Al Franken, Constitutional Scholar?

Written by Richard Viguerie

Upon joining the Senate, Al Franken (whom I know and enjoy, despite our vast ideological differences) was named to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will conduct hearings on all of President Obama’s judicial nominees. This gives Democrats a 13 – 7 edge over Republicans on that committee.

Al Franken is very intelligent, but he’s no constitutional scholar.

So what are this freshman senator’s qualifications for such a vaunted committee assignment?

He’s an intense ideologue.

This demonstrates the seriousness of the Democrats’ political agenda on judicial appointments. President Obama and the Democrats want judges who will work outside the democratic process to change laws and constitutional principles.

Democrats want to radically transform America away from democratic accountability to control by the political establishment. They have already rushed through major legislation into law before people had a chance to read it -- and object -- and now they want leftist judges who will give laws the most expansive reading in favor of the political establishment, use foreign law to interpret our Constitution, and essentially undo what our Founders created.

Senate Republicans need to clue in and get serious about fighting President Obama’s judicial nominees, starting with Sonia Sotomayor, and start using the judicial confirmation process to explain the role of judges and why judges cannot make law.

They need to begin with slowing down the process until after the congressional August recess, so Americans can learn more about who will be appointed to our 'third branch' of government.

If Republicans care about ever regaining a majority in Congress, they will use the judicial confirmation process to explain that what President Obama and the Democrats are trying to do is not merely bad policy, but dangerous to our freedoms.

Why Palin Quit

Death by a Thousand Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Requests

People close to Sarah Palin say national political reporters and pundits have missed the real reasons for her surprising decision to resign as Alaska governor. The national media have dismissed or downplayed her real motives, which had little to do with any plans to run for president in 2012.

Sarah Palin

Contrary to most reports, her decision had been in the works for months, accelerating recently as it became clear that controversies and endless ethics investigations were threatening to overshadow her legislative agenda. "Attacks inside Alaska and largely invisible to the national media had paralyzed her administration," someone close to the governor told me. "She was fully aware she would be branded a 'quitter.' She did not want to disappoint her constituents, but she was no longer able to do the job she had been elected to do. Essentially, the taxpayers were paying for Sarah to go to work every day and defend herself."

This situation developed because Alaska's transparency laws allow anyone to file Freedom of Information Act requests. While normally useful, in the hands of political opponents FOIA requests can become a means to bog down a target in a bureaucratic quagmire, thanks to the need to comb through records and respond by a strict timetable. Similarly, ethics investigations are easily triggered and can drag on for months even if the initial complaint is flimsy. Since Ms. Palin returned to Alaska after the 2008 campaign, some 150 FOIA requests have been filed and her office has been targeted for investigation by everyone from the FBI to the Alaska legislature. Most have centered on Ms. Palin's use of government resources, and to date have turned up little save for a few state trips that she agreed to reimburse the state for because her children had accompanied her. In the process, though, she accumulated $500,000 in legal fees in just the last nine months, and knew the bill would grow ever larger in the future.

"The Alaska ethics elves had painted such a target on Sarah's forehead that she had begun turning down pretty much every invitation she got -- even though they were pouring in every day by the dozens," a confidant of the governor's told me. "It is not throwing in the towel. It is deciding that she was ineffective in fighting for her principles and could do more in another role."

Family considerations also played a role. Ms. Palin gave birth to a baby with Down's Syndrome in 2008, and also has a six-year old. Everyone in the family was weary of endless personal attacks, including mean-spirited suggestions on liberal blogs that all of her children should have been aborted and that she would run on a presidential platform promoting retardation.

A Word about Michael Jackson

by Steve Shultz/op-ed

...circumstances make me wonder if God grabbed him one day, as he did for me.

We know that, through the examples of Nicodemus, who came to Jesus at night in secret and the thief on the cross that God saves both at the last minute and based on the heart, not based on works.

There were many Christians in attendance at the Michael Jackson funeral on Tuesday, and "Soon and Very Soon (we are going to see the King)," was sung, along with other Gospel songs. (Photo: Reuters)

We personally know of two Believers who were summoned by Michael in some time period to talk and pray with Michael Jackson. You don't get to see Michael Jackson unless he calls for you, that I am certain of.

I can't tell you if he was saved or not. God knows. But frankly, it would be silly not to mention such a monumental event [as his memorial], or to conclude he wasn't saved.

But for the grace of God, I could have been lost but God reached down and grabbed hold of me around 1981. Until then, I judged most Christians as lost, even though I claimed certain truth, yet judged others who really were saved. A chain-smoking woman made me a Jesus Believer, and I was still a mess. Who isn't still a mess?

Circumstances make me wonder if God grabbed Michael Jackson one day, as he did for me. (Although he would have had to choose of course, at the last second, just as the thief on the cross)

Please be in prayer for the Jackson family who is certainly hurting in the wake of the loss of a son, a brother, and a father.

Steve Shultz
Founding Editor, Breaking Christian News

King Barack?

by David Limbaugh

Oh, how quickly times have changed. Just a few short years ago, Democrats were up in arms over King George III's (President George W. Bush's) "unconstitutional" executive power grabs. Where are these people now?

I'll tell you where they are: right in the thick of it, enabling President Barack Obama to consolidate and exercise unprecedented power.

Remember when Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy complained that the constitutional "checks and balances that have served to constrain abuses of power for more than two centuries in this country" were at risk because Republicans controlled the executive and legislative branches? How about Sen. Russ Feingold, who was looking at impeachment as a remedy to keep the president in check and prevent him from acquiring power "like King George III"?

Today these same senators are not just passively mute about Obama's power grabs; they are co-conspirators.

You might think the repeated conservative complaint about Obama's egregious lack of transparency is, by now, a tired talking point. But we're not just referring to minor procedural matters that are substantively inconsequential.

He hasn't just breached his promise to make his legislation available for public preview. He and his congressional cohorts are burying very important matters in legislation.

The Waxman-Markey cap and tax debacle that just slipped through the House was bad enough, with its mandated broad-based assaults on America's taxpayers, energy and economy in exchange for no appreciable expected environmental benefits. But look at its stealth provision, reported by the Washington Examiner, creating a three-year package of unemployment benefits, a $1,500 job relocation allowance and a health insurance premium subsidy for workers unemployed as a result of this "jobs creation" bill. Unbelievable! How can any congressman who voted for this monstrosity possibly get re-elected?

This was nothing new, though, as you'll recall that Obama's non-stimulative stimulus bill increased unemployment benefits for those not magically benefited by that job creations bill.

Indeed, there are so many Obama abuses I can only chronicle a fraction of them in a short column. But just consider a few others, and ask yourself how long even rank-and-file Democrats can justify supporting such tyrannical madness by this arrogant chief executive, who truly is -- as distinguished from Bush -- engaged in a daily quest to "dictate" fundamental, structural changes to this nation:

--ABC News reported that a senior White House official said the urgency of extending the expiring U.S.-Russia nuclear arms treaty "might mean temporarily bypassing the Senate's constitutional role in ratifying treaties." Did you hear that, Sens. Leahy and Feingold?

--President Obama is appointing so many "czars" to help him run the government without the usual accountability of Cabinet-level positions that even Sen. Robert Byrd said this practice "can threaten the constitutional system of checks and balances." Byrd's worried, but what do Leahy and Feingold think of Obama's pay czar, who'll have broad discretion over executive pay?

Pastor: Obama has no 'black experience' to speak of

- OneNewsNow

By Jim Brown

A conservative black pastor and former NFL linebacker says he's highly offended that President Obama would compare the plight of homosexuals to that of blacks during the Civil Rights Era.

On Monday, President Obama told a gathering of homosexuals at the White House that he is aware that many of them "don't believe progress has come fast enough," and compared their struggles to those of blacks during the Civil Rights Movement.

Ken Hutcherson, the senior pastor of Antioch Bible Church in Kirkland, Washington, says the comments are especially disturbing from an individual who is supposed to be familiar with "the black experience."

"But I guess we...have to ask, 'Even though he is black because his father was, what is his "black experience"?' He doesn't have any. He was raised by a white mother and a white grandmother, so this man has about as much black experience as my Doberman Pinscher -- and I guarantee [that] my Doberman Pinscher doesn't have any," he points out. "There is nothing, nothing that compares between what the Afro-Americans went through and what homosexuals are going through now."

Hutcherson expresses disgust with evangelicals who still support President Obama, despite his promotion of policies that are at odds with scripture. He says such individuals are part of the "evangellyfish" movement in America.

"A person can be as black as a piece of coal, [but] if he goes against God's biblical views, I would not support him, I would not endorse him, I would not even give a smile in his direction so people could even think that I endorse him," he states, "because God is my God, the Bible is my playbook, and I run it the way it is written."

During his speech to homosexuals on Monday, Obama suggested that Christians like Hutcherson who oppose homosexuality on biblical grounds hold to "worn arguments and old attitudes." (See earlier article)

The EPA Silences a Climate Skeptic

OPINION: POTOMAC WATCH


By Kimberley A. Strassel

The professional penalty for offering a contrary view to elites like Al Gore is a smear campaign.

Wherever Jim Hansen is right now -- whatever speech the "censored" NASA scientist is giving -- perhaps he'll find time to mention the plight of Alan Carlin. Though don't count on it.

Mr. Hansen, as everyone in this solar system knows, is the director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Starting in 2004, he launched a campaign against the Bush administration, claiming it was censoring his global-warming thoughts and fiddling with the science. It was all a bit of a hoot, given Mr. Hansen was already a world-famous devotee of the theory of man-made global warming, a reputation earned with some 1,400 speeches he'd given, many while working for Mr. Bush. But it gave Democrats a fun talking point, one the Obama team later picked up.

Ken Fallin

Alan Carlin, 35-year Environmental Protection Agency veteran

So much so that one of President Barack Obama's first acts was a memo to agencies demanding new transparency in government, and science. The nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Lisa Jackson, joined in, exclaiming, "As administrator, I will ensure EPA's efforts to address the environmental crises of today are rooted in three fundamental values: science-based policies and program, adherence to the rule of law, and overwhelming transparency." In case anyone missed the point, Mr. Obama took another shot at his predecessors in April, vowing that "the days of science taking a backseat to ideology are over."

Except, that is, when it comes to Mr. Carlin, a senior analyst in the EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics and a 35-year veteran of the agency. In March, the Obama EPA prepared to engage the global-warming debate in an astounding new way, by issuing an "endangerment" finding on carbon. It establishes that carbon is a pollutant, and thereby gives the EPA the authority to regulate it -- even if Congress doesn't act.

Around this time, Mr. Carlin and a colleague presented a 98-page analysis arguing the agency should take another look, as the science behind man-made global warming is inconclusive at best. The analysis noted that global temperatures were on a downward trend. It pointed out problems with climate models. It highlighted new research that contradicts apocalyptic scenarios. "We believe our concerns and reservations are sufficiently important to warrant a serious review of the science by EPA," the report read.

The response to Mr. Carlin was an email from his boss, Al McGartland, forbidding him from "any direct communication" with anyone outside of his office with regard to his analysis. When Mr. Carlin tried again to disseminate his analysis, Mr. McGartland decreed: "The administrator and the administration have decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. . . . I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office." (Emphasis added.)

Mr. McGartland blasted yet another email: "With the endangerment finding nearly final, you need to move on to other issues and subjects. I don't want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change. No papers, no research etc, at least until we see what EPA is going to do with Climate." Ideology? Nope, not here. Just us science folk. Honest.

The emails were unearthed by the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Republican officials are calling for an investigation; House Energy Committee ranking member Joe Barton sent a letter with pointed questions to Mrs. Jackson, which she's yet to answer. The EPA has issued defensive statements, claiming Mr. Carlin wasn't ignored. But there is no getting around that the Obama administration has flouted its own promises of transparency.

The Bush administration's great sin, for the record, was daring to issue reports that laid out the administration's official position on global warming. That the reports did not contain the most doomsday predictions led to howls that the Bush politicals were suppressing and ignoring career scientists.

The Carlin dustup falls into a murkier category. Unlike annual reports, the Obama EPA's endangerment finding is a policy act. As such, EPA is required to make public those agency documents that pertain to the decision, to allow for public comment. Court rulings say rulemaking records must include both "the evidence relied upon and the evidence discarded." In refusing to allow Mr. Carlin's study to be circulated, the agency essentially hid it from the docket.

Unable to defend the EPA's actions, the climate-change crew -- , led by anonymous EPA officials -- is doing what it does best: trashing Mr. Carlin as a "denier." He is, we are told, "only" an economist (he in fact holds a degree in physics from CalTech). It wasn't his "job" to look at this issue (he in fact works in an office tasked with "informing important policy decisions with sound economics and other sciences.") His study was full of sham science. (The majority of it in fact references peer-reviewed studies.) Where's Mr. Hansen and his defense of scientific freedom when you really need him?

Mr. Carlin is instead an explanation for why the science debate is little reported in this country. The professional penalty for offering a contrary view to elites like Al Gore is a smear campaign. The global-warming crowd likes to deride skeptics as the equivalent of the Catholic Church refusing to accept the Copernican theory. The irony is that, today, it is those who dare critique the new religion of human-induced climate change who face the Inquisition.

Write to kim@wsj.com