Jakubczyk on Life

By now everyone has spoken on the matter of Arlen Specter and the effect that the comments by the electorate had on the events that took place. Novak mentioned that the senators wanted Specter sufficiently concerned and aware that his claim to the chairmanship was not a lock. Apparently the appropriate impression was made. The statement prepared by Specter was more than he wanted to say. I think everyone on the committee and among the Republican leadership knows that he has to tow the line.

This was a test and the Republicans know who put them in the White House and gave them those victories in South Dakota, Oklahoma and North Carolina.

Hopefully, like the elephant which is their mascot, these senators will have long memories and remember who has been loyal to the cause of life. Fro the truth is, pro lifers are tired of being kept on the sidelines. They are tired of not having a place at the table. Now is the time to make the appropriate govenmental chases to usher in a new decade for life. The government does not need to waste money on failed programs that fill the coffers of pro-abortion groups like Planned Parenthood and others that promote death. The CDC and the FDA need to be objective agencies whose first interest is the public's health and well being. There should be another review of such dangerous drugs such as RUE-486. If government is going to fund research, it should fund studies that probe the dangerous effects, both physical and emotional, of abortion on women, men, and on surviving siblings.

The government should review the current funding of agencies who support pro-abortion programs and consider how such programs are contrary to the welfare of the nation. In short, the government should turn off the flow of taxpayer dollars to any agency or entity that funds abortion.

The Congress should look into its constitutional duty to protect its citizens and indeed all persons within our borders. No agency or branch of the federal or state government has the right to deny life, liberty or property to any person without due process of law. Congress and the executive branch are sworn to defend and protect the Constitution. The right to life cannot be stripped from innocent human beings without due process of law. The actions of the U.S. Supreme court in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) violate the separation of powers doctrine and transgress upon the stated limitations of government. It is time to have an open discusson about this issue and to resolve once for all the need to have the courts and the Congress and the several states respect and recognize the right to life of every human being.

I know this sounds almost laughable to those who have watched the politics of Washington for the last 30 years. But now is the time to raise the question. The courts have become completely obsessed with an evergrowing thirst for power and control of our everyday lives. Courts are redefining the institution of marriage and the basic relationship between human beings. This is something outside their competence. Yet these judges do it and expect us to live with it. They have become the new despots and wield a power and control that was not written into their job description.

Only our vigilance and constant readiness to act will bring this to a stop. Congress and the president must address the need for a constitutional amendment to protect all persons. This is not something which one can leave to the states. We must protect all babies wherever they are.

So it is that our voice regarding Specter was heard even though many do not like the result. Given that there will likely be a vacancy soon, the word must be to the White House and to the Senate that only a justice who respects the rights of all persons is acceptable. I do have a litmus test. I want a justice who will uphold the Constitution of the United States. I want a justice who will uphold the Declaration of Independence. I want a justice who will not make law but is willing to correct the errors of a Supreme Court nearly 32 years ago when it decided wrongly that the state could not protect unborn human beings. I want a justice who is not afraid to tell the truth to the American people. I know I want a lot....But can we afford not to have it.

Sen. Arlen Specter, the canny old fox of Pennsylvania politics, got carried away last Wednesday in the flush of an easy fifth-term victory and revealed too much of what he really thinks. He clearly imposed a litmus test requiring support of the Roe vs. Wade abortion decision for Supreme Court nominees at a time when Chief Justice William Rehnquist is gravely ill. Specter committed a rare political blunder that endangers his lifetime goal of becoming chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
To correct Specter's monumental mistake, his staff put out a news release trying to contradict the senator's undeniable advocacy of a litmus test. Actually, the brief statement repeated his warning of filibusters against President Bush's judges and did not pledge unqualified support for any nominee sent down by the White House. Furthermore, the sincerity of Specter's retreat was undermined when he said he had issued the statement at the urging of the conservative senator from Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum.
Assuming that Specter cannot and will not make a flat commitment of support, the prospect of his imminent chairmanship poses tests for two ambitious Republicans. Will Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, eyeing the White House, marshal his power to block Specter's ascension? Will Senate Republican Conference Chairman Santorum, after alienating his base by backing Specter against serious conservative opposition in this year's Pennsylvania primary, turn against his colleague?
That challenge from Rep. Pat Toomey threatened to end Specter's long political dance in which he has worn the GOP label while wooing left-wing pressure groups. Specter survived because of aggressive support from Bush as well as Santorum. No sooner had Specter been narrowly nominated than he turned leftward, declaring his independence from Bush and refusing to help two GOP congressional challengers in Pennsylvania who had a chance to win but went down to defeat.
His easy victory Tuesday, while Bush was losing the state, apparently was too sweet for Specter, 74, to contain himself. In his post-election press conference, he declared: ''When you talk about judges who would change the right of a woman to choose, overturn Roe vs. Wade, that is unlikely.'' He warned Bush of facing filibusters, apparently without help from Chairman Specter. That was enough to inspire thousands of e-mails and telephone calls protesting Specter as chairman.
The Republican base would have been even more infuriated to read the full press conference transcript confirming Specter's litmus test: ''I have said that bluntly during the course of the campaign and before. When the Philadelphia Inquirer endorsed me, they quoted my statement that Roe vs. Wade was inviolate.'' He suggested that ''nobody can be confirmed'' who does not accept abortion rights.

While the ground swell of indignation over Senator's Arlen Specter's comments continues despite his protestations of support for the president's candidates, there are some who wonder if this response by the grass roots is wise. Reacting to the betrayal of conservatives back in April when the White House came out publicly for Specter over Toomey, making the argument that Specter would help Bush wish Pennsylvania, and perhaps fearing that a Bush loss might leave the Republicans losing the Senate, most Washington insiders told conservatives to bear it and so they did. Pro-life conservatives got out the vote for the president. They, or should I say "we," worked very hard to put a pro-life person in office. So the last thing we need is to hear a senator with a pro-abortion record dissing the president.

The reaction was predictable. Specter will be loyal. "Trust me,." Specter tells us. How can you really trust someone who is supported by Planned Parenthood and who once in the chairmanship will have the ability to thwart the president's nominations. How can we having won the presidency, the Senate and the House find ourselves held hostage as we were for the last four years?

Frankly I do not trust him. I have heard his comments about the right to life and he supports Roe v. Wade. This decision was so poorly reasoned that even liberal professors from the great law schools of the Ivy league condemned it. Yet Arlen Specter wants abortion to remain legal. That means he wants to allow babies to die. That is not someone we should have as chairman of the senate judiciary.

Now my friend Hugh Hewitt disagrees with the effort to remove Arlen. He posits that we need Arlen's vote and we do not need him leading the RINO senators against the president. On the surface that might seem a good argument. Had Arlen not said anything, that might have worked in the drawing rooms of the Senate. But who is to say that Arlen would not do that anyway? What has Arlen done to insure anyone's trust? He has already disparaged the current court and the conservatives on it. Do you really think he would support Clarence Thomas for Chief Justice?

Now the problem now is much bigger.

Does the Republican leadership recognize from whence the power and the victory came?
Or are we expected to sit back, be quiet and do as we are told.

Opposition to Specter is coming from across the country - from the grass roots, form the Red States and the Red Counties. ( an aside- funny how the word 'red' has moved from being a reference to the 'left' to a reference to the 'right' - go figure.) It is not ending. As of Monday November 8, 2005, more and more writers were adding to the conversation and the growing cry to keep Specter from being chosen for this post.

Specter has made his position on abortion clear. As was reported by the Philadelphia Inquirer: “At his post-election news conference Wednesday, the Pennsylvania Republican had said that a woman’s right to choose was “inviolate,” adding that overturning Roe v. Wade now would be akin to trying to reverse Brown v. Board of Education, the court’s 1954 desegregation decision.”

As reported by Bonnie Chernin Rogoff in her latest post on www.intelectualconservative.com

"Senator Specter’s record on abortion is solidly anti-life. He led the fight to kill Judge Robert Bork’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, but voted to confirm Ruth Bader Ginsburg, an extreme left-winger who in 1972 became the first director of the ACLU's Women's Rights Project. Senator Specter supports Roe v. Wade. He voted against bans on partial birth abortion. He is opposed to parental notification laws for minors having abortions. He favors taxpayer-funded abortions."

Now to answer Hugh's questions;

1. If Specter wants to remain a player in DC, he will support the president's nominees without being the chairman. The senate can give him another important chairmanship that will not negatively impact on the life issues and all save face. If he joins the pro-abortion extremists, then he will find himself alone and facing six years of contempt from his colleagues.

2 As for the filibusters, the senate needs to change the rule with regard to appointments.

3. Refer to answer one. Unless he wants to be alone, he will join in confirmation. If he does not, it once again proves the point. After all, what assurances does anyone have that he would cooperate or vote even if chairman. You all are operating on faith and playing as if he has all the cards.

4. Is the party going to continue to be held hostage by liberal pro-abortion senators? Hagel will not betray his pro-life principles. As for the the others, they will want support for their programs and will not stray from the fold.

5. His recent comments re Bork, Thomas, and the court give me and others no comfort level and tend to support our concerns. Then there is the maxim - if they can do it and get away with it, expect it. Why should we believe this guy at all? He has no credibility. See above record. By the way, with the Democrats using the rules and preventing a final vote, he could afford to vote for the nominees, knowing that they were not going anywhere soon.

6. Actually opposing specter may help Rick Santorum and blot out the terrible thing he did in April by supporting Specter over Toomey. Had Toomey beat Specter, I believe Bush would have taken Pennsylvania and we would have Toomey in as the junior senator. Rick would have then jumped the top of the possible presidential contenders for 2008.

7. How is it that the Caucus would pull him after seating him? That is not going to happen. Now, prior to appointment, that is when the election of the chair should occur. The chair SHOULD reflect the sentiments of the majority of the committee.

I agree that the process is in need of repair.

I just do not want Arlen Specter as my repairman.

Here I am about ready to speak in glowing generalities about the election, the hard work you all provided to elect a pro-life president, and here in our state to make certain gains in county, state and legislative offices, and what do I read - Arlen Specter "dissing" the president. Talk about no respect. Three days have not passed and Specter is telling some reporter how Bush better not send him any pro life judges or else.

So away we go. No time to sit around and bask in the victory. Work to do.

Read my article below and act.

Check out the site and follow our elert.

Thanks and stay close to this battle. It is very important that we make our voices heard loud and clear - for the sake of the children.

Arlen Specter – “Bork” him

There is a certain irony here. In April 2004, Senator Arlen Specter was in he fight of his life, being challenged by a conservative Pro-Life congressman Patrick Toomey. Toomey was surging as the primary election day grew closer. Arlen Specter then went to the White House, asked for and received support from the President and from the junior senator from Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum. The argument by the White House and Santorum was that the Republicans needed to hold on to the Senate and that Specter would help them win Pennsylvania.

Specter barely squeaked by in the Pennsylvania primary defeating Toomey by 17,200 votes. Given the closeness of the race, his re-election did not endear the President or Santorum to the countless pro-lifers who had worked so hard for Toomey. Many believed that had the president or Santorum remained silent, Toomey would have won. This author was one of those who extremely displeased with the actions of the White House. Both Santorum and the White House were told that caving on the pro-life issue would not help the cause either in the short or the long run. My comments were dismissed as coming from someone without any real credentials. They are right except that I am part of the grass roots. I do rub shoulders and work with the people who carry the petitions and make the phone calls. These folks do not like being conned or misled or told that they have to “trust” the “higher ups.” They want reasons and there were no morally good reasons to support Arlen Specter. Indeed, if there are possible reasons why Pennsylvania did not go for the president, this may be one of them. How many just did not vote on Tuesday because they were upset. Specter did not help the President during the campaign. He only looked out for himself.

Now less than two after the general election, he sends a shot across the bow and tells the press that the president better not send him any conservative pro-life judges. Then just after it is reported, he retreats and claims he never said that.

Well, let’s look at the record. Arlen Specter is pro abortion. He believes in Roe v. Wade. Planned Parenthood and the pro-abortion extremists support him. He was responsible for the defeat of Judge Bork. He prevented this fine jurist from being appointed to the Supreme Court. From that defeat, the left took strength in their ability to ‘bork’ candidates. We can thank Arlen Specter for empowering the enemies of unborn children and giving the nation even more division and acrimony during the last ten years.

Even now Specter is siding with the Democrats. Compare his statement with that of Terry McAuliffe, Chairman, DNC.

“I don’t think a 51-49 election is any mandate…they need to be very careful that they now need to govern from the middle in a bipartisan way.” - Terry McAuliffe, chairman, DNC, November 3, 2004.

“President Bush’s margin of victory proves that we “have a narrowly divided country, and that’s not a traditional mandate…the number-one item on my agenda is to try to move the party to the center.” - Sen. Arlen Specter, November 3, 2004.


Vice President Cheney introducing President Bush for his victory speech, Ronald Reagan Building, November 3, 2004 stated

“President Bush ran forthrightly on a clear agenda for this nation’s future, and the nation responded by giving him a mandate.”


Referring to a email sent to me through our related contacts, I quote the following points which all appear to be excellent reasons why Specter should NOT be the chairman

Specter denied the legitimacy of President Bush’s historic mandate.

Specter announced a pro-abortion litmus test for the president’s judicial nominees. Specter claims that Roe v. Wade is “inviolate” and insists that “nobody can be confirmed today who does not agree with it.”

Specter’s illegal litmus test would disqualify all constitutionalist nominees from serving on the Supreme Court of the United States and the lower federal courts.

Specter’s illegal litmus test demands that all nominees violate the canons of judicial ethics by announcing or pledging how they will vote in a particular case.

Specter will not promise to support the President’s nominees. Instead, he merely “hopes” that he can support them. The day after the election, when a reporter asked Specter if he would support the president’s nominees, the senator hesitated and equivocated: “I am hopeful that I’ll be able to do that. That obviously depends upon the president’s judicial nominees. I’m hopeful that I can support them.”

Specter criticized President Bush’s first-term judicial nominees: “The nominees whom I supported in committee, I had reservations on.”

Specter insulted Janice Rogers Brown, president Bush’s nominee to the important U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. Specter referred to Brown, a distinguished conservative and the first African American woman to serve on the California Supreme Court, as “the woman judge out of California” who he had reservations about.

Specter insulted the entire Supreme Court of the United States, including Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia and Thomas. When a reporter asked Specter “Are you saying that there is not greatness” on the Supreme Court, Specter replied: “Yes. Can you take yes for an answer?”

Specter’s comments reveal that, like Sen. Kerry and Sen. Daschle, Specter favors judges who follow politics and popular opinion, not the Constitution and the rule of law.

Specter accused President Bush of ignoring the Senate’s advise and consent role: “The Constitution has a clause called advise and consent, the advise part is traditionally not paid a whole lot of attention to, I wouldn’t say quite ignored, but close to that.”

Specter wants to encroach upon the president’s appointment power. Obstructionist Democrats filibustered ten of President Bush’s appeals court nominees. Now Specter wants the Senate to become MORE involved in judicial appointments: “My hope is that the Senate will be more involved in expressing our views.”

SPECTER’S RECORD OVER THE LAST 20 YEARS DEMONSTRATES A PATTERN OF VERY TROUBLING CONDUCT ON JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ISSUES

Specter fought against the distinguished Judge Robert H. Bork, betraying President Reagan and his fellow Republicans.

Specter voted against Judge Bork on the judiciary committee, and against Bork’s confirmation on the Senate floor. By joining liberal Democratic senators and radical left-wing groups in their opposition to Judge Bork, Specter gave those groups aid and comfort, and was instrumental in Judge Bork’s defeat.

If Specter remained faithful to his president and his party, Judge Bork would almost certainly have been confirmed to the Supreme Court. Specter’s opposition doomed him.

Judge Bork warned Americans that Specter does not understand the Constitution and that Specter, along with Senate Democrats “professed horror at the thought that a judge must limit his rulings to the principles in the actual Constitution.”

President Ronald Reagan called the left-wing assault against Judge Bork “an unprecedented political attack” on a Supreme Court nominee and “a tragedy for our country.” Specter rebuffed President Reagan’s plea to support Judge Bork.

Specter helped defeat the nomination of conservative Jeff Sessions for a federal judgeship.

Specter warned filibustered appeals court nominee William Pryor that just because he voted for him on the committee did not mean that he would vote on the Senate floor for his confirmation.

The “National Review” exposed Specter as “The Worst Republican Senator” in a prominent September 1, 2003 cover story. According to “National Review,” Specter “is not a team player…is an abortion rights absolutist, a dogged advocate of racial preferences, a bitter foe of tax reform, a firm friend of the International Criminal Court.”

Specter refuses to support the elevation of Justice Clarence Thomas to Chief Justice: “I’d have to think about that,” Specter equivocated. Ditto for Justice Antonin Scalia: “I’d have to think about that too.” Specter once slandered Justice Thomas as a “disappointment.”

THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE MUST BE SOMEONE DEVOTED TO THE CONSTITUTION AS WRITTEN AND THE RULE OF LAW

The situation is urgent. Chief Justice Rehnquist is gravely ill. A Supreme Court vacancy is imminent.

President Bush may be called upon to nominate a Supreme Court justice within the next several weeks.

Court watchers predict as many as three Supreme Court vacancies during President Bush’s second term.

President Bush will likely have a historic, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to return the Supreme Court to constitutionalist principles.

The President needs as chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee a loyal, reliable, conservative partner who will shepherd his nominees through the confirmation process.

Under intense political pressure, Specter tried to recant portions of his post-election statements the day after he uttered them. That means nothing. His 20-year record of party disloyalty and tormenting conservative nominees means everything.

As chairman, Specter will act as a vexatious intermeddler, second-guessing President Bush’s Supreme Court and lower court nominations. This imperils the President’s legacy.

As chairman, Specter will have control over the committee’s staff, agenda, and schedule, giving him great power to obstruct the confirmation of conservative judges.

Under the Senate’s seniority rules, Specter is slated to take over the Judiciary Committee, but under Senate rules and procedures, he can be stopped from becoming committee chairman.

The window of opportunity to stop Specter is limited. Once he becomes chairman, it will be impossible to unseat him.

Act now to stop Specter. There are a number of websites set up to assist you including Arizona Right to life at www.azrtl.org, www.stopspector.savethegop.com, www.notspecter.com.

You can also check out the National Right to life committee website at www.nrlc.org

George Bush was re-elected to uphold the moral values that protect the lives of all human beings. He was re-elected so that we could move toward ending abortion in this nation. An abortion kills an unborn child. No court decision can legitimize the killing of a child. It is never morally permissible to intentionally kill an innocent person. Now more than ever we need to act.