Federal judges are a more serious threat to America than Al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 terrorists, the Rev. Pat Robertson claimed yesterday.I hereby issue a Fatwa against Robertson for imitating tin-foil hat Moonbats.
"Over 100 years, I think the gradual erosion of the consensus that's held our country together is probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings," Robertson said on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos."
"I think we have controlled Al Qaeda," the 700 Club host said, but warned of "erosion at home" and said judges were creating a "tyranny of oligarchy."
Confronted by Stephanopoulos on his claims that an out-of-control liberal judiciary is the worst threat America has faced in 400 years - worse than Nazi Germany, Japan and the Civil War - Robertson didn't back down.
"Yes, I really believe that," he said. "I think they are destroying the fabric that holds our nation together."
(via LGF)
More:
My objections, amplified in the comments, are transformed to numbers in Gary's excellent post at RightPundit:
On a scale of 1 to 100, with 100 being the worst possible threat to American freedom and democracy, the Civil War gets a 99.9. Nazi Germany and Japan somewhere between 90-95. The Soviet Union threat in the 1950s through the very early 1980s ranks somewhere around a 90. The current judiciary? Maybe, maybe a 50. Probably lower, much lower.Still More:
The problem with obviously stupid statements like this is the left will now use it as typical of what the Right believes. I cannot speak for anyone but myself, but the Rev. Robertson is just flat wrong on this point and I find it hard to believe that many on the Right agree with him. And worse, by grossly overstating the case, he has made it more difficult to make the case that there is a problem. In short, Rev. Robertson has helped the left in its battle to keep conservatives off the bench.
MaxedOutMama wonders why conservatives weren't invited to the Theocracy/Lady Liberty wedding.
More and More:
The author of the Daily News story has posted the entire interview transcript in comments on Captain's Quarters. I'm not sure the reporter did himself a favor--because the context shows Robertson's remarks were not nearly as inflamatory as the story suggested.
(via Triticale)
6 comments:
Doesn't seem so nutty to me. Pat expressed his opinion and framed it as such. Moonbats tend to warp actual facts and distort truth and tell outright lies.
Thats a big difference.
So why does Pat Robertson state judges are more dangerous to America than terrorists? Because he believes that America can only be destroyed from within. Certainly many would view this as correct. At the very least the point is arguable. Certainly terrorists can inflict damage and harm on us but does anyone ever believe they will defeat us militarily? Of course not.
So if one argues that America can only be defeated from within one has to identify a possible enabler of that defeat.
In Pat's view when one erodes and eventually defeats the moral high standing that he regards America as having, then one has enabled its defeat.
The enabler of that is judges in his view. For in his opinion, he thinks if America loses her Christian fundemental beliefs and system of strong moral values, than what is the point of America anymore?
And just as an afterthought which type of judge do you suppose the Islamists would welcome and support? In fact which types of judges do you see Islamists condemning?
I will give you the answer: Islamists quietly support liberal judges who they see as helping destroy the "conservative" fabric of America. Once the moral fabric of America is stripped, they can move in and effectively feed like a parasite until the the parasite kills the host.
What do you suppose is happening in France and Europe?
Is Pat Robertson so wrong in the end?
I also believe that by outright condemning the "obvious" idiocy of Pat's remarks by those of us on the right only feeds the moonbat's desire to prove us all wrong and feeds their irrationality.
No matter how much you disagree with Pat Robertson on the isssues, he does not = equate to a moonbat.
Or is it that right wing bloggers (like this one) sometimes feel the necessity to "score an easy hit" on someone on the right just to somehow prove that they are "unbiased" and fair?
Who are you playing that for?
I say don't feed the moonbats and MSM ammo that they will surely will be thrown back in your face.
Dan out.
Dan and Daniel make good points. Especially because I'm both conservative and a Republican (a distinction Jonah Goldberg equates with libertarian vs. conservative and principle vs. politics). So I'm mindful of the 11th Commandment--"Thou shall not speak ill of a fellow Republican."
Still, I loathe leftists who liken Bush to tyrants or ignore his achievements. Robertson's remarks come close and -- as Gindy notes -- are offensive, not persuasive.
Robertson's right that stalling judicial confirmations is unjustified and unconstitutional. The problem is "huge" and will persist until Senate Republicans get a toughness and cohesion makeover. Dems are mistaken and mendacious about the filibuster--but almost all are peaceful patriots (except toward those, in the words of Hubert Humphrey, "at the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the aged; and those who are in the shadow of life"). But so long as America retains the Bill of Rights and periodic elections, we can cure most of the damage--even from within.
Gindy rightly calls the GWOT the Administration's main concern. Especially given the alternative--the Democrats went from wrong to wretched when Kerry backed foreign policy outsourcing and treating terrorists like hookers. Preserving the Bush Doctrine thus took priority over scolding fellow Republicans.
Senate Democrats are outrageous. But Robertson equates error with terror--which trivializes our mid-East mission and confuses politics with criminality. The crusade against Tom DeLay stems from that stumble. It's a path Republicans, including Pat Robertson, should avoid.
I'm with Carl on this one. Our form of government provides us a method to deal with ideological differences with judges. (And everyone, both on the left and the right and in the center has some with some judge or another.) If we believe there is a threat to our society, we can vote. Either our reps can change our constitution or they can pass new laws to overturn the judges. Our system of government provides us with the real ability to express our will through our elected representatives.
I think Robertson had slurped too much communion wine when he formed this opinion. The terrorists are trying to destroy our nation (and a bunch of others). The judges, whether we agree with them or not, are trying to uphold our system of government and law. Now I am truly going to be peeved if the SC upholds the New London taking. That would be a very strong violation of our constitutional principles, but I will simply contact my representatives and vote accordingly.
Our government does work if we take the trouble to make it work.
Well, Carl and I agree on something for once. I find his rhetoric to be no different than extreme feminists, environmentalists, or any other group. Robertson has the right (and some would say an obligation) to speak his mind. Freedom of speech is paramount for our nation, but I can still think he is a wingnut who is out of his mind (that is my right as an American). Our system of checks and balances is meant to be just that, a system of ensuring no group can consolidate too much power.
As for the note of the unconstitutionality of the filibuster. This is wrong. It is actually quite constitutional. If the founders really wanted to ensure a simple majority was needed to confirm a nominee, they could have written that into the constitution, but they left the rule of that to the Senate. Whether you agree with the rules, or disagree with the rules, there is no question of the constitutionality of the process. The same founders who created the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, also created the filibuster in the Senate. It is tough to say it was against their wishes. And since Republicans have used it against Democratic nominees to the court, and Democrats have argued against it in the past, both sides have already played both sides of the fence. I would actually support a constitutional amendment that would require a super majority vote so we can ensure the judicial system remains independent and as non-partisan as possible. If the judicial system is really the branch that is there to protect minorities, I think the minorities should have at least some say in who is appointed.
Dingo:
We agree on fewer issues than you think--including the unconstitutional Senate filibuster. Suggestion--research first, write later.
Post a Comment