Wednesday, March 22, 2006

"Justice Delayed... justice denied" as the old proverb goes. I started reading Maggie4life on several other blogs, mainly on Crystal Clear, as we discussed the case of Terri Schindler Schaivo. In, I remember Terri - the countdown begins, the Aussie lass explains how she came to follow the case from Down-Under. Her words are haunting, especially these:

What is even more shocking, though, is the way in which even to this day, almost 12 months after the feeding tube was forcibly removed on the orders of her guardian, Terri Schindler remains a person who cries out for justice. Even from the grave, Terri's voice continues to cry out for justice against all who were complicit in the decision-making that brought about her death.

This is where I am on this case. Unfortunately justice is still denied Terri while her widdowed "husband" gets face-time with Matt Lauer, according to Crystal who does a masterful job of fisking the...#%@&# (sorry I don't like using the language I was thinking.

Monday, March 20, 2006

But Wait! there's More!

The Dawn Patrol is reporting about Pedophiles' Pal Planned Parenthood Golden Gate's latest venture into tackiness. The same people who created "Superhero for Choice" has hit upon a new inducement: chance at a free iPod. Here is the copy, straight from their own website(look under "Did You Know?"):

You can win an iPod!
Come in for an appointment at any of our 8 health centers before April 30th and enter to win an iPod.
Make an appointment today!

I guess their justification is that their clientel represents a demographic that otherwise cannot afford iPods. Some lucky girl can now win one and be spared the stigma of possibly getting caught stealing one. An aborted child seems such a small price to pay, don't you agree?

No, I do not agree at all. Have they so trivialized human life that that the life of an unborn child is a "small price" to pay for a chance at an iPod? Apparently so.
Curt Jester has a great possible play list for the PP iPod

Saturday, March 18, 2006

I hope this Hastens Their Demise

Michelle Malkin: MOUSSAOUI'S BUDDIES: U.S. AIRLINES? is a more than startling look at whay may have happened in the Moussaoui case. As you may have heard by now, the judge at the Zacarius Moussoui trial has gutted the prosecution case for the death penalty against Mousaoui. Allegations have come to light that the Transportation Security Agency lawyer who "coached" prosecution witnesses was acting to help two government bailout recipients, United Airlines and American Airlines. It seems that undermining the prosecution's case helps out their defense in a separate civil suit. According to the AP
If this is true then these two airlines deserve to become history. And I don't mean the kind of history you look back on with pride. I also think those who hatched this scheme should have to share a cell with Moussaoui himself. I feel for the many people who would lose jobs as a result of this scenario, but would they really want to work for such industrial whores?

Thursday, March 16, 2006

Welcome Michelle Malkin Readers

Ceude mille failte(or for those of you not so blessed as to have any Scots blood in ye, "A hundred-thousand welcomes") to those of you thatMichelle Malkin sent over. Thank you greatly, Michelle.

She needs to get More Sleep...

...preferably when court is in session. Seems Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was in Cape Town, South Africa last month giving a speech titled, "A Decent Respect for the Opinions of [Human]Kind. Too bad she apparently does not have a decent respect for the Constitution she was sworn to uphold.
In Her Honor's words:
To a large extent, I believe, the critics in Congress and in the media misperceive how and why U.S. courts refer to foreign and international court decisions. We refer to decisions rendered abroad, it bears repetition, not as controlling authorities, but for their indication, in Judge Wald's words, of "common denominators of basic fairness governing relationships between the governors and the governed."

The purpose of the SC is NOT to determine what is "fair". It is to determine if a given act violates the Constitution or not. Not what the justice wants the Constitution to say, but what it says. If this is her thought process, I hope she sleeps while cases are argued in front of her more often.