Conservatism is defined by the US constitution

With the coming defection of Arlen Specter to his rightful place in the Democratic Party, all of the talk has centered on how far “to the right” the Republican Party has moved, how the “big tent” of Ronald Reagan has closed its flaps to moderates and most of all how this further proves that conservatism is dead. Now if all of this is true — as the liberal media so desperately wants it to be — then exactly why is Specter donning the donkey duds? Is it because he has developed a sudden streak of conscience that prevents his continued allegiance to the GOP? Has Pennsylvania suddenly become a bastion of far-right fanatics? No, it is, as he himself admits, because he no longer represents the will of the state’s Republican voters, and not the other way around. So does this mean that the tent is shrinking and if so, what must be done about it? The leader of the modern conservative movement, Ronald Reagan, did indeed welcome the support of those across the political spectrum, but the vitally important thing to remember is that he never altered his views to placate them. He did not govern or even campaign on opinion polling but was led by his solid, unchanging principles. And this, in essence, is what conservatism is by definition; a desire to preserve what it feels is essential to the pure role of governance, especially as defined in the U.S. Constitution.

By Lisa Rabrizio-Political Hay

Others say this is a false alarm, its nothing different than regular influenza virus. Stating that there are more deaths caused by the regular flu than the total number of deaths caused by swine flu.

The vaccination for this is being manufactured as we speak. Many say its far more dangerous to take a vaccination that has not been tested yet. Some say the looming dangers of the swine flu would far out way any risks the vaccination could cause. What do you think? Would take it the vaccination or pass.

“We’re doing a proclamation, which I know that many administrations in the past have done,” Gibbs told reporters Tuesday.

But this comes as a major change from the way the  Bush administration recognized this day, when prominent evangelical and other spiritual leaders were invited to attend an event in the East Room.

President Obama now has his first opportunity to influence the U.S. Supreme Court . At the end of June Justice David Souter will retire. Many are speculating on who that will be and if it will be a woman.

According to some news reports, Obama may be considering Sonia Sotomayor of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, and Diane Wood of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago.  Obama may also be considering Stanford Law professor Kathleen Sullivan.

Pro-life leaders are already urging President Obama to avoid using a “pro-abortion litmus test” in his selection.

“We will work to oppose any nominee for the Supreme Court who will read the Freedom of Choice Act into the Constitution in order to elevate abortion to a fundamental right on the same plane as the freedom of speech,” stated Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President & CEO of Americans United for Life.

“In his search for a replacement for Justice Souter, President Obama should avoid a pro-abortion litmus test.” Dr. Yoest continued. “This nomination represents a test for a President who has expressed a public commitment to reducing abortions while pursuing an aggressive pro-abortion agenda.”

“Obama received greater than expected opposition to his nomination of extremist pro-abort Kathleen Sebelius to HHS,” commented Operation Rescue Troy Newman today.  “He can only expect that opposition will continue to grow if he has the poor sense to appoint a justice that will promote abortion from the bench.”

Follow me on Twitter and get my current news updates and comments