Thursday, July 28, 2005

Supreme Court Nominee John G.Roberts Being Attacked By NARAL



The National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (now known as NARAL Pro-Choice America) opposes SupremeCourt nominee, John G. Roberts and is urging its members to contact their senators to oppose his confirmation!

Today (July 28), thousands of phones are ringing in Senate offices across Capitol Hill.

Chris, we must counter NARAL's "Call-in Day" withan even stronger cry of our own!

Today, please commit to calling your two senators, urging them to support the President's nomination of Judge Roberts, identifying yourself as a member of the Center forReclaiming Christ. Please say that you are calling to urge the senator to support the confirmation of John Robertsand his desire to honor and uphold the Constitution.

Finally, be sure to mention that you are following this issue closely and will be monitoring how the senatorvotes on Roberts' confirmation.

Answer the Call TODAY!!!

Today is the opening round; we must be mobilized and readyto counter NARAL's far-reaching radical rhetoric aimed atblocking any of the President's pro-family, pro-faith nominees.Their goal is not the betterment of America, but the development of a subversive counter-culture that undermines and destroys the very principles our nation was founded upon!

Please take action with us TODAY (July 28), and call your two senators!IT IS VITAL THAT YOU CALL!

After calling, please forward this message to your familyand friends--urging them to follow your lead.

During this critical period in our nation's history, our voices must be heard!

Thank you in advance for standing up for faith and freedom!

Center for Reclaiming America
Dr. D. James Kennedy
Coral Ridge Ministries



Anonymous Anonymous said...


Harkin Anti-Religious Bigotry Cited in Ad Campaign

Called Christian Broadcasters “Our Own Homegrown Taliban” during Air America Interview

WASHINGTON — The Catholic based advocacy group Fidelis has launched the first phase of an internet advertising campaign to prevent anti-religious bigotry in the confirmation hearings of Judge John Roberts. The campaign which cites examples of anti-religious comments made by Democratic leaders Howard Dean, Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), and Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) was launched on the websites of National Review Online and Catholic Exchange will expand to other websites and blogs over the coming week.

Since President Bush nominated Judge Roberts to serve on the Supreme Court, both he and his wife have been subjected to harsh attacks and offensive questioning about their religious beliefs by the media, liberal groups, and even some members of the United States Senate.

“We warned the public that anti-religious bigotry would enter the confirmation process just as it has in the past. Less than twenty four hours after Judge Roberts’ nomination, we began seeing these mean-spirited attacks surface, and we expect there is more to come,” said Fidelis President Joseph Cella.

During an interview with Randi Rhodes on her Air America radio show on June 8, 2005, Harkin described Christian Broadcasters as follows: “They are sort of our own home grown Taliban….if you don’t tune into their line, then you’re obviously on Satan’s line.”

Cella added: “By shining a bright light on these outrageously intolerant remarks, particularly those of Senator Harkin, we hope to put an end to them or at least deter others from embracing them during the confirmation of Judge John Roberts.”

Roberts has faced inquiries about his ‘personal views’ and hypothetical questions involving his religious faith which he holds dearly. Article VI, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution prohibits such religious tests saying: “[B]ut no religious test shall ever be required a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

“It is critical that those members of the U.S. Senate that have demonstrated hostility toward conservative Christians in the past not allow their prejudices to affect the upcoming confirmation hearings. When a judicial nominee is subjected to bigoted and irrelevant questions about their faith, it is not only unconstitutional, it is an insult to all people of faith. Utilizing the internet component of our advertising campaign, we hope to make it clear that the upcoming confirmation hearings must be free of all questions related to Judge Roberts’ religious or personal beliefs,” stated Cella.

Cella said: “If Senator Harkin believes Christian Broadcasters represent “our own home grown Taliban,” what are we to assume he believes about Judge John Roberts who is a faithful Catholic? We hope Senator Harkin can find a way to set aside his anti-religious bigotry and fulfill his Constitutional obligation as a United States Senator.”

“Senator Harkin will be home in Iowa over the next few weeks on recess, so people across the Hawkeye State should tell the Senator to apologize for his bigoted remark against Christian broadcasters, and tell him not to subject Judge Roberts to the same treatment,” Cella concluded.

Fidelis is a Catholic-based organization working with people of faith across the country to defend and promote the sanctity of life, traditional marriage, and the right to religious liberty by electing pro-life, pro-family, and pro-religious liberty candidates, supporting the confirmation of judges, and promoting and defending laws faithful to the Constitution of the United States.

History of Remarks

“They are not very friendly to different kinds of people….they all behave the same and they all look the same.”

Howard Dean

San Francisco Press Conference

June 6, 2005

“I think we have a right to look into John Ashcroft’s religion.”

Senate Minority Leader Harry (D-NV)

Fox News Sunday

January 14, 2001

“They are sort of our own home grown Taliban….if you don’t tune into their line, then you’re obviously on Satan’s line.”

Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA)

Randi Rhodes Show-Air America

June 8, 2005

July 29, 2005 9:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


...if you are at your desk at 2 pm Eastern, log in to . My radio broadcast follows Paul Weyrich's at 1 pm.

On my radio broadcast today I will be review the last two weeks on the Roberts nomination, exploring the secrets of the Federalist Society, the nature of ant-Catholic bigotry that looms over the Roberts nomination, the good and bad reasons why the White House Counsel's office handed over 75,000 docs, AND I will explain how conservatives are divided and why it does not matter.

Please do pass this on, and call in with questions.

Manny Miranda

July 29, 2005 9:41 AM  
Blogger Chris Dickson said...

Breaking News !!!

Dr. D. James Kennedy to be guest on "The Dickson/Chappell Report" Saturday, July 30th from 9:30-10:00 A.M. Central Time

July 29, 2005 3:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

August 5, 2005; Page A4

The divisive 1991 confirmation hearings of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, involving charges of sexual harassment, launched 1992's Year of the Woman. That election's windfall brought four new women to the U.S. Senate and 20 to the House -- and turned women's rights groups into a force to be reckoned with.

Now another Supreme Court appointment battle looms, with abortion rights a likely central issue. But internal squabbles, declining membership and complacency during the Clinton years have left most women's rights groups in weakened shape for the clash over Judge John G. Roberts Jr.

The National Organization for Women's political donations shriveled to $44,000 in 2004 from $327,000 in 1992. Planned Parenthood Federation of America Inc., facing a revolt among affiliates in part because of the politicization of the group, ousted its president in January and hasn't taken a position on the Roberts nomination. NARAL Pro-Choice America's new president was still on an introductory tour to affiliates and donors around the country when the Supreme Court fight started.

The influence of women's groups inside Congress also has eroded. Most Democrats in the Senate "Gang of 14" -- moderates who could prevent a Democratic filibuster -- weren't endorsed by NARAL because they didn't solidly back abortion rights or opposed them. "I do worry about our strength as a movement," says Kate Michelman, NARAL's former president. "What we do in this battle will establish the foundation and create the conditions not only for this one but also for the future."

Abortion-rights groups like NARAL oppose President Bush's nominee, who in a 1990 Supreme Court brief prepared for the Bush administration advocated overturning the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling. More recently, Judge Roberts has moderated his language, but abortion-rights advocates remain wary.

The troubled state of women's rights groups is shared by many of their traditional allies. Big Labor is falling apart as unions defect from what they claim is a wasteful and antiquated AFL-CIO. Civil-rights groups are fighting a conservative pushback on affirmative action and other issues. And the NAACP, the nation's leading African-American organization, is under investigation by the Internal Revenue Service.

The challenge for Judge Roberts's opponents is exacerbated by Democrats' reconsideration of how to position themselves with a more conservative electorate. Abortion was among the issues that some political analysts said drove church-going voters to President Bush in last year's election. Now, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, an abortion-rights supporter, is urging his party's messengers to speak more about faith and religion and to downplay issues such as abortion.

Meanwhile, an array of conservative organizations is stronger than ever. They spent the Clinton years recruiting members and electing lawmakers, particularly to the Senate. High School Bible clubs flourished and anti-abortion organizations established footholds in colleges and universities across the country. The groups helped create a generation of women more receptive to restricting access to abortions and, because of broader access to birth control, less sympathetic to women with unwanted pregnancies, recent polls and focus groups have found.

The question is whether the Roberts nomination will have the same galvanizing effect as Justice Thomas's. Polls indicate that a majority of young adults, and the general public, oppose overturning Roe v. Wade -- an opening women's rights groups are trying to turn to their advantage.

"Bush has been our number-one membership recruiter," says Kim Gandy, president of NOW, which held dozens of protests the day after Judge Roberts was nominated. NARAL sent emails to 800,000 activists urging them to begin petition drives and contact their senators to express opposition to the nomination. Both groups, and others, added their lawyers to a coalition that is mining Judge Roberts's record for clues on how he might rule on the high court. They also are coordinating with Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee to ensure the nominee is questioned on abortion rights during his hearings next month.

NARAL's new president, Nancy Keenan, witnessed the conservative movement's growing influence during the 1990s when she refereed battles over school curriculum while serving as Montana's school superintendent. When she visited Washington, D.C., back then, she warned liberal allies "there is something afoot in the West; something seems orchestrated and calculated," she recalls. But they remained focused on lobbying the Clinton administration for looser restrictions on abortion funding and other long-thwarted priorities.

Ms. Keenan is revitalizing a program that expands NARAL's mission to protect access to birth control as well as abortion and includes a state-based recruitment drive. The project is critical, she says, because that network of advocates could become the first line of defense if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade and sends the issue back to state legislatures.

But while operations in Minnesota, New York and California remain strong, organizing has been painstaking work in states where conservatives made big electoral and legislative gains.

Ann O'Hanlon was hired as executive director of the Virginia NARAL affiliate in September 2003 -- a chapter that was closed during the Clinton years. She joined the small but active Pro-Choice Coalition, a Virginia group that lobbies the state legislature, and organized membership-building house parties. By January 2004, her mailing list had expanded to 6,400 and she had recruited two direct-mail fund-raising experts to serve on her volunteer board. Today, she can reach 21,000 people by email and NARAL has a full-time lobbyist in Richmond.

Ms. O'Hanlon and her volunteers are conducting petition drives on the Roberts nomination, and hoping the confirmation fight will invigorate her group and lead to the kind of ballot-box success her predecessors saw with the Thomas fight.

Already, the nomination is playing a role in the Virginia governor's race. Russ Potts, a Republican who says he is a moderate on abortion rights, is running as an independent to succeed retiring Democratic Gov. Mark Warner in November. He is seeking NARAL's endorsement, and in a meeting last week in Richmond, Mr. Potts recalls, he adapted his pitch to reflect concerns that Judge Roberts could help overturn Roe v. Wade.

"Should Roe v. Wade be overturned and sent back to the states, I will veto any attempt to overturn [abortion rights] in Virginia," he says he told Ms. O'Hanlon and other members of the Pro-Choice Coalition.

August 05, 2005 9:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wall Street Journal


Follow the Money
Is NARAL's attack on John Roberts about abortion rights or abortion profits?

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

From the indignation of his defenders, it seems the Battle of John Roberts might have begun in earnest this week. On Monday, NARAL Pro-Choice America launched a major ad campaign that aims to scare a small portion of America, then raise more money to scare the rest. NARAL will spend $500,000 to frighten cable news watchers and the people of Maine and Rhode Island, home to three liberal Republican senators. The 30-second ad is titled "Speaking Out." Here's the script:

Announcer: Seven years ago, a bomb destroyed a woman's health clinic in Birmingham, Ala.

Emily Lyons: When a bomb ripped through my clinic, I almost lost my life. I will never be the same.

Announcer: Supreme Court nominee John Roberts filed court briefs supporting violent fringe groups and a convicted clinic bomber.

Lyons: I'm determined to stop this violence, so I'm speaking out.

Announcer: Call your senators. Tell them to oppose John Roberts. America can't afford a justice whose ideology leads him to excuse violence against other Americans.

The ladies who gave Plato's "noble lie" new uses in the hearings of Clarence Thomas are at it again. NARAL is using the image of the abortion clinic bombing by Eric Rudolph to suggest that Judge Roberts would excuse such violence--even though NARAL's leaders have admitted to the press that Judge Roberts has condemned clinic violence. Indeed, the Washington Post reported last week that in 1986, when he was an assistant in the White House counsel's office, Mr. Roberts wrote a memo recommending against a presidential pardon for abortion-clinic bombers. "No matter how lofty or sincerely held the goal, those who resort to violence to achieve it are criminals," Roberts wrote.
In fact, the 1993 case whose name NARAL shows in its ad, Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, had nothing to do with Eric Rudolph or violence against abortion clinics. As a deputy solicitor general in the first Bush administration, Mr. Roberts filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that the Civil Rights Act of 1871, enacted to protect blacks from the Ku Klux Klan, did not prohibit peaceful pro-life demonstrators from standing outside of abortion clinics. The high court agreed 6-3, with Justices Anthony Kennedy and David Souter among the majority.

It is important to point out such a distortion as this for what it is: a lie. Yet my initial reaction was not the same as other conservatives who went on defense. Rather, it was something like this: Do it again, harder, harder--and bring your friends. Having extremist groups spend big money to win over liberal GOP senators is a no-lose proposition, especially when they have to tell lies to do so.

Rather than complain that NARAL has crossed the line of a "dignified" process, my response would be a bit different too. Abortion-rights groups like NARAL are not what they seem. To say that they are solely about women's rights to an abortion is like saying that the Gun Owners of America are unconnected to the profitable gun-manufacturing business.
Roe v. Wade is not just the source of a right; it's a business license for abortion clinics. This comes best into focus when we consider that in the next term the Supreme Court is likely to hear cases involving not the right to abortion but laws regulating parental consent and notice of abortions for minor girls. These are laws that, according to a Los Angeles Times poll, over 80% of Americans support.

In September 2002, when Democrats first blocked Justice Priscilla Owen from a circuit court nomination over a Texas Supreme Court ruling that upheld a parental notice law, Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah put it this way:

I fear the opposition to Justice Owen from the abortion lobby is not at all about abortion rights, because abortion rights are not affected by a mere notice statute. The opposition to Justice Owen is not really about abortion rights, it is about abortion profits. Simply put, the abortion industry is opposed to parental notice laws because parental notice laws place a hurdle between them and the profits from the abortion clients--not the girls who come to them but the adult men who pay for these abortions. These adult men, whose average age rises the younger the girl is, are eager not to be disclosed to parents, sometimes living down the street. . . . At nearly one million abortions per year, the abortion industry is as big as any corporate interest that lobbies in Washington. They not only ignore the rights of parents, they also protect sexual offenders and statutory rapists.
You've never heard this? Surely that is no surprise. Mr. Hatch's statement was reported in only one news story, by Newsday's Tom Brune. He noted that there was an audible gasp among the abortion lobbyists in the back of the Judiciary Committee room. I remember that gasp.
What Mr. Brune did not record is that no Democratic senator responded to Hatch's charge. Something very unusual. Not even Dianne Feinstein of California, who, as she always notes, ran for the U.S. Senate to protect abortion rights. Or was it abortion profits?

Mr. Miranda, former counsel to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, is founder and chairman of the Third Branch Conference, a coalition of grassroots organizations following judicial issues. His column appears on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays.

August 10, 2005 9:53 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home