling that the emails protesting the decision were "mindless."2

Clearly, these liberal judges must have believed that, in view of all the other successful assaults on religious faith taking place in recent days, it was time to go for broke. A tempting prize was within their grasp. By issuing this ruling, they could not only have eliminated the reference to God in the Pledge, but by implication, set in motion a judicial precedent that could make illegal every other instance in which the name of God shows up in public life. If upheld, the ruling could eventually sound the death knell for patriotic songs such as "God Bless America" and "America The Beautiful," which proclaims "God shed His grace on thee." It would wipe the inscription "In God We Trust" from our currency. It would make illegal the prayer spoken at the beginning of every session of the U.S. Congress. Indeed, when taken to its logical conclusion, it would presumably be illegal for the U.S. Supreme Court Marshal to shout, "God save the United States and this Honorable Court!" at the start of each session.3 According to the curator of the court, that statement has likely been shouted since the first day of operation in 1790.4

The decision by Goodwin and Reinhardt is truly shocking in its presumption! If the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court have not considered the use of God's name to be a problem in their courtroom for the past 212 years, what earthly business did these two imperious judges from the Ninth Circuit have in issuing such a cockamamie edict? Even their own appeals court opens its sessions with the pronouncement, "God save the United States and this Honorable Court."5 I suppose it should not surprise us that this decision emanated from the State of California, where the legislature and both the state and federal courts have become downright wacky.

(And speaking of wacky, the case from which this controversy originally erupted is strange in itself. It started when Michael Newdow, a Sacramento, Calif., atheist activist, filed suit against both the United States Congress for inserting the words "under God" into the pledge in 1954, and against his local school district for a policy to have teachers lead students in the Pledge during class. Newdow claimed that his eight-year-old daughter, whom he claimed he was raising as an atheist, was injured whenever she has been compelled to "watch and listen" as her teachers and classmates recite the Pledge.6

However, it recently emerged that Newdow's daughter and mother (the parents never married) both attend Calvary Chapel in Costa Mesa, California. Area pastors with whom Newdow's daughter has come into contact have indicated that, not only is she not offended by references to God in the Pledge, but she believes in God herself! When confronted with the allegedly fraudulent nature of his case, Newdow back-pedaled, saying, "This is more about me than her. I'd like to keep her out of this."7)

This case aside, let us consider just how off-the-wall the Ninth Circuit Court has become. In a four-year span (1996-2000), its decisions were reversed by the United States Supreme Court 63 out of 73 times.8 Judge Reinhardt was, himself, reversed five times in ONE term by a unanimous Supreme Court.9 What does that tell you?

Our leaders in Washington were apparently just as shocked as we were by the anti-Pledge decision. Through his spokesman, President George W. Bush first called the ruling "ridiculous."10 He went on to publicly comment that the decision was out of step with the traditions and history of our country, saying: "America is a nation that values our relationship with an Almighty. The declaration of God and the Pledge of Allegiance doesn't violate rights. As a matter of fact, it's a confirmation of the fact that we received our rights from God as proclaimed in our Declaration of Independence."11

Thank you, Mr. President. We agree wholeheartedly!

The comments by our congressmen and senators were even more emphatic. Unlike appointed federal judges who enjoy lifelong job security, many of our representatives will be facing the electorate in November. They resoundingly condemned the action by Goodwin and Reinhardt. Indeed, not in recent memory have our legislators been so openly and uniformly disdainful of a federal court decision. Here are some of their responses:

Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) said, "…this decision is nuts. This decision is just nuts."12

Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) said, "This highlights what the fight over federal judges is all about… We do need to put judges on there that wouldn't render this kind of decision."13

Representative Dick Armey (R-TX) lamented, "It's got to be one of the most asinine things I've ever heard of."14

Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) declared, "I hope and trust it will be overturned. But if, may I say God forbid, if it is not overturned, then we will join to amend the Constitution."15

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) was also critical of the ruling, saying, "…I have to hope the decision will not be upheld."16

Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) offered one of the most exasperated responses when he lamented, "I hope the Senate will waste no time in throwing this back in the face of this stupid judge. …What are we coming to when we cannot speak God's name? … I will read the Bible right here on this desk. I have done it before. I will do it again. I have recited the Pledge and so has every other member of this body time and time again. Come, Judge Goodwin of the Ninth Circuit, put us in jail. … I, for one, am not going to stand for this country's being ruled by a bunch of atheists." Regarding the possibility of promotion, he admonished, "Let that judge's name ever come before this Senate while I am a member, and he will be blackballed…"17 How long has it been since you heard a liberal Democratic senator such as Robert Byrd say he would stop "a bunch of atheists?"

Speaking of Democrats, I find it interesting that Senators Daschle and Leahy were so vocal in their condemnation of the ruling, even though they have exercised every possible maneuver in the Senate to block President Bush's more conservative appointments to the federal bench. They have sought to prevent "strict constructionists" from being confirmed, preferring instead judges with the same ultra-liberal leanings as Goodwin and Reinhardt. Democrats currently have a hammerlock on the courts, and they apparently aim to keep it. The leftist character of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is what we get when liberal politicians such as Daschle and Leahy have their way.

It is worth noting that 14 out of the 23 active judges on the Ninth Circuit were appointed by former President Bill Clinton.18 But how did they get confirmed when the Republicans held the majority for six years? It was simple. Republicans in the Senate uttered hardly a peep of protest as they waved the liberal appointments on through. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, for example, was confirmed by 96 senators in 1993.19 She is a committed feminist, a former general counsel of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and one of the most liberal judges ever confirmed.20 Regrettably, even the most conservative Republican senators voted for her. Even Orrin Hatch (R-UT), then the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, offered her a ringing endorsement, despite her pro-abortion views.21 Clearly, Democrats play by a different set of rules. Today, Senator Leahy would not even permit a fine man such as Judge Charles Pickering to get out of his Judicial Committee.22 There are currently five judgeships open on the Ninth Circuit Court, but Daschle and Leahy are determined not to let the President fill them.23 Thus, Goodwin and Reinhardt continue to rule the day.

Without a doubt, the Democrats in the Senate are more determined than the passive Republican leadership. Senator Minority Leader Trent Lott seems to have no stomach for the battle. He has been outmaneuvered by Senator Daschle and his comrades at every turn. The result is an alarming accumulation of vacancies in the federal courts. The Sixth Circuit Court, for example, has eight vacancies out of 16 authorized judgeships.24 Meanwhile, Republican Senator John McCain is actually working to block all of President Bush's nominations, because he wants the White House to nominate Ellen Weintraub, a liberal Democrat, to the Federal Election Commission (McCain feels that Weintraub will look favorably upon campaign reform laws).25 Senator McCain has gone so far as to demand that the White House appoint Weintraub to the FEC this month, rather than waiting for her to go through the standard nomination process. If the Bush administration fails to bow to his wishes, he has vowed to block any nominations up for a Senate vote. In addition to judicial nominations, McCain's stonewalling will also affect Bush's nominations for U.S. Marshals.26 In the name of personal agendas and politics, Senator McCain could very well be putting our national security at risk!

Those Democrats and Republicans who are holding up the confirmation hearings of the President's nominees to the federal bench must be made to understand the damage they are wreaking on this country by their refusal to permit the nominations to proceed to hearing.

Something else should be noted at this point. The decision to strike down the Pledge of Allegiance did not spring out of nothingness, nor did it originate in the minds of two audacious judges. Quantum leaps to the left by the courts and the legislatures usually follow a series of smaller steps in the same direction. Then the liberals become progressively more bold as the American people become distracted and desensitized. That is precisely what has happened with regard to the Pledge: the liberal establishment moved us little by little toward its ultimate goal, and then cheered as the Ninth Circuit Court took the plunge.

At the risk of sounding self-serving, I have to tell you that I foresaw this development several years ago and reported my observations in one of my monthly letters. Maybe it would be instructive to quote from that letter, which was sent to 2.4 million people in September 2000. I think you will see that the liberals had it as their objective back then to destroy or render ineffective the Pledge, for the reasons I outline below. Here are some direct quotes from a portion of that discussion:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 2000

In keeping with the arrival of the new school year, I would like to address some of the education-related issues that have arisen in recent months. They demonstrate graphically that the battle for the hearts and minds of our kids is still being waged. Let's start with a decision by Federal District Judge Jennifer Coffman who ruled in May that displays of historic American documents in eastern Kentucky schools and county courthouses were unconstitutional and had to be removed.27 She said they had the effect of "conveying a very specific governmental endorsement of religion." 28 Believe it or not, the documents to which the judge objected included:

* An excerpt from the Declaration of Independence, saying, "All men ... are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
* The preamble to the Constitution of Kentucky, which states, "We, the people of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy, and invoking the continuance of these blessings, do ordain and establish this Constitution."
* The national motto, "In God we trust."
* A page from the Congressional Record of Wednesday, Feb. 2, 1983, Vol. 129, No. 8, which declares 1983 as the "Year of the Bible" and lists the Ten Commandments.
* A proclamation by President Ronald Reagan marking 1983 the "Year of the Bible."
* A proclamation by President Abraham Lincoln designating April 30, 1863, a "National Day of Prayer and Humiliation."
* An excerpt from President Lincoln's "Reply to Loyal Colored People of Baltimore upon Presentation of a Bible," which reads, "The Bible is the best gift God has ever given to man."
* The Mayflower Compact, in which the colony's founders invoke "the name of God" and explain that their journey was taken, among other reasons, "for the glory of God and advancement of the Christian faith."29

Also displayed, and the apparent reason for the lawsuit brought by (who else?) the ACLU, were copies of the Ten Commandments. That did it for Judge Coffman. She required that all the documents be stripped from the walls.30

[I then offered another example taking place in the state of Utah.]

At issue is the passage of Senate Bill 21, which would direct public schools to teach the history, customs and etiquette of the American flag, and require elementary students to say the Pledge every school day. High school students are encouraged to say it once a week. However, the bill allows parents to have their children excused from this requirement with a written note. Does that legislation sound reasonable to you? Not to the ACLU. It has threatened a lawsuit now that this bill has become law.31

[Remember, now, that I wrote these words in the year 2000.]

How could anyone object to children citing the Pledge of Allegiance or to a curriculum designed to teach them the history, customs and etiquette of the American flag? How could anything so central to our culture be considered even marginally controversial? The answers to these questions are very important and reveal a larger struggle that is underway. Let's look back a few years to get a wider perspective.

When I was a kid, the Pledge of Allegiance was recited by each student, after which the class joined in saying "The Lord's Prayer" in unison. That was the way many public schools in America began each day, which was followed by a healthy dose of reading, writing and arithmetic. But as we have seen, the Pledge is under attack, and citing the Lord's Prayer would send the ACLU into spasms of apoplexy. These two fundamental creeds — God and country — were central to school curricula in the not-so-distant past. Unfortunately, those beliefs and values have fallen into disfavor, not by a vote of the people of this democracy, but by imperious liberal judges who are determined to redesign this great nation by changing its schools.

Behind the resistance to patriotism and faith is a concept known as "multiculturalism," which emphasizes the differences rather than the similarities between Americans. I wish I could say that this term referred to respect for the entire human family, regardless of nationality, race or ethnic identification. Every culture has a rich heritage from which we may gain something beautiful and valuable, and many of them have been assimilated in the land of the "Great Melting Pot."

No longer. The terms "multiculturalism" and "diversity" have come to have very different meanings when used by activists and the cultural elites. They are a kind of "Trojan Horse" in which to smuggle the concept of moral relativism into the heartland of Western culture. They are code words for the proposition that there is no such thing as right and wrong.

The argument runs like this. Because our nation is composed of people from widely diverse cultural and ethnic groups, each having its own unique value system or ethical code, we must conclude that there is no such thing as "truth" or moral certitude. In the final analysis, "anything goes." Somehow, the existence of many different standards proves that there is no standard. For obvious reasons, amoralists and atheists are attracted to that position and promote it with vigor. Nothing, they say, is really right or wrong. What is true depends entirely on one's point of view. The highest form of good, therefore, is tolerance to anything and everything except traditional Christianity, which is the chief source of what they call "intolerance."

As with a contagious virus, however, the concept has popped up in many other locations, including the California public schools. Helped by recent laws passed in that state dealing with "hate" crimes and AIDS education, more teachers have begun to teach that homosexuality is normal and acceptable. And the beat goes on. A new California bill, which has not passed at the time of this writing, requires school curricula to oppose "homophobia."32 [Note: The most regrettable and dangerous of those pieces of legislation were subsequently passed by the legislature, along with others, and then signed into law by Gov. Gray Davis. Henceforth, many of California's children, beginning in kindergarten, are being taught homosexual propaganda in the public schools.]33

A principal at Heritage High School in Littleton, Colorado, before the massacre at Columbine High School, spoke in opposition to the instruction of the Depression and World War II. Why? Because he asserted that any attempt to define our cultural landmarks is arbitrary and therefore is arrogant and presumptuous.34 It is wrong, he said, to teach our children that an American perspective on world history is more valid than any other — even for Americans. Several years ago, Pennsylvania educators proposed a similar educational objective for all their graduating seniors. There, where the Declaration of Independence was signed and the Constitutional Convention occurred, came this guiding principle: "[Students should achieve] mastery of the concept that no one form of government is better than any other."35 Parents objected strenuously, and school officials backed down.

Were these educators really asserting that a democratic form of government based on guaranteed freedoms and elected representatives is not morally superior to totalitarian systems such as those dominated by Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin? Indeed, they were! And their students have learned their lessons well. U.S. News and World Report columnist John Leo reported a recent conversation with a university professor who said a sizeable percentage of his students even refuse to condemn the systematic murder of six million people in World War II. They say, "I'm not fond of the Nazis, but I can't say that the Holocaust was immoral."36 After all, if there is no right or wrong, then not even mass murder can be called "wrong."

With this perspective on multiculturalism, we now understand why the Pledge of Allegiance is falling into disfavor with secular humanists and post-modernists. Read it with me, if you will, and imagine the nation's children joining us, each with one hand over his or her heart: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." The last thing on earth the multiculturalists want is to have 54 million kids37 reciting that every morning! Quick. Call in the ACLU!

Those 31 words contain four themes which account for much of the greatness of this land. They are, loyalty to country, unity of the people, reverence for God, and freedom for all. What is known as "the American idea" is interwoven with those four concepts. Though we are a nation of immigrants who came to these shores from various regions of the world, we have been forged into a national community by the great social experiment known as democracy. That's why our country is called "the United States." It is also why the Great Seal of the United States, found on the back of the one dollar bill, bears the phrase, "E Pluribus Unum," which means "from many, one." (Incidentally, Vice President Al Gore, a passionate multiculturalist, mistranslated that phrase several years ago. He said E Pluribus Unum meant, "Out of one, many."38 That is the bias of those who want us to "celebrate diversity.")

No one doubts that healthy differences should and do exist between people, but there must also be a common bond that unites them. Why? Because there is strength in unity and there is pervasive weakness in disharmony. Jesus said it best, "Any kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and a house divided against itself will fall" (Mark 3:24-25). Our stability as a nation, therefore, is directly dependent on how we relate to one another. We will either be "indivisible" or we will be easily "divide-able." We will either be "under God," or we will be under whatever seems right at the moment. We will either care about one another and promote the common good, or we will grab the best for ourselves and resent anyone who might nudge us out. We will either preserve our liberty, or we will fall victim to an opportunistic tyrant who would rule over us.

It's as simple as that.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope it is clear, now, what led to the outrageous decision by Judges Goodwin and Reinhardt. They carried the ball over the goal line, but the final touchdown was preceded by a lot of blocking and tackling as they drove down the field. I figure that the score is now about 70 to nothing here in the fourth quarter, and the home team appears to have given up. Unfortunately, what we are dealing with here is far more than a mere game. It is the future of this great nation.

Somehow, Senators Daschle and Leahy and those others who are withholding confirmation of the President's judicial nominees must be pressured to allow fair and legitimate hearings to proceed at once and to afford the President the same courtesy that Republicans granted Bill Clinton during his two terms in office. [Why don't you consider writing a letter to the editor of your local newspaper or calling a talk show pointing out the outrageous conduct of Senators Daschle and Leahy and their allies. Your friends might be interested in knowing how you feel. Maybe the word will get through to our Senators, too.]

Finally, be in prayer for our wonderful nation. Ask God to help us preserve our heritage of faith for ourselves and future generations. That is the only real solution to our crisis!

Well, that's it for this month. Let me conclude with this word that, as I write, we are just a few days away from our 25th Anniversary Celebration here in Colorado Springs, July 26-28. The festivities will be over by the time you receive this letter. More than 15,000 people have indicated their intention of attending the final event at the Pepsi Center. Excitement here on campus is running high. Above all else, we want this entire celebration to be an expression of love and appreciation to the Lord for what He has done. That will be the highlight of the past 25 years for all of us.

Have a good summer's end, and may God bless you all.

Sincerely,
Dobson Signature

James C. Dobson, Ph.D.
President

P.S. There is one more late-breaking development that I must share with you. A court in Ontario, Canada has ruled just last month that the heterosexual definition of marriage is unconstitutional. Although the ruling has been suspended for at least 24 months to allow Parliament to enact new legislation, activists see this decision as a major step toward the formal recognition of homosexual marriage in Canada.39 It isn't too far-fetched to assume that Canadian Christians and others who oppose homosexuality on moral grounds could have their views declared "unconstitutional" as well. Please take the time to pray earnestly that the Lord will intervene and that this dangerous decision would be reversed. Canadian policies of this nature often serve as previews of similar developments here in the United States. So brace yourselves, Americans! The assault on marriage and the family is about to get worse!
This letter may be reproduced without change and in its entirety for noncommercial and nonpolitical purposes without prior permission from Focus on the Family.
NeedleMan
Greenhorn
Posts: 46
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 11:49 am

Post by NeedleMan »

Trying to Justify Obama's actions eh?

It don't fly LBJ!


Needleman
lbj
Part Timer
Posts: 220
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2004 11:38 am

Post by lbj »

duh...needles. no mention was made of obama. i only talked about dobson and his fellow travellers. they are a bunch of hypocrites. u been dippin into rush's hh???
lazarus
Expert
Posts: 1044
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 7:14 am

Needles

Post by lazarus »

lbj,

I'm afraid we have to move very slowly with Needles, as he is one slow moving machine. I have rocks in my garden smarter than him.

Brad
Post Reply