Poll Finds Majority of Americans Feel Judicial Appointments Deserve an Up-Or-Down Vote.

More than 80 percent of participants in a recent Republic National Committee poll believe that "even if they disagree with a judge, Senate Democrats should at least allow the President's nominations to be voted on.” For details on the survey, click here. For further reading: Men In Black

SPECIAL REPORT: Inside Terri’s room those final hours.

Here’s something the mainstream media didn’t tell you about the Terri Schiavo story. Get the dramatic, real story of what happened inside her room those final hours – told by those who were there. Listen here. (To order a copy of the 4/1/2005 broadcast, click here.)

Deepak Chopra says he's right and Jesus is wrong.

Check out this all-new television program that tackles tough issues dealing with faith. It airs on Saturday nights on PAX-TV.

Losing Our Glory from Men in Black

COMMENTARY by Ed Nicholson
_________________________

OK people, its time for a pop quiz! Pull out your paper and pencil. (Let’s see if you can do better than some very highly educated people in some very important positions in this country. Now don’t worry…this quiz will be short and painless.)

Question:
When has someone’s I.Q. determined his or her humanity?

Answer:
I’ll give you at least two times in modern history: Nazi-controlled Germany in the 1930’s; and today’s oligarchic-controlled United States of America.

Question:
If a one-month-old little girl were hungry, what would we do?

Answer:
We would feed her.

Why?
Because she can’t feed herself.
(Dahh! Pretty simple, you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to figure that one out, right?)

Question:
Now, what if the baby is four months old and hungry? What would we do?

Answer:
Again, Dahh…we would feed her.

Why?
Because she’s a human being who can’t feed herself. Just because she’s older doesn’t make a difference. If someone left her to fend for herself and said “well if God wants her alive, she will live,” that person would be put in jail for abuse and neglect.

Question:
If it doesn’t matter how old she is, or if she can’t feed herself, then how could a judge allow a man to legally starve his wife who can’t feed herself?

Answer:
Because that judge doesn’t strictly interpret the U.S. Constitution but “broadly interprets it” to suit his definition of what is right or wrong.

Why would a judge kill an innocent human being? Is “convenience” a legitimate reason? What about “compassion”? Was ending Terri’s life really a compassionate act as the mainstream media portrayed? If so, then why did the doctors have to give Terri morphine? Ask any doctor or hospice nurse: starvation and dehydration are not great ways to go!

ATTENTION ALL JUDGES:
ETHICS 101:
HUMANS ARE NOT VEGETABLES!!!!

Come on! It’s crazy for a judge to say it’s OK for a husband to do that to his wife. Men without mercy! Oh, the hubris of these judges! Just because she is not living a “productive” life doesn’t give her husband (or anybody else) the right to end her life. Are we not better than this?

The sad reality is there are a lot of out-of control judges throughout this country who will decide for themselves what is “constitutional” instead of letting the constitution speak for itself. It has resulted in a legal system in chaos. Today, activist judges are pushing the envelope of moral relativism and leading our society off the cliff into the chasm of insanity! America is quickly losing the essence of what has made it great! We’ve come to a place where the elderly are seriously looking at drawing up papers to indicate they want to live. Shouldn’t it be the other way around? Shouldn’t America be a place where the burden is on the one who wants to take their life, not protect it? And isn’t the main responsibility of America’s government to protect human life?

Something else worth pointing out is that this grave injustice and callous act by one out-of-control judge was remarkably done not in the dark, but in the light of day – out in the open for all to see with the support of other judges. Why couldn’t this be stopped? Despite many concerted efforts by Governor Jeb Bush, President George W. Bush, as well as a bipartisan majority in Congress, the madness went forward. Why didn’t the media tell the truth about what was really going on? She was simply a disabled person. She was NOT terminally ill, NOT in a coma, and NOT being kept alive on life support. But that’s not how the media present it. Why is that? (Listen here to something the media doesn’t want you to know.) Please mainstream media! Don’t tell me it’s political! I’m not stupid as you so often “caricature-ize” my type. Did you hear anything at all about Jesse Jackson’s attempts to help Terri? How can you have both liberals like Rev. Jesse Jackson and conservatives like Dr. James Dobson both be fighting to save Terri Schiavo’s life together if it’s just a political thing? The Bible says, “Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.” The antithesis reign supreme in our federal courts! If current trends continue, Aldous Huxley’s "A Brave New World" will quickly be upon us.

What can we do to stop this madness?

CALL TO ACTION

While we can no longer help Terri Schiavo, there is still something we can do to prevent further judges from interpreting their own sense of morality into our laws.

We can begin to stop judicial tyranny in a big way by first stopping the minority party in the Senate from continuing to block judicial nominees from having an up or down vote. Call your Senator today and tell them you want sane judges appointed who will strictly interpret the constitution instead of pulling things out of thin air and saying whatever they want the constitution to say.

During the last two years, America watched as the minority party in the Senate used extraordinary obstructionist tactics to prevent conservative judicial nominations from being voted on. For the first time in history, Senate Democrats filibustered (prevented confirmation votes on) not one, but ten judicial nominations – solely on the basis of ideology.

In light of the high probability of Supreme Court vacancies, we must encourage our Senators to confirm President Bush’s judicial nominees who see their sole responsibility to be that of interpreting the Constitution rather than re-making the Constitution.

Please contact your two U.S. Senators and ask them to vote to change the rule to a simple majority as the Constitution requires.

Explain that you support a return to the constitutional tradition of 51 votes being sufficient to confirm a judicial nominee, not the unprecedented 60 votes required to break a filibuster.

The short version of that message:

When you call, if you would like, you can read to the aid who answers the phone the following script I’ve put together here:

“I am calling to see if the senator is willing to do all he can to reign in the tyrannical judiciary branch. Please tell the senator that I support the ‘constitutional option’ to end judicial filibusters. And if the senator will support the ‘constitutional option’ then I will support him in the next primary election. But if he does not support the ‘constitutional option’ then I will oppose him in the next primary election.”

And if you want to say more:

“I want to also encourage the senator to ascend to great leadership. As James Freeman Clarke once said, “A politician thinks of the next election -- a statesman of the next generation.” Please tell the Senator not to be afraid of the media. George Bush is a model of true leadership. Despite overwhelming
attacks by the liberal media, he stuck to his deeply held convictions – those also shared by the heart of America. And the people supported him by re-electing him to another four years. I urge the Senator to do the same.”

And if you’re really ambitious…

Please call the Capitol switchboard number at 202-224-3121 and ask to be transferred to the offices of each of the following members of the Senate Judicial Committee. Tell them the same thing you told your 2 senators.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah
Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa
Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.
Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio
Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.
Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho
Sen. Saxby Chambliss,
R-Ga. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas

For Further Information:

• Unmasking Judicial Tyranny. Conservative talk show host Mark Levin discusses his new book Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America which details the outrageous examples of the out-of control judiciary.

• Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist’s web site includes an in-depth section focusing on judicial nominations. This web page will provide a one-stop information resource to explore the facts about the judicial confirmation process, the judicial filibuster and the Constitutional option.

• The Ohio Roundtable: Judicial Activism

• Letter to the Editor (Sent 2005-03-30 by me):

Although the media keep talking about the "nuclear option," there's nothing that explosive about the plans of Senate Republicans to end the filibusters against President Bush's judicial nominees. All it really involves is restoring
constitutional order to a process that's been hijacked by Senate liberals.

By restoring the number of votes needed to confirm a nominee to a simple majority — not the supermajority required to end a filibuster — conservatives hope to stop the madness that has prevented 10 qualified judges from even getting an up-or-down vote over the past two years.

Democrats know this better than anyone, having previously argued against the misuse of filibusters to block judicial nominees. “If we don't like somebody the president nominates, vote him or her down,” Vermont's Patrick Leahy said in 1998. “But don't hold them in this anonymous, unconscionable limbo, because in doing that, the minority of senators really shame all senators.” No less a liberal icon than California's Dianne Feinstein has acknowledged that the Democrats' filibuster abuse is not “the honest thing to do.” Of course, that was back in 1999, when Bill Clinton was in the White House and she believed that "it is our job to confirm these nominees. If we don't like them, we can vote against them." Now she's a leading filibuster proponent.

The Democrats simply need to admit they are being dishonest and not playing fair.

HELPFUL ONLINE RESOURCES:

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) launches new website designed to help parents talk with their teenagers about healthy sexual choices as they grow up.

FREE ONLINE AUDIO & VIDEO RESOURCES

(available for a limited time only)

• FREE VIDEO DOWNLOAD: Creation v. Evolution Debate between Dr. Kent Hovind & Dr. Michael Shermer

• Should we be afraid of fundamentalism in America? Listen here to a collegial debate between a Jew, a Christian, & an Atheist.

• Dr. D. James Kennedy Interviews Peter Jennings About His Reports on Jesus. Listen