Archive for November 17th, 2009

Rush:  So what are your thoughts now on the viability of a third party if the Republican Party can’t be brought around?

Palin:  I think that it’s a bit naive when you talk about the pragmatism that has to be applied in America‘s political system. And we are a two-party system…. I don’t think America is ready for that[a viable third party]…. Granted it’s quite conventional and traditional, but in a good way that we have our two parties, and I think that that’s what will remain.  I don’t think that the third party movement will be what’s necessary to usher in some common-sense conservative idea.

Limbaugh: Sarah Palin Interview – Transcript

Here’s the transcript of Rush Limbaugh’s November 17 interview with Sarah Palin:

RUSH: We are going to open this hour with a rare personal interview, a rare guest. It doesn’t happen much on this program, but we are happy to have with us former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, whose book, Going Rogue, hits the shelves today and it’s already headed for I think a record in sales. Governor Palin, thanks for making time. It’s great to talk to you again. We spoke last Thursday in an interview for the Limbaugh Letter, but it’s great to have you here on the radio.

GOV. PALIN: Hey, thank you so much, and dittos from an Alaskan.

RUSH: Where are you, by the way? Where are we speaking to you from?

GOV. PALIN: In a hotel room in New York City. I’m going to do a couple of interviews after that and then head to Grand Rapids for the kickoff of the book tour.

RUSH: This is going to be exciting. Are you looking forward to that?

GOV. PALIN: I am so looking forward to this. I cannot wait to meet some of these good Americans all across this country. It’s going to be a blast.

RUSH: They can’t wait to meet you, judging by the reception you got during the campaign. Now, ladies and gentlemen, Governor Palin, when we spoke last Thursday I spoke to her a lot about the things in her book regarding the campaign. That stuff you’ll read in the Limbaugh Letter, and I predicted to Governor Palin then that much of her book would be ignored in light of the dirt that she was supposedly dishing from the campaign. So Governor Palin what I’d like to do here is go some different directions from what we did in the newsletter interview and start with the economy. We have 10.2% unemployment. We see no end in sight. The administration and others are suggesting next year could be just as bad with unemployment going up to 11%. What would you do differently than is being done now?

GOV. PALIN: It’s over 10%, and in fact it could be closer to 17 or 18 when you consider those who have kind of given up and not applying for unemployment benefits. So it’s bad, it’s really bad and then of course Fed Chair Bernanke announced that there are still weak job prospects for the very short term and probably long term, and that’s an uncomfortable place for our country to be. What we need to do is shift gears and really head in another direction because what we’re doing right now with the fed, it’s not working. We need to cut taxes on the job creators. This is all about jobs, creating jobs. We have to ramp up industry here in America, and of course reduce the federal debt, quit piling on and growing more. But those common sense solutions there, especially with the cutting taxes on the job creators, that’s not even being discussed. In fact, increased taxes is the direction it sounds like Obama wants to go.

RUSH: You mean that you don’t even hear it being discussed on the Republican side or within the administration?

GOV. PALIN: Within the administration, and as it is discussed on the Republican side, Republicans need to be bolder about it. Independents need to be bolder about that solution that has got to be considered and plugged in. This is the only solution that will be successful. We need to rehash some history that proves its success. Let’s go back to what Reagan did in the early eighties and stay committed to those common sense free market principles that worked. He faced a tougher recession than what we’re facing today. He cut those taxes, ramped up industry, and we pulled out of that recession. We need to revisit that.

RUSH: Why do you think this administration is ignoring that blueprint? What is their ultimate objective here? They’re sitting in the middle of abject failure of their number one stated goal, and that’s job creation. So what are they really trying to do here do you think?

GOV. PALIN: Well, you wonder, you wonder because history proves what will work and you wonder if they’re realizing that and if it’s just perhaps a stubbornness at this point that they are so committed to going down this road of growing government and interjecting the feds’ control in the private sector more and more which will prove to be more failure. I don’t know if it’s obstinate thinking that they’re engaged in right now or if they truly just do not believe what the free market, free enterprise economic solutions are that built up this country.

RUSH: Do you think this is going to be a major issue in the congressional elections in 2010, and if so, how would you advise Republicans to pursue it?

GOV. PALIN: It better be a major issue, absolutely. Of course, national security will be, too, and hopefully we’ll talk a little bit about some of the decisions being made in that arena that cause so many of us concern but, yeah, the economy, that’s what it’s going to be because it’s all about jobs, it’s all about Americans who are hurting right now and what those solutions are that are so obvious, so common sense that need to be plugged in. And those are Republican, they’re common sense conservative principles that we just need to apply.

RUSH: New York 23 is being portrayed as a race in which you and I, because we supposedly went up there, handpicked Doug Hoffman, he supposedly lost, even though that race, they still haven’t finished counting the votes. It’s two weeks! This is not Chicago. They haven’t finished counting the votes. He says he wishes he could un-concede now. But they’re trying to diminish conservatism, and I think in the process intimidate the Republican Party from going in that direction. What’s your read on New York 23?

GOV. PALIN: I think this is exciting. It’s encouraging. No matter the outcome even with his recount of some of those, well, uncounted ballots, it’s exciting that the race is going to be even closer, and it’s a clearer and clearer picture that what Americans are seeking, even in a district there in New York, they are seeking common sense, conservative solutions to all the challenges that we’re facing. I’m glad to see this.

RUSH: So the positive thing there is that the Republican Party was rebuffed in nominating essentially a RINO, a liberal?

GOV. PALIN: Well, I think what you saw there is — and of course it’s not just the Republican machine, it’s the Democrat machine, too. You know, if you’re not the anointed one within the machine, sometimes you have a much tougher row to hoe and that’s what Hoffman faced. He was the underdog. I think great timing for him, though, to stand strong on his conservative credentials and essentially come out of nowhere and prove that an American without that resume, without that machine backing can truly make a difference in an election like this.

RUSH: Well, now, you used the term, “If you’re not the anointed one by the party machine, you’re the underdog and you have a tough row to hoe.” Based on things that I read, the Republican establishment would not anoint you to be a nominee of their party should you choose to go that way. I’m not asking you the question because I know you’re not going to answer and give away what your plans are in 2012.

GOV. PALIN: (chuckles)

RUSH: Do you consider yourself one of these unanointed ones within your own party?

GOV. PALIN: Well, to some in both parties, politics is more of a business. It’s not so much a commitment to an agenda or a person or values or issues. It’s more of a business — and, no, I’m not a part of that. So if they’re going to keep using that way of thinking in their decisions on who they anoint, who they will support or not then, no. I’ll never be a part of that. But hopefully we’re going to see a shift with independents, with the Republican Party and the Democrat Party, and we’re going to get back to what the issues are, what really matters, and then hopefully we’re going to go from there, which will be much fairer to the electorate.

RUSH: All right, independents, slash, third party. A lot of people — mistakenly, in my view — are looking at New York 23 as evidence that, see, a third party could actually do well. But that’s not a good example because there was no primary there. As you said, the party bosses chose Dede Scozzafava on the Republican side and a Democrat. Had there been a primary, New York 23 would not have been constituted as it was. So what are your thoughts now on the viability of a third party if the Republican Party can’t be brought around?

GOV. PALIN: You know, to be brutally honest, I think that it’s a bit naive when you talk about the pragmatism that has to be applied in America’s political system. And we are a two-party system. Ideally, sure, a third party or an independent party would be able to soar and thrive and put candidates forth and have them elected, but I don’t think America is ready for that. I think that it is… Granted it’s quite conventional and traditional, but in a good way that we have our two parties, and I think that that’s what will remain. And I say that, though, acknowledging that I’m not an obsessive panther, I understand why people — good people like my own husband — refuse to register in a party. Todd’s not a Republican and yet he’s got more common sense conservatism than a whole lot of Republicans that I know because he is one who sees the idiosyncrasies of the characters within the machine and it frustrates him along with a whole lot of other Americans who choose to be independent. But in answer to your question, I don’t think that the third party movement will be what’s necessary to usher in some common-sense conservative ideals. [emphasis mine]

RUSH: Now, you mentioned independents. We need to get independents. Independents right now are abandoning the Democrat Party. They did so in New Jersey. They did so in Virginia. And the White House pretty much proves this because the White House was out prior to the election saying, “Ah, Republican Party identification in polls is as low as it’s ever been.” Therefore, for Republicans to win these races there had to be independents moving in their direction. Now, I know you’re not in politics now but you have political experience. I’m not in politics. I’ve never gone out and gotten votes. I’ve always been curious about the professional politicians’ insistence that we go out and “get independents.” Sure you want to shore up the base. But these magical, whatever it is, 20% of people that are not identified or do not self-identify themselves with either party, what’s the way to get them?

GOV. PALIN: I think just naturally independents are going to gravitate towards that Republican agenda and Republican platform because the planks in our platform are the strongest to build a healthy America. We’re all about cutting taxes and shrinking government and respecting the inherent rights of the individual and strengthening families and respecting life and equality. You have to shake your head and say, “Who wouldn’t embrace that? Who wouldn’t want to come on over?” They don’t have to necessarily be registered within the Republican Party in order to hook up with us and join us with that agenda standing on those planks. In Alaska, about 70% of Alaskans are independent. So that’s my base. That’s where I am from and that’s been my training ground, is just implementing common-sense conservative solutions. Independents appreciate that. You’re going to see more and more of that attraction to the GOP by these independents as the days go on.

RUSH: If the GOP articulates what you just articulated. I’ve always believed the way to get them… Reagan got them by just being who he was, articulating conservatism. Conservatism is nothing different than the founding principles of the country. Therefore, the key to getting independents is Republicans who can articulate those beliefs.

GOV. PALIN: You know another key to this, too, is to not hesitate duking it out within the party. This is what I appreciate about the Republican Party. We have contested, aggressive, competitive primaries. We’re not like this herd mentality like a punch of sheep — with the fighting instincts of sheep, as Horowitz would say — like some in the Democrat Party; where, heaven forbid, you take a stand and you oppose somebody within your own party because it’s the right thing to do. I appreciate that in the Republican Party. Some on the other side say — you know, they’re observing what goes on in the GOP and say — “That’s infighting, and they can’t get along, and there’s no consensus there.” No. This is healthy debate, good competition that makes candidates work harder. It makes for a better product, if you will, at the end of the day. I appreciate that about our party.

RUSH: We are talking to Governor Sarah Palin. We take a brief prosperity time-out. We’ll be back and continue with Governor Palin right after this.

(Commercial break)

RUSH: And we’re back. Our remaining moments are former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, starting her book tour today. Let’s talk about your book tour, your career in general, Governor Palin. Who are you trying to reach, and for what purpose, with the book and your book tour? What’s your goal here?

GOV. PALIN: I’m not trying to reach the liberal elites in this country, and it’s a good thing I’m not trying to, because I’m not succeeding there. Just everyday, hardworking Americans who want government back on their side and I want to help them have their voice be heard. And the book is all about that, and the book is about my record and my accomplishments as a mayor and as a governor that kind of lay the foundation for Americans to see where it was that I was and how I got to where I am. It was just a lot of hard work and it was a lot of very common sense measures that I undertook politically and practically speaking, and the book is about that, and hopefully people will read it and enjoy it and learn something from it.

RUSH: What’s our biggest energy challenge as a country? Do you believe at all or some or a lot in the modern-day go-green movement of solar and wind and all of these nefarious things that really don’t produce anything yet?

GOV. PALIN: I think there’s a lot of snake oil science involved in that and somebody’s making a whole lot of money off people’s fears that the world is… It’s kind of tough to figure out what the shady science right now, what are we supposed to be doing right now with our climate. Are we warming or are we cooling? I don’t think Americans are even told anymore if it’s global warming or just climate change. And I don’t attribute all the changes to man’s activities. I think that this is, in a lot of respects, cyclical and the earth does cool and it warms. And our greatest challenge with energy is that we’re not tapping it to the abundant domestic supplies that God created right underfoot on American soil and under our waters. It’s ridiculous that we are circulating hundreds of billions of dollars a year in foreign countries, asking them to ramp up production so that we can purchase it from them — especially from the regimes that can control us via energy, using it as a weapon against us, potentially. It’s nonsense that this administration and past administrations haven’t really understood yet that inherent link between energy and security. I think more and more Americans are waking up to the fact, though, and we will hopefully see changes there soon.

RUSH: Vice President Biden chided you, saying, “It’s a little bit more complicated,” Governor Palin, than “Drill, Baby, Drill,” which is one of your chapter titles. What’s complicated about drilling for oil?

GOV. PALIN: Exactly. What is complicated about tapping into abundant, safe domestic supplies that could provide stability for our country and security for our country? I know Alaska has billions of barrels of oil underfoot, and we have the natural gas that’s waiting to be tapped, too; and other states do, too. It’s not that complicated. It’s political, and that’s what is the shame is in this, is that for political reasons we’re not allowing to tap these domestic supplies.

RUSH: What are your thoughts on the congressional health care reform bills going through the House and the Senate?

GOV. PALIN: Well, we don’t really know, do we, what’s in that Senate version, the Senate consideration? It will be soon but we have no idea of costs. We don’t know how many will be insured. We’re waiting to hear that. We don’t know if the tax funding of abortions will be in this new version that’s sitting over on the Senate side. We don’t know if those who choose not to purchase this government-mandated level of coverage will face jail time as punishment. There are so many questions unanswered. I don’t like the idea, in general, of the federal government thinking it needs to take over health care — which essentially this is — and control one-sixth of our economy. Not when there are common-sense solutions to meeting health care challenges in our country, like allowing the intra- and interstate competition with insurers, tort reform, cutting down on the waste and fraud that the Obama administration insists if we just did that we’ll pay for this one-point-some trillion-dollar health care reform package. So lots of common sense solutions that need to be plugged in before ever considering federal government taking it over.

RUSH: You mentioned earlier you wanted to talk about national security, that you hoped it came up. Well, here it is: What do we face? What are our threats, and are we prepared, or not?

GOV. PALIN: Well, I think domestically a threat that we’re facing right now is the dithering and hesitation in sending a message to the terrorists that we’re going to claim what Ronald Reagan claimed. Our motto is going to be: “We win, you lose.” The way that we do that is allow McChrystal to have the reinforcements that he’s asking for in Afghanistan. That sends that message to the terrorists over there that we’re going to end this thing with our victory. We need to start facing Iran with tougher and tougher sanctions that need to be considered. We need to work our allies with the Iranian issues, like Britain and France and not allow access to favorable international monetary deals. That’s a great threat that I think would kind of shake up Ahmadinejad and get him to listen. We need to look at halting Iran’s imports of refined petroleum products. They’re quite reliant on imported gasoline, and we need to use that hammer to wake up the leadership there, too. Those are two big challenges that we have right now, domestically and in naming those two countries, Afghanistan and Iran. Two big challenges there, too.

RUSH: Thirty seconds: Immigration. Can you do it in 30 seconds before we have to go?

GOV. PALIN: I can’t do it in 30 seconds but just know that… You know, let me put it simply: Illegal immigrants are called “illegal” for a reason. We need to crack down on this. We need to listen to the border states where the governors there have some solutions and we need to get serious about that.

RUSH: Governor Palin, thanks very much. It’s been a pleasure. It’s been fun. Thanks for last week as well and good luck on what I know is going to be a life-changing book and book tour.

GOV. PALIN: Hey, thank you. Keep up the good work.

RUSH: Thank you.

GOV. PALIN: And all the best to all your listeners.

Read Full Post »

Obama ‘Reaches Out’ by Naming ‘Devout’ Muslims to Security Posts

By Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu

U.S. President Barack Obama continues to “reach out to Muslims” by appointing them to key security posts amid charges he wrongly ignored internal Muslim terror. One recent appointee was harshly criticized for appearing on a British-based television station whose host is a member of a radical Muslim group.

President Obama has continued to “reach out Muslims,” as he said in his keynote speech in Cairo last June, and this past week he swore in a Muslim rights advocate to the Homeland Security Advisory Council, shortly after the Fort Hood massacre. HSAC members are involved in expertise on national security.

The new member is Syrian-born Kareem Shora, who was the national executive director of the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination (ADC), which previously has called on the United States to stop providing Israel with weapons because of alleged “atrocities” against Arabs. Her background for her new security post is having been a legal counsel and advocate for Muslim civil rights.

She also has been a frequent guest on the pro-Hamas al-Jazeera satellite network.

Shora, who has been described as a “devout Muslim, joins another devout member of the faith, Arif Alikhan, who was appointed as Assistant Secretary for Policy Development in the Department of Homeland Security. His qualifications for the job were listed as having been in charge of public safety in Los Angeles during his term of deputy mayor. One of his actions was to remove the plan that tracked Muslims in the city who were suspected of terrorist activities.

Americans have been jolted by several lethal attacks and confrontations with Muslims over the past year, including a plot to attack synagogues and down U.S. military aircraft, the manufacture of bombs, an alleged attempt to explode a Texas skyscraper, a plot to blow up malls in Boston, and last month’s Fort Hood massacre by a Muslim psychiatrist who was an officer in the army.

A desire to avoid the appearance of labeling all Muslims as terrorists lunged out from the shadows last month after President Obama faced criticism for not taking seriously the threat of Muslim terrorism within American society as well as in the Middle East, Asia and Africa.

Several months ago, President Obama appointed Dalia Mogahed, a “devout Muslim,” to his Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. She quickly came under fire for appearing in a telephone interview on a London-based Muslim television station, whose host is a member of an extreme Islamic group.

She said was unaware of the affiliations of her host, whose program included questions and comments favoring the implementation of Islamic Law (“sharia”).

Mogahed explained that she did not hang up the phone in the middle of the interview because “I assumed that very few people would watch this show but that doing something more dramatic would bring more attention.”

In the current issue of Newsweek, columnist Jacob Weisberg, citing former Secretary of State Colin Powell, wrote that “Obama’s [Muslim] heritage feeds a broader suspicion that he is too casual about the threat from America‘s Islamist enemies.”

The journalist added, “With the massacre in Texas, Obama now confronts something that George W. Bush did not face in the years after September 11—not just a major act of domestic terrorism, but one struck from inside our security apparatus…. America does not face a threat from the perversion of faith in general. We face a threat from the perversion of one faith in particular.” [emphasis mine]

Read Full Post »

Judge David Hamilton, a district court judge, is Barack Obama’s nominee to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, and that court has cited Hamilton for abusing his power as a judge.

VOTE NO on Cloture for David Hamilton – Tell Your Senator

Barack Obama’s Nominee has a Disturbing Record:

  • Hamilton Ruled it’s Illegal to Pray in Jesus’ Name, But perfectly OK to Pray in Allah’s Name in Indiana State Legislature – a decision which was later OVERTURNED by the same Appeals Court to which Obama is now nominating Hamilton.
  • Hamilton Ruled to Hasten the Abortion of Unborn Children – a decision which was later OVERTURNED
  • Hamilton is a former FUNDRAISER for ACORN
  • Hamilton: REBUKED by 7th Circuit Court for Repeatedly “Abusing His Discretion”
  • Hamilton Rated “Not Qualified” by American Bar Association when first nominated
  • In 1994, the 7th Circuit rebuked Judge Hamilton for denying a Rabbi the right to display a Menorah as part of an Indianapolis holiday display.
  • Hamilton is one of the most lenient judges in America when it comes to crime and criminals.
  • In United States v. Rinehart, 2007 U.S. LEXIS 19498 (S.D. Ind. Feb 2, 2007), Judge Hamilton used his opinion to request clemency for a police officer who pled guilty to two counts of child pornography.  The 32 year old officer had engaged in “consensual” sex with two teenagers and videotaped his activities.
  • In United States v. Woolsey, 535 F.3d 540 (7th Cir. 2008), the Seventh Circuit faulted Judge Hamilton for disregarding an earlier conviction in order to avoid imposing a life sentence on a repeat offender.

Read Full Post »


China turns to Adam Smith

From The Telegraph

It won’t surprise you to learn that whereas in one hemisphere sales of Marx’s Communist Manifesto have rarely been stronger, the other is devouring Adam Smith like never before.

What is more unexpected is that it is China that has an appetite for the father of modern capitalism, while the West is rediscovering Marx.m[emphasis mine]

Smith’s first masterpiece, the Theory of Moral Sentiments, has been translated into Chinese for the first time, and Chris Berry, professor at Glasgow University, where Smith wrote the book, will next week deliver lectures on it at Fudan University in Shanghai.

China’s Premier, Wen Jiabao, has said he often carries the work – which preceded his more famous work The Wealth of Nations – in his suitcase when he goes abroad. Prof Berry said the earlier book emphasised the importance “not only [of] their material prosperity but also their moral welfare”.

Read Full Post »

Republicans’ Efforts to Keep 9/11 Terrorists Off U.S. Soil Rejected by Democrats

By Penny Starr

In anticipation of the Obama administration’s move to close down Guantanamo Bay, House Republicans introduced legislation that would have prevented Gitmo detainees from being brought to the United States. But the Democrats, who have a majority in Congress, did not allow the legislation to move out of committee.

On Friday, Attorney General Eric Holder announced plans to bring the confessed 9/11 mastermind, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, and four other terror suspects to New York to be tried in U.S. federal court.

“My bill was an attempt to try to take a shot across the bow of the administration,” Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.) told CNSNews.com about the introduction of HR 1238 back in February.

The bill would have prohibited “the presence in the United States of any alien formerly detained at the Department of Defense detention facility at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,” the legislation states.

“I believe it is a grave error to bring them to the United States,” Shadegg said. “They are, in fact, not criminals under domestic law in the United States.”

“They are, in fact, terrorists,” Shadegg said. “I do not believe that they are entitled to the protection that criminals in the United States, or accused criminals in the United States, are afforded under our Constitution.”

Shadegg’s bill, which was co-sponsored by 29 other Republicans, was referred to the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law in March.

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) also condemned the Obama administration’s decision to bring terror suspects to the United States, calling it “irresponsible,” and saying it “puts the interests of liberal special interest groups before the safety and security of the American people.”

Back in May, Boehner introduced H.R. 2294, the Keep Terrorists Out of America Act.

“This bill has a straightforward but vital purpose: to ensure that the terrorists held in the Guantanamo Bay prison are not imported into the United States,” Boehner said when he introduced the legislation.

“The world did not suddenly become safe in January 2009.”

“There are still terrorists around the world who are committed to killing Americans and destroying our way of life, and some of those terrorists are being held at the Guantanamo Bay prison right now,” Boehner said.

“I have urged the Administration to finally present to the American people its plan for what to do with the terrorists held at Guantanamo and for confronting and defeating the global terrorist threat.”

“This Administration has refused to present such a plan, and today’s decision further reinforces the fact that it continues to put the interests of liberal special interest groups before the safety and security of the American people,” Boehner said.

Boehner’s bill, which had 169 Republican co-sponsors, including Shadegg, was referred to the House Committee on Armed Services the same month it was introduced.

Democratic leaders did not allow either bill to come to the House floor for debate.

Read Full Post »

Judge Hamilton & Nidal Hasan – PC Run Amok

From The Committee for Justice

This week, the Senate votes on President Obama’s nomination of District Court Judge David Hamilton to the Seventh Circuit.  Because of Hamilton’s fundraising activities for ACORN, his leadership positions with the Indiana branch of the ACLU, his statements supporting judicial activism, and most importantly, his rulings putting liberal ideology above the rule of law, he is the first and only Obama circuit nominee to draw heated opposition.

There are many examples of Judge Hamilton’s tendency towards liberal judicial activism (see letter from Sen. Sessions below).  However, the most bizarre and controversial instance is Hamilton’s 2005 ruling prohibiting prayers that mention Jesus Christ in the Indiana House of Representatives, but allowing prayers that mention Allah.  While troubling in any context, the religious double standard in Hamilton’s ruling is particularly deserving of close scrutiny in light of Major Nidal Hasan’s recent shooting rampage at Fort Hood. 

The warning signs preceding the rampage and ignored by the Army are many and well documented.  Hasan’s business cards listing his affiliation as “SoA” – the jihadist acronym for Soldier of Allah – and his Walter Reed Army Hospital PowerPoint presentation ending with “We love death more then [sic] you love life!” are just two examples.  Although there is some debate about the motivation for Hasan’s murderous rampage, there is also a growing consensus that political correctness played at least some role in the Army’s failure to follow up on the warning signs

Put simply, pressure to be politically correct prevented Army personnel from properly investigating and perhaps disciplining a Muslim officer.  As many have pointed out, a Christian officer who displayed equally troubling behavior is unlikely to have received the same hands-off response.

The tragedy at Fort Hood has raised awareness and concern about a religious double standard that pervades the American establishment, from military bases to legal theory, and subjects minority religions – particularly Islam of late – to less scrutiny than Christianity.  That new awareness demands that the Senate take a closer look at Judge Hamilton differential treatment of Islam and Christianity in his 2005 ruling in Hinrichs v. Bosma

In Hinrichs, the ACLU – whose board Hamilton had served on – sued the Speaker of the Indiana House on behalf of several taxpayers, claiming that most of the prayers that opened House sessions were “sectarian Christian prayers” in violation of the Constitution’s Establishment Clause.  Judge Hamilton agreed and prohibited prayers that “use Christ’s name or title.”  However, at the same time, he saw no problem with prayers mentioning Allah

In fact, Judge Hamilton bent over backwards to justify this distinction by pretending that “Allah” is used in Muslim prayer only to refer to a non-sectarian, generic deity.  Here, Hamilton explains why “a Muslim imam may offer a prayer addressed to ‘Allah'” in the Indiana House:

“The Arabic word ‘Allah’ is used for ‘God’ in Arabic translations of Jewish and Christian scriptures. If those offering prayers in the Indiana House of Representatives choose to use the Arabic Allah, the Spanish Dios, …  or any other language’s terms in addressing the God who is the focus of the non-sectarian prayers …, the court sees little risk that the choice of language would advance a particular religion or disparage others.”

On the surface, Judge Hamilton’s ruling has nothing to do with Nidal Hasan’s violent rampage.  But neither could have taken place without a religious double standard borne of political correctness.  Even before the tragedy at Fort Hood, Judge Hamilton’s background and record of judicial activism distinguished him as Obama’s most radical appeals court nominee and demanded a thorough debate of his record on the Senate floor.  In the wake of the Army’s failure to prevent the tragedy, the need for debate is only heightened.

Unfortunately, Senate Majority Leader Reid’s cloture motion, to be voted on tomorrow, aims to prevent careful debate of the Hamilton nomination.  Senators on both sides of the aisle need to be reminded that a vote for cloture is a vote against debate.  Senators who are serious about examining the causes and consequences of the religious double standard at work in Hinrichs and at Fort Hood, or who are concerned about other aspects of Hamilton’s activist record, must vote no on closure tomorrow to ensure a thorough debate. [emphasis mine] Only after such a debate, can senators make an intelligent decision about whether to promote Judge Hamilton to the Seventh Circuit.

At some point, senators opposed to Hamilton may have to decide whether to attempt a filibuster to prevent a confirmation vote (CFJ Executive Director Curt Levey addresses that issue in the Hill article below).  But tomorrow, the issue before senators is only whether to allow a through debate of Judge Hamilton’s record.



Curt Levey on filibustering to prevent a confirmation vote:


Sen. Sessions’ letter on Judge Hamilton:


Curt Levey

Executive Director

The Committee for Justice

722 12th Street, NW – 4th Floor

Washington, DC 20005

(202) 270-7748


Read Full Post »