Thursday, November 03, 2005

Cheap shots it's all they've got!

NewsMax is reporting...

Orrin Hatch Slams Alito Mafia Smear


A talking-points memorandum being circulated by Democrats to friendly media outlets attacks Judge Samuel Alito on the basis of his Italian heritage.

Utah Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch stormed Monday night that the memo was "despicable" and a sign that desperate Democrats are "hysterical" over the Alito nomination.

Hatch made the comments on MSNBC's "Hardball" with Chris Matthews.

Matthews alleged that Democrats are passing around a memorandum that he called a "complaint sheet" about Alito.

The cable talk show host said the lead item in the memo claims that as a federal prosecutor, Alito failed to convict members of the Lucchese crime family in a 1988 case.

The implication is that because Alito is Italian-American he went easy on the prosecution, or worse.

National Italian American Foundation Demands "Scalito" Apology

National Italian American Foundation (NIAF) Statement:

The NIAF is distressed by the attempts of some senators and the media (CNN, CBS) to marginalize Judge Samuel Alito's outstanding record, by frequent reference to his Italian heritage and by the use of the nickname, "Scalito."

Appropriately, no one mentioned that Justice Breyer was Jewish or suggested that he was lock-step ideologically with the other Jewish Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, it would have been outrageous to do so. We still do not know Justice Robert's ethnicity.

We are justly proud of Justice Alito's Italian heritage and his sterling academic and judicial records as well as his impeccable integrity. However, he should be considered as an individual. In honor of the memory of the just departed Rosa Parks the Senate champions of civil rights should insist that Judge Alito be considered only on his extraordinary merits.

Sincerely,

A. Kenneth Ciongoli
Chairman of the National Italian American Foundation

AP AND NPR MUST STOP THEIR BIGOTED, ANTI-CATHOLIC ATTACKS ON SUPREME COURT NOMINEE ALITO

Alexandria, VA—“Sam Alito’s nomination to the Supreme Court has pushed the media’s anti-Catholic button, and yet as the record of Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Catholic, shows, such anti-religious labeling is unnecessary,” said Media Research Center President Brent Bozell in a statement released today. “For instance, the Associated Press’s headline over reporter Rachel Zoll’s story reads: ‘Alito Would Tip Court To Catholics.’ Substitute the word ‘Jews’ or ‘Blacks’ for ‘Catholics’ and it would spark cries of outrage.

“Likewise, a report by National Public Radio’s Dahlia Lithwick is just as insidious,” said Bozell. “She reported that ‘people are very, very much talking about the fact that Alito would be the fifth Catholic on the Supreme Court if confirmed.’

“The AP’s biased reporting is clear: Catholic justices Scalia and Thomas take their religion straight from the pews to the bench. In fact, Zoll wrote: ‘Two of the Catholics on the current court -- Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas -- are abortion foes. Scalia, whose son Paul is a priest, and Thomas are sometimes seen walking together to the court after attending Mass on holy days of obligation.’ But as Justice Kennedy’s record of pro-choice rulings proves, being Catholic is irrelevant to serving on the Supreme Court.”

“The only reason anyone in the media would care about whether the Supreme Court has a majority of Catholics is if they were trying to make a bigoted connection between the faith certain justices practice and the job they do on the bench,” concluded Bozell. “Such religious bigotry should be condemned, just as Americans have condemned racism and anti-Semitism.”

5 Comments:

At 4:02 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I say just let Tony Saprano handle all of those Dem senators.

 
At 3:23 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pat,

You are burning out your welcome on the air man. I am getting sick of PC. How about coming up with something new to talk about? I heard your morning show this morning so I don't need to hear it again this afternoon while you are filling in for Bud. If I had a nickle for every time you go off about getting people to call you names during an argument, I'd be a very rich man. Come on PC, put a little effort into your work man. You've beat this subject into the ground already.

 
At 8:20 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pat,
Thanks for bringing this imortant topic up on Bud's show, no one else is to willing to expose these hate-mongers.

Signed
Vito
A proud Italian American

 
At 8:54 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pat,

Good show. I would not want an professing Islamist to be on the Supreme
Court. The basic teachings of Islam are not compatible with Rights that the
Constitution upholds.

Here's a short article regarding this:

There's No Such Thing as Religious Freedom - and Never Can Be:

Suppose I told you my religion taught that I must kill and eat five year-old
children to go to Heaven. Would you say "Go right ahead, the First Amendment
gives you freedom of religion." I hope not!

The truth is there can be freedom of conscience - freedom to believe
whatever you want - but there can't be freedom to act on whatever you claim
are your religious beliefs. Actions are always limited by law. Law, in
turn, always reflects the moral beliefs of a weighted majority of citizens -
the group that is most willing to incur costs to see their ideas enacted
into law. Think of it this way:

Suppose the nation has a population of 100. 99 people oppose theft and are
willing to incur a penny's worth of costs to see the law prohibit theft. One
person wants theft to be legal and is willing to spend a dollar to make it
so.
Because $1.00 > 99(.01), theft will be legal. The law is always for sale,
unless the lawmakers can't be bought.

As Americans have abandoned the God of the Bible, our law has drifted away
from its Judeo-Christian roots. Still, the Supreme Court has refused to use
religious freedom to legalize polygamy (a Mormon belief) or drug use (taught
by some American Indian religions). Religious freedom, in the past, meant
you were free to believe what you wanted provided your actions stayed within
the bounds of Judeo-Christian morality, the dominant moral system.

As we abandon Judeo-Christian morals, religious freedom will mean simply the
right to act in accordance with the new dominant moral view in the culture.
Canada, for example, has already outlawed speaking against homosexuality,
despite the Bible's prohibitions and despite the fact that Canada supposedly
honors freedom of speech. So much for religious freedom.

From: http://www.citizensoldier.org/index.html

Scott

 
At 3:21 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Funny thing, most of the Catholics on the Supreme Court in the past have voted for liberal ideals. The whole thing might backfire. Don't gloat yet.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home