ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Is it too much to ask for Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States to stay awake during oral arguments?

Shouldn't that be a minimum requirement?

That's what the Senate Judiciary Committee should have grilled John Roberts and Samuel Alito on -- Can you keep from napping when you're bored out of your mind?

I suppose Roberts and Alito proved they met that standard by staying alert during all the pontificating and grandstanding that they had to sit through at their confirmation hearings.

Definitely. Staying awake is a crucial quality if one is to be considered fit to sit on the highest court in the land.

WASHINGTON -- A key Supreme Court justice said Wednesday that Texas Republicans appeared to hurt minority voters when they redrew congressional boundaries that helped the GOP entrench its power in Congress.

But despite Justice Anthony M. Kennedy's misgivings, it did not appear there was broad support on the high court to throw out the entire map promoted by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas to help Republicans win six more seats.

Justices also did not seem ready to bar states from drawing their boundaries more than once a decade.

The court took up four appeals that raised complicated questions about voter rights both under the Constitution and federal election law.

This is an important case, but not important enough to keep Ruth Bader Ginsburg from taking a snooze.

The Supreme Court had put the Texas cases on the fast track, scheduling an unusually long two-hour afternoon session.

The subject matter was extremely technical, and near the end of the argument Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dozed in her chair. Justices David Souter and Samuel Alito, who flank the 72-year-old, looked at her but did not give her a nudge.

I don't care how technical the subject matter was, this wasn't nap time.

Maybe Ginsburg was drunk. Yeah, that's it. She had a three martini lunch and she was sleeping it off. Souter and Alito didn't nudge her because they feared waking her. They know that she's an angry drunk.

Sound plausible?

No doubt if Scalia had been the sleeper, libs would be coming up with that type of explanation.

I think that Ginsburg nodding off during arguments is the surest sign yet that the libs are steeped in a Culture of Sleepiness.

Say "Goodnight," Ruthie...

Mr. Feingold Pouts in Washington

Thankfully, the Senate got its act together and decided not to hand terrorists a victory by letting the Patriot Act expire.

With its renewal, assuming the House approves the Act next week, we have a better chance of maintaining the U.S. as a terror-free zone.

Accommodations were included to assuage concerns that the Act gave the government license to hack away at American civil liberties.

What's not to love?

If you're reckless on national security issues and opportunistic like Russ Feingold, there's plenty.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate on Thursday gave its blessing to the renewal of the USA Patriot Act after adding new privacy protections designed to strike a better balance between civil liberties and the government's power to root out terrorists.

The 89-10 vote marked a bright spot in President Bush's troubled second term as his approval ratings dipped over the war in Iraq and his administration's response to Hurricane Katrina. Renewing the act, Bush and congressional Republicans said, was key to preventing more terror attacks in the United States.

Can AP put out a report that manages to mention President Bush without bringing up Iraq and Katrina?

When it reports on this year's White House Easter Egg Roll, I predict that the story will somehow include a reference to the "troubled" Bush Presidency, Iraq, and Katrina.

Happy Easter! Power hungry Bush has destroyed the world!

Bush applauded the Senate for overcoming "partisan attempts to block its passage." The House was expected to approve the two-bill package next week and send it to the president, who would sign it before 16 provisions expire March 10.

"This bill will allow our law enforcement officials to continue to use the same tools against terrorists that are already used against drug dealers and other criminals, while safeguarding the civil liberties of the American people," Bush said in a statement from India.

Critics held their ground. A December filibuster led by Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., and joined by several libertarian-leaning Republicans, forced the Bush administration to agree to modest new curbs on the government's power to probe library, bank and other records.

Yes, it was in mid-December when Harry Reid proudly proclaimed, "We killed the Patriot Act."

What a great moment for Dems and RINOs that was!

Republicans need to remind Americans about the December filibuster, as well as Feingold's dance on the Senate floor yesterday.

Feingold insisted those new protections are cosmetic.

"Americans want to defeat terrorism and they want the basic character of this country to survive and prosper," he said. "They want both security and liberty, and unless we give them both _ and we can if we try _ we have failed."

Of course, Russ is still whining. His support among the radical Left is based on Russ' relentless, albeit groundless, rants.

He can't let them down because he knows that they will savage him if he concedes to common sense.

Some lawmakers who voted for the package acknowledged deep reservations about the power it would grant to any president.

"Our support for the Patriot Act does not mean a blank check for the president," said Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who voted to pass the bill package. "What we tried to do on a bipartisan basis is have a better bill. It has been improved."

Once again, Reid proves himself to be a dithering, irresolute dolt.

I say it often because I can't say it enough.

Reid is the leader of the MINORITY for a reason.

The people voted to keep MAJORITY status out of the hands of the likes of Reid. They've rejected the Dems.

...For now, Bush and his Republican allies savored a significant victory. For months, their tough-on-terror image has been tarnished by the revelation that the president authorized a secret domestic wiretapping program. The report in December gave Democrats ammunition for their charge that the Bush administration had run amok in its zeal to root out terrorists.

The terrorist surveillance program has been misrepresented consistently by libs and their Old Media mouthpieces. Naturally, an AP story would continue to misrepresent the program and paint the Bush Administration as running amok.

Same old, same old.


With the help of some Republicans, they blocked a vote on whether to renew the law before 16 provisions expired on Dec. 31.

GOP leaders were unable to break the gridlock, so Congress opted instead to extend the deadline twice while negotiations continued. In the end, the White House and the Republicans broke the stalemate by crafting a second measure that would curb some powers of law enforcement officials seeking information. Both will be sent as a package to Bush.

An extension was necessary because Dems postured and played politics.

They knew that they would suffer if they held out against the Patriot Act for too long. They stalled just long enough to appease the wacko Left, but most Dems never intended to "kill" it.

Only the leftiest of the Left want to protect the rights of terrorists in exchange for putting Americans at greater risk of 9/11-type attacks.

...The "no" votes came from Jim Jeffords, I-Vt., and Feingold, Byrd and seven other Senate Democrats: Daniel Akaka of Hawaii, Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, Tom Harkin of Iowa, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Carl Levin of Michigan, Patty Murray of Washington and Ron Wyden of Oregon.

Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, did not vote.

Pay attention liberal fringe of the Democratic Party.

Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Joe Biden, and Evan Bayh voted "yes."

These potential 2008 presidential candidates betrayed you today, but don't worry.

You'll always have Feingold.

Radical Russ

Could Russ Feingold do more than he's already doing to suck up to the radical Left?

I suppose, but he seems to be pushing it to extremes as it is.

Russ went down kamikaze-style in the Senate on Wednesday, as the Patriot Act was virtually guaranteed renewal before it expires on March 10.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Sen. Russ Feingold lost his bid to filibuster the USA Patriot Act Wednesday. But that didn't stop the Wisconsin Democrat from reading from the U.S. Constitution during Senate debate, a tactic used in previous filibusters.

Feingold, the Senate's most passionate Patriot Act critic, was just getting started. When he returned to the floor, he also read aloud from eight state resolutions, four local Wisconsin resolutions and several newspaper editorials that expressed concerns about the legislation.

Note that the AP account calls Russ "passionate," rather than obstructive.

His actions are portrayed as heroic, rather than potentially dangerous to the security of the American people.

"In these final hours before the Patriot Act is reauthorized, I want my colleagues to hear the voices of the citizens of this country," he said. "These voices cannot be stifled by votes taken here."

...Feingold frequently cleared his throat and drank from glasses of water as he made his way through the resolutions and editorials, speaking in an uncharacteristically flat tone of voice. The four Wisconsin resolutions were from Douglas County, Eau Claire, Madison and Milwaukee.

Well, that must have been impressive. Is a remake of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington in the works? He may have been auditioning.

By the way, those "voices" of the four resolutions from Wisconsin came out of liberal hotbeds, not the red counties.

In Douglas County, 65.71% voted for Kerry. In Eau Claire, it was 54.32%. In Dane County where Madison is, 66.09% voted for Kerry, and in Milwaukee it was 61.82%.

Russ didn't speak out for the people of Ozaukee, Dodge, Brown, and Calumet Counties -- Bush country in Wisconsin. Apparently, he was willing to allow their voices to be stifled.

In short, Russ cherry-picked.

But his passion returned as he summed up his remarks:

"This was our opportunity to respond to the voices of those legislatures and the people of those states, to their heartfelt concerns about the degradation of their civil liberties," said Feingold, a potential presidential candidate.


Personally, I found the slaughter of 3000 people on 9/11 to be degrading.

In terms of heartfelt concerns, I don't ever want to see anything remotely like that happen ever again. I'm concerned with protecting the lives of Americans. Of course, I care about civil liberties. However, I believe that there are sufficient safeguards in place to uphold our freedoms while the government goes after terrorists bent on destroying those freedoms.

His voice rising, he said, "We're capable, in this Congress and in this government and in this country, of getting the terrorists and stopping the terrorists, but also protecting the fundamental rights on which this country was founded."

A rising voice -- I'll bet it was quite a performance.

Russ says we should be able to get the bad guys without stripping Americans of civil liberties. He's right.

We're capable of it and we're doing it successfully, in spite of his crusade to prevent that from happening.

Earlier in the day, the Senate voted 84-15 to end Feingold's filibuster (it takes 60 votes to end a filibuster). That had effectively ended Feingold's months-long blocking of the Patriot Act's renewal.

"Blocking" is a good word. Russ is an obstructionist, a weak on terror obstructionist.

"The rules of the Senate have changed since the days of Jimmy Stewart and 'Mr. Smith goes to Washington,'" Feingold said. "One senator, no matter how strongly he or she feels, cannot single-handedly stop a bill when 60 or more of his or her colleagues are dead set on passing it."

OK, we already knew that Russ has fantasies of being Jimmy Stewart.

Some politicians read Churchill for inspiration. Russ watches Mr. Smith Goes to Washinton.

In 2001, Feingold was that "one senator," as he cast the sole vote against renewing the Patriot Act. But by last December, he had convinced all but two Democrats, along with a handful of Republicans, to block renewal of the law. They had come to share his concerns about the anti-terrorism law's impact on civil liberties.

But the White House and Republican leaders were able to peel off opponents by including limits in the government's power to compel information from people targeted in terror probes.

That sounds like Republicans did something sinister. Not so.

What happened was Dems realized that it was not it in their best interests to kill the Patriot Act and appear soft on terror, especially after adequate controls to protect civil liberties were included.

Feingold asserted that the restrictions on government power would be virtually meaningless in practice.

Of course, that's what he asserted. He's lapping up the adoration of the far Left loons. Russ certainly doesn't want to drop the issue that has endeared him to the Lefties.

This is interesting. Craig Gilbert of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel writes that Russ clicks with blog readers.

In an online poll last month on the nation's most widely read liberal blog (DailyKos. com), Feingold led the Democratic presidential field, picked by 30 percent of the 11,000-plus people who visited the Web site and voted.

"He definitely is the most popular Democrat among the 'netroots,'" said liberal blogger Chris Bowers, referring to activists in the party who engage in online politics.

Bowers' blog (MyDD.com) did its own online poll in early February, and Feingold led that as well.

...At a time when the practice of politics online is growing, Feingold clearly sees the "netroots" as integral to the sort of long-shot campaign he may be waging against more established Democrats.

In an interview last fall, Feingold political aide George Aldrich said the Internet "has a huge impact in terms of leveling the playing field for the candidates that don't have huge financial networks, but can develop one pretty quickly if the netroots community gets behind them."

To cultivate such support, Feingold has an Internet coordinator on his political staff, consults with a team of Internet advisers, has held conference calls with Democratic-leaning bloggers, offers downloadable video podcasts, and allows supporters to vote online for which congressional candidates should receive contributions from Feingold's political committee.

Feingold also frequently posts his own comments on liberal blogs, blasting the Bush administration and accusing his own party of timidity on such issues as the Iraq war and the USA Patriot Act.

That explains a lot.

It should be noted that Russ is by no means faking his liberal status just to appeal to the radical Lefties in his quest for popularity. He's a dyed-in-the-wool lib. No question about it. However, his extremist rhetoric is becoming far more extreme.

He may be a cult figure among the Daily Kos crowd, but that won't get him anywhere in a national race.

"I sincerely think this is going to transform politics. It's almost a miracle," Feingold said of online activism in an interview last fall.

The Internet and blogs are miracle workers?

Time will tell. If I were Russ, I wouldn't be waiting for any miracles.

I sincerely think it would take a miracle for Feingold to find himself on the Dem ticket in 2008.
_________________________________

Read Russ' statement "On Opposition to Ending Debate on the Patriot Act."

There's an audio link as well.

That's entertainment!

Terri's Day

Kevin Fobbs of News Talk 1400 WDTK is leading a national pledge drive: Terri's Day -- A Celebration of the Culture of Life.

On February 16, Terri Schiavo's father, Bob Schindler, was a guest on The Kevin Fobbs Show. He announced the "launch of an initiative to annually honor the memory of Terri Schiavo, as well as celebrate the 'Culture of Life,' by gathering pledges from every state in the nation to respect the Culture of Life. "

What is Terri's Day?
It is the celebration of the culture of life as well as celebrating the woman who sacrificed her life for this cause.

What does the preservation of the culture of life mean?
To take a stand and protect life. Life is precious and we should treat it that way.

Why are we holding this event?
To celebrate Terri Schiavo and to support making a living will, highlight media responsibility, and encourage individuals and families to get involved in culture of life activities and events.

Why is celebrating the culture of life so important to our society?
Pope John Paul II talked of the culture of life over the culture of death and that he felt that it was important specifically to draw America’s attention to the culture of life. We are celebrating to make people aware that what happened to Terri could happen to anyone, and through awareness we can honor Terri and ourselves by signing a pledge to support culture of life activities and events.

Why celebrate Terri's day now?
The anniversary of Terri’s death is March 31st and we are honoring her life. Her legacy has taught us how to value life as God’s precious gift.

How does this celebration affect my community?
This celebration is a lesson to teach communities how to value its citizens, neighbors, the disabled, loved ones, and family and friends. Terri’s legacy would have us all volunteering with the Special Olympics, helping out in hospital wards or nursing homes, or otherwise becoming involved by breaking the cycle of uncaring and lack of consideration for people who are differently-abled.

How can I be a part of Terri's Day?
Volunteer to help with Terri’s Day event preparation, and day-of-event activities, or become a sponsor or sign the pledge. For more information, see KevinFobbs.com

Is this a political issue?
This is not a right or left issue, but a human issue. People on both sides of the isle support this issue.

How can I sponsor Terri's Day?
Fill out a sponsor sheet and donate to Terri's foundation through National Urban Policy Action Council (NuPac).

Will the day become a national day?
Yes!
_________________________________

Download the Hold the Date flyer to be able to share information with your friends or supporters of a Terri’s Day – A Celebration of the Culture of Life event.

Download and sign the Pledge to honor Terri’s memory as well as honor what former Pope John Paul II called the “Culture of Life” by pledging six simple things:

1.Obtain a Living Will – View The Will to Live Project at www.terrisfight.org

2. Encourage your state legislature and governor officially to establish March 31st as "Terri’s Day"

3. Encourage Hollywood and the media to embrace Culture of Life stories and movie themes

4. Support families to spend time pursuing “Culture of Life” events that honor some aspect of the culture of life

5. Support establishment of state network of professional volunteers to assist Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation in each state

6. Support the Schindler Schiavo Foundation to establish a health care facility for brain injured patients

View the Resolution of Support which will be circulated to legislators and governors in every state so they support designating March 31st as Terri’s Day.

See the information sent to the news in the Press Release.

LAST BUT NOT LEAST! To get involved yourself you can do one of three things for now: You can host a Home Party to Celebrate the Culture of Life and raise funds to help make Terri’s Day a reality, you or your organization or firm can purchase an Event Sponsorship Package at a variety of package levels, or you can Volunteer to help put together the Terri’s Day event or even volunteer on the day of the event only.

Battlefield Mississippi

Another state legislature has joined South Dakota in asserting its right to make law, clashing with the LAW that the Supreme Court WROTE via Roe v. Wade.

JACKSON, Miss. -- A Mississippi House committee voted Tuesday to ban most abortions in the state - an unexpected move that left abortion opponents grappling to stake out a position on a proposal that could prompt a lengthy court battle.

The only abortions allowed under the bill would be if the life of the pregnant woman were in danger. There would be no abortions allowed in cases of pregnancy caused by rape or incest.

...House Public Health Chairman Steve Holland, D-Plantersville, persuaded his committee to put the abortion restrictions into a Senate bill that was originally written to require that sonograms be performed early in pregnancy so the woman could hear a fetal heartbeat.

Yeah, that heartbeat thing really bugs pro-abortion activists.

A heartbeat equals life. It requires one to acknowledge that the fetus is alive.

...Mississippi already has some of the strictest abortion laws in the nation, requiring a 24-hour waiting period in all cases and parental consent before a minor can have a pregnancy terminated.

Imagine.

A "strict" abortion law requires a woman to wait for 24 hours before she chooses to destroy a life. Only 24 hours. That's strict.

Libs don't complain about waiting periods to purchase guns. But when it comes to waiting to do away with a fetus possessing unique qualities -- a creation that no other individual has ever had and never will have again -- that developing baby can be quickly disposed of without a period for reflection.

Is it really asking too much to wait for just 24 hours? How many hours make up the average lifetime? You do the math.

A "strict" abortion law requires that a parent must agree to allow his or her child to undergo a major medical procedure. What seems like a completely reasonable and appropriate measure to me is deemed too restrictive by abortion proponents.

A favorite protest sign of pro-abortion activists is "Keep your hands off my uterus." The argument is always made that the government should stay out of the bedroom and the doctor's office.

In terms of privacy, shouldn't the government also stay out of the family room? Does the government have a place at the kitchen table?

I think that removing parental involvement infringes on the parents' rights.

By law, they are responsible to care for their minor children; yet abortion advocates demand that medical information about their children be withheld from parents. It's inconsistent.

Another inconsistency in terms of privacy that the pro-death brigade has failed to reconcile became glaringly evident when Terri Schiavo was being starved and dehydrated to death.

They said that the government should not have been involved in the case. It was the family's private business.

Opportunistic Dr. Howard Dean claimed President Bush and Senator Frist, etc., overstepped when they acted to give Terri's parents a chance to continue their efforts to prevent Michael Schiavo from ordering her feeding tube to be removed.

If they are to be consistent, shouldn't these pro-death people also be troubled that the government is stepping into the family's business in situations where a minor girl seeks an abortion without her parents' consent?

...Susan Hill is president of the National Women's Health Organization, which runs the only abortion clinic still operating in Mississippi. She said she wasn't surprised by lawmakers' move.

"What took them so long? I thought they'd be ahead of South Dakota," Hill said.

She said her organization will battle attempts to put more restrictions on abortion in Mississippi.

"We're realists," Hill said. "We know we're in a state where the Legislature is anti-choice."

Hill and her pro-abortion cohorts are not realists.

If Hill were a realist, she'd admit the realities of fetal development.

She wouldn't be afraid to allow girls and women to hear their little ones' heartbeats before they choose to silence them forever.

She'd acknowledge that a fetus is a GENETICALLY complete human being.

If Hill were a realist, she'd call her mission what it is -- pro-abortion, not pro-choice.
____________________________________

AP reports:

Republican Gov. Haley Barbour said Wednesday that he likely would sign a bill to ban most abortions in Mississippi if it's approved by lawmakers.

...Responding to questions about whether he'd sign a bill with no exceptions for rape or incest, Barbour said: "It hasn't gotten to my desk yet. When one gets there, we'll find out, and I suspect I'll sign it. But I would certainly rather it come to my desk with an exception for rape and incest. I think that's consistent with the opinion of the vast majority of Mississippians and Americans."

GORBACHEV ENDED THE COLD WAR

So, Gorbachev ended the Cold War.

Is that news to you? It's news to me.

MOSCOW (AP) -- Mikhail Gorbachev's magnetic brown eyes shine as brightly as ever, and he speaks with the same passion about the collapse of the Soviet Union as he prepares to mark his 75th birthday on Thursday.

The man who ended the Cold War and launched democratic reforms that broke the repressive Soviet regime continues to enjoy the limelight, globe-trotting on behalf of his political foundation and environmental group and taking part in charity projects.

The AP writer of this report, Vladimir Isachenkov, seems to have a crush on Gorby.

"Magnetic brown eyes shine." Yes, he appears to be under the spell of the former leader.

Isachenkov makes it sound like we should expect to see globe-trotter, limelight-seeking Gorbachev chatting with Joan Rivers on the red carpet at the Oscars on Sunday.

At a meeting with foreign reporters this week, Gorbachev blamed the United States for losing a chance to build a safer and more stable world following the Soviet demise.

"Ending the Cold War was given as a gift" to the United States, but it only strengthened its arrogance and unilateralism, he said. "The winner's complex is worse than an inferiority complex, because it's harder to cure."

Gorby claims that the USSR ended the Cold War as a gift to the U.S.

That is such a load!

What is he talking about?

The U.S. isn't arrogant.

The former Soviet Union was arrogant and that is why it fell apart under Gorby's watch.

In terms of a "winner's complex," the millions of people who were freed from Soviet oppression were the greatest winners in the implosion of the USSR.

I think Gorby's weird lashing out is indicative of an inferiority complex on his part, or senility.

While praised worldwide, Gorbachev has been reviled at home, where a majority of Russians hold him responsible for the Soviet breakup and subsequent economic chaos that impoverished millions.

He won a mere 1 percent of the vote in the 1996 presidential election; he hasn't run since.

Many still accuse him of caving in to the West. Anatoly Utkin, a senior researcher with the U.S. and Canada Institute, chastised Gorbachev for drastically cutting Soviet nuclear arsenals and agreeing to Germany's reunification without getting anything in return.

"Gorbachev didn't know the West. And the West didn't trust the nobility of his motives and coldly used him," Utkin said in a column in the weekly Argumenty i Fakty.

Gorbachev's record as a man who gave freedom to his land also was tarnished by some darker pages.

Blah, blah, blah.

St. Gorbachev gave freedom to his land. Sure he did.

I don't think he gave it. The people took it.

The Soviet Bloc crumbled because tyrannical regimes weren't the people's choice.

Poor noble Gorby was misunderstood by his people and the West exploited him.

What a martyr!

Gorbachev still bristles when he talks about the betrayal by his communist lieutenants who launched the August 1991 coup that briefly ousted him. The coup collapsed within days, encouraging the Soviet republics to declare independence and shattering Gorbachev's hopes of keeping them together in a looser federation.

This AP reporter sounds like a PR agent for Gorbachev. His spin is classic Soviet Union disinformation.

Gorby was betrayed, and that betrayal ultimately destroyed the USSR.

Are we supposed to regret that Gorby couldn't keep the Soviet republics together?

The liberal, "hate America" elite probably regret it.

I don't.


Former Russian President Boris Yeltsin, who celebrated his 75th birthday in February, recently accused Gorbachev of having advance knowledge of the coup and waiting it out to see who would win.

"Yeltsin is a liar," Gorbachev snapped, rejecting the allegation as "sheer nonsense."

Looking back at the turmoil that preceded his resignation, Gorbachev says he has never regretted his refusal to turn to military force to prevent the Soviet collapse. He said that sometimes his "hands were itching" to use force, but he realized that could have led to a civil war and even a global nuclear conflict.


This good man deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.

Oops! He already was awarded the prize in 1990, because he "helped to bring the Cold War to an end."

Did Ronald Reagan get the Nobel Peace Prize for his role?

NO, only Gorbachev.

Obviously, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has a very limited perspective on how world events at the end of the 20th century played out.

Despite his age, Gorbachev seems as lively and energetic as before, giving the impression of genuinely enjoying life. "I like good dishes from all over the world. I have tasted them all and I still can't name a favorite," he said.

He rarely touches a fiction book, but reads a lot of history, philosophy and political science.

"I also watch a lot of movies, mostly on TV. I have gotten sick of (American) blockbusters and love Russian movies," he said.

I guess there's no chance of seeing Gorby's "magnetic brown eyes" shining at the Oscars.

Too bad.

Lying NOW

The National Organization for Women is a radical Left, pro-death, anti-Bush group. It makes no attempt to disguise itself as moderate or reasonable. Its extremist agenda becomes evident with just a quick glance of the website.

There is a link to The Truth About George, a site that demonizes all things Bush.

An introduction to that site reads:

The Truth About George has diligently documented the misdeeds of Bush and his cronies since 2002, revealing the cold hard facts about an administration bent on rewarding big corporations and the rich, turning back the clock on women's rights and civil rights, and promoting a U.S. empire abroad. Bush's second term promises to be even worse — with an escalation of attacks on reproductive rights, the Constitution, the courts, civil rights, the economy, social security and global relations.

NOW is definitely not a non-partisan group.

Obviously, its mission is not purely to advocate for women. It has a set political agenda that goes beyond women's issues; but I digress.

In response to the Supreme Court's ruling regarding abortion protesters, Kim Gandy, president of NOW, released this statement.

Supreme Court Ends Protection Against Abortion Clinic Violence

What a stupid title! It's completely false. The Supreme Court did no such thing.

Today the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that could add to the increasing difficulty women face in obtaining reproductive health services. If the Court's 8-0 decision in Scheidler, et al., v. National Organization for Women (NOW), et al. and Operation Rescue v. NOW, et al. ushers in a return to clinic violence in the United States, NOW stands ready to fight in every jurisdiction.

You know the libs are going to scream that this is the result of Bush packing the Court with far Right ideologues trying to overturn Roe v. Wade.

That, of course, is ludicrous. In other words, exactly what you'd expect to get from Gandy.

The ruling was 8-0.

Justice Alito did not participate.

It was a unanimous decision.

Ultra-lib wacko Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the woman who recommended that the age of consent for purposes of statutory rape be lowered from 16 to 12, voted along with Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and John Roberts.

For two decades, NOW has pursued every legal strategy, including three Supreme Court cases, to stave off the violent attacks that gripped this country from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s. This case, brought under the Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, was one of the most successful long-term strategies. The federal jury found unanimously that these defendants had engaged in a nationwide criminal enterprise to close women's health clinics through extortion, violence and threats of violence, and specified over a hundred acts in furtherance of their efforts.

The filing of this case and the resulting injunction, which protected clinics nationwide, contributed to the dramatic reduction in clinic violence that we have witnessed in recent years, and we will continue to use every legal tool at our disposal to protect women's right to obtain abortion services.

This case was never about protests or pickets—it was about violence and extortion. But without strong protections against clinic assaults, the legal right to abortion could become meaningless. If women are too terrified to walk into clinics and healthcare providers are too terrified to keep their doors open, then we will have lost the fight for reproductive freedom even with Roe v. Wade still on the books.

Gandy doesn't know what this case is about.

The New York Times writes:

"Congress did not intend to create a free-standing physical violence offense in the Hobbs Act," Justice Breyer said in the opinion, Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, No. 04-1244.

He noted that the passage in 1994 of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, a federal law "aimed directly at the type of abortion clinic violence and other activity at issue in this litigation," suggested that Congress did not believe the Hobbs Act was available for that purpose.


An Associated Press account further explains:

Social activists and the AFL-CIO had sided with abortion demonstrators in arguing that lawsuits and injunctions based on the federal extortion law could be used to thwart their efforts to change public policy or agitate for better wages and working conditions.

Gandy's attempt to mislead the public is unfortunate. She does nothing for her cause by misrepresenting the facts. She just serves to discredit herself with her silly distortions.

Her statement continues:

We will not let that happen. NOW helped to draft and enact the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act in 1994, and we will use that law to its fullest extent in pursuing those who would use violent means to prevent women from making their own reproductive decisions. As Susan Hill (president of the National Women's Health Organization and owner of the two clinics that joined NOW in the lawsuit) said, "[w]e cannot allow anti-abortion extremists to take this decision as a signal to once again increase violent activity aimed at clinics and clinic staff."

How dramatic!

Hill warns that the decision means that anti-abortion activists are being invited to commit crimes against woman seeking abortions.

That's ridiculous!

I can't take her seriously.

In the coming weeks, our attorneys will make available a FACE kit that local clinics and lawyers can use to enforce the FACE act in their communities. We must do whatever is necessary to protect doctors and patients, or our legal right to abortion will be a hollow shell.

Here, Gandy really goes over the edge.

"[O]ur legal right to abortion will be a hollow shell."

This ruling has done nothing to alter the legal right of a woman to terminate her pregnancy, have a fetus removed, kill her baby -- define it any way you want.

The only thing that is hollow is Gandy's statement.

Joseph Scheidler, Randall Terry and other leaders of the self-described "pro-life mafia" had vowed to stop abortion "by any means necessary," and the ensuing attacks included arson, bombings, violent blockades, death threats and even murder. By vacating the injunction on narrow, technical grounds, the Supreme Court sided today with thugs and bullies, not peaceful protesters.

The Supreme Court did not side with "thugs." It correctly interpreted the law.

As Justice Breyer wrote, the Hobbs Act, an old law banning extortion, did not apply to abortion protesters.

Moreover, in 1994, Congress enacted the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act to protect women seeking to terminate a pregnancy, destroy a growing fetus, kill a baby, end a life -- define it any way you wish.

Unlike what Gandy and the NOW extremists would like you to believe, the Supreme Court did not end "protection against abortion clinic violence."

That's a lie.

She and others echoing her views are lying.

The pro-abortion crowd is very good at it.

For instance, they like to call a developing fetus just a mass of tissue.

The BBC website has a page entitled, "In pictures: Watch me grow," that challenges that assertion.

Look at these images of "tissue."



In the United States, 88% of abortions are performed in the first twelve weeks of pregnancy.

This fetus, at ten weeks gestation, "can move her arms and legs with a range of movements that are fluid and supple."

"Fetuses as young as eleven weeks have been seen with their thumbs in their mouths."

When I look at these photos, I wonder how the pro-abortion crowd manages to dismiss the facts about fetal development.

A fetus in the latter weeks of the first trimester is not a glob of formless cells nor is it a blob of tissue. It is a growing human being.

Nonetheless, Gandy claims, "the Supreme Court sided today with thugs and bullies."

I really don't see why she and other pro-abortion extremists are so bent out of shape about Tuesday's ruling.

The fact is there are measures in place to protect women wishing to abort their children. More importantly to NOW and its agenda, the right to end a life, the right that they hold so dear, remains untouched.

From that perspective, one could conclude that the Supreme Court did side with thugs and bullies -- on January 22, 1973.