Gonzalez Supreme Court Decision Not So Great

A week or so ago, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in favor of a law outlawing the disgusting and evil partial-birth abortion procedure. Pro-life advocates rejoiced, and headlines declared a victory for our cause.

However, writing for RealClearPolitics.com in an editorial posted at FoxNews here, Stephen Warshawsky gives more detail about the opinion authored by liberal justice Anthony Kennedy. There are four (out of nine) conservative justices on the Supreme Court and Kennedy is among the most liberal. He is very pro-choice. Yet he sided with the four conservatives in this case (not that one's opinion on the morality of such a procedure should matter). Why? Warshawsky explains.

What we learn is that Kennedy took the time to outline a large number of situations in which a partial birth abortion really could still be performed, and done so legally. He gives specific details, almost as though he is making suggestions to doctors. The whole thing is disgusting to read. Here is a taste of just one of those examples:

* "The Act excludes most D&Es in which the fetus is removed in pieces, not intact. If the doctor intends to remove the fetus in parts from the outset, the doctor will not have the requisite intent to incur criminal liability." (Slip. Op. at 20-21.) Hence, late term abortions in which the fetus is "disarticulated" — i.e., cut or torn into pieces as it is being removed from the mother's body — do not violate the statute. Even if the prohibited form of partial birth abortion happens to occur during this process, no criminal liability can be imposed because such an outcome was not intended by the doctor. (See Slip. Op. at 24.)

As I said, there are many examples of this kind of thing in the editorial. The conclusion is that the fact that these kinds of gigantic loopholes exist in the law is because it was the only kind of abortion bill that conservatives could get the liberals to help them pass. Liberals won because it's basically a toothless law; conservatives won because they could go back to their constituents and claim success in passing an anti-partial birth abortion law. Our tax dollars at work.

The closing quote of Warshawsky's piece is true and should motivate every conservative in the country -- at a time when we have two very old justices about to retire -- to get out and work hard to get whoever the Republican nominee is, elected:

Unless and until one of the four dissenting justices in Gonzales is replaced by
a reliable conservative judge — which will never happen if the Republican Party
does not win the presidency in 2008 — the Supreme Court "counter-revolution"
long hoped for by political and religious conservatives in this country will not
occur.

Brit Sailors Lambasted

The 15 British Navy and Marine sailors who were nabbed in international waters a few weeks ago by the Iranian Navy have returned home, and have been speaking to the press about their ordeal. It's about what you would expect: they were mistreated and forced to give "confessions" of actually having been in Iranian waters, on camera and under threat of execution.

All that is expected, and by the way is against the Geneva Convention. Has the Left mentioned this?

Mostly sitting out the discussion, though (why I do not know), has been criticism of the British Navy in general, and of these sailors in particular, for having been picked up in the first place.

The setup is that they were in international waters and had just finished inspecting a cargo vessel on its way into Iraq. They were in a couple of inflatable boats, 15 sailors in all. They were preparing to return to their "mother" ship when several Iranian gunboats pulled up and surrounded them, demanding their surrender. They then took the sailors back to Iran and used them as political puppets for two weeks, before finally releasing them - while patting themselves on their back for their magnanimous gesture.

The first thing I thought of at the time was, "how in the world did their support vessels allow them to be taken? Where was the commanding officer of the ship from which these inflatables had launched? Did they not see the Iranian vessels approaching on radar?? If not, why not? and if so, why did they not intercept? I thought I heard one British Navy officer indicate that they had, in fact, seen the blips on the radar and warned the boarding party. Outside of that, they obviously took no action.

Now, surrounding and capturing two military boat crews in international waters is technically an act of war, is it not? Does not this kind of a provocation demand a military response at that moment? Why would the smaller-but-capable British Navy (for centuries the greatest navy in the world), even at the risk of 15 of its sailors, not show up to support the boarding parties with overwhelming firepower? They certainly are militarily capable of doing so.

If this had been the U.S. Navy, those sailors would not have been captured, period. In fact, the Iranian boats would likely have been sunk before they reached those crews. There can be no doubt about this.

Now the criticism is focusing on the comments of the young Brit Captain who was presumably in charge of the crew at that time. His comments were fairly pathetic. Basically he/they decided that to fight back against greater numbers of Iranians would have been suicide, so they surrendered. Colonel Jack Jacobs, a military analyst for MSNBC, was incredibly blunt about this:

"Disgusting". He is right.

As it happens, there are two footnotes to this sordid story. The first is that the Brit's have temporarily suspended cargo vessel inspections in that area. That is at least as pathetic as the whole above story. The second footnote is that a new weapon has started being used successfully against coalition tanks and armored carriers. This weapon is called an "EFP" (Explosively Formed Projectile) and it is manufactured in -- Iran. What a coincidence that this new weapon arrives on the scene right after the Iranians successfully shame Britain into stopping cargo vessel searches. "Disgusting" is right; the resolve of the British?

By the way, an article here discusses the behind-the-scenes wrangling in Iran over this event. In the end, the article suggests that many in the Iranian hierarchy heard that the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz (and its entourage) was steaming toward the Persian Gulf to join the USS Dwight D Eisenhower and the USS John C. Stennis, bring the total of Carrier Strike Groups in the area to 3, and that they pressured Khatamei to release the British prisoners to ward off an American invasion. If true it would prove, once again, that the only thing rogue regimes like this one understand is force. Big surprise.

Disney Now Condones Gay Marriages

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, but just read here how Disney will now be permitting gay couples to get "married" in its theme parks, just like heterosexual couples. Complete with Cinderella pumpkin carriage ride. One has to wonder: Is Walt turning over in his grave?

Apparently someone requested to be able to do this and though it was not permitted, the request made its way up the chain of command and some secular genius appears to have agreed that our society is repressive against gays because we still support the 5,000-year-plus traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. This at Disney, which prides itself on family-friendly entertainment.

The article I read is here. It's fairly stupifying. The money quote from Disney's spokesman is this: "We are not in the business of making judgments about the lifestyle of our guests. We are in the hospitality business and our parks and resorts are open to everyone."

You don't have to necessarily make judgements about a guest's lifestyle, but you also do your society a disservice by actively promoting aberrant lifestyles inside your theme parks for all the world to see. Why is it a good thing for little children to be walking around the Magic Kingdom and come across a gay "commitment ceremony" with two men or two women saying vows to each other? When did this become okay to do? Are you not taking "tolerance" a BIT too far? What exactly is the point of such a ceremony? And what statement are you making about such lifestyles?

This idea that "we don't make judgements" is simply ludicrous. The Left always likes to paint itself as the all-accepting side of the equation, but the reality is that the Left makes harsh judgements about Christians, upon whom this country was built and continues to prosper, every moment. By hosting these kinds of ceremonies, Disney is making a public judgement that Christians and the Judeo-Christian traditions of this country are morally wrong. They are saying that Christians are wrong to oppose homosexuality and, it follows, homosexual marriage ceremonies. They are offending Christians, Jews, and Muslims at a minimum who might happen by such a ceremony in the park. Apparently they do not care. Why such a large and public-relations-driven company would not care about offending the vast majority of its customers is completely beyond me.

My family is a 3-time Disneyland annual passholder family, living 20 minutes from the park in Anaheim. We will not be renewing our passes this year.