Just Like O'Connor

Tuesday, December 27, 2005

What a surprise. USA Today has provided us with yet another anti-Alito editorial:

When Samuel Alito was a Justice Department lawyer in the 1980s, he wrote that he saw no legal problem with a police officer shooting and killing an unarmed 15-year-old who was fleeing from a $10 burglary.

Alito, now nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court, said the shooting "can be justified as reasonable" and advised his bosses that the courts shouldn't interfere with police discretion to use deadly force. But the Supreme Court thought otherwise - by a 6-3 vote. Justice Byron White noted that the Constitution bars "unreasonable" searches and seizures, adding acidly that "a police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead."

Oh what a problem this Alito character has become for liberals. They of course -- having demanded repeatedly -- want President Bush to replace Sandra Day O'Connor with another moderate justice like Sandra Day O'Connor.

Yet in the above mentioned case decided by a 6-3 vote, the author of the dissenting opinion in which Burger and Rehnquist joined was written by darling Sandra Day O’Connor!

The editorial concludes:

Alito's record suggests little deference to those most basic American values. This merits aggressive questioning before the Senate puts him on the nation's highest court, where he would have the power to strip away rights Americans assume to be theirs.

Therein lies a critical flaw of the author's point. A "right" isn't so just because Americans "assume" it's theirs to enjoy. It's a "right" if it passes constitutional muster. Whether Alito will be supportive of these "assumed rights" is yet to be determined, as well the validity of the author's opinion that such rights fall under the category of "most basic American values."

Merry Christmas

Sunday, December 25, 2005

Merry Christmas to all. Hope everyone had a great year and may 2006 be even better.

Yesterday I went with my father to see the Bucs fight for the NFC South division title against a pesky Atlanta Falcons team. It didn't end until there were 15 seconds left in overtime; almost becoming the first game to end in a tie since 2002.

Needless to say we won the contest after the fans were put through an exhausting emotional rollercoaster. The game started after a moment of silence for Tony Dungy's son who committed suicide earlier this week in his Tampa apartment.

More posting later...enjoy your Christmas.

This One's For Dungy

Friday, December 23, 2005

I've been rooting for the Colts this season for a variety of reasons, and not just because I'm tired of hearing about the 1972 Dolphins and their perfect season. As a Tampa Bay Buccaneers fan I appreciate all that Coach Tony Dungy has done for the team. He took a struggling franchise and made it Super Bowl-caliber in the five years he's been in Tampa.

The Colts won't be perfect this year, but Bucs fans must continue to root for the coach who paved the way for Jon Gruden to take us all the way, and that is because yesterday morning his 18-year-old son was found dead from an apparent suicide in his Tampa apartment.

I pray for the Dungy family, and while sports at this point must be insignificant this year, I hope he returns to the team to win the ring he absolutely deserves.

Alito Now As Popular as Roberts

Wednesday, December 21, 2005

ABC News has a new poll out that should have anti-Alito liberals nervous:

Dec. 21, 2005 -- Most Americans support both Samuel A. Alito and Roe v. Wade.

Whether these two are in conflict is not entirely clear. But the disclosure that Alito wrote an anti-Roe memo while a Justice Department lawyer does not look to have hurt his nomination: Fifty-four percent of Americans say the Senate should confirm him, up slightly since early November.

Support for Alito is about the same as it was for newly installed Chief Justice John Roberts on the eve of his confirmation hearings in September.

Democrats cannot contemplate filibustering a Supreme Court candidate who's supported by more than 60% of the country. I don't even think you could get away with filibustering a nominee who's supported by 45% of the country. But now that he's as favorable as Chief Justice John Roberts was, liberals might as well get used to saying "Associate Justice Sam Alito" come February.

I give very little credence to the Roe debate among the average American as the average American can't name four of the nine Supreme Court justices. People wrongly assume that the overturning of Roe v. Wade would instantly put an end to abortion.

Instead, it would allow the states to debate the issue democratically. And because the same poll says more than 40% of the country wants to make abortion more restrictive I think they would welcome the reversal if only because it would allow passage of commonsense abortion laws.

Of course, this whole debate is moot if Alito votes to uphold Roe.

Bush Seeks Victory

Sunday, December 18, 2005

President Bush blitzed a nationwide audience tonight that was prepared to watch Family Guy with a speech on the success of this week's Iraq election. He forced his critics to pay attention, including those who only get their news from the Mainstream Media.

As a war critic I didn't expect to be impressed or get anything more than the "we must win" mantra, but this was an impressive speech and I was caught off guard by the following part (the entire speech here):

From this office, nearly three years ago, I announced the start of military operations in Iraq. Our Coalition confronted a regime that defied United Nations Security Council Resolutions ... violated a cease-fire agreement ... sponsored terrorism ... and possessed, we believed, weapons of mass destruction. After the swift fall of Baghdad, we found mass graves filled by a dictator ... we found some capacity to restart programs to produce weapons of mass destruction ... but we did not find those weapons.

It is true that Saddam Hussein had a history of pursuing and using weapons of mass destruction. It is true that he systematically concealed those programs, and blocked the work of UN weapons inspectors. It is true that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. And as your President, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq.

Two things: First, it was good of the president to outline the importance of the war beyond the weapons of mass destruction claim. Too many people are calling the war a "failure" simply because we didn’t find any weapons.

Second, Bush took responsibility for going to war and understands the sacrifices that were made, and is prepared to see more until the war on terror is complete.

The only question that still remains is when. When, Mr. President, will the war be won?

What Alito Would Say if He Were Roast Duck

Friday, December 16, 2005

Take a look at this masterpiece drummed up by the creative folks at Pro-Choice America. It depicts a group of high-profile conservatives dining at a restaurant and sending back the soup brought to them by waiter President Bush because it contains a "moderate" (Harriet Miers?). So the faithful waiter comes back with Sam Alito on a platter who says upon the removing of the silver lid: "The Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion!"

Make sure you have your speakers on; it's the sound effects that sell this product.

More People Vote in Iraq than See King Kong

Thursday, December 15, 2005

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Millions of Iraqis, from tribal sheiks to entire families with children in tow, turned out Thursday to choose a parliament in a mostly peaceful election - among the freest ever in the Arab world.

Up to 11 million of the nation's 15 million registered voters took part, election officials estimated, which would put overall turnout at more than 70 percent.

This is absolutely fantastic news coming out of Iraq. I never would have imagined more than 70% of registered voters in a country once ruled by a murderous dictator taking part in a free election.

More people voted in Iraq's election than went out to see Peter Jackson's "King Kong." It took in roughly $10 million on opening day, but that's no match for the number of purple fingers coming out of the poll booth.

Free Speech? I Think Not

Wednesday, December 07, 2005

The University of Connecticut - a bastion of liberal students and professors. Must be a great place for diversity that welcomes opposing viewpoints, right?

Say that to Ann Coulter, who was invited to the university by the College Republicans. But when Coulter arrived she was met by protestors holding signs denouncing her as a Nazi. They called her racist (though she wanted Janice Rogers Brown to be appointed to the Supreme Court above all others), and sexist (though she believes women are capable of being trusted with firearms and the responsibility to carry them).

When she tried to talk and deliver her speech the protestors jeered, booed and blasted her with loud music to the point where she had to cut the speech short.

But don't feel too bad for Coulter. She was paid roughly $16,000 and didn't even have to deliver a full speech.

This behavior by the Left is pathetic and inexcusable. You can say what you want about her or her politics, but to obstruct an event so that she couldn’t even speak is quite hypocritical, since these are the same people who charge her with wanting to end free speech.

According to the school's official newspaper one student was quoted, saying: "She is a right-wing radical nutcase. If she had anything to say like she says in her books then we should throw rocks at her. I don't think it's fair to bring her point of view on campus."

I guess her detractors are moving up from throwing pies to objects that can actually cause injury. Maybe it's a good thing after all these people don't believe in guns.

Sad But Necessary

The story coming out of Miami this afternoon is certainly tragic. Responding to a passenger who made claims that he had a bomb, a federal air marshal shot and killed the suspect who in fact did not have any explosives of any kind on him.

Worse is that his wife witnessed the shooting, and reported that her husband was sick and not on his medication. Unfortunately, the agent had no way of knowing if the suspect had any explosives, or of his condition, and took the right course of action when the suspect ignored orders to halt and reached into a bag.

Military Recruiters Here to Stay

Tuesday, December 06, 2005

Today the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Rumsfeld v. F.A.I.R., which examines the Solomon Amendment that requires colleges receiving federal funds to give military recruiters the same access to students that it gives to other potential employers on campus.

In other words, if colleges allow employers of any stripe to recruit its students for potential employment, then it must allow the US military to do the same...unless it wants to lose its federal funding.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit may have struck down the law, but if my assessment of the oral arguments is correct it will be upheld by the highest court.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter are likely to dissent, but it's hard to argue against the point Chief Justice Roberts made when he said that if colleges don't want military recruiters on campus, they can simply just refuse federal funds.

The Solomon Amendment is perfectly constitutional and I expect it to be rightfully upheld.

Down With Quote-Grabbers

While perusing Drudge I was alerted to a Rush Limbaugh segment where he told his listeners that John Kerry called soldiers terrorists.

The offense committed by Limbaugh is not unique to the talk show host as it's being done virtually allover the Internet.

It has become commonplace now for people on the Left and the Right to accuse people of being something their not or saying something they didn't. Too often supposed watchdogs like MediaMatters (which conveniently edits video content) grab quotes from certain individuals with whom they disagree and deliberately take them out of context.

When Bill O'Reilly suggested on his program the U.S. Army shouldn't protect San Francisco in the even of a terrorist attack, he did not just then invite terrorists to attack the Bay Area,

When Ann Coulter said she believes the First Amendment is overrated in a speech before a Gainesville audience, she did not just then say she opposed the First Amendment.

When John Kerry said there's no reason "American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children," he did not just then call American soldiers terrorists.

As you surf the newspapers and Internet I urge you to use caution when coming across a quote-grabber. Before nodding your head like a drone it would only be fair to check out the truth behind the story.

John Roberts Speaks on Abortion Case

Wednesday, November 30, 2005

We will soon find out how Chief Justice John Roberts will rule on abortion.

The audio recording of oral arguments in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood is up at the C-Span website. The case involves a New Hampshire law that requires parental notification for minors and a 48-hour waiting period.

The majority of the arguments centered around the health exception of the child with only a little concerning parental notification. I've listed all the times Roberts speaks in case you want to try to figure out where he will stand and don't have time to listen to the entire thing.

After listening I am confident Roberts will join the conservative wing, but you never know.

7:30 Justice Breyer hammers Attorney General Kelly Ayotte for the law not having health exemption.
11:23 Stevens sounds very good for 85 years old; wants to know why the law doesn't have a health exception.
12:23 Scalia speaks for first time.
12:57 Roberts speaks for first time. Will physicians face lawsuits?
16:31 Scalia assists the struggling Ayotte by saying physicians can avoid lawsuits if they must perform emergency abortions.
17:23 Roberts talks.
18:01 Ginsburg demands health exception be written into law. Hints she will vote to overturn law.

20:10 Roberts allows Solicitor General Paul Clement to talk
21:00 Clement confronts Souter on Casey merits.
26:02 Scalia wonders if such matters should be left to legislature.
27:40 Scalia and Souter duel on health exception.

30:53 Jennifer Dalven for Planned Parenthood gets to speak
33:21 Dalven argues "Too late for minor to go to court when is in ER"
33:43 Scalia says: "An abortion judge can be reached anytime, anywhere. It takes 30 seconds to make the call. This is an emergency situation?"
34:58 Roberts talks.
35:46 Roberts wonders why rare medical emergencies should invalidate laws for everyone else.
37:33 Roberts talks some more.
40:50 Roberts.
42:18 Roberts.
43:43 Scalia.
44:39 Scalia.
48:50 Roberts defends legislators for not putting health exception into law. Adjourns arguments at 53rd minute mark.

Supreme Court Weighing Parental Notification

It's that time again when activists on both sides clash outside the Supreme Court which is currently debating a New Hampshire abortion law requiring parental notification. It's the first case on abortion, Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood, 04-1144, the court has heard in five years.

New Chief Justice John Roberts seemed sympathetic to the state, but other justices said they were troubled that the law does not make an exception for minors who have a medical emergency.

The court has said before that abortion restrictions should include a health exception. O'Connor, along with Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, zeroed in on how doctors would avoid being prosecuted or sued if they performed an abortion if a severely sick minor did not want to notify a parent and a judge was unavailable to provide the necessary approval.

"That's the real problem here for the doctor who's on the line," Ginsburg said.

Justice Antonin Scalia, however, said: "It takes 30 seconds to place a phone call" to a judge.

If Alito is confirmed by the Senate early next year his vote could be needed to break a tie in the case, although justices may find a consensus in resolving the appeal without a landmark decision. For example, justices could tell the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston to review the matter again.

The court is considering whether the 2003 New Hampshire law puts an "undue burden" on a woman in choosing to end a pregnancy. O'Connor is an architect of the undue burden standard, and was the deciding vote in the last abortion case five years ago, when justices ruled that a Nebraska law banning a type of late-term abortion was too burdensome.

With Alito likely to replace O'Connor, it is quite possible that the "undue burden" test will become insignificant if he joins the conservative wing as expected. I haven't heard the audio tapes yet but according to the press release it appears Chief Justice Roberts will vote similarly to the man whom he replaced and will be part of the 5-4 minority against the dismantling of the New Hampshire law.

The big question here is Anthony Kennedy. When it comes to abortion we know he accepts it as a constitutional right but often (though not all the time) votes to uphold restrictions.

My prediction: Planned Parenthood wins.

Majority: Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, Kennedy (swing)
Minority: Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito

What Lies Beyond the Filibuster

Sunday, November 20, 2005

It was too good to be true for Sam Alito. Despite his staunch conservatism there was little ammunition to be used against him until the Washington Times released his 20-year-old application this week to become deputy assistant to the attorney general during the Reagan administration.

In the application he wrote about how he helped "to advance legal positions in which I personally believe very strongly." He continued, "I am particularly proud of my contributions in recent cases in which the government argued that racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed and that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion."

Sure enough, ranking Democratic Senator Joe Biden told Fox News Sunday the filibuster is still on the table and is now more likely to be used than it was last week.

"I think he's got a lot of explaining to do, and depending on how he does, I think will determine whether or not he has a problem or not."

But the Democrats would be taking a major risk if they tried to filibuster Sam Alito. As the 2nd nominee to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Bush administration cannot afford to find a third. Alito must be confirmed, so any talks of a filibuster would rear the dreaded Nuclear Option, in which filibustering judicial nominees would be made illegal.

Such the case would allow President Bush to nominate anyone - anyone - should a third vacancy open up. Without the filibuster President Bush would be all clear to nominate previously filibustered judges like Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen and Richard Pryor.

Good Riddance

Thursday, November 17, 2005

It was almost two years ago when an Amber Alert was posted for 11-year-old Carlie Brucia back in February 2004. A surveillance tape captured her abduction by one Joseph Smith; dragging her away by the arm.

Authorities searched in vain for the missing girl. Four days later her body -- naked from the waist down -- was discovered in a ditch like a discarded piece of trash.

Anyone who watched TV news at the time remembers that tape vividly as it was replayed ad nauseum in the following days. We all hoped she would be returned safely. Alas, that wasn't the case. Carlie was abducted, raped, murdered, and left to rot in the dirt.

Today a jury returned a guilty verdict, and again the tape has aired. Only this time we know what happens when Carlie and her abductor leave the frame.

When asked if she was satisfied with the verdict, Carlie's mother responded: "When he's dead. When he meets his maker."

Because the crime took place in this great state of Florida, Smith faces the death penalty. I've never been a strong advocate for capital punishment, but if that's what it takes to bring some sort of closure to a mother who just lost her daughter, I'm not going to stand in her way.

When O'Reilly Encouraged al Qaeda to Blow Up San Francisco

Wednesday, November 16, 2005

Look, Bill O'Reilly can get on my nerves as much as the next guy's, but the current outcry against him in dozens of newspaper editorials is just plain insane and inaccurate. Here from CBS News, though it could be from anywhere:

I was in San Francisco last week, when Fox News commentator-in-chief Bill O'Reilly had one of his tantrums and told would-be terrorists to "go ahead" and blow the city off the map of the United States.

No, O'Reilly never called for the destruction of San Francisco. He was just mad as hell that the citizens of California voted last week in a special election to bar military recruiters from recruiting in public schools, including college campuses.

In other words, O'Reilly finds it funny how San Franciscans want nothing to do with the U.S. military but would expect nothing less than their full services if they were ever attacked. The actually rant on his radio program went like this:

Fine. You want to be your own country? Go right ahead. And if al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead.

Nowhere does O'Reilly ask al Qaeda to blow up California, just that if it terrorists do wipe out a good chunk of San Francisco its citizens shouldn't be tapping their feet with arms crossed every second the green trucks aren't rolling down the streets.

And why should they expect military assistance? Too often the anti-war crowd touts they can support the military without supporting the war. To be sure, it can be done, but how can you support the military if you don't support its strength? How can you support the men and women dying in Iraq if you make it impossible to give them relief or support? (And before you e-mail me, a 100% withdrawal of troops isn't going to happen today or tomorrow.)

It's absolutely ludicrous to kick the military out of schools when that is where they go to find the best and brightest to represent the greatest country in the world in uniform. People should stop throwing fits every time O'Reilly says something that can easily be taken out of context when the bigger picture should be examined.

So the military shouldn't be allowed to recruit in high schools or college campuses? Where then, my friends, should they go?

More "Extreme" Alito Behavior

Tuesday, November 15, 2005

Yesterday we learned just a little bit more about Supreme Court nominee Sam Alito when the Washington Times published his 20-year-old application to become deputy assistant to Attorney General Edwin I. Meese III of the Reagan administration. In the document, Alito expressed -- among many things -- pride in being a conservative and an opinion that holds no regard for abortion as constitutionally protected.

Of course, to liberals this means he's "extreme" because to have a different view on on how the Constitution should be interpreted is just that. Reaction from select Democrats has been predictable:

...with Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts saying the "extreme statements...are deeply troubling."

"Judge Alito was clearly trying to pass a litmus test to get a promotion," Mr. Kennedy said. "By his own admission, he was pledging his allegiance against established Supreme Court decisions on ... a woman's constitutional right to privacy."

Karen Pearl, interim president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America Inc., added, "This document shows Judge Alito's judicial philosophy is far more dangerous to the health and safety of American women than the public may have thought."

But if I were a liberal I'd be a lot more concerned about the other stuff Alito wrote on his application - as he went on to say "racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed" and that he strongly favors "limited government, federalism, free enterprise, the supremacy of the elected branches of government, the need for a strong defense and effective law enforcement, and the legitimacy of a government role in protecting traditional values."

All I have to say on this matter is if Alito gets confirmed to the Supreme Courtr in January the bar will be set rather high for Bush's next pick if given yet another opportunity to reshape the court.

Kansas Oks 'Intelligent Design'

Tuesday, November 08, 2005

It's sad how adverse we can be sometimes to the presentation of other theories and ideas that differ from our own about any given subject. The great Kansas headache doesn't appear to be going anywhere for awhile. From The New York Times:

TOPEKA, Kan., Nov. 8 - The fiercely split Kansas Board of Education voted 6 to 4 on Tuesday to adopt new science standards that are the most far-reaching in the nation in requiring that Darwin's theory of evolution be challenged in the classroom.

The standards press beyond the broad mandate for critical analysis of evolution that four other states have established in recent years, by recommending that schools teach specific points that doubters of evolution use to undermine its primacy in science education.

Among the most controversial changes was a redefinition of science itself, so that it would not be explicitly limited to natural explanations.

The vote was a watershed victory for the emerging movement of intelligent design, which posits that nature alone cannot explain life's complexity. John G. West of the Discovery Institute, a conservative research organization that promotes intelligent design, said Kansas now had "the best science standards in the nation."

A leading defender of evolution, Eugenie C. Scott of the National Center for Science Education, said she feared that the new Kansas standards would serve as a "playbook for creationism."

The beginning of life's existence is a one-day lecture in a semester long course, at least in high school anyway. What on earth is wrong with presenting at least two different theories? Some scientists point to evolution that started with the Big Bang, and others say the universe is too complex to have been started by anything but some form of intelligent being.

It's really that simple. No one alive today knows how life started. The evolution crowd is so content that their method is right you sometimes have to remind them that unlike other scientific theories there's no way to prove the Big Bang. Matter had to have come from somewhere and it's anyone's guess where.

As a favorite professor of mine at Florida State aptly put it, "The theory of evolution has been around for roughly a century and rather than gaining more and more scientific support, it has run into increasing difficulties as we learn more about the world and the universe from science. The problems for the theory of evolution began in earnest with the discovery of the Big Bang, that is scientific evidence that the universe had a beginning. Science had always assumed that matter existed forever, because science would have no way to explain its origins.

"Now it is becoming increasingly clear that since we can now date the origins of the universe at roughly 15 billion years ago and the origins of our earth at roughly 5 billions years ago, there simply was not enough time for the Darwinian mechanism of time and chance (chance meaning random events and mutations) to have produced our complex universe and life forms. Therefore evolutionists are today scrambling to come up with alternatives, and there are at least seven competing theories that have been presented which argue that it was time plus random mutations plus something else which must have been occurring in order for evolution to take place."

There's no clear cut answer, and because of that both sides should be presented.

The West Wing Debate

Sunday, November 06, 2005

Tonight was the live West Wing "debate" between two liberals; Alan Alda playing snappy "moderate" Republican Senator Arnold Vinick, and Jimmy Smits playing Democratic House Representative Matthew Santos.

Though scripted, the actors were allowed some leeway, and I do have to give Alda some credit for trying to make his Republican character look somewhat human, even though he had to use the typical right-wing cliches throughout the debate.

On gun control: "It's the right of every American to bear arms!"

On taxes: "Taxes are evil. I will cut taxes. We have too many taxes."

On jobs. "Zero. I will cut jobs!"

Meanwhile, Santos was a vehicle for the writers to vent, as he lashed out at "the most watched network" (meaning Fox News) for dedicating more time to the Aruba story than dead bodies in Iraq.

Santos also proudly defended the 'liberal' label and went on about how blacks are free thanks to liberals who freed them because they're liberals.

After the debate, and not before Ellen DeGeneres shamelessly plugged American Express, viewers were invited to vote at NBC.com for whom they felt won the debate.

It's no secret the vast majority of West Wing viewers are sulking liberals who turn to fantasy to see Democrats consecutively win the presidency, and it's no surprise that Santos was favored 65-35%.

Can't wait to see who will win the election...oh wait, yes I can.

Asking Kids About Masturbation

Thursday, November 03, 2005

Yes the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals actually wrote this:

...there is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children, either independent of their right to direct the upbringing and education of their children or encompassed by it. We also hold that parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students. Finally, we hold that the defendants' actions were rationally related to a legitimate state purpose...In summary, we hold that there is no free-standing fundamental right of parents "to control the upbringing of their children by introducing them to matters of and relating to sex in accordance with their personal and religious values and beliefs" and that the asserted right is not encompassed by any other fundamental right...we conclude only that the parents are possessed of no constitutional right to prevent the public schools from providing information on that subject to their students in any forum or manner they select.

Thanks to the 9th Circuit, if a school wants to ask 8-year-olds how often they think about wanting to touch "other peoples' private parts," it's within its jurisdiction and parents just have to accept it.

It was one of many questions in a survey given to children at a Palmdale District elementary school without parental consent or notification. A few parents filed a lawsuit claiming they had privacy rights on behalf of their children, but the most liberal circuit court in the country made it clear that parents have no rights to their children when they're in school.

The justification for the survey was to determine if there were any "psychological barriers to learning," though I can't seem to understand how that can be determined based on a child’s response to "touching my private parts too much."

The language in the ruling is extreme and radical to the highest degree by opening the door to anything by allowing schools to teach a subject "in any form or manner they select" without objection. Basically, the 9th Circuit Court has just given permission to any school that wishes to present graphic pornography as an educational tool to kindergarteners.

Alito And Abortion

Wednesday, November 02, 2005

According to liberals, Sam Alito will work to "turn back the clock" on abortion rights. They believe he will undoubtedly overturn Roe v. Wade the first minute he gets the opportunity to do so. Of course, they know no more than we do on how Alito will handle said case, because he is a stellar judge and has in his career ruled based on the law, not his feelings or personal preferences.

The lies coming from the Left are best summed up by this cartoon, suggesting Alito believes a woman should first get her husband's permission before getting an abortion.

They point to Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the case where Alito of the 3rd District Court of Appeals argued a Pennsylvania law that required women seeking abortions to inform their husbands should have been upheld.

The Supreme Court would eventually overturn the Pennsylvania law Alito upheld, thanks to Sandra Day O'Connor's curious "undue burden" requirement.

But the point is Judge Alito never ruled a woman must get her husband's permission before getting an abortion, only that he should be notified before it happens. After all, no one wants to be that guy who comes home from the Sports Authority with new gloves and baseball bats only to find out his son is no more. If anything the notification law is common courtesy.

Alito and Strip Searching of 10-Year-Old Girls

Monday, October 31, 2005

The attacks are already pouring in, and as expected liberals are resorting to shameful distortion to smear the record of (oh it feels good to write the following) Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito.

Some such as Daily Kos, are downright lying.

One of the claims is that Alito supports the strip-searching of 10-year-old girls. I guess that would make him a monster...unless you actually read Alito's decision before rendering a character judgment.

The case was Doe v. Groody, and Alito along with two other judges were to determine if a mother and her 10-year-old daughter had their rights violated when they were searched by police who had executed a warrant for the man of the house on a suspected drug charges.

According to the post at Daily Kos and other liberal sites:

In Doe v. Groody, Alito agued that police officers had not violated constitutional rights when they strip searched a mother and her ten-year-old daughter while carrying out a search warrant that authorized only the search of a man and his home.

Only "the man and his home" you say? Well too bad for Kos the truth is right there in the case brief itself, easily accessible thanks to the Internet.

From the case text itself:

The typed affidavit requested permission to search John Doe's residence and his Volkswagen for drugs, paraphernalia, money, drug records and other evidence.

The search should also include all occupants of the residence...

Oh there's more, but I encourage you to follow the link and read it yourself. You'll find that everyone in the home was subject to legal search.

So yes, when police are serving a warrant to arrest a possible drug suspect, it is certainly reasonable to assume other persons in the residence may be concealing sought after contraband, and are subject to search. To disagree with Alito's ruling is to give criminals the right to use minors as a concealing vehicle for contraband. A loophole so wide would be open that it would be nearly impossible to catch these guys if they could just stash their goods in their child's diaper.

But you know what, if you want to oppose Alito, then fine. But don't lie or falsify his record. Read the damn cases for yourself before determining he is yet another "extremist" who will "turn back the clock" on everything conservatives supposedly want to turn back.

Samuel Alito -- Solid Pick

The president served his country well this morning when he nominated Samuel Alito of the 3rd District Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court. A conservative, yes, but as fair and open-minded as any judge should be.

Not everyone will agree with his opinions, but if you actually (and few have) read through the pages you will find a principled jurist, not a radical or extremist or clock-turner.

Here's a list of some notable opinions courtesy of SCOTUSblog:


A majority opinion in ACLU v. Schundler, 168 F.3d 92 (3d Cir. 1999), holding that the Establishment Clause was not violated by a city hall holiday display that contained a creche, a menorah, secular symbols of the season, and a banner proclaiming the city's dedication to diversity.

A majority opinion in Fatin v. INS, 12 F.3d 1233 (3d Cir. 1993), holding that an Iranian woman seeking asylum could establish that she had a well founded fear of persecution in Iran if she could show that compliance with that country's "gender specific laws and repressive social norms," such as the requirement that women wear a veil in public, would be deeply abhorrent to her. Judge Alito also held that she could establish eligibility for asylum by showing that she would be persecuted because of gender, belief in feminism, or membership in a feminist group.

A majority opinion in Saxe v. State College Area School District, 240 F.3d 200 (3d Cir. 2001), striking down as contrary to the First Amendment a public school district anti-harassment policy that extended to nonvulgar, non-school-sponsored speech that posed no realistic threat of substantial disruption of school work.

A majority opinion in Shore Regional High School Board of Education v. P.S., 381 F.3d 194 (3d Cir. 2004), holding that a school district did not provide a high school student with a free and appropriate public education, as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, when it failed to protect the student from bullying by fellow students who taunted the student based on his lack of athleticism and his perceived sexual orientation.

A majority opinion in Williams v. Price, 343 F.3d 223 (3d Cir. 2003), granting a writ of habeas corpus to an African-American state prisoner after state courts had refused to consider the testimony of a witness who stated that a juror had uttered derogatory remarks about African Americans during an encounter in the courthouse after the conclusion of the trial.

A dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 947 F.2d 682 (3d Cir. 1991), arguing that a Pennsylvania that required women seeking abortions to inform their husbands should have been upheld. As Judge Alito reasoned, "[t]he Pennsylvania legislature could have rationally believed that some married women are initially inclined to obtain an abortion without their husbands' knowledge because of perceived problems--such as economic constraints, future plans, or the husbands' previously expressed opposition--that may be obviated by discussion prior to the abortion." Chief Justice Rehnquist's dissent from the Supreme Court's 6-3 decision striking down the spousal notification provision of the law quoted Judge Alito's dissent and expressed support for Judge Alito's reasoning.

A dissenting opinion in Homar v. Gilbert, 89 F.3d 1009 (3d Cir. 1996) arguing that that a state university did not violate the procedural due process rights of a campus policeman when it suspended him without pay and without a prior hearing upon learning that he had been arrested and charged with drug offenses. The Supreme Court, which reversed and remanded the case on other grounds, agreed with Judge Alito's reasoning that no hearing was required prior to the suspension because the drug charges showed that the suspension was not baseless.

A dissenting opinion in Sheridan v. Dupont, 74 F.3d 1439 (3d Cir. 1996) (en banc) arguing that a plaintiff in a sex discrimination case should not inevitably be able to survive summary judgment simply by casting doubt on the employer's proffer of legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the adverse employment decision.

Dragging Rosa Parks Into The Fight

Senator Chuck Schumer of New York had the audacity to bring the late Rosa Parks into the Supreme Court fight. Speaking before reporters, Schumer went on record as saying he hoped Samuel Alito won't work to reverse all that Parks had gained.

The despicable senator remarked:

Like Rosa Parks, Judge Alito will be able to change history by virtue of where he sits. The real question today is whether Judge Alito would use his seat on the bench, just as Rosa Parks used her seat on the bus, to change history for the better or whether he would use that seat to reverse much of what Rosa Parks and so many others fought so hard and for so long to put in place.

Judge Alito's visit to Rosa Parks this morning was appropriate. His record, as I'm sure Rosa Parks would agree, is much more important.

Instead of making " bus/bench seat" analogies and speaking for the late Rosa Parks, perhaps Mr. Schumer should get down to reviewing the many opinions Alito drafted so he can fulfill his constitutional role and either support or reject Judge Alito.

Of course, we all know how Schumer will vote. He has a litmus test and made it clear when he voted "nay" on John Roberts.

Bush's Revival

Thursday, October 27, 2005

When it wasn't likely Miers would back down. When it was almost a guarantee she would be confirmed to replace Sandra Day O' Connor on the Supreme Court. Then, yes then, Democrats were content with accusing Bush of being a crony. They could take shots at him even though in secret they were blowing a collective sigh of relief. Bush could have done much worse. Harry Reid was happy with the pick, and Chuck Schumer couldn't find the words to form coherent sentences. He was shocked. He was expecting a hard-right constructionist. Christmas came early.

But now she's gone and the Democrats are faced with a new reality. Bush, with a newly charged base, might go for that hard-right nominee. Despite charges of cronyism, Democrats knew Miers was their best chance at getting another O'Connor, or perhaps a Souter, or maybe even a Kennedy.

So what do they do now? Attack him, like they always do. After accepting the withdrawal from a "crony" (you'd think that would be a good thing) Democrats began charging him with "caving in to his radical right-wing base."

But Republican senators themselves were reluctant to support her, and Bush realized he made a miscalculation and can start anew; fresh. He can bring the fight to the Senate and energize his base like they've never been before.

Indictments may be looming. The White House is a bit shaken up. But Bush is back in the driver seat and can bring the much needed debate about the proper role of the courts to center stage.

Any Truth in Al Franken?

Wednesday, October 26, 2005

Today Al Franken's latest book The Truth (With Jokes) hits stores, and I don't anticipate lugging through the 300+ page tome just so I can reaffirm his opinion that the Christian Right is evil, Bush really didn't win the election (again), and America was "scared" into voting for Bush otherwise they would have naturally picked the finer candidate in John Kerry.

Nevertheless I will give it a shot and hopefully have a nice review penned before the end of the weekend. It's that kind of torture I'm always willing to expose myself to because I know you're just dying to find out if it's any good.

For the Price of 2,000 American Soldiers

Tuesday, October 25, 2005

You can buy a trial for Saddam Hussein, two gravestones for his murderous sons, and a new constitution for the Iraqi people whose region is in desperate need of stabilization.

Unlike most in the blogosphere I refuse to judge the war on terror at this point in time. While it seems like we've been in Iraq forever now, it's only been 2.5 years, and a lot is getting done - albeit with major consequences.

With word of the 2,000 death toll milestone, Americans are understandably distancing themselves from the president they trusted enough to reelect in 2004. And with his most recent gaffe in nominating Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, look not to me for a defense of his presidency.

In survival mode, the president has only been able to give speech after speech defending his actions. Iraq was the right decision. Miers was the right choice. Rosa Parks was "most inspiring."

You've got a lot of work to do, Mr. President. And it doesn't start with another speech.

Edit: Conservative columnist Michelle Malkin looks into the validity of the 2,000 milestone. Perhaps it's worth a look.

Stories We Can't Ignore

Monday, October 24, 2005

Despite my general abhorrence of the ACLU, we must pay close attention to these findings they have brought to light:

WASHINGTON - At least 21 detainees who died while being held in U.S. custody in Iraq and Afghanistan were killed, many during or after interrogations, according to an analysis of Defense Department data by the American Civil Liberties Union.

The analysis, released Monday, looked at 44 deaths described in records obtained by the ACLU. Of those, the group characterized 21 as homicides, and said at least eight resulted from abusive techniques by military or intelligence officers, such as strangulation or "blunt force injuries," as noted in the autopsy reports.

The 44 deaths represent a partial group of the total number of prisoners who have died in U.S. custody overseas; more than 100 have died of natural and violent causes.

In one case, the report said, a detainee died after being smothered during interrogation by military intelligence officers in November 2003. In another case cited by the report, a prisoner died of asphyxiation and blunt force injuries after he was left standing, shackled to the top of a door frame, with a gag in his mouth.

Details about the detainee abuse and deaths have been released by the Pentagon as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the ACLU. Many of the incidents have been made public previously, and in a number of cases soldiers and officers involved have been prosecuted and punished.

Many are questioning the motives of the ACLU, especially since they're getting involved with abuses that aren't against American citizens. To some degree the ACLU deserves to be watched as being a possible anti-war propaganda tool.

But that being said, we must -- as the finest nation in the world -- hold ourselves to higher standards and punish any and all persons responsible for committing atrocities against detainees held in our custody.

There Goes the Perfect Season

Sunday, October 16, 2005

You'll have to excuse my pouting this week as I'm still trying to get over FSU's embarrassing lost to unranked Virginia on Saturday. The only bright spot of the weekend was the Tampa Bay Bucs manhandling the Miami Dolphins, but I'm still genuinely upset over the Florida State defeat.

In God's Image?

Thursday, October 13, 2005

A new Gallup poll on the origins of life has taken me by surprise:

Fifty-three percent say God created humans in their present form the way the Bible describes it, essentially endorsing a strict creationist explanation. Twelve percent endorse the strict evolutionary perspective -- that humans evolved from other species, but without any divine intervention. Thirty-one percent choose the modified perspective, believing human beings evolved from other species but with God guiding the process. That closely matches the perspective commonly known as "intelligent design."

I subscribe to the second mot popular answer, that humans have evolved but with either assistance from God or no assistance after He created the universe or "got the ball rolling."

I was not expecting the majority to believe in a "strict creationist" theory, because it is a religiously orthodox point of view and a random sample of citizens would hardly be likely to include many devout believers. To be sure, the results from the poll indicate the majority also wants evolution to be taught in public school science classes, if at least along with the creationism theory. I too believe both theories should be presented.

Simpson's Second Chance

Sunday, October 09, 2005

Those of us with an unhealthy familiarity with pop culture remember Ashlee Simpson's performance debacle last year on Saturday Night Live. Tonight the inept singer got a second chance to humiliate herself, and she took full advantage of it.

After being introduced by Napoleon Dynamite (Jon Heder) the 21-year-old "singer" told sympathetic audience the song she "wrote" was about her last appearance on SNL when a humiliating glitch revealed a vocal track that was doing all the singing.

The song, a lumbering number suspiciously similar to a popular Jewl ballad, highlights Simpson's inability to carry a note longer than three seconds. Her range is desperately short as whenever she tries to reach for a higher octave her voice cracks. The lyrics are just awful; something to the effect of "Who will catch me when I fall..."

I can't recall all every line, probably because it was so painful to endure. But I felt like I had to comment on it because I did last year and I need to get President Bush's lousy pick of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court out of my head.

Bases Empty

Friday, October 07, 2005

It doesn't get any worse for our beloved (blah) president:

Evangelicals, Republican women, Southerners and other critical groups in President Bush's political coalition are worried about the direction the nation is headed and disappointed with his performance, an AP-Ipsos poll found.

I guess when you're a lame duck poll numbers don't matter anymore, but the president has a legacy to either preserve or destroy. It would be incredible for Bush to remembered throughout the ages as the president who had the largest role in the reshaping of the Supreme Court.

With John Paul Stevens staring at 90 down the road, Mr. Bush could soon be presented with a third chance to change the court. We don't yet know how Roberts will turn out because he's still a stealth justice, but Miers is a super-stealth appointment.

Bush could have gone hard-right both times, forcing Democrats into a nasty fight with the GOP. Regardless of the outcome it would have chilled whatever scandals are currently brewing on the Right side of the aisle, and provided at least one more highly qualified judge a chance to sit on the highest court when instead he goes for his personal lawyer.

Bush Delivers Stinger to Conservatives

Monday, October 03, 2005

Are we really surprised spineless George went with Harriet Myers to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court? She's a friend. A close friend. And that's all that matters. Why give back to your faithful conservative base when there are friends to reward?

But the truth is we should be fair when it comes to scrutinizing Myers. We know virtually nothing about her considering she has as much judicial experience as Paris Hilton. Until the Senate hearings take place in a few weeks every word spoken about her will be uncorroborated speculation.

Maybe Bush has calculated a brilliant scheme. He knew a paper trail would cause a meltdown in the Senate and he felt he could get Roberts-like success with a "stealth" (which by the way have never turned out swell for Republicans) nominee.

Vice President Dick Cheney has been making the rounds on talk radio doing damage control. He pleaded with Rush Limbaugh to "trust him" on the nominee, and he's expected to be on Sean Hannity within the hour.

I don't know, but part of me is convinced -- like with Roberts -- Bush knows something we don't and is confident he picked a solid originalist to replace the "swing vote" on the Supreme Court.

Or maybe the liberals are right. Maybe President Bush is just plain stupid.

Don't Worry, Mickey Mouse Ain't Packing

I must mention three spectacular items as a result of this weekend. The Tampa Bay Bucs are 4-0. The Florida State Seminoles are 4-0. And since Saturday Floridians have been able to use deadly force on murderers attempting to harm their families without first trying to run away.

Naturally, Brady Campaign is flipping out and doing its best to deliver a serious blow to our tourism industry with these misleading and unfair campaigns warning you of "nervous" and "frightened" residents.

As an owner of three handguns I can proudly say I've yet to blow anyone's brains out. Maybe it's because tourists have been following the advice of Brady Campaign by avoiding confrontations with me.

Or perhaps it's because I'm not a total f-ing idiot.

It goes without saying Brady Campaign has been down-right lying about the legal aspects of the "meet force with force" law now in effect. From the shameful propaganda front, shootfirstlaw.org (my emphasis in bold):

The new Florida Shoot First law eliminates the duty to retreat and allows a person not engaged in unlawful activity who is attacked in a public place to "stand his or her ground" and use deadly force if "he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

Attacked in a public place, huh? Well if we take a look at the actual law which I encourage you to read for yourself lest the family trip to Disney World becomes doubtful, you'll see the truth is far from what Brady Campaign states:

776.013, F.S.; An act relating to the protection of persons and property; creating s. 776.013, F.S.; authorizing a person to use force, including deadly force, against an intruder or attacker in a dwelling, residence, or vehicle under specified circumstances; creating a presumption that a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm ecists under certain circumstances;

It's unfortunate, I know, but the law doesn't extend to O.K. Corral-style gunfights outside the "It's a Small World" ride at Disney World. Sadly, we gunslingers cannot be jabbing our barrels at view-blocking spectators at the Kennedy Space Center or from the nosebleed seats at a Bucs or Seminoles game.

Beating Down Bill Bennett

Friday, September 30, 2005

The civil rights dogs are once again barking and this time it's at a favorite target of the theirs, Bill Bennett. The supposed racist comment was made when Bennett and a caller to his radio show were chatting about Steven Levitt's popular book, "Freakonomics," which says that the high popularity of abortion after Roe v. Wade resulted in the slaughtering prevention of potential criminals being born, and thus helped reduce the crime rate.

Bennett decided to run with it, and said the following:

It's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could--if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.

Wow, what a whole bunch of nothing to get worked up about! Somehow this is being perceived as racist, because Bennett implied that blacks have a higher crime rate than whites, thereby if we eliminated all future black men we'd have a lower crime rate.

There is nothing bigoted about that statement. If you wanted to be racist you would say that with all things being equal blacks are more likely to commit crime than whites. The truth is that all things aren't equal, ergo blacks are more likely than whites to be born in poorer urban cities where they're more likely to be predisposed to crime. If it were theoretically possible to abort every black fetus then it is true the overall crime rate would decline, because inner-city violence would fall when the 18-24 demographic becomes nonexistent. The Hamptons would hardly feel the effect.

But if you were to put one black and one white together in the same environment, neither would be more likely than the other to become a criminal. Bennett understood this reality but apparently believed everyone else did too and felt he didn't need to labor through the disclaimer.

The fact that he followed through with "That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do" exonerates him from the charge that he wants to suppress the black population, let alone abort it. Conveniently his critics are leaving out that last line when calling him a racist.

Naturally the spineless Bush administration has condemned the remarks, and it's no surprise Press Secretary Scott McClellan quickly distanced the president from Mr. Bennett.

The Waiting Game

Thursday, September 29, 2005

First, I must congratulate John Roberts having recently been sworn in by acting Chief John Paul Stevens to be the next chief justice of the Supreme Court. I wonder what was going through the mind of the longest serving justice who had to swear in a rookie who was placed immediately above him on the court.

With that milestone behind us all eyes turn to Bush's next pick; the all-important replacement for swing voter Sandra Day O'Connor. Word is Bush plans to wait until next week to make his selection, and the reason is beyond me.

The top headline this week is Tom DeLay's criminal indictment, an event that could turn out to be a devastating blow to the GOP. But it's a story that could easily be washed away if Bush were to announce his nomination of, say, Janice Rogers Brown or Priscilla Owen to the Supreme Court as early as tomorrow.

I don't know what's up with Tom DeLay. Conservatives are crying conspiracy while liberals are crying criminal. I'm tired of this partisan fighting. All my energy is focused on the courts. If DeLay gets convicted then he'll get what he deserves. If anything critical develops I'll discuss it, but until then it's a subject you can turn to CNN for.

As for the courts, Democrats are not playing around. With a margin of 78-22, Roberts' confirmation vote was narrower than both of Clinton's picks combined, and any investigation into Ruth Bader Ginsburg reveals an "extremist" just as much as any conservative Bush could pick. Scalia passed through flawlessly without so much as a single 'nay' vote.

Is a filibuster fight looming? Time will soon tell.

We're Running Out of Clocks to Turn Back

Tuesday, September 27, 2005

A writer for USA TODAY compares us pro-lifers to Osama bin Laden in this wonderful Tuesday column:

Without questioning the integrity of those who believe that life begins at conception, the struggle to overturn Roe v. Wade can also be viewed as an attempt to turn back the clock on women's freedom. Opposing such a reversal isn't a matter of thinking abortion admirable, but of accepting the magnificent revolutionary principle that no man has a right to tell any woman what she can or cannot do with her body.

Attempts to interfere with another citizen's liberty are worthy of Osama bin Laden, not of Americans.

We'll I'm glad Ralph Peters is sticking up for the opposite sex by calling us out as the terrorists we truly are. After all, why fight the terrorists abroad when there are plenty of us pro-lifers here in the United States to apprehend?

The Left really enjoys using that "turn back the clock" nonsense because it sounds so grave and ominous, but the reality is that overturning any court decision -- Roe v. Wade or Brown v. Board -- has no effect on the clock which remains fixed. The only way it could be "turned back" is if the legislature passed a law restricting what would no longer be protected by the Supreme Court. It is almost uniformly agreed in the political science community that in the unlikely event of a Roe reversal, the chances of a state passing a complete ban on abortion would be ridiculously small. Those of us hoping for a correction simply want such matters in the hands of accountable lawmakers, not high priests in black robes.

But that hasn't stopped the hysterical liberal lobbies from painting a doomsday picture in the minds of the public. And what bothers me most is how they try to rationalize the validity of Roe. The worst argument you can make is that laws restricting abortion would be "telling a woman what she can or cannot do with her body."

It's absolutely insane to suggest women (and men for that matter) have impalpable rights to their bodies. If so then every drug law would be unconstitutional. Every prostitution, vagrancy, and anti-strip club law has to be considered encroachment on a woman's "right" to do all those things to which the Constitution is completely oblivious.

At 18 a woman is a legal adult, so therefore any laws prohibiting her from possessing or consuming alcohol is as good as the state "telling a woman what she can or cannot do with her body."

No such right to absolute impunity over oneself exists. Stop pretending one does.

The Constitution Works Just Fine, Thank You

Thursday, September 22, 2005

While lecturing to hundreds at the New York City Bar Association, one of the worst Supreme Court justices in modern history defended the use of foreign law in American jurisprudence and would like the next confirmed justice to be an activist who would "advance" desired American laws.

She also said she doesn't like the idea of being the only female justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, now that O'Connor has retired and is waiting to be replaced by Bush's next choice.

But when making this decision, "any woman will not do," Ginsburg warned.

There are "some women who might be appointed who would not advance human rights or women's rights," Ginsburg told her audience.

Well yeah, the best woman for the job would not "advance human rights" or "women's rights" or any rights. Judges aren't supposed to advance, promote, flaunt, or do anything with any laws unless it's ruling on the constitutionality of them.

Continuing, Ginsburg stressed that the president should appoint a "fine jurist," which is surprising considering I expected her to recommended a judge like herself.

"I have a list of highly qualified women, but the president has not consulted me," Ginsburg revealed last night.

Thank God. Our country does not need another ACLU-type Ruth Bader Ginsburg "advancing" or perverting our laws, a task the Constitution delegates to the Legislative Branch and only that branch.

During the question-and-answer session President Clinton's biggest mistake defended the application of foreign law to American cases.

"I will take enlightenment wherever I can get it," she said. "I don't want to stop at a national boundary."

Which is why Ruth Bader Ginsburg should have never been confirmed justice in the first place. Let us recall the oath Ginsburg took -- as well as the other six justices currently sitting on the Supreme Court -- prior to becoming one of the most powerful judges in the country:

"I, (state name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the
same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter. SO HELP ME GOD."

As you can clearly see for yourself, judge's allegiance is to the Constitution and nothing else. Apparently Ginsburg feels she has the authority to transmogrify the role of the Supreme Court justice according to her own whims whenever convenient. For that she is extremely dangerous.

It's now the job of the president to make sure Ginsburg's voice becomes a minuscule one when the next justice is confirmed.

Democrats Content With No One

Tuesday, September 20, 2005

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid is rolling the political dice - and in my opinion screwing his party over - by coming out in opposition to the appointment of Judge John Roberts to the Supreme Court.

If many Democrats join Reid in opposing this likable and well-qualified candidate, Republicans will be able to make the case that any nominee put forth by President Bush would be opposed, therefore it wouldn't matter who he nominates next; including a solid originalist like the feared Janice Rogers Brown or Priscilla Owen.

And with everyone on both sides of the aisle clamoring for Bush to replace a woman with a woman, Brown and Owen are perfect choices to fill the spot while at the same time providing an additional bonus for conservatives looking for the president to tilt the Supreme Court (probably drastically) to the right.

Many political scientists and court observers believe Roberts will have no noticeable impact on the bench, as he's a conservative replacing a conservative. In fact, if he plans to uphold Roe v. Wade then the elevation of Roberts will be a move to the left, hardly something we expected from the man who promised to nominate someone in the mold of Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia.

With every branch of the federal government in Republican hands, Democrats don't have a lot of negotiating room, and would score a major victory if an anti-Roe judge was replaced with one who would uphold the precedent. Such a case would mean three liberal justices would have to resign for there to even be a slight chance for a Roe v. Wade reversal in the near future.

Democrats claim they're "sending a message" to the president by giving Roberts a hard time, saying that this tough battle only means a tougher one for a more controversial choice that conservatives are desperately pleading for.

I won't be surprised if Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer, Barbara Boxer, Dick Durbin and the rest of the hard-left in the Senate vote "no" on Roberts, but it dilute whatever legitimacy they have in the future when they take the same action against a true conservative who's just around the corner.

When All Else Fails, Impeach!

John Nichols of The Nation demonstrates quite a leap in his logic:

When pressed, Roberts suggested that only in extraordinary circumstances--when the precedent has proved to be "unworkable" or "difficult to apply"--should the Court even consider overturning settled law.

Since the Roe v. Wade precedent has survived basically intact through three decades of legal and legislative assaults, and since it has not proved to be unworkable or difficult to apply, Roberts has effectively promised the Senate--under oath--that he will not seek as the Chief Justice to outlaw abortion or other reproductive rights.

These senators should also make it clear that, if John Roberts turns out to be the judicial activist that some fear, and if that activism takes the form of an attack on what he has described as "settled" law, then they will move the impeachment resolution immediately.

What Nichols fails to understand is that Roberts described how the Supreme Court should go about handling precident; not how he will personally handle the matter. Roberts did not - in any way, shape or form, tell the judiciary committee how he was going to rule on the matter if given the opportunity to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Moreover, the "unworkable" and "difficult to apply" standards are as subjective as you can get, and are precisely what judges are supposed to mull over, not congressmen! Impeaching a judge based soley on his findings is a direct violation of the Consitution, which gives the Supreme Court independent judiciary power.

What nerve Nichols has bringing up "activism" when he is the guiltiest of all parties, suggesting senators should resort to threats and blackmail.

What Students Dread Most About School: The Pledge!

Friday, September 16, 2005

"Anonymous" attempts to set the record straight on the pledge and its finding to be unconstitutional:

Lets be serious about this Two things;

First: There is no speech that is more coerced than the pledge of allegiance. If you can think of something, I would very much like to hear it, but it seems to me that to the extent that the First Amendment protects us from coerced/compelled speech (See West Virginia v. Barnette)

The problem with this argument is that "Anonymous" failed to explain how "no speech is more coerced than the pledge..." Sure we can come up with plenty of hypothetical scenarios about how a class full of patriotic students indirectly intimidates the lone naysayer, but until we see widespread reports of embarrassed students you can't walk around toting this myth while demanding your argument be credited.

Second: The Establishment clause does not simply protect us against the government 'establishing' religion. In Lemon v. Kurtzman, the Court determined that the requirements were 1) That the law have a secular purpose ; 2) That the law not advance or inhibit religion; and 3) that the law not foster 'excessive entaglement' (sic) with religion. This is the current test of the Establishment Clause, no matter what Justice Thomas wants it to be.

Actually Justice Thomas is in the perfect position to reinterpret the Establishment Clause, but that's neither her nor there.

The problem here is that "Anonymous" assumes "under God" is a religious reference in this context. By now, it is safe to say the pledge is a tradition, with philosophical principles; not religious. The purpose of the pledge is to pay homage to our nation; not a monotheistic God.

Just as Judge Roberts had to answer truthfully "so help you God" at his Senate hearings, and just as you had to make a sales transaction yesterday using currency imprinted with "In God We Trust," we are reminded on a daily basis that in this great nation we ultimately answer to a power far greater than any human on the planet. Whether it be the Pope or President Bush, something exists above them, even if it's the atheist or engine-design interpretation of the universe.

This is not a religious debate, and I fully expect the newly revamped Supreme Court to fix it.

I Like America Without Gwyneth Paltrow

Almost two years ago I wrote a column criticizing the mother of Apple for calling Americans "over-patriotic" and for falling in line with the typical Hollywood elitist America-bashers. It was only a matter of time before she felt compelled to speak again on the matter.

While being interviewed for a Toronto newspaper, the eccentric actress responded to another article by the same author with: "I totally agreed with it. I feel like we're really in trouble. I just had a baby and thought, 'I don't want to live there (America).'"

That's fine, Mrs. Paltrow, but then why are you here so often enjoying your film career? It's amazing how this privileged rich woman could view America so negatively, and yet there are those of us in this country with much less fortune who'd never dream of saying anything to that effect.

Hopefully Not on Roberts' Watch

Wednesday, September 14, 2005

As the country waits for the next chief justice to be confirmed, another judge reminds us judicial activism is alive and well and will continue to be for as long as Carter's and Clinton's judges sit on the bench:

SAN FRANCISCO - A federal judge declared the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools unconstitutional Wednesday in a case brought by the same atheist whose previous battle against the words "under God" was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court on procedural grounds.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."

Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.

The Supreme Court dismissed the case last year, saying Newdow lacked standing because he did not have custody of his elementary school daughter he sued on behalf of.

Because the Supreme Court of the United States failed to rule decisively, I can understand Judge Karlton's bondage to the ruling of the ridiculous 9th Circuit. On a note of caution however, Karlton's ruling is misleading; children are never "coerced" into saying the pledge. You are free to abstain. You are free to not pledge allegiance.

I fully expect the 9th Circuit to reaffirm their own ruling when it reaches them on appeal, and the Supreme Court of the United States to overturn it with John Roberts as chief and someone else in O'Connor's spot...that is if the current hearings ever end and Bush gets to nominate a second judge.

On This Sept 11

Sunday, September 11, 2005

Today we remember the attacks on America by Islamic fanatics exactly four years ago. It's been a good day, however, and we have plenty of reasons to be optimistic. The NFL kicked off week 1 of what should be an exciting season, the death toll from Hurricane Katrina so far is about 9,500 less than first predicted, and we look forward to the beginning of John Roberts' Senate hearing tomorrow.

We have learned today that the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Arlen Specter, will not ask Roberts whether he would vote to overturn that pesky Roe v. Wade decision.

To demand a yes or no answer on issues like abortion would of course show no respect for the Supreme Court as an institution, which depends of testimony from the different parties before rendering a decision on any given case. Justices should not begin the day already knowing how they will vote, regardless of what kind of reality it may be.

Specter will, on the other hand, ask Roberts if a right to "privacy" exists in the Constitution, and because it doesn't then the question should be an easy one to answer - unless he (most likely) decides to cleverly sidestep his way around the question the same way Ruth Bader Ginsburg did all throughout her hearing.

Judges Must Act On Abortion Cases

Thursday, September 08, 2005

A reasonable law requiring minors to seek parental consent before having an abortion is threatened because religious judges are putting their beliefs before the law. As with over-the-counter birth control, religion in the workplace has taken center stage and is capable of doing major damage.

Back in June of this year a pregnant teenager walked into the Memphis, Tennessee courthouse, saying she wanted an abortion. Judge John McCarroll refused to hear the case and said he would recuse himself from any others like it, citing strong aversion to abortion.

"Taking the life of an innocent human being is contrary to the moral order," the judge wrote. "I could not in good conscience make a finding that would allow the minor to proceed with the abortion."

Well that's nice of the judge to consider the wellbeing of the unborn child, but on that particular day another child -- the girl seeking an abortion -- didn't get her day in court and lost out on justice.

Like it or not, the Supreme Court invented a right to abortion, and Roe v. Wade will remain the definitive law of the land until the court takes it upon itself to reverse the landmark 1973 ruling. Unless Bush picks a stellar right-winger to replace Justice O'Connor and then one more in the future, I wouldn't expect such a change anytime soon.

But even though the High Court assures us that somewhere in the Constitution the evisceration of unborn children is made clear, several laws have been passed over the years in many states restricting the procedure that is best illustrated by Comedy Central's South Park.

One such edict is a law 19 states have adopted requiring minors to get a parent's permission before they can have an abortion. In extreme cases such as incest, or parental abuse, or whatever other situation liberals seem to believe is a mainstream occurrence, the minor can ask a judge for permission to go under the knife.

But only four of the nine judges on the Shelby Circuit Court -- where McCarroll sits -- hear such abortion cases because the others have recused themselves in similar fashion.

This is also taking place in Alabama and Pennsylvania, and if the trend continues one can expect such recusals to take place in the other states as well, making it a difficult challenge for women expecting judicial access.

This is not a safe trend for judges to follow. Unlike the over-the-counter birth control fiasco where patrons can take there business elsewhere, we the people depend on the courts for justice and simply can't shop around until we find a desirable outcome.

If obtaining help from the courts become too difficult, then the possibility of being denied due process becomes a reality and the law will find itself under heavier scrutiny from those seeking to have it rendered unconstitutional.

This is not just about abortion, and what we think of it, and whether it should be easy for minors to experience the thrill of it. It's about giving parents the right to control their kids for as long as they're minors. Without this instrumental law 15-year-olds will be able to march into Planned Parenthood clinics to get their fetuses forked with no questions asked.

Without such laws, minors would still be unable to get body piercing, tattoos, and a ballot card, yet they'd have unobstructed access to invasive medical surgery that leaves mental scars for life.

Should 13-year-olds be able to make such decisions on their own?

Aren't parents better suited to determine what's best for their own child than a deadly pill-hawking Planned Parenthood representative?

The parental notification law is the best anti-abortion measure we've got right now, and we can't afford to lose it. In the last presidential election Florida voters overwhelming passed our own statewide measure, Amendment One, by more than 65% with 4,639,635 votes. Every county, even the Democratic bastions, voted "yes" to give parental rights to the parents.

Only liberal nutcases voted against it; comfortable with allowing 12 and 13-year-old girls to make their own potentially life-threatening decisions. Naturally the fringe Left has been all over it, from the ACLU to Planned Parenthood and the radical feminists. We don't need to give them another reason to attack a sensible law.

Judges, religious or not, need to recognize that they are in fact judges, and it is their job to serve without letting personal biases get in the way. If your personal religious beliefs hinder your ability to make a ruling, then it is only fair that you step down and let someone take your place who doesn't have that problem.

Farewell Chief

Sunday, September 04, 2005

The well revered Chief Justice who oversaw a conservative shift on the Supreme Court over the last 33 years will be missed, and now Bush must scramble to find a replacement before the Court convenes this year. Here is what Ann Coulter had to say on Rehnquist's passing:

FINAL VICTORY: REHNQUIST RUINS MEDIA'S LABOR DAY WEEKEND - Chief Justice William Rehnquist ends a stellar career of annoying liberals by calling reporters and editors back to work Saturday night to prepare emergency reports on his untimely demise. Clear, concise, almost always right, the Chief Justice was the molecular opposite of Sandra Day O'Connor. God bless Chief Justice Rehnquist. Americans will miss him.

I had much respect for Rehnquist, whose judicial philosophy was unvarying throughout his three decades on the bench. He was a champion for states' rights and his written opinions were almost always clear and concise.

With the hurricane disaster still plaguing the gulf coast President Bush has a long road ahead of him and must find time to appoint a replacement. Just think, if the Supreme Court convenes in October without a chief, the job will be temporarily filled by 85-year-old John Paul Stevens.

Who Jesse Jackson Should Really Blame

Friday, September 02, 2005

It didn't take long for the usual suspects to blame President Bush, who right now is currently dealing with one of the worst disasters in American history.

BATON ROUGE, La. - Racism is partly to blame for the deadly aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the Rev. Jesse Jackson said, calling President Bush's response to the disaster "incompetent."

"Today, as the President comes to Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi for his ceremonial trip to look at the victims of the devastation, he would do well to have a plan more significant than a ceremonial tour," Jackson said Friday.

Jackson also said the news media has "criminalized the people of New Orleans" by focusing on violence in the city.

Instead of dismissing the violence as an exaggeration of the media, the racist Jesse Jackson and the entire Black Caucus should be boisterously condemning the looters and rioters -- mostly black in a city that's mostly black -- who have done an excellent job impeding the progress of the rescue effort.

It's been almost five days since Hurricane Katrina ravished the Gulf Coast and until now hardly any food or water made it to the desperate residents. Much of the blame should be put on the slow response from the National Guard and federal officials, but it doesn't help when relief workers and doctors are getting shot in the head by snipers.

It doesn't help when looters clean out Wal-Marts.

It doesn't help when cops clean out Wal-Marts.

It doesn't help when thugs are robbing boats and caravans at gunpoint.

Jesse Jackson needs to either shut the hell up or acknowledge the brave efforts of those currently trying to bring relief to cities where many residents are using bullets to keep them out.

Plan B's Plan Uncertain

Wednesday, August 31, 2005

So much fuss in Washington over a tiny little pill:

WASHINGTON - A high-ranking Food and Drug Administration official resigned Wednesday in protest of the agency's refusal to allow over-the-counter sales of emergency contraception.

The FDA on Friday postponed indefinitely its decision on whether to allow the morning-after pill, called Plan B, to sell without a prescription. The agency said it was safe for adults to use without a doctor's guidance but that young teenagers still needed a prescription and it couldn't determine how to enforce an age limit — a decision contrary to the advice of its own scientific advisers.

I, unlike most of my colleagues on the right, am an enthusiastic supporter of the Plan B contraceptive, because it allows women who are at risk of becoming pregnant a way to halt the process before another unborn child ultimately ends up in the medical waste bin.

As for restricting it to minors without a prescription, the drug should be regulated the way cigarettes are. Obviously minors will still find ways to get access to it just like they do for every drug regardless of its availability, but it's a risk they and their abettors take.

Canada Cracks Down on Pit Bulls

Monday, August 29, 2005

Ontario has become the first province in Canada to put its foot down on the breeding and maintaining of pit bulls. Before the end of the 60-day grace period any pit bull currently in Ontario must be spayed or neutered and muzzled when in public. After two months the province will bar any pit bulls from being bred or imported.

A similar law is already in effect in many Canadian cities and here in the United States in places like Denver, Miami and Cincinnati. Pit bull lovers as you can imagine aren't happy with the increase of widespread restrictions.

But when neighborhood animals, let alone humans, are being terrorized by vicious pit bulls inadequately raised by their owners, the city has an obligation to protect its citizens.

I'm quite aware of the number of "good" pit bulls that don't deserve scrutiny, so perhaps there is a better way of handling the problem. No person should ever have to worry about getting mauled and the problem won't remedy itself.

Lap Dances: Between "Freedom Of Speech" And "Or Of The Press"

Sunday, August 28, 2005

I guess we now know where this judge likes to spend his free time when he's not inventing new constitutional rights:

KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- A new state law banning seminude lap dances at Missouri strip clubs was declared unconstitutional by a judge Friday, two days before it was to go into effect.

Cole County Circuit Judge Richard Callahan said provisions of the law violate First Amendment protections and state constitutional limits on amending a bill beyond its original purpose.

"The state may not limit persons of majority age from engaging in lawful expressive conduct protected by the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution without a substantial and direct connection to adverse secondary effects, a showing that has not been made," Callahan said in the declaratory judgment.

Under the law, signed in July by Gov. Matt Blunt, seminude lap dances would have been banned and dancers would have had to stay at least 10 feet from each other. Customers would have faced misdemeanor charges for tucking money into a dancers' G-strings, and the minimum age for dancers and customers would have risen from 19 to 21.

As someone who supports whatever one wants to do with his or her body, I must concede that exchanging money for stripping naked and grinding on a customer's crotch is hardly a fundamental right granted by our forefathers. Apparently the judge sees it differently, so boys and girls, let's review the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Yep, pretty sure the act of stripping naked and grinding on a customer's crotch in a strip club is a loose interpretation of "freedom of speech," just as stripping naked and grinding on a customer's crotch in a restaurant would be.

Tobacco Fascists Strike

Friday, August 26, 2005

Of all the things wrong with our entertainment industry country music is the last thing that should be under the microscope. From the Billings Gazette:

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) - The state attorney general wants the country singer who made the song "Redneck Woman" a hit to stop "glamorizing" the use of smokeless tobacco at her concerts.

State officials said Gretchen Wilson can be seen on concert jumbo screens pulling a can of Skoal from her pocket while performing her new song, "Skoal Ring."

That may violate the 1998 settlement between states and tobacco companies forbidding tobacco ads targeting young people, Attorney General Paul Summers said.

"Many young people attend your concerts and purchase your music and T-shirts," Summers wrote in a letter he sent to Wilson Thursday. "Because your actions strongly influence the youth in your audience ... I ask you to take steps to warn young people of negative health effects of smokeless tobacco use."

If this isn't hypocrisy at its finest then I don't know what is. Meanwhile, rap artists glamorize sex and drugs to such extremes that rappers light joints on stage while half naked women parade around while being virtually groped by the entertainers.

Ah, but the real problem is tobacco! Never mind youth pregnancy is as high as 13% at some high schools and pot is abundant almost everywhere, me mustn't encourage those innocent children to discover chew!

Book Review: 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America (And Al Franken Is #37)

Tuesday, August 23, 2005

Over at the main site you can read my extensive analysis of Bernard Goldberg's latest book 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America (And Al Franken is #37). I actually took the time (a little less with each analysis) to write out all 100 people who Bernard Goldberg thinks are screwing up America.

I did this not just because I'm a masochist but because 100 People is one of the most pointless books I have ever read and I want to save whoever reads my review some money. To be sure, I have little in common with the mostly liberals who are described in Goldberg's tome, but I certainly don't think just because someone supports affirmative action that he is necessarily screwing up America.

I believe the book was written just to make east money (why else would the title point out Al Franken as #37?) and I'm ashamed so many of my conservative colleagues are eating it up, literally. Captain Ed of Captain's Quarters went so far as to say "In essence, the book serves its main course in that first 54 pages, and offers the reader 100 servings of dessert afterwards."

Dessert? Are you kidding me? Maybe if Goldberg had a funny bone in his body, but he doesn't. He learned the hard way on The Daily Show when he could hardly muster a laugh with his sarcasm as Jon Stewart noted comedy isn't an easy thing to do.

And now Goldberg is being hailed as a "courageous truth teller" because he took on gangsta rap and other unconventional issues for while men to tackle. Frankly, there's nothing courageous about reprinting rap lyrics in a book saying some (like old white men) would find it offensive.

America is a great country. Rap music isn't screwing it up. Grand Theft Auto isn't screwing it up. Feminists (as annoying as they can be) aren't screwing it up. Ann Coulter isn't screwing up America…oops, she of course isn't listed.

We're all entitled to our opinions, and when someone disagrees with you there's no reason to accuse them of being something they're not. Speaking specifically to Bernard Goldberg, there's no reason to write a book on such people. As a result you're making a lot of people angry, but at least your bank account is satisfied.

Ironically, Goldberg stated in many interviews that he wrote the book because our culture has gotten "mean" and reasonable discourse is no longer an option. Meanwhile, page after page of his dry book is nothing more than attacks on people in ways that can be best described as "mean."

What will the casual reader take with them after reading this book? Courtney Love is a "ho" and Paris Hilton is a "vapid, empty-headed, inane, hollow, vain, tasteless, self-centered, useless twerp."

Even the guy who created the harmless show Fear Factor is somehow screwing up America despite the fact his show is one of the most popular among American audiences.

Take it from someone who is no friend of the liberal establishment, 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America (And Al Franken is #37), valued at almost $30, is one of the worst purchasing decisions you can make this summer.

Cindy's War in Texas Continues

Wednesday, August 17, 2005

Cindy Sheehan is no longer just a grieving mother. She's a political opportunist who's taken advantage of celebrity status among the far Left and is armed with a blog on Michael Moore's website.

Camped outside President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, Mrs. Sheehan has become an active political pundit who's willingly battling it out with her conservative critics fighting fire with fire. In her latest post at Michael Moore's website, Sheehan told readers, "The right wingers are really having a field day with me. It hurts me really badly, but I am willing to put up with the crap, if it ends the war a minute sooner than it would have."

It's true conservatives are all over Sheehan's developing divorce story and they shouldn't be. Such matters should be left private but the events are true nonetheless and on the open record. Sheehan says the divorce was in the works long before the protest began. I say it's none of our concern.

But many have legitimate beef with the high-profile protester, saying she's being unfair to the president, who already met with her once and has no intention of meeting with her for a second time.

I wouldn't either, considering Mrs. Sheehan is persistent on brining the troops home when President Bush has made it clear that such a strategy isn't on the table.

We already know what Sheehan would say to the president because she has made her statements public, and that they're conversation would hardly be a tea party. She wants to lecture, and wants to demand an immediate withdrawal out of Iraq - and now even Afghanistan because we have yet to catch Osama bin Laden.

Sheehan's son died over a year ago and it only took President Bush two months to address her concerns. While details of what happened at the gathering are sketchy and hard to confirm, a meeting did take place.

Now Sheehan has suddenly opened up camp at Bush's ranch, and a large following has accompanied her and support her agenda. While she has every right to protest the occupation of Iraq, the pro-war crowd has the right to scrutinize Sheehan, and are glad to refute her radical comments. Just what do the Jews in Palestine have to do with her son or the war in Iraq?

The mainstream media has been a darling to Sheehan, despite her claim that it is nothing but "a propaganda tool for the government." Without the Internet, we "would already be a fascist state." And according to Sheehan, America "is not worth dying for" and "has been killing people . . . since we first stepped foot on this continent." Of course it's no surprise Sheehan is convinced Bush is a liar and that "the Downing Street Memo proves that" Bush "lied to the American people."

And the publicity keeps growing. In her most recent column, Ann Coulter wonders how a grieving mother could earn such publicity. "Call me old-fashioned, but a grief-stricken war mother shouldn't have her own full-time PR flack. After your third profile on 'Entertainment Tonight,' you're no longer a grieving mom; you're a C-list celebrity trolling for a book deal or a reality show."

Coulter continues with this insight: "If one dead son means no one can win an argument with you, how about two dead sons? What if the person arguing with you is a mother who also lost a son in Iraq and she's pro-war? Do we decide the winner with a coin toss? Or do we see if there's a woman out there who lost two children in Iraq and see what she thinks about the war?"

It doesn't matter what any one person has to say, whether they've lost kids in the war or not. This war involves all of us, and a successful outcome in the war on terrorism is crucial to our survival. Whether Iraq should be a part of it will be known soon enough.

NARAL Stands Behind Malicious Anti-Roberts Ad

Saturday, August 13, 2005

The slanderous pro-choice lobby is standing behind their recently pulled television spot that links Supreme Court nominee John Roberts to an abortion clinic bomber, according to its official blog.

The commercial NARAL still supports features a female narrator delivering this warning over dramatic piano chords: "Seven years ago, a bomb destroyed a women's 'health clinic' in Birmingham, Alabama. Supreme Court nominee John Roberts filed court briefs supporting violent fringe groups and a convicted clinic bomber."

Wow, Roberts actually filed briefs on behalf of a clinic bomber? Well, no. Not even close. Turns out the brief was written seven years before the clinic was bombed. In it, Roberts stated (and correctly so) that abortion protestors were not violating a specific Civil Rights law when they protested. Seven years later one of those protestors Roberts indirectly spoke for happened to bombed a clinic.

The audacious announcement then ends with this closer: "America can't afford a justice whose ideology leads him to excuse violence against other Americans."

Meanwhile others are saying "America can't afford a justice whose ideology leads him to excuse violence against unborn children."

But regardless of your stance on abortion the NARAL campaign is a total sham devoid of any credibility. As The Daily Show's John Stewart shrewdly points out in this clip, saying John Roberts supports abortion clinic bombers is like saying those who bought Michael Jackson's 1982 Thriller album support child molestation.

It's Called Stalking

Thursday, August 11, 2005

The sad story of a mother in despair:

The mother of a US soldier killed in Iraq warned she would camp outside the White House next month if US President George W. Bush refuses to meet with her here at his ranch.

"I don't understand why he cannot spend ten minutes of his time to talk to somebody whose life he has devastated," said Cindy Sheehan, 48, who has been camped out about a kilometer from the gates of Bush's ranch since Saturday.

"I want Bush to stop using my son's sacrifice to justify the killing," she told reporters, insisting that "he needs to bring the troops home now."

President Bush already spoke with Mrs. Sheehan, in private, which is pretty remarkable considering he was never obligated to, and it must take tough skin to confront a person accusing you of murdering their child.

Bush has already stated an immediate withdrawal is not an option so any further meetings between the two will likely be unproductive.