The O'Reilly-Robertson Factor ... examples of what's wrong with America

O’Reilly Responds: “What I Said Isn’t Controversial. What I Said Needed to Be Said.”

Appearing yesterday on a conservative San Francisco radio show, Bill O’Reilly offered his first public comments since being criticized for saying he would approve of an al Qaeda terrorist attack on the California city.

O’Reilly not only stood by his comments, but claimed they “needed to be said”:

I mean, look, everybody knows what’s going on there. What I said isn’t controversial. What I said needed to be said. I’m sitting here and I’m looking at a city that has absolutely no clue about what the world is. None. You know, if you had been hit on 9/11 instead of New York, believe me, you would not have voted against military recruting. Yet the left-wing, selfish, Land of Oz philosophy that the media and the city politicians have embraced out there is an absolute intellectual disgrace. (full story)

______________________________

Robertson warns Pennsylvania voters of God's wrath
Eight 'intelligent design' school board members lost election

CNN - Thursday, November 10, 2005

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Conservative Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson told citizens of a Pennsylvania town that they had rejected God by voting their school board out of office for supporting "intelligent design" and warned them Thursday not to be surprised if disaster struck.

Robertson, a former Republican presidential candidate and founder of the influential Christian Broadcasting Network and Christian Coalition, has made similar apocalyptic warnings and provocative statements before.

Last summer, he hit the headlines by calling for the assassination of leftist Venezuelan Present Hugo Chavez, one of President George W. Bush's most vocal international critics.

"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city," Robertson said on his daily television show broadcast from Virginia, "The 700 Club."

"And don't wonder why He hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for His help because he might not be there," he said. (full story)

The Wall of Separation in Jeopardy

Alito’s Views on Religious Liberty to be Scrutinized at Confirmation Hearings

By Keith Perine, CQ Staff
Congressional Quarterly TODAY – LEGAL AFFAIRS
Nov. 10, 2005 – 6:27 p.m.

When Samuel A. Alito Jr. appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee in January, lawmakers will question him closely about his views on religious liberty.

Next to abortion rights, Supreme Court cases that interpret First Amendment clauses barring governmental establishment of religion and guaranteeing its free exercise have spawned some of the most bitter fights in the culture wars over school prayer, displays of the Ten Commandments and the public celebration of Christmas.

Legal experts say that the high court has been more accommodating of religious interests in recent years in cases involving school vouchers and the use of public facilities such as school auditoriums for religious meetings.

But in cases involving displays of religious symbols and official prayers at government-sponsored events, such as high school graduations, the justices have been less willing to interpret the Establishment Clause to lower the legal wall between church and state.

Wild Cards

Nobody pretends to know with certainty how Alito would rule on such cases as a justice. And Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who has only recently joined the court, is another wild card. But opinions that Alito has written or joined during his 15 years on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit suggest he would be much more willing to support religious groups in cases involving symbols or prayers.

And because Alito would replace Sandra Day O’Connor, a pivotal vote on religious liberty issues, his critics are already focusing attention on his record.

In a 1999 case, ACLU of New Jersey v. Schundler, Alito ruled that a Jersey City, N.J., holiday display of a creche, a menorah and a Christmas tree did not violate the Establishment Clause after the city added a Santa Claus, Frosty the Snowman and Kwanzaa symbols to the display.

In a 1992 Supreme Court case, Lee v. Weisman, the justices ruled 5-4, with O’Connor in the majority, that prayer at school graduations was unconstitutional, rejecting an argument made that students could choose not to attend the ceremony.

Nearly four years later, Alito joined a dissenting opinion in a 3rd Circuit case, ACLU of New Jersey v. Black Horse Pike Regional Board of Education, that argued prayer at high school graduations did not violate the Establishment Clause if students voted to have a prayer and conducted it themselves.

Liberal activists say they are troubled by Alito’s record on religious liberty cases.

“Initially, what we’ve found does concern us and causes us to worry that he could join with [Justices Antonin] Scalia and [Clarence] Thomas in further narrowing the separation of church and state,” said Jeremy Leaming, a spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

A senior Justice Department official said Alito has narrowly interpreted Supreme Court precedents as a federal appellate judge. The official pointed to Alito’s opinions in cases involving the Free Exercise Clause, including a 1999 case, Fraternal Order of Police v. Newark, in which Alito wrote an opinion holding that the Newark, N.J., police department’s refusal to allow Muslim officers to wear beards for religious reasons was unconstitutional.

Some Senate Satisfaction

Senators from both parties have raised the subject of religious liberty in private meetings with Alito, and have liked what they heard.

“With regard to religious expression, I have, for a long time, felt that the courts give too much weight to the first part of the First Amendment [the Establishment Clause] and not enough weight to the [Free Exercise] clause,” Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., said after meeting with Alito.

“I was very satisfied with what Judge Alito had to say about that First Amendment. He indicated that he felt that the people have a very distinct right to express their religious views.”

Socially conservative Republican senators declined to predict how Alito might rule on religious liberty cases on the Supreme Court. But they are confident Alito will help untangle some confusing high court jurisprudence on the subject.

Last June, the high court ruled 5-4 in Van Orden v. Perry that a display of the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol did not violate the Establishment Clause. In another case, McCreary County, Kentucky v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, the court held that Ten Commandments displays in two Kentucky courthouses did violate the Establishment Clause.

Consistency Quest

Justice Stephen G. Breyer was the swing vote in the two cases — O’Connor sided with the court’s liberal bloc, which felt the Texas and Kentucky displays all ran afoul of the Establishment Clause, in both cases.

“I think [Alito] agrees that the court’s jurisprudence is less than clear,” said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who has met privately with Alito. “I think he’ll try to make it more coherent.”

Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., has already informed Alito that he intends to ask him about the pair of Ten Commandments cases and whether, in Alito’s view, the decisions are consistent.

Schumer also plans to ask Alito for his view on the Supreme Court’s decision in a 2000 case, Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, in which the court ruled 6-3, with O’Connor in the majority, that prayers initiated and led by students at high school football games were unconstitutional.

Bush lied and people died

Bush Administration: Parade of lies

By Bob Shrum
Hardblogger
November 2, 2005

The Bush administration looks forward to the trial of “Scooter” Libby, says Republican National Chairman Ken Mehlman. Just like the sausage looks forward to the meat grinder.

On matters great and trivial, lying is second nature to an Administration that came to power by stealing the 2000 Presidential election. Look at the parade of lies.

-- Iraq had and was acquiring weapons of mass destruction, including yellow cake uranium from Niger. False.

-- The President was making a genuine effort to enlist the United Nations before the war. False. The mission in Iraq was accomplished swiftly and cleaning. False. The level of insurgent violence in Iraq was falling. It wasn’t and isn’t.

-- No one in the White House was involved in the Valerie Plame scandal; anyone who was, whether or not they were yet accused of breaking the law, would be fired. False.

-- John Kerry wasn’t a war hero, but someone whose record of bravery deserved to be smeared (admittedly by Bush’s henchman, not the administration itself, so the President could piously disclaim responsibility). And of course, Bush himself hadn’t used special influence to get into the National Guard. False on both counts.

-- “Brownie” was doing “a heck a job” at the Federal Emergency Management Agency after Katrina and Harriet Miers was the best qualified person in America for the Supreme Court. Laughably false.

The list goes on and on. And sometimes the lies have mortal consequences: the loss of untold Iraqi civilians and more than 2,000 American troops in a war that was rooted and manipulated and manufactured intelligence. And the deception metastasizes as the months and causalities mount. The President who was never deigned to go to Dover Air Force Base to salute the fallen who are coming home says no photographs of their coffins can be permitted because that would hurt the feelings of the families. This is false, tragically false; the real reason is that day after day the photos would starkly reveal the price of Bush’s folly. (full story)