Thursday, April 30, 2009
David Souter To Retire From Supreme Court
National Public Radio is reporting that Supreme Court Justice David Souter plans to retire at the end of the court's term this year.
The former NH Attorney General and NH Supreme Court Justice was nominated to serve on the nation's highest court in 1990 by then President George H.W. Bush at the urging of former NH Governor John Sununu, Bush's Chief of Staff, and former U.S. Senator Warren Rudman (R-NH).
Souter has disappointed conservatives since his appointment to the court, frequently aligning himself with the court's few moderate members. He's made it clear over the years that he doesn't enjoy being in Washington, nor serving on the court, so the announced retirement comes as no surprise.
Souter's departure will provide President Barack Obama with his first opportunity to make an appointment to the nation's highest court. It isn't likely, however, to much alter the court's dominance by conservatives.
Labels:
Barack Obama,
David Souter,
retirement,
U.S. Supreme Court
Monday, April 27, 2009
We Need More Courageous Leadership From Reynolds
After demonstrating a courageous commitment to defending heterosexuals’ marriages from impending doom, a number of voters will undoubtedly turn to Senator Deb Reynolds for a similar reassurance that she be equally vigilant in protecting New Hampshire against the swine flu.
Although President Obama acknowledged on Monday that the threat of spreading swine flu infections is a matter of concern, but “not cause of alarm,” one can trust that Senator Reynolds will not fall prey to the soothing words of a president who doesn’t know her constituents, nor respect their fears.
First, Senator Reynolds must insist that all pork be removed from the shelves and meat cases in New Hampshire’s grocery stores. Second, the Ashland Democrat should lead by introducing legislation that would enforce Biblical dietary restrictions.
Make no mistake. The Bible is even more clear about the wrongness of eating pork than it is about gays getting married. Indeed, the Bible says nary a word about two people of the same gender getting married, yet in Leviticus 11:7-8, Deuteronomy 14:7-8 and Isaiah 65:2-4, God is unequivocal in his proscription against consuming the meat of a pig.
And let’s be honest. If we didn’t have pigs, we wouldn’t have the swine flu. It’s as simple as that. Kill the pigs, eliminate the danger.
Now, it’s true that not everyone subscribes to the notion that eating pork is a grave sin. And eliminating ham, bacon, and pork chops from New Hampshire’s diets may cause some hardship for pig farmers, meat packers, and restaurants which cater to the breakfast whims of heathens from Massachusetts.
Moreover, the fact that literally billions of people throughout the world daily consume the flesh of swine could be cited as a reason for restraint. Yet, let us not be fooled. Given the over 5,000 years of Biblical warnings of the apocalyptic consequences of ingesting what “marketeers” have been fiercely trying to re-label as “the other white meat”, (See www.theotherwhitemeat.com) we cannot allow ourselves to be misguided.
For despite such efforts to purify their reputation, it’s going to take more than slickly produced ads and scientific evidence to alter the indelible impression of pigs as evil creatures. Readers of George Orwell’s “Animal Farm” are quite aware of the wicked and conniving proclivities of one of the world’s most common barnyard animals. So, too, are the world’s 1.1 billion Muslims, who are forbidden to eat pork.
One realizes, of course, that it will require incredible fortitude for Senator Reynolds to stand up against those who would ignore simple, Biblical truths. Thankfully, she’s established a clear record of voting “consistent with what my constituents wanted me to do.“ What hasn’t been made clear, however, is precisely who those constituents are, and what she considers other voters who live in her district who don’t agree with her positions. But that’s another issue altogether.
What’s important is that Senator Reynolds’ response to this latest crisis be consistent with her reaction to the threat of gay marriage. Supermarket shelves should be preserved for beef, chicken, and other deserving products. The evidence is unambiguous. For every pound of pork consumed, 16 ounces of some other protein source will be denied its right to shelf space.
Allow a slab of spare ribs to be sold, and chances are that a cattle rancher will be deprived of the sale of his short ribs. And do we really want to encourage diners to choose bacon and eggs over steak and eggs?
I’m confident that if Senator Reynolds were to poll her constituents, she’d find many who believe that New Hampshire isn’t quite ready to allow a spiral ham to replace a frozen turkey as the main course for Christmas dinner, much less as a substitute for Zeroa at a Passover Seder. And to permit some ill-informed Baptist to include a rasher of bacon as a part of a Sunday brunch would clearly be a violation of the religious rights of Jews, Muslims, and others who believe in the literal translation of the Bible or the Koran.
Perhaps there will come a time when tolerance for an array of dietary habits can be considered, but now is not the time. We’re facing a potential crisis that demands absolute focus. Pigs and pork must be eliminated! Otherwise, we could all die of swine flu!
Senator Reynolds was forthright in her defense of having opposed gay marriage. "There will be another time, a better time, to focus on this issue," she said.
One can only hope that she views tolerance for the consumption of pork in a similar fashion.
Although President Obama acknowledged on Monday that the threat of spreading swine flu infections is a matter of concern, but “not cause of alarm,” one can trust that Senator Reynolds will not fall prey to the soothing words of a president who doesn’t know her constituents, nor respect their fears.
First, Senator Reynolds must insist that all pork be removed from the shelves and meat cases in New Hampshire’s grocery stores. Second, the Ashland Democrat should lead by introducing legislation that would enforce Biblical dietary restrictions.
Make no mistake. The Bible is even more clear about the wrongness of eating pork than it is about gays getting married. Indeed, the Bible says nary a word about two people of the same gender getting married, yet in Leviticus 11:7-8, Deuteronomy 14:7-8 and Isaiah 65:2-4, God is unequivocal in his proscription against consuming the meat of a pig.
And let’s be honest. If we didn’t have pigs, we wouldn’t have the swine flu. It’s as simple as that. Kill the pigs, eliminate the danger.
Now, it’s true that not everyone subscribes to the notion that eating pork is a grave sin. And eliminating ham, bacon, and pork chops from New Hampshire’s diets may cause some hardship for pig farmers, meat packers, and restaurants which cater to the breakfast whims of heathens from Massachusetts.
Moreover, the fact that literally billions of people throughout the world daily consume the flesh of swine could be cited as a reason for restraint. Yet, let us not be fooled. Given the over 5,000 years of Biblical warnings of the apocalyptic consequences of ingesting what “marketeers” have been fiercely trying to re-label as “the other white meat”, (See www.theotherwhitemeat.com) we cannot allow ourselves to be misguided.
For despite such efforts to purify their reputation, it’s going to take more than slickly produced ads and scientific evidence to alter the indelible impression of pigs as evil creatures. Readers of George Orwell’s “Animal Farm” are quite aware of the wicked and conniving proclivities of one of the world’s most common barnyard animals. So, too, are the world’s 1.1 billion Muslims, who are forbidden to eat pork.
One realizes, of course, that it will require incredible fortitude for Senator Reynolds to stand up against those who would ignore simple, Biblical truths. Thankfully, she’s established a clear record of voting “consistent with what my constituents wanted me to do.“ What hasn’t been made clear, however, is precisely who those constituents are, and what she considers other voters who live in her district who don’t agree with her positions. But that’s another issue altogether.
What’s important is that Senator Reynolds’ response to this latest crisis be consistent with her reaction to the threat of gay marriage. Supermarket shelves should be preserved for beef, chicken, and other deserving products. The evidence is unambiguous. For every pound of pork consumed, 16 ounces of some other protein source will be denied its right to shelf space.
Allow a slab of spare ribs to be sold, and chances are that a cattle rancher will be deprived of the sale of his short ribs. And do we really want to encourage diners to choose bacon and eggs over steak and eggs?
I’m confident that if Senator Reynolds were to poll her constituents, she’d find many who believe that New Hampshire isn’t quite ready to allow a spiral ham to replace a frozen turkey as the main course for Christmas dinner, much less as a substitute for Zeroa at a Passover Seder. And to permit some ill-informed Baptist to include a rasher of bacon as a part of a Sunday brunch would clearly be a violation of the religious rights of Jews, Muslims, and others who believe in the literal translation of the Bible or the Koran.
Perhaps there will come a time when tolerance for an array of dietary habits can be considered, but now is not the time. We’re facing a potential crisis that demands absolute focus. Pigs and pork must be eliminated! Otherwise, we could all die of swine flu!
Senator Reynolds was forthright in her defense of having opposed gay marriage. "There will be another time, a better time, to focus on this issue," she said.
One can only hope that she views tolerance for the consumption of pork in a similar fashion.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Kudos To The NH House
What an incredible week! Concord was rockin’ as the winds of change blew through the capitol.
No matter which side of the political aisle you call home, or if your place of comfort is to straddle the aisle, this most recent session of the New Hampshire House of Representatives - the people’s legislature - should have left you exhilarated.
Granted, no one is totally satisfied with the legislation passed. Count me as displeased with several outcomes. But I can live with that. And so can you.
What was most remarkable about this legislative session was the priority placed upon matters of historic proportion. Representatives didn’t content themselves with merely arguing over whether or not speed limits should be placed on boats racing around the lakes, or whether or not large numbers of helium filled balloons should be released into the atmosphere.
Instead, lawmakers dared to provide national leadership on issues from capital punishment to same sex marriages and the medicinal use of marijuana. And the debate wasn’t confined to committee rooms, it was waged on the floor of the House.
Now the focus shifts to the NH Senate where despite the 14 to 9 advantage among Democrats, there’s no assurance that a majority of senators will support any of these three bills passed by the House. After all, 25 House Democrats opposed the “gay marriage” bill, which won approval only because 15 Republicans voted for it.
And 46 Democratic House Reps. voted against repealing capital punishment. Had 32 Republicans not joined the majority, the bill would not have passed.
The vote on legalizing medicinal marijuana was so overwhelmingly bipartisan, that the 234-138 vote included 45 Republicans among the majority.
So as the bills move to the Senate, it’s time to begin contacting your state senators to let them know your position. And it wouldn’t hurt to let the Governor know as well how you stand on the issues.
We know that he’s promised to veto the bill repealing capital punishment, and given that 46 Democratic House Reps. opposed it as well, he has a legitimate argument even aside from his personal beliefs.
But I believe he can be persuaded on the “gay marriage” and “medical marijuana” legislation given the bipartisan support both bills earned.
No matter which side of the political aisle you call home, or if your place of comfort is to straddle the aisle, this most recent session of the New Hampshire House of Representatives - the people’s legislature - should have left you exhilarated.
Granted, no one is totally satisfied with the legislation passed. Count me as displeased with several outcomes. But I can live with that. And so can you.
What was most remarkable about this legislative session was the priority placed upon matters of historic proportion. Representatives didn’t content themselves with merely arguing over whether or not speed limits should be placed on boats racing around the lakes, or whether or not large numbers of helium filled balloons should be released into the atmosphere.
Instead, lawmakers dared to provide national leadership on issues from capital punishment to same sex marriages and the medicinal use of marijuana. And the debate wasn’t confined to committee rooms, it was waged on the floor of the House.
Now the focus shifts to the NH Senate where despite the 14 to 9 advantage among Democrats, there’s no assurance that a majority of senators will support any of these three bills passed by the House. After all, 25 House Democrats opposed the “gay marriage” bill, which won approval only because 15 Republicans voted for it.
And 46 Democratic House Reps. voted against repealing capital punishment. Had 32 Republicans not joined the majority, the bill would not have passed.
The vote on legalizing medicinal marijuana was so overwhelmingly bipartisan, that the 234-138 vote included 45 Republicans among the majority.
So as the bills move to the Senate, it’s time to begin contacting your state senators to let them know your position. And it wouldn’t hurt to let the Governor know as well how you stand on the issues.
We know that he’s promised to veto the bill repealing capital punishment, and given that 46 Democratic House Reps. opposed it as well, he has a legitimate argument even aside from his personal beliefs.
But I believe he can be persuaded on the “gay marriage” and “medical marijuana” legislation given the bipartisan support both bills earned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)