John Roberts Wants to Blow Up Abortion Clinics!

Or he supports those who do. That’s what NARAL wants you to believe, despite its president’s comments to the contrary here. (“I want to be very clear that we are not suggesting Mr. Roberts condones or supports clinic violence. Iím sure he finds bombings and murder abhorrent. But still his ideological view of the law compelled him to go out of his way to argue on behalf of someone like Michael Bray, who had already been convicted of a string of bombings.” He didn’t go “out of his way”! He argued from his position as Deputy Solicitor General of the U.S.!)

The ad, which can also be viewed at the link above, absolutely does lead a person to think that Roberts supported Michael Bray’s bombing of abortion clinics. That is ridiculous on the face of it, which is probably why Ms. Keenan had to issue her weak disclaimer.

Sean Hannity had on his show the male(!) press director, I think it was, from NARAL, and pointed out (“Let me educate you”) that Roberts’ argument before the Supreme Court (which, by the way, ruled in favor of Roberts’ side) was seven years before the bombing identified in the NARAL ad. Not only is the ad misleading about Roberts’ views on abortion clinic violence, but it depicts two events separated by seven years as if they were related.
[See here for more context.]

But wait, there’s more! The brief in question, and the case in question, is only incidentally connected to abortion clinic violence, in that some names are common to both. [See this brief, also filed in the same case, by Feminists for Life–uh oh, Roberts’ wife belongs to that group!!] To accept NARAL’s spin, Roberts might as well have been Bray’s defense attorney. Let’s also be clear: Roberts argued a brief of the U.S. Government, whose employee he was at the time. That’s not to say Roberts did not agree with the brief; if you disagree fundamentally with your employer, perhaps you should find another job. However, it is misleading to speak as if Roberts was speaking only on behalf of himself, and not the government. Again, let’s emphasize this: the Supreme Court ruled in favor of those supported by the Government and the brief Roberts filed. Thus, whatever is said or implied about Roberts in the ad should also be applied to the Supreme Court (at least the six out of nine justices who wrote in favor).

Want more evidence that NARAL has made an ad that has no basis in reality or fact? Simply read the Court’s decision here.
The guy on Hannity ludicrously suggested, as have numerous Left wing politicians, that Bush should have appointed someone who fits Justice O’Connor’s profile; therefore, since O’Connor wrote in opposition to the case in question, that makes it all the worse! I would have punched my radio, but that would have made my hand hurt, and the guy wouldn’t have felt it. destroys any credibility the ad might have had here.
For a letter on what the Reagan White House (for whom Roberts also worked) thought about pardoning abortion clinic bombers see this, also from

The ad suggests that the hearers call their Senators to voice their opposition to someone who “supports violence against other Americans;” I’m inclined to do exactly the opposite.


Working Together in Disaster Relief

Bunnie Diehl has a post from a week ago on cooperation between the LCMS and the elcA in helping people who are affected by disasters (here is the elcA press release).

She clearly disapproves, as do most of the commenters (excepting Jeremy Abel and Russ).

I’m with Jeremy and Russ. I don’t claim to know the motives of President Kieschnick (as do Bunnie’s commenters), but taking the press release at face value, there is nothing wrong with cooperating in various non-theological endeavors with other Christians. For that matter, if Muslims, Jews, and Buddhists are protesting at Planned Parenthood, I’d gladly stand side by side with them. Now, if either President Kieschnick or the elcA plans on using this as a means to theological unity, I do have a major problem. Unity comes from agreement in doctrine, not helping people–which is only one of the major problems with the modern ecumenical movement. (Is there such a thing anymore?)

I think it is imperative that we, as human beings, work for the good of our neighbor, so where that happens, it is usually a good thing as long as helping the neighbor is the goal. I can see the point of disliking the “official” nature of the whole thing. I do not know why it was necessary to sign any formal agreement on this. Just do it; there’s no need to make it symbolic of anything larger.


Good Books

With a couple more weeks before school starts, I’ve been reading more. I finished Zion on the Mississippi, which seems to be a pretty solid history of the Saxons, many of whom helped form the LCMS.

Second, I just finished South Park Conservatives. It’s both hilarious and eye-opening. Read it. I like the description of “South Park Conservatives as those who don’t necessarily fit the stereotype of conservatives (especially younger people), but really don’t like where the Left wing wants to take this country. One of the best quotes is from Matt Stone or Trey Parker (I can’t remember which), the creators of South Park: “I f—ing hate conservatives, but I really f—ing hate liberals.”

Third, the book I’m currently reading is The Death of Right and Wrong by Tammy Bruce. Her arguments are an excellent example of Natural Law, since she is described on the book flap as “America’s favorite openly gay, pro-choice, pro-death penalty, gun-owning, voted-for-Reagan feminist.” She takes on those with whom she worked for so long as a former president of the L.A. chapter of NOW and as a homosexual activist. Obviously, she is not a Christian, but she does not think morality is a bad word. You might quibble, as I do, with her wanting to have both morality and be in a homosexual relationship; however, I’m wondering how long she can argue in this direction and not run up against her own duplicity in the area of sexuality. But as I said, it’s a powerful argument in favor of the first, civil function of the Law, even among non-Christians.

I’d pick up South Park Conservatives first if you want a lighter read, and The Death of Right and Wrong if you want something a little more weighty; and Zion on the Mississippi if you want to know the background of the LCMS.