Additional Titles

 

 

 

 

 

Other
Ryter
Articles:

The Two Kerry's:
War Hero or
Traitor?

"Men in Black" The Cult of The Judges

 

WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?

 

 

 

By Jon Christian Ryter

July 4, 2004

NewsWithViews.com

Most Americans have already decided which presidential contender—if any—is going to get their vote this November. From the political chatter on the Internet it appears that the ideologue protest vote—on both sides off the political spectrum—will capture as much as 12% of the vote. And it is very likely that the "no vote" at the top of the ticket may reach a national all-time high of about 4% (instead of the average national non-vote rate of 2%) as the American electorate casts its ballots for national senatorial and congressional candidates, and for state, county and local officials—by voting none-of-the-above for the office of President of the United States. In 2000 the national none-of-the-above vote for president was about 2.5%. In the State of Florida, where the Gore Campaign tried to count the non-votes as malfunctioned Gore votes and steal the Election of 2000, the none-of-the-above vote at the top of the ticket was just a hair under 2%.

The primary party presidential candidates—Sen. John Forbes Kerry and U.S. President George W. Bush have an identity crisis. Other than the fact that one is a tall, lanky liberal (posing as a moderate) from Massachusetts and the other is a tall, lanky moderate (posing as a conservative) from Texas, there isn't a whole lot of discernible difference between them in the minds of the already decided voters. To the conspiracy right, both of the primary party candidates are members of the secret Yale fraternal society of Skull & Bones that, like the Cecil Rhodes' Circle of the Initiates (more commonly known as The Society or The Group), is comprised of the wealthy sons of the wealthy scions who were born and bred to become the world's leaders and heads of State—and the almost completely invisible barons of banking and industry who sit upon the very pinnacle of the world. What makes Skull & Bones, like The Society, so ominous to the conspiracy buffs is that everything they do is secretive. The Bilderbergers are also secretive since they do not allow the media to attend their meetings. But, so is the Federal Reserve. Our central banking system is so secretive that when its first Fed Chairman, Paul Warburg, was appointed he refused to appear at his own confirmation hearing before the Senate Banking Committee. He told Congress that his appearance might impede his ability to function as the head of the Fed. The Senate hastily confirmed him without a hearing. Now, that's secret!

And just as an aside, Warburg became the "model" for the Daddy Warbucks character in Joseph Tipton's Little Orphan Annie. It is important to remember that America's elite families don't belong to secret societies like Skull & Bones and The Society because they are up to something sinister—even though they might very well be up to something sinister. Because of their vast wealth and/or blueblood status, they are taught from childhood that they were born to rule. The secret societies to which they belong are fraternities of an elite ruling class in a nation that we've always been taught is a classless society where all men are created equal. It is just that some members of our society are, perhaps, just a little more equal than the rest of us. With wealth comes privilege—and power. The wealth of the wealthiest of these scions dwarfs the wealth of those we are led to believe—like Bill Gates—are the richest men in the world. Unlike people like Bill Gates or the Walton family that owns Wal-Mart, these families are so rich that there is no instrument by which their wealth can be measured. That's largely the secret they are hiding. While the Kerrys and the Bushes are not among the wealthiest Americans, both families qualify for membership in that elite privileged group, thus their indoctrination into fraternities like Skull & Bones.

Hardcore conservatives view Bush as a neo-conservative due to the passage of the USA Patriot Act. In the hands of the wrong president, the Patriot Act could, and likely will, be used as a political devise to stifle what remains of free speech and constitutionally-protected protest in America. Of all the things George W. Bush did during his first term that will cost him votes, this was probably his biggest tactical blunder.

Kerry, who is a socialist practitioner of moral relativism, is posing as a middle-of-the-road moderate because he knows that the American people hate liberal ideologues—especially ones as far to the left as him. But Keerry isn't fooling anyone except perhaps the welfare crowd who really doesn't care anyway. They know if Kerry gets elected, he will become their personal Robin Hood, stealing from the pockets of the middle class to support the "victims" of moral relativism who believe the middle class "haves" are morally obligated to financially support the have nots. So the fact that Kerry has a political agenda that is antithetical to the historic Christian-conservative interests of the American people means nothing to them.

The conservatives also know that while serving in the Mekong Delta for four months, Lt. jg John F. Kerry manipulated the system by having his own men recommend him for undeserved and unearned medals and commendations that he could use to further his political ambitions. Kerry even went so far as to bring a movie camera with him to Vietnam to record his military exploits so he could use them in his political campaigns as he sought high office in the United States.

Conservatives, many of whom served in Vietnam or in other military actions, were equally unimpressed with Bush's safe berth in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War. That may be due in part to the fact that they are unaware that 2nd Lt. George W. Bush did everything he could to be transferred to fighter pilot duty in Vietnam. Powerful forces—perhaps in the form of his mother goading his father to use his influence to make sure her son remained out of harm's way—kept Bush stateside as his requests for transfer to Viietnam were never acted upon. But, they were initiated by Bush. In one instance Lt. Bush was told the military was using different fighter planes in Vietnam and that he couldn't go because he wasn't qualified to fly them.

The major political parties in the United States have become institutionalized over the past eight decades with the power to govern increasingly shared by the illegal bureaucracy that was created by Franklin Roosevelt and the special interest groups that, since 1920, have financed the successful politicians who won the seats in Congress and determined the political agenda that would be enacted. The transfer of power from the people occurred when the wealthy American utopians wrenched control of the political process from the people shortly after World War I using money, influence, and their control of the media to accomplish their objective. From that perspective, there is now little difference between a Democrat or a Republican.

Today, both major parties represent those special interests first and the people second. It is only during an election year when votes count more than dollars that politicians remember the electorate with exaggerated solicitude as they promise the voters solutions to all of society's ills through the largesse of Uncle Sam—with the taxpayer's own money. Congress consistently over-promises, overspends and overtaxes the American people.

For that reason alone it is no wonder that small factions of Americans rose up and formed alternative political parties in an enervated attempt to have their voices heard beyond the office water cooler or the Internet. And, it's no wonder that those Americans dogmatically defend those alternative party candidates with a wistful although forlorn hope that their candidate would somehow get elected. Liberal ideologues, on the other hand, are never deluded into believing their long shot candidates will overwhelm the primary party candidates. It won't happen and they know it. What they will accomplish, if not this election, then the next, is to force the Democrats to hammer their issues into planks on the Democratic platform. The conservatives, for some reason, aren't that smart. They continue to believe that their alternative party candidate can actually win.

Alternative party candidates have always been a troublesome problem for the power brokers behind the seats of government because early in our history the bankers and the industrialists couldn't stop popular candidates like Andrew Jackson from getting elected. By 1912 the money barons had mastered the art of harnessing third party candidates. From that point forward in American history, third party candidates have been adroitly used by the power barons to guarantee that the major party candidate they were backing received enough electoral votes to secure the White House. That is generally accomplished today by granting or denying all of the other third party candidates space in the media or at the podium during the presidential debates.

Much to his dismay during the Election of 2000, Reform Party presidential nominee Pat Buchanan became the invisible candidate the moment he won the Reform Party's nomination for President in what was later called a "split ballot." Even though the headlines in most of the major newspapers announced that Buchanan had won, it was John Hagelin's photo, not Buchanan's that graced the front pages of those newspapers. And the articles which mentioned Buchanan's win in the headline were actually articles how the Reform Party under John Hagelin refused to be hijacked by a right wing ideologue by leaving Buchanan's convention and going to another hotel down the street where they nominated Hagelin.

At the same time in 2000, Hagelin was also the presidential candidate of the Naturalist Party. When the election was over, Hagelin disbanded the Naturalist Party and set up what he termed a "complementary" government called the US Peace Government. Its purpose, Hagelin says was "...to prevent social violence, terrorism and war; and to promote harmony and peace." Nader's candidacy in 2000 instilled a breath of life in the Green Party. There are now 300 thousand registered Green Party voters. There are Green Party candidates running in 44 States. Matt Gonzales won 47% of the vote in the San Francisco mayoral race and Green Party candidate Jason West won the mayor's race in New Paltz, New York. Even though life was infused into the Green Party by Reform Party nominee Ralph Nader in 2000, the Green Party rejected the idea of endorsing him in favor of David Cobb largely because of the feminist and lesbian participation in the Green Party this year. Heavily involved in blocking Nader was feminist Medea Benjamin who founded United for Peace & Justice; Code Pink, Women for Justice; and Global Exchange. Prior to 2004, your typical Green Party supporter was a white, greying heterosexual middle-class, causally-dressed baby-boomer who was more concerned about smog than world trade or global governance. Since 2000 the Green Party has been overhauled. Through the efforts of Benjamin and a coterie of feminists, homosexuals, lesbians and young recent college grad environmentalist ideologues like Adam Benedetto and Tim Condon (who shaves his head and wears collarless black suits). Benedetto and Condon "packaged" this year's Green Party convention to reach a younger and more diverse crowd. "We just want to change what you think a Green Party person ought to be," Condon told the media. "Us young people, we're from the packaging generation where if it doesn't look good it can't be taken seriously." And, change the party they did. While the potbellied baby boomers were evident everywhere at the convention center in Milwaukee, so were the hippies, the feminists, the lesbians, homosexuals and the young environmentalist protest activists.

Ralph Nader, who is the Reform Party nominee, chose not to go to the Green convention Milwaukee, opting instead to send his running mate, Peter Camejo, who is a Green Party activist, to represent them. But the Greens took his "no-show" as a snub. Benjamin campaigned hard for David Cobb who describes himself as a "male feminist." Cobb, like Benjamin has no illusions about winning the election and, in fact, tells Green Party loyalists to vote for Kerry in the swing States but to vote for him in the States that Bush and Kerry have locked up. Although Nader is viewed by most rank-and-file Green Party members who think they are actually voting for someone who can win the presidency, the hierarchy of the Green Party has no illusions. They know their candidate—at the national level—can't win. He's on the ticket to support the local, county andd State candidates who can win. Moreover, he's on the national ticket only to force the Democrats to adopt their positions on diversity rights and environmentalism to guarantee Green Party support for Kerry on election day in November. There are no illusions in the party hierarchy even though in their campaign speeches they act like they are backing a winner. The young activists within the Green Party blame Nader—the Green Party's candidate in 2000—for Al Gore's loss that year since he won well over a thousand votes in Florida that year—more than enough to have placed Al Gore in the White House on the morning of Nov. 8, 2000.

On the other side of the political spectrum we have the conservative Constitution Party whose adherents misguidedly believe their candidate, Michael Anthony Peroutka can somehow magically win enough popular votes to actually win the electoral votes needed to topple both major party candidates. Their ardor is based solely on Christian faith and the hope that God will provide a miracle because the principles upon which the Constitution Party's campaign is based are Godly. In the secular world of national politics, that is not sound political reality. If enough Christians vote for Peroutka, they may succeed in doing to Bush what Nader did to Gore—put the opposition candidate in the White House. For those who steadfastly believe that a miracle will happen and Peroutka can get elected, let me make a simple observation to show you the sheer impossibility of the Constitution Party myth. Roughly 42% of the electorate are moderate to hardcore liberals. They would vote for Antichrist if he topped the Democratic ticket. They will vote for John Kerry even if Hillary Clinton somehow ends up as his running mate. Forty percent of the voters are equally dedicated Republicans. Most are Christians. They will vote straight partyline unless Bush commits some mortal error between now and November. That leaves 18% of the electorate. They are swing voters. About half of them identify themselves as Christians, although many of them sit in the pews of liberal denominational churches on those Sundays they choose to attend church. It is this constituency that both the Democrats and Republicans are chasing, and with whom each is attempting to identify. These voters are largely pro-gun rights union members. They tend to be social moderates and fiscal conservatives. And while they believe in moral relativism—they have a "live and let live" mentality they are largely pro-family heterosexuals who believe abortion is okay "sometimes." Sometimes, of course, means when one of their unmarried teenage daughters gets pregnant. In those close elections where the two major party candidates look like blood brothers, that vote splits down the middle and it is then that the third party candidates decide who is going to occupy the White House. Of course, it will never be the third party candidate, and all of them know it. They are in the race for the matching funds and the scrapbook full of memories when the race is over. So, let's assume for a minute that somehow the Peroutka Campaign caught on fire and Peroutka and Baldwin somehow magically took half of the Bush vote, and half of the undecided vote. While that is "whistling up a tree" wishful thinking that won't happen since Peroutka will take only 1% to 2% of the vote, let's assume for a moment that in fantasyland, it did. Then, at best, Peroutka would net 24.5% of the vote since the liberal voters will not cast a single vote for a man who has pledged to end abortion in January, 2005. Taking that scenario to its obvious conclusion, that would mean that Bush would also take 24.5% of the vote and John Kerry would be elected with an electoral vote landslide with around 46% to 47% of the popular vote (since Nader will take 3% to 4%). Then the opposite of what Peroutka is promising would happen. On January 20, 2005, John Kerry's first official act as President would be to revoke all of Bush's anti-abortion Executive Orders and free up federal money to fund abortions for welfare moms. His second official act would likely be to end all Bush Administration family values initiatives—including any chances of outlawing homsexual and lesbian marriages in the United States.

Thousands of born again Christians will likely rally around the Constitution Party much the same way thousands of Christians rallied around Pat Robertson's presidential candidacy in 1988. Robertson, unlike Peroutka, knew that third party candidates were nonentities. He campaigned against George H.W. Bush for the Republican nomination, and endorsed Bush when he was unable to rally traditional Republicans to support his candidacy, knowing that if he fractured the Christian conservative base he would be responsible for electing Massachusetts governor Michael Dukakis that year.

Just as Nader and Cobb and Medea Benjamin—who succeeded in convertinng the Green Party into a political sanctuary for moral relativism feminists represent the unelectable liberal left, Michael Peroutka and Chuck Baldwin represent the unelectable conservative right. Extremism, whether on the right or the left, plays well only with the zealots within those fringes but can't attract a sufficient political base to actually win an election. Political zealots are generally more interested in the ideology of their political statement than they are in winning the election. Most zealots think nothing of wasting their votes on men who can't get elected; choosing instead to use their votes as political statements.

In a political statement issued on May 14, 2004, Peroutka promised his constituents an "abortion free America by January, 2005." Peroutka said, "...if elected, I promise that abortion will end my first day in office." He continued, by saying "...It is, by the way, within the power of the President to end abortion tomorrow, as I would from my first day in office..." Like most presidential candidates, Peroutka began his campaign for the White House with a promise he knows he can't keep. (And, if he doesn't know he can't keep it, he shouldn't be running for President.) Since the Constitution does not provide the President with legislative or judicial authority, he lacks the authority to overrule the United States Supreme Court by banning abortions in the United States. If a President could ban abortion rights by Executive Order, Ronald Reagan would have done that on January 20, 1981, followed by a similar decree by George W. Bush on January 20, 2001.

When President George W. Bush entered the Oval Office shortly after noon on January 20, 2001, he began the task of attempting to undo a series of Executive Orders issued by former President Bill Clinton. The first Executive Order signed by Bush removed federal funding of abortion—the most any President can legally and constitutionally do in this area. Bush then attempted to undo a series of Executive Orders signed by Clinton that implemented the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol (the UN's Global Warming Treaty) that was never ratified by Congress, as required by the Constitution of the United States before a Treaty can be acted upon by the Executive branch of government. Bush ran into a legal buzzsaw.

The Democratic leadership filed suit against the Bush Administration in federal court arguing that Bush's decision to deconstruct the programs of the Clinton Administration was merely a mean-spirited partisan political ploy that would harm the health of the American people and violate the Clean Air Act. The US District Court agreed and ruled that, in this one instance, an incoming president could not vacate the Executive Orders of a former president. What Bush was trying to do was prevent international environmental laws from being enforced by the United States Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] since he knew those laws would drive not only jobs, but employers, from the United States. Using judicial activism, a Clinton-appointed US District Court judge stopped Bush by negating his Executive Order. The jobs-drain continued at warp speed and there was nothing the Bush Administration could do about it. Thanks to a liberal judge.

Bush's actions in the opening days of his presidency, and the Democratic response to those actions, more than anything, explain the stark differences between the Republican and Democratic Parties for those Americans who believe that because the political parties have become institutionalized over the years, and because powerful special interests control much of what happens inside the beltway, that there is no longer any difference between Republicans and Democrats—or more appropriately—between the right and the left, between conservatives and liberals, or even more accurately, between free market republicans and state-controlled economy socialists. Nothing could be farther from the truth. America is losing its national identity because the people failed, since 1932, to recognize the subtle ideological differences between the right and the left when the candidates seeking the highest office of the land appear to be blood brothers.

The culture war that the Democrats could not win in Congress has now evolved into a class and culture war that is now being waged quite successfully in the federal courtrooms of liberal judicial activist judges thanks to deconstructionist members of the US Senate who very deliberately place judicial activists on the federal bench. The culture war radicals of the 1960s— people like Bill and Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Nobel laureate Toni Morrison, former Congresswoman Pat Schroder, former Congressman Ron Dellums, Julian Bond, the former mayor of Atlanta and NAACP leader, and a host of other liberal culture war activists—who became national leaders or recognized national spokespeople for their culture classes in the 1980s and 1990s, contributed much to devolution of traditional values in America. But they could not have succeeded without several current deconstructionist members of the US Senate who sit on the Judiciary Committee (which determines the appointment of all federal judges—and the ideological slant of their decisions as they exercise their self-delegated right of judicial review). They are: Joseph Biden [D-DE], John Edwards [D-NC], Russell Feingold [D-Wi], Dianne Feinstein [D-CA], Orrin Hatch [R-UT], Teddy Kennedy [D-MA], Herbert Kohl [D-WI], Patrick Leahy [D-VT], Charles Schumer [D-NY], and Arlen Specter [R-PA]. Two of the cultural deconstructionists are Republicans—Hatch and Specter.

Even with the GOP in control of the US Senate, there is not much chance of any Republican president's conservative judicial nominations getting a fair hearing—or a confirmation vote. Since committee membership is based on the ratio of seats held in the chamber, the only way this can change is for the American people to elect more Republicans—not simply conservatives, but conservative Republicans—to the US Senate since the two major parties control all "seating arrangements" on the various committees. The Judiciary Committee is one of the two or three most powerful committees in the US Senate since all federal judges must be approved by that committee before they become a permanent addition to the federal bench. Federal judges who are "seated" by recess appointments serve only until the next session of Congress. If they make the mistake of becoming activist judges with a judicial philosophy in opposition to the majority party, their nominations never see the light of day. Only another recess appointment will keep them on the bench until that president's term in office ends. But, in the interim, these temporary judges can do a lot of damage to the Constitution and the rule of law.

The invisible use of judicial activism to rewrite, or unconstitutionally "legislate" laws that could never be successfully enacted by Congress have changed the very concepts of the rule of law in the United States by allowing judges to unconstitutionally legislate social reform from the bench. When you are looking for the differences between the Democrats and Republicans, you need look no farther than the abrogation of the rule of law by liberal federal judges. You will see what I mean when we look at two watershed issues that found themselves before the US Supreme Court. In the first instance activist judges legislating from the bench created a new law that outlawed an inherent right—freedom of religion—that is not only guaranteed by the 1st Amendment, but the Constitution states that Congress (the lawmaking body) cannot write any law that in any way abridges or obstructs the rights of the people to practice their religion—anywhere and at anytime. Of course, you could say that Congress didn't—the Supreme Court which is supposed to protect the sanctity of the Constitution—did. However, adjudicating a law is no different than penning one. In the second example the justices, again legislating from the bench, created a new law that granted women a new right. The right to kill their unborn children. In this case, the justices simply created a right that did not exist. They have spend 31 years trying to find a home clause to bind that right to the Constitution since none exists. That's why Chief Judge Richard N. Posner of the US Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit calls the 1973 Roe v Wade decision the "Wandering Jew of Constitutional Law"—because the right to kill your unborn chiild does not exist anywhere in the Constitution. It was a law the globalists needed passed because the brain trust in the Rockefeller Foundation was convinced that, by the year 2000, the world would be so overpopulated that half its population would be starving and the means to radically curb the perceived population explosion had to be legislated.

It was not legislators but judges that decided, in 1947 in Everson v Board of Education (330 US 1, 18) that "...The 1st Amendment has created a wall of separation between church and state. That wall must be kept and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breech." (The first mention of that wall of separation occurred in 1878 in Reynolds v United States [98 US 145, 164] when the high court rewrote the 1st Amendment through legal interpretation. They upheld that decision in Pierce v Society Sisters in 1925. In Everson 22 years later the justices entwined the fate of the States in their decision by coupling the 14th Amendment into their distorted view of the 1st Amendment.

The following year, in 1948, an atheist, Vashti McCollum, a Champlain, Illinois housewife argued that an Illinois state law that allowed students to be excused from school one afternoon each week to attend Bible classes with the consent of their parents—for voluntary religious instructions at their own local churches discriminated against her son, Jim. McCollum asked that the law be struck and that the State be forbidden to allow any child to be taught that there is a deity called God. (It is important to note that McCollum's son was not forced to go to any church for instruction since his mother—who was raised in a devout Christian home herself—was an atheist. He was allowed to remaain in a study classroom with other children whose parents did not sign off on the religious training classes.)

There actually was no constitutional issue at stake in McCollum v Board of Education (333 US 203). So the Supreme Court created one. The State was completely neutral in the issue. The funding came from the local churches throughout Illinois, so it cost the State nothing. Those students who wanted to attend, and whose parents allowed them to attend, were granted leave. So there was no religious instruction taking place on school property. Those who did not attend the classes remained in their classroom. The State of Illinois entered the equation only because they allowed those students attending classes to be excused from school for three hours one afternoon each week.

The initial argument of the Supreme Court was that tax-supported properties (i.e., public schools) could not be used for religious instruction. (Strangely, today Muslim groups are now distributing the Koran in America's public schools and teachers are now forcing their students to read it—not as a book of religious training, which it is, but as a book that explains the cultural distinctions of Islam. And, there is no protest from the ACLU). When the high court realized that there was no religious education happening on school property, they modified their position, arguing that the close cooperation between the school board that controlled the "tax-supported property" and the religious community violated the establishment clause. Interestingly, that year the globalists were becoming increasingly concerned that religion and patriotism were too closely linked. There was a growing consensus that as long as the American sense of national patriotism remained at such a high level, world government could never be achieved.

On April 6, 1946 President Harry S. Truman proposed a new public school curriculum called Towards World Understanding that would prepare high school students for entrance into world citizenship. A year later, Julian Huxley, UNESCO's Director General issued a scholastic directive entitled In the Classrooms with Children Under 13-years of Age. On the opening page of the guidebook, which was distributed throughout the American public school system, Huxley noted: "Before the child enters school his mind has already been profoundly marked, and often injuriously, by earlier influences...first gained, however dimly, in the home." On page 9, he continued his attack on the family and the home: "The kindergarten or infant school has a significant part to play in the child's education. Not only can it correct many of the errors of home training, but it can also prepare the child for...social identification that he must achieve on his way to membership in the world society." On page 58, Huxley observed that "...[a]s we have pointed out, it is frequently the family that infects the child with extreme nationalism. The school should therefore use the means described earlier to combat family attitudes." Among those things that "infect" the family Huxley continued, are [a] religion, [b] patriotism, [c] learning too much American history, and [d] learning too much about world geography.

The globalists, within our government and without, believed that the traditional family with strong religious values generated a type of proud patriotism that led to what Huxley described as extreme nationalism. It was believed if those tethers could be sufficiently weakened, the American people would be more receptive to world government. Thus, the "motive" for the UN to legislate a new morality in America that started with the removal of God from the school and from the lives of our children. Clearly the 1st Amendment prohibited Congress from doing with the stroke of a pen what the judicial activists succeeded in doing with the slam of a gavel. God has effectively been removed from the lives of the American people—and we can see those changes on TV, at the movies, and in the attitudes of people on the streets of our cities and towns across this nation.

When you ask: "What's the difference between Democrats and Republicans?" this is the difference. Democrats fill our courts with judges who practice moral relativism. Liberal judges, with a legal license to rewrite the laws cast by Congress through interpretation, are judicial activists who practice social justice. Judges appointed by conservative Republicans adhere to the rule of law. Quite simply, that's the difference.

The second prerogative concerned the judicial legislating of an unbridled right to abortion in the United States that was never, nor could ever be, enacted by Congress. It is a "law" that was unconstitutionally legalized by a judicial decree of the United States Supreme Court on Jan. 22, 1973 when seven of the nine justices voted to legalize abortion-on-demand. The most interesting thing about Roe v Wade; Doe v Bolton is that not even Associate Justice Harry Blackmun, who engineered the debate and wrote the decision, knew where that "fundamental" right existed in the Constitution. He noted on the first page his decision that he believed the woman's right to privacy that allowed her to kill her unborn child was found in the 14th Amendment, but it wasn't. Judicial activists have tried to hang it on just about every amendment in the Bill of Rights, but it fits like an extra piece in a jigsaw puzzle. Constitutional scholars have not been able to ground Roe v Wade to any particular clause simply because it is a right that does not, nor ever did, exist in the Constitution. Seven justices illegally and unconstitutionally wrote law by judicial fiat, a right they do not possess under the Constitution. Voting to create abortion rights in American on Jan. 22, 1973 were: Chief Justice Warren Burger, who was so weak he could not control his own court, and Associate Justices Harry Blackmun, William J. Brennen, William O. Douglas, Thurgood Marshall, Lewis Powell and Potter Stewart. Voting against Roe v Wade were Associate Justices William H. Rehnquist and Byron White. All of the justices were appointed and confirmed by a Democratically-controlled U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. Nixon appointed four of the justices. Eisenhower appointed two. Appointing one each were Roosevelt, Kennedy and Johnson. By extension, you might be inclined to think that because Republicans appointed six of the nine, Roe v Wade should have never became law. While Presidents attempt to appoint justices to the high court who reflect their own values, who a president nominates and who ultimately gets appointed are many times two—or more, different people. Ronald Reagan tried hard to appoint Robert Bork, the most knowledgeable constitutional jurist in the United States, to the high court. Because Bork was a staunch rule of law constitutionalist in an era when the globalists needed social justice revisionists on the court, the liberals trotted out every liberal with an axe to grind in an effort to kill Bork's nomination. George H.W. Bush faced the same gauntlet when he nominated Clarence Thomas to the high court. Thomas stayed the course when he was accused of being the new Roe v Wade slayer. He even stayed the course when the feminists brought out Anita Hill who accused him of sexual harassment. Ultimately, as he was called an "Uncle Tom" by the left, and after a forced vote by the full Senate, Thomas was confirmed.

Bush-43 found the Senate Judiciary Committee—under the control of Deemocrats for half of his first term—to be an unyielding battleground. The only judges he got confirmed during those two years were "compromise" nominations since the conservatives he nominated never even got hearings. Those nominations have pretty much been "dead on arrival." President George W. Bush is now recycling some of his nominations that couldn't make it through the confirmation process under the Judiciary Committee when it was chaired by Senator Joe Biden. Only nominees acceptable to the liberal Democrats ever got a hearing.

The liberals aren't afraid that conservative judges will throw out Roe v Wade. Liberals are afraid that conservative high court judges will overturn moral relativism decisions, and lower court judges will not be allowed to mitigate all of the sins of the last three hundred years by meting out undeserved social justice.

So, when you ask: "What's the difference between Democrats and Republicans?" just remember—once again— here is the differencence: Democrats fill our courts with judges who practice moral relativism. Liberal judges, with a legal license to rewrite the laws cast by Congress through interpretation, are judicial activists who believe that social justice trumps the rule of law. Judges appointed by conservative Republicans adhere to the rule of law. Quite simply, that's the difference. So, when you back Democrats or conservative third party candidates, you are voting to give Democrats more power to appoint more liberal judges who will rewrite our laws faster than Congress can write them. And, when Congress writes laws to curb the power of the judges, the judges will simply declare those laws unconstitutional.

© 2004 Jon C. Ryter - All Rights Reserved

Editors Note: It's true, Republicans seem to be better then the Democrats. What I can't figure out is why the Republicans always compromise with them. Republicans control both houses of Congress and yet, nothing changes. Why? Is it possible the Democrats are smarter and have infiltrated the Republican party? Are RINO's (Republicans In Name Only) Democrats in disguise?

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale



Jon Christian Ryter is the pseudonym of a former newspaper reporter with the Parkersburg, WV Sentinel. He authored a syndicated newspaper column, Answers From The Bible, from the mid-1970s until 1985. Answers From The Bible was read weekly in many suburban markets in the United States.

Today, Jon is an advertising executive with the Washington Times. His website, www.jonchristianryter.com has helped him establish a network of mid-to senior-level Washington insiders who now provide him with a steady stream of material for use both in his books and in the investigative reports that are found on his website. E-Mail: BAFFauthor@aol.com


Home

 

 

 

 

 

...conservatives view Bush as a neo-conservative due to the passage of the USA Patriot Act. In the hands of the wrong president, the Patriot Act could, and likely will, be used as a political devise to stifle what remains of free speech and constitutionally-protected protest in America.