PAWaterCooler.com

There’s good news and bad news.

First, the bad.  As we all know, there just aren’t enough places to play skee-ball in Mount Holly, New Jersey.

Which just ain’t right.

But fear not. The good news rights that wrong.

I have found the perfect location for skee ball this side of Steel Pier.

Unfortunately for Mount Holly Mayor Tom Gibson, that location happens to be where his house now sits.

Hey, stuff happens. 

All that remains to be done is grease the political skids and file the paperwork required to seize Gibby’s house through eminent domain. 

Isn’t it great when the government can take private property in order to….develop more profitable private property?  What a country!

*****

In 2003, Mount Holly Township unveiled its plan to take —or “purchase,” as it is known in eminent domain parlance — the 350 homes in the Mount Holly Gardens housing complex so that 25 acres of land could be turned into a housing and commercial complex.

The plan?  Build 292 townhouses (costing roughly $225,000 each), 228 multifamily apartments and 54,000 square feet of commercial space.

And they even have a cute name for the redevelopment:  the Village at Parker’s Mill. You have to admit that sounds better than Mount Holly Gardens.

Residents of the Gardens have had appraisal inspections conducted on their properties so that “negotiations” can soon begin on the final price the government will pay the homeowners. But regardless of the price, the residents will be far worse off than they are now.

Fancy names, nice houses and new stores…is this all that’s necessary to invoke eminent domain and destroy people’s lives?  How is it that we’ve given politicians eager for a 30-second sound bite the power to dictate who stays, and who goes?

Is this the new Amerika?

Sadly, the answer is yes.

*****

In 2005, ruling on what many consider the worst U.S. Supreme Court decision in history, five mind-numbingly obtuse Justices decided that citizens’ land could be taken by the government for private economic development, even if those properties were not in areas of blight or decay.

The criteria?  When local or state officials think the public would benefit.

Whatever that means.

Forget the original intent of eminent domain, which actually had the public’s best interest in mind when considering public projects, such as utilities, railroads and highways. 

It seems those things, while necessary, just weren’t sexy enough for today’s pols.

Where’s the fun in just building a road when you can construct a mall with all the perks that come with being Mayor or Councilman in that location?

So when houses are bulldozed to make way for a plush private golf course — and wealthy duffers happen to line the campaign pockets of politicians who decide such matters— is that in the public’s interest?

As then-Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote in her dissent to the eminent domain decision, the “specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.”

In other words, the rich and powerful get….

Read the rest at Philly Mag and post a comment:

http://blogs.phillymag.com/the_philly_post/2010/08/10/can-greedy-politicians-throw-you-out-of-your-house/

Chris Freind is an independent columnist and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com

Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick Morris’ recent bestseller “Catastrophe.”

Freind also serves as a weekly guest commentator on the Philadelphia-area talk radio show, Political Talk (WCHE 1520), and makes numerous other television and radio appearances.  He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

Email Chris Freind, Join the discussion or Share This...

If you’re keeping track, not only is she about as qualified as Harriet Miers, and not only does she think that “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” is as immoral as genocide, but she also reveres this guy as her judicial hero:

Email John Lewandowski, Start the discussion or Share This...

Not. Good.

Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille’s sloppy – at best – handling of the process to build a new Family Court calls into question his ability to manage the state court system.

The latest revelation is that the double-dealing lawyer Castille paid to spearhead the project also represented the Foxwoods casino in cases before the state Supreme Court. That raises serious conflict-of-interest issues that undermine trust in the chief justice’s impartiality surrounding legal matters.

The combination of these two troubling events should prompt Castille to resign as chief justice. He should step aside in the interest of restoring public trust in the state’s highest court. Castille does not have to leave the court. But the current perception of collusion disqualifies him to lead the court during this dark period.

Castille’s actions surrounding the Family Court deal and the Foxwoods case are troubling enough. But Castille’s public response to these revelations show he doesn’t fully grasp just how badly he has tarnished the court.

Even before this scandal, the court was not held in high regard. But it has reached a new low.

It’s been a while since a judge has been removed from office in Pa. Perhaps it’s time again.

Email AlexC, Start the discussion or Share This...

Bucks County Republicans Are Imploding

Mirriam-Webster dictionary defines “grow” as “to spring up and develop to maturity” and “to increase in size…to expand.”

Unfortunately for the Bucks County Republican machine, the idea of growth seems to be an alien concept.

For evidence of that, just look to the controversy that erupted within the GOP during the May 18 primary election.

*****

Ten grassroots activists looking to rebuild a wayward GOP decided to run for State Committee, the body charged with vetting and endorsing statewide candidates.

The unendorsed slate had little resources, so running against the might of the Bucks Establishment made their prospects of dim, at best.

Nevertheless, they pressed on, making no secret of their disagreements with the Republican leadership, whom they viewed as more interested in patronage and insider deals, rather than articulating Republican issues.

The Establishment, worried that any “insurgent” winner could weaken their political structure, responded by pulling out all stops.

There’s nothing wrong with both sides having a healthy debate, but the rules of fair play should prevail.  And in this case, it seems that they did not.

*****

In the early morning hours of Election Day, a court hearing was held to determine if a piece of campaign literature touting the challengers was legal. At issue was whether the disclaimer on the sample ballot was appropriate.

The ruling favored the plaintiffs, who happened to be three endorsed State committee candidates, with a court order prohibiting the distribution of the literature in question.

Over the next several hours, reports poured in that the unendorsed candidates and their supporters were bullied and intimidated, with some threatened that they’d be “hauled off to jail in handcuffs” if they failed to comply.

Unless scores of grassroots activists — many of whom are new to the political process — are outright lying, the powerbrokers behind the Bucks Machine made it abundantly clear that, since they were in charge, they could do anything they pleased. 

And their response was akin to shooting a gnat with an atomic cannon.

*****

The judge’s ruling may, or may not, have been the correct one. 

In lieu of delving into legal minutiae, suffice it to say that there is enough ambiguity in the law to conclude that this wasn’t an open and shut case.

Whether the disclaimer was worded correctly and whether the Election Code even applies to State Committee candidates remains an open question, since the Department of State does not require campaign filings for those offices.

The answer will only come after that issue is adjudicated.

But that’s hardly the point.

A closer look at the situation reveals some very troubling events and raises questions about the judgment of the Bucks County GOP hierarchy.

Consider:

1) A source told Freindly Fire that the sample ballot was given directly to the Vice Chairwoman of the Bucks GOP, Pat Poprik— a State Committee candidate herself—several weeks prior to the election.

And here’s where things get interesting.

Poprik has been quoted as saying, “”I hope they (the unendorsed candidates) come on board and work with us…I welcome them with open arms as wide as I can spread them.”

But under scrutiny, Ms. Poprik’s genteel attitude seems to disappear.

If she knew a problem existed with the ballot but didn’t alert the activists — some of whom were first informed of the court order by constables — then the rift seems irreparable, with the gulf between both sides larger than the Grand Canyon.

It fails the sniff test to believe that the three plaintiffs, all of whom are closely affiliated with Poprik, would file the suit by themselves without the vice chairwoman’s knowledge.   

But to be fair, one of two possibilities exist:

Read the rest at Philadelphia Magazine’s Philly Post:

http://blogs.phillymag.com/the_philly_post/2010/06/08/bucks-countys-republican-trouble/

Email Chris Freind, Start the discussion or Share This...

Why don’t they just link directly to Democrats.org? It would save them the trouble of pretending to be objective:

What do former chief justices William Rehnquist, Earl Warren and John Marshall and former associate justices Louis Brandeis, Felix Frankfurter and Lewis F. Powell Jr. have in common with Solicitor General Elena Kagan, President Barack Obama’s new nominee for a seat on the Supreme Court? None of them had experience as a judge before being nominated.

How interesting that the PG starts its editorial with an answer for the most common criticism of Kagan. Especially since we all know what an excellent Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter was. I never heard of him before today, but apparently he was an old buddy of FDR’s who was nominated for the high court thanks to nepotism. Kind of like Harriet Miers.

While such a choice has not occurred in almost 40 years, Ms. Kagan’s lack of time on the bench is far from disqualifying. The Constitution doesn’t require it and history endorses the view that, even without judicial experience, she is in very good company.

So why not put the Sham-Wow guy on the Supreme Court? If experience isn’t important, and, as many other liberals have argued, that we need more diversity on the court? The Sham-Wow guy would certainly bring a new perspective! He could give anyone who wins a case a free Slap-Chop. Or if we want another woman, how about personal trainer Jillian Michaels? She’s only 36 years old and would be the first Supreme Court nominee with abs of steel.

You might think I’m being rather arbitrary here, but am I really that different from the PG thus far?

Though final judgment should be reserved until after the confirmation hearing, it appears that Mr. Obama has chosen boldly and well. Ms. Kagan has had a stellar legal career in academia and government that more than makes up for not having been a judge. Nobody can seriously argue that she lacks the intellectual heft to be a member of the court.

Yes indeed, after all, from 1970 – 1972 she was a law clerk for the Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Joe E. Estes. She was admitted to the Texas bar in 1970 and admitted to the DC bar in 1997. In 1986, she became the first female president of the Dallas Bar Association. In 1992, she became the first woman to head the State Bar of Texas. She has also served as chair of the Board of Editors for the American Bar Association Journal and as the chair of the ABA’s “Commission on Multi-Jurisdictional Practice”.

Oh wait. That was Harriet Miers. My bad.

Her resume is golden. She received a bachelor’s degree from Princeton, a master’s degree from Oxford and a law degree from Harvard and clerked for Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. In the early 1990s, she and Mr. Obama taught at the University of Chicago Law School. She was the first female dean of Harvard Law School, the first female solicitor general in the nation’s history.

Can anyone honestly say that this “golden” resume is significantly different than that of Harriet Miers which I listed above? Both of them have law degrees. Both of them clerked for Justices of high courts. One was the first female dean of Harvard Law while the other was the first female to head the State Bar of Texas.

If she is confirmed, she will be the third female justice sitting on this court, the most in its history, and at age 50 she would be the youngest justice currently on the beach.

So Jillian Michaels would be more qualified, then? Female, younger than 50, plus if as a Supreme Court Justice she wore a black sports bra instead of a robe she would get more people to pay attention to the goings on of the federal government.

And “beach” is what the PG actually put in their editorial. Must have been a fat-finger typo since the “a” is so close to the “n” on a keyboard. “The youngest justice currently on the beach.” Well, heck, if you want a young female justice on the beach, Jillian Michaels is the woman for you!

Ms. Kagan has a liberal background, but she is replacing another liberal, Justice John Paul Stevens,

So Justice Stevens also would have banned military recruiters from Harvard in a ridiculous protest against the don’t ask don’t tell policy? According to Kagan, don’t ask don’t tell is “a moral injustice of the first order”. Does Stevens agree with those hysterics?

and she enjoys respect across the board, as evidenced last year when seven Republican senators voted to confirm her as solicitor general.

Seven Republicans voted to confirm her for a position which usually changes out every few years, and that means she has bipartisan support to be a Justice on the Supreme Court for the rest of her life. Right.

This nominee is neither a radical nor a partisan provocation,

She banned military recruiters from Harvard in protest over “don’t ask don’t tell.”
She banned military recruiters from Harvard in protest over “don’t ask don’t tell.”
She banned military recruiters from Harvard in protest over “don’t ask don’t tell.”
She banned military recruiters from Harvard in protest over “don’t ask don’t tell.”
She banned military recruiters from Harvard in protest over “don’t ask don’t tell.”

Why doesn’t that appear in your little campaign commercial of an editorial, PG? Wasn’t that in the DNC Talking Points?

and she deserves a fair hearing devoid of the usual partisan rancor.

I assume that means Senator Specter won’t be involved. Oh, wait, she’s pro-abortion, so Specter will adore her.

Jillian Michaels for the SCOTUS.

Email John Lewandowski, Join the other 6 commenters or Share This...

Justice Stevens’ replacement will be a pro-abortion liberal activist. Of that there can be no doubt.

Me, April 23, 2010

Today’s “Pearls Before Swine” comic strip seems appropriate:

Email John Lewandowski, Start the discussion or Share This...

Today the Supreme Court ruled by the narrowest of margins, 5-4, that a war memorial cross may remain on private land. The 5 who decided in favor of sanity were the 4 originalists and the “swing-vote”, Kennedy. The 4 liberal activists were all against the cross.

The completely innocuous cross in the Mojave Desert which no one could possibly think establishes a religion in violation of the First Amendment originally stood on public property, but when the ACLU complained, the land was sold to the VFW, thus making it private in what should have been the end of the matter.

After all, if the issue is that a cross on public property somehow establishes a national religion in violation of the First Amendment, as insane as that argument is, then taking that land out of the control of the government should resolve the issue. Right?

Wrong. The true issue is that America is filled with lawyers who happen to be extremely hateful anti-Christian bigots. They don’t care if the cross is on public property or private property – they want the cross torn down because they hate crosses. That is the real “crux” of the matter. These people have spent years of their lives trying to get this cross torn down for no reason other than that they have an unbelievable hatred for Jesus Christ and Christians.

And if John Kerry had been elected President of the United States, we would have two more anti-Christian Justices on the Supreme Court instead of constitutionalists John Roberts and Sam Alito. If Kerry had won in 2004, the federal government would have ruled that a cross on PRIVATE PROPERTY needed to be torn down… and religious freedom would now be dead in America. Killed by bigots motivated by hate.

Email John Lewandowski, Start the discussion or Share This...

It’s no secret that Philadelphia has a long and proud history of political corruption.

Once-powerful state senator Vince Fumo has donned prison orange after being convicted on all 137 counts of political corruption. Former City Treasurer Corey Kemp is doing hard time for fraud, extortion, welfare fraud, and filing false tax returns. And Rick Mariano, former City Councilman, still calls federal prison home after his conviction on honest services fraud.

But fraud and corruption are not just limited to public officials. It’s been a Philly tradition that dead people vote on a regular basis.

While that feat seems to defy the laws of nature — one which would seem impossible to top — we do indeed have a situation that does just that.

Believe it or not, the deceased have retained legal counsel to challenge the petitions of people running for Republican Ward Committee posts.

I’m not sure what’s more fascinating — the deceased figuring out which lawyer to hire, or the attorney brilliant enough to so creatively expand his client base.

And just who is the uber-barrister responsible for this miraculous act?

Michael Meehan, General Counsel and de facto head of the Philadelphia Republican City Committee, who also chairs the powerful five county Southeast Republican Caucus.

*******

Meehan’s powers apparently don’t stop with the dead. He seems to have an incredible talent for communicating with the living in very unorthodox ways, using this unique ability to find clients without ever actually talking to them.

But a look at Philadelphia court records of numerous election law cases last month shows that Michael has not perfected the living-people-telekinesis-thing yet. Seems that for the vast majority of cases, Meehan’s communicative powers were a one-way street.

Turns out, Meehan was not only representing people he had never spoken to, but who had never even met or heard of him — and who had never signed any petition challenging those running for Republican Committee.

You don’t need hypertechnical legalese to call a spade a spade. That kind of action, even by Philadelphia standards, smacks of fraud and deceit.

*******

Here are the facts of this case:

On March 19, Meehan filed 44 petitions challenging candidates for Republican Ward Executive Committee (ward Committeemen), primarily in minority areas of the city. If successful, the challenges would have removed the candidates in question from the ballot. At the hearings, Meehan was accompanied by the Chairman of Republican City Committee, Vito F. Canuso, Jr., also representing some objectors to the candidates.

Why the top two Republican officials in Philadelphia were challenging members of their own Party, including some who were running unopposed to fill vacant Committee slots, is for another column.

READ THE REST, WITH COURT DOCUMENTATION —INCLUDING AFFIDAVITS— at FreindlyFireZone.com:
(Download File just above Freind Bio)

http://www.freindlyfirezone.com/index.php/component/k2/item/38-should-philadelphia-gop-boss-michael-meehan-be-disbarred?

Chris Freind is an independent columnist and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com

Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick Morris’ recent bestseller “Catastrophe.”

Freind also serves as a weekly guest commentator on the Philadelphia-area talk radio show, Political Talk (WCHE 1520), and makes numerous other television and radio appearances. He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

Email Chris Freind, Start the discussion or Share This...

O’Reilly, Conservatives Wrong in Supporting Lawsuit Against Military Funeral Protestors

A frequent target of “Freindly Fire’s” wrath is frivolous lawsuits — the kinds that make healthcare costs skyrocket, put manufacturers out of business, dissolve personal responsibility, and yes, those that eat away at our most basic freedoms.

Worst of all, many of these lawsuits erode the very foundation that makes America unique — freedom of speech.

A case that has garnered national headlines recently is that of Albert Snyder of York, Pennsylvania, the father of a Marine killed in Iraq. Snyder brought suit against the Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church in 2006 after some church members staged a demonstration at the funeral of his son, Matthew.

The reason for suing? The demonstrators inflicted emotional distress on the family and invaded their privacy. Additionally, the plaintiffs stated that the church members sought to attack the memory of their departed hero, to strip their loved one of dignity, and to use abuse and intimidation as a tool for preventing surviving family members from reaching closure over their loss.

In 2007, in an act of pure insanity, a federal jury awarded Snyder $11 million in damages.

(That award was overturned on appeal last year, and the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case.)
Recently, a Court of Appeals ordered Snyder to pay $16,510 in legal fees to the Church’s leader, Fred Phelps.

That caused an outpouring of national support for Snyder, including FOX commentator Bill O’Reilly, who offered to pay the legal fees owed to the Church.

While a nice gesture by Bill, he has, unfortunately, completely missed the point.

By supporting Snyder’s lawsuit, he and many conservatives who love to bandy around words like “freedom” and “liberty” are, ironically, contributing to the loss of both.

Are we in third grade? Should attacking someone’s memory be a crime?

What am I missing?

READ THE REST AT PHILLY POST— Philadelphia Magazine’s new online endeavour:

http://blogs.phillymag.com/the_philly_post/2010/04/13/bill-o%e2%80%99reilly-is-wrong-in-supporting-lawsuit-against-military-funeral-protestors/

Chris Freind is an independent columnist and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com
Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick Morris’ recent bestseller “Catastrophe.”
Freind also serves as a weekly guest commentator on the Philadelphia-area talk radio show, Political Talk (WCHE 1520), and makes numerous other television and radio appearances. He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

Email Chris Freind, Join the other 5 commenters or Share This...

Way back when, about 2 years ago, Jim Matthews would have the good people of Montgomery County think he was interested in running a bipartisan government, an agreement he made with commissioner-elect Hoeffel in a power grab designed to leave Republican Commissioner, Bruce L. Castor, Jr. out of the proverbial “loop”, subsequently empowering he and J-Huf to pack the courthouse with his political buddies, in the worst case of patronage gone wild that anyone can recall.

Well, today, in the true spirit of bipartisanship, The county commissioners, along with the row officers, all came to Norristown High School to witness history…the first time in the history of our county that there has been 7 judges sworn in, the first time that 5 female judges have been sworn in at one time, and the first time a democrat has been elected to the bench in the 38th district, court of common pleas.

Only, Joe Hoeffel was nowhere to be found. That is, until Lois Murphy, the lone democrat elected to the bench, was sworn in.

J-Huf waltzed in right before Murphy was to be sworn in, and left right afterward. Truer bipartisanship has never been demonstrated…

Even Jimbo stayed for all 7. Joe…you ought to be ashamed of yourself.

On a side note, it was a very nice morning, as I got to see people I think an awful lot of sworn in to the bench…respect to each and every one of them.

B.

Email BillShaw, Start the discussion or Share This...

The PA Supreme Court made a decision today defending the Commonwealth Constitution. While it is not earthshattering, it is a nice, modest case study of a public servant doing the right thing even when it did not serve his short-term political interests.

Back in 2006, Phoenixville’s Borough Council tried to eliminate the compensation of its members. It was political grandstanding, as the Borough faced a multi-million dollar budgetary shortfall, and the total annual compensation of all of them was less than twenty grand. Kendrick Buckwalter, a councilman, realized 1) That this was unconstitutional, and 2) Would establish a precedent for Council to change compensation levels in the middle of their terms, theoretically permitting them to RAISE their pay as well.

Buckwalter sued, with the help of local attorney Richard Breuer. This is despite the fact that it would make it look like Ken was suing to keep his $200/month before facing reelection during the year of the Harrisburg pay raise debacle. Thankfully, he did end up winning reelection.

But pursuing the case made his reelection more difficult. Ken did it because it was the right thing to do, not because it made his life any easier. The Supreme Court in Kendrick Buckwalter v. Borough of Phoenixville has concurred that he was right all along.

A small victory, sure. But any victory defending the Constitution is one to be applauded, especially when someone puts their political position on the line to do it.

Coverage in the local paper here.

Congratulate Ken at his blog here.

Email KarlBucus, Start the discussion or Share This...

If you have some time to spare, and would like to help with the Temp Smith recount efforts in Philadelphia, please contact Joe DeFelice @ jdefelice@pagop.org or call him at 215-756-4158

Email AlexC, Start the discussion or Share This...

Hans A. von Spakovsky gets it exactly right.

Melvin’s win has implications for the future of state politics. Pennsylvania has a five-member Legislative Reapportionment Commission that handles state legislative redistricting. Two members are Republicans, two members are Democrats, and the fifth member is supposed to be chosen by the other four members. But if those four members can’t agree on a choice, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court gets to pick the fifth member. This race was not only another defeat for the Democrats, it was also a defeat for their biggest financial supporters, the trial-lawyers bar. And it means that Republicans may end up in the driver’s seat when it comes to state redistricting after the 2010 Census.

The 2010 State House races will still be vital, as the House is pretty evenly split.

Email AlexC, Start the discussion or Share This...

My fellow theocons will be pleased to learn that 5 out of the 7 judges elected statewide are pro-life.

Here are the winners:

Justice of the Supreme Court – Joan Orie Melvin

Judge of the Superior Court – Judy Olson, Sallie Mundy, Paula Ott, Anne Lazarus

Judge of the Commonwealth Court – Patricia McCullough, Kevin Brobson

Email John Lewandowski, Start the discussion or Share This...

Here’s why Joan Orie Melvin should get your vote tomorrow:

1 – Joan Orie Melvin was endorsed by the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Harrisburg Patriot News, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the Pittsburgh Tribune Review, AND the Lancaster New Era. As far as I can tell, only the Lancaster Intelligencer Journal endorsed her opponent.

2 – Joan Orie Melvin rejected the judicial pay raise on principle. When forced to take the money in her own pay, she returned it to the treasury in order to give it back to the taxpayers.

3 – Orie Melvin has described herself as a “strict constructionist” who would not make law, but instead of would obey the law and the US Constitution in her decisions.

4 – Her opponent Jack Panella is running bizarre attack ads which claim that Joan Orie Melvin is a threat to women, which is obviously insane. Panella doesn’t give specifics in the ad, but its assumed that he is saying that Orie Melvin’s pro-life views make her a threat to women. Pro-life views which he claims to share. This guy is a real screwball.

Email John Lewandowski, Join the other 2 commenters or Share This...

Panella’s Abortion Flip-Flop Makes Him Unworthy

BY CHRIS FREIND

State Supreme Court candidate Jack Panella obviously doesn’t learn from history.

When former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney entered the 2008 Republican presidential primary, he seemed to have everything going for him: top campaign staff, unlimited money, a solid national organization, and a (seemingly) attractive message.

Yet his campaign was over before it began.

Why? Because more than anything, he had a major credibility problem.

You see, despite Mitt’s talk of being a political outsider, he danced the Washington Two-Step as well as anyone.

Somehow, Romney’s core beliefs undertook a number of miraculous conversions from his days as governor, most notably on the abortion issue.

“I believe abortion should be safe and legal in this country,” Romney stated in 1994. In 2002, he said he would “…preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose. I am devoted and dedicated to honoring my word in that regard.”

But when Romney ran in the national Republican primary, where many GOP voters are Pro-Life, Romney sang a different tune, ardently proclaiming he was against abortion.

We can’t look into another person’s soul, so we don’t know if Mitt really had a change of heart. But his switch was certainly suspect.

When a pol flips on issues just to get elected, he loses credibility on both sides. Not being trustworthy isn’t exactly the best way to appeal to voters.

But since politicians never learn, they repeat the same mistakes time and again.

Enter Democratic state Supreme Court candidate Judge Jack Panella.

Panella Flip-Flops On Abortion

There are huge stakes in the race for the court, since the 3-3 deadlock will be broken. The court’s vision will be a road map for the future of Pennsylvania.

But one thing the court doesn’t need is a spineless judge. And that’s exactly what Panella has shown himself to be.

For years, Panella has passed himself off as being Pro-Life. But now, he is running ads “warning” voters that Republican candidate Judge Joan Orie Melvin wants to take away abortion rights. And this comes after being endorsed by the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation, which opposes abortion rights, in his 2003 Superior Court campaign and as recently as the May primary.

Now that the general election is upon us, with Orie Melvin never wavering in her Pro-Life position, Panella has decided to dance, so much so that he earned the endorsement of Planned Parenthood. According to published media reports, that group’s state director said Panella’s responses to its questionnaire “made us very comfortable” with his position on the issue.

Why the switch? Is it because there are more Democrats in the state, and Democrats, as a whole, tend to be more pro-abortion? Panella may think his flip-flop is a shrewd political ploy, but it could well backfire.

After his calculated switch, from whom has he engendered support? The pro-abortion community? Not likely. Die-hard pro-aborts (no pun intended) are most likely voting against Judge Orie Melvin anyway because they know she is a candidate who stands on principal.

In his crass attempt to woo the swing voters in the middle, Panella has shot himself in the foot. While some of these voters may not be in total agreement with Orie Melvin, they respect her conviction and courage — hallmarks of a good judge.

And let us not forget that many of the state’s Democrats are pro-lifers, especially from the southwest and northeast. Panella’s flip is already being viewed with contempt by many folks in these areas.

Politicians playing both sides is anathema to good government, and a major reason for the public’s cynicism. Ironically, if candidates looked to the nation’s most beloved politicians, such as Ronald Reagan, they would see that the people vote much more for candidates of conviction, and NOT for those trying to be all things to all people.

Jack Panella belongs more on Dancing With The Stars than on Pennsylvania’s high court.

While it is not the role of this columnist to endorse a candidate, it is certainly appropriate to urge voters to reject the two-faced, backstabbing tactics of a bottom feeder like Jack Panella.

On Tuesday, vote for integrity. Vote against Jack Panella.

Chris Freind, author of “Freindly Fire,” is an independent columnist and investigative reporter whose readers hail from six continents, thirty countries, and all fifty states. He can be reached at Christopherfreind@hotmail.com (E before I in Freind)

Email Chris Freind, Join the discussion or Share This...

Friends,

I am pleased to inform you that Philadelphia has been selected to host a monthly Center-Right Coalition meeting, following the hugely-successful model of Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR). We will be one of the few non-state capital cities to have such a gathering.

The kick-off meeting, which I will be hosting, will be Thursday, November 12 at the Union League in Philadelphia, with Mr. Norquist in attendance. Light refreshments will be served at 7:00 AM, with the program going from 7:30 to 9:00. The Union League is located at 140 S. Broad Street, just two blocks south of City Hall.

In Grover’s words, the objective is “to get everybody who is center-right to tell each other what they are doing, to share technology and tactics, and to tell stories” regarding issues facing Pennsylvania and the nation.

One key function, according to ATR, is to facilitate collaborative activities of coalition members, many of whom may have not previously known one another, and foster the potential for mutual cooperation.

The rules are simple: Anyone who so desires may speak for three minutes on current initiatives, answer questions, and pass the microphone to the next speaker.

The only prohibition is whining. It is a positive meeting, one that will unify southeastern Pennsylvania.

Attendees will typically include influential political, business, policy and grassroots leaders.

If anyone who would like several minutes on the agenda, please let me know.

You are encouraged to bring any literature for distribution.

I hope to see you next Thursday.

For future reference, the monthly meetings will be held on the FIRST THURSDAY of each month at the Union League, with the same time format as above.

Feel free to invite colleagues and associates. All meetings are off the record.

Steadfast,

Christopher Freind
“Freindly Fire”
Audaces fortuna iuvat
610-659-0098
christopherfreind@hotmail.com (E before I in Freind)
CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

Email Chris Freind, Start the discussion or Share This...

It’s official – both of Pittsburgh’s newspapers have endorsed Joan Orie-Melvin for Pennsylvania Supreme Court. From the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:

Unlike some, we don’t think the deciding factor in elevating Joan Orie Melvin to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court should be her gender. How revolting that is, especially in this supposedly post-gender society that social elites claim they embrace.

What we do care about is legal acumen, temperament and moxie. And on all three counts, Judge Orie Melvin of Marshall, a Republican and a state Superior Court judge since 1997, is the best choice for the state’s highest court.

Orie Melvin’s opponent, fellow Superior Court Judge Jack Panella, a Democrat of Easton, talks a pretty good game. But then he decided to go “negative” in his sanctioned campaign ads. How odd, considering the Panella campaign’s huge money advantage and his standing in the polls.

But Orie Melvin went “negative,” too, you retort. In defense, folks, in defense.

The state Supreme Court has been in the Democrats’ control since 2007. An Orie Melvin win would return it to Republican control just in time for any necessary adjudication of the coming redistricting. And that would be a welcome check and balance to a Pennsylvania Democratic Party convinced its star is rising.

Elect Joan Orie Melvin to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

Email John Lewandowski, Start the discussion or Share This...

LIFEPAC of Southwestern Pennsylvania has endorsed JOAN ORIE-MELVIN for PA State Supreme Court. LIFEPAC is a non-partisan organization which endorses ALL pro-life candidates regardless of party affilation.

In a 2009 questionnaire from the Pennsylvania Family Institute, Joan Orie Melvin answered that President Ronald Reagan best represents her political philosophy, and that Justice Antonin Scalia best represents her judicial philosophy. When asked to rate her judicial philosophy on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being someone who believes that the US Constitution is a “living document” and 10 being an “originalist”, she answered “10″. In a separate comments section on the questionnaire, Melvin described herself as a “strict constructionist”.

I got a comment on my earlier post about Joan Orie Melvin getting endorsements from major liberal newspapers throughout the state which suggested that she is just another RINO. But based on her answers in this questionnaire, that seems highly unlikely. She is a conservative, which means that she must be an excellent candidate if liberal newspapers would endorse her over a more liberal choice.

Go to LifePAC.net to see the rest of their endorsements for Tuesday’s election.

Email John Lewandowski, Start the discussion or Share This...

No surprises here, but Karl Rove notices the race…

Finally, the Republican-endorsed candidate for Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court, Judge Joan Orie Melvin, is mounting a strong effort against Democrat Jack Panella, despite a $1 million ad blitz targeting her that’s bankrolled by Philadelphia trial lawyers. A GOP victory would indicate trouble for Democrats in a state Mr. Obama carried by 10 points.

A year ago, Democrats crowed that Mr. Obama had reshaped the political landscape to their advantage. Voters have lived under Democratic rule for nine months, and many of them, especially independents, don’t like what they’re seeing.

Tuesday’s election will provide the most tangible evidence so far of how strong a backlash is building—and just how frightened centrist Democrats should be of 2010. For Republicans, it looks as if hope and change are on the way.

Email AlexC, Start the discussion or Share This...