NOW:53132:USA00949
http://widgets.journalinteractive.com/cache/JIResponseCacher.ashx?duration=5&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdata.wp.myweather.net%2FeWxII%2F%3Fdata%3D*USA00949
43°
H 43° L 24°
Cloudy | 22MPH

This Just In ...

Kevin Fischer is a veteran broadcaster, the recipient of over 150 major journalism awards from the Milwaukee Press Club, the Wisconsin Associated Press, the Northwest Broadcast News Association, the Wisconsin Bar Association, and others. He has been seen and heard on Milwaukee TV and radio stations for over three decades. A longtime aide to state Senate Republicans in the Wisconsin Legislature, Kevin can be seen offering his views on the news on the public affairs program, "InterCHANGE," on Milwaukee Public Television Channel 10, and heard filling in on Newstalk 1130 WISN. He lives with his wife, Jennifer, and their lovely young daughter, Kyla Audrey, in Franklin.

Look out suburbs, here comes Planned Parenthood

Armed with tons of cash, the largest abortion provider in America, Planned Parenthood, is using its huge fortune to branch out, or “rebrand” into mega-clinics that go far beyond the organization’s mission by now targeting affluent suburban women.

The Wall Street Journal reports upbeat marketing is being used to recruit new customers in swanky locations in suburban shopping malls where women can buy books, candles, T-shirts along with their condoms.

Carrying the misleading label of a non-profit, Planned Parenthood is making money hand over fist, using the funds to also help pay for sex education in schools (Their philosophy, in a nutshell is to tell kids to go ahead and have sex as long as they “protect” themselves) and political campaigning.

Even Planned Parenthood allies are upset. Smaller-sized abortion providers fear the national chain-like competition.

Planned Parenthood is now on record not being content to target young, poor girls and women. They’re openly going after anyone with the means to pay for abortions, and that means women in the suburbs.

I dearly hope blossoming Franklin and nearby communities will never allow an organization as morally bankrupt as Planned Parenthood to set up shop.

The Denver Post has re-printed the entire Wall Street Journal article on Planned Parenthood’s all-out blitzkrieg in suburbia.



[Chart]

U.S. Supreme Court rules against death penalty for child rape

Last week, I blogged that the high court was ready to rule on Louisiana's law that allows capital punishment in cases of child rape.

Today, the court shot down the Louisiana law.

I believe the court should have let the law stand and leave the decision about how Louisiana wants to administer the death penalty to Louisiana's elected officials and the people they represent.

Here's the story from the NY Times:


Supreme Court Rejects Death Penalty for Child Rape

By DAVID STOUT


WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled, 5 to 4, on Wednesday that sentencing someone to death for raping a child is unconstitutional, assuming that the victim is not killed.

“The death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the court. He was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

The court overturned a ruling by the Louisiana Supreme Court, which had held that child rape is unique in the harm it inflicts not just upon the victim but on society and that, short of first-degree murder, no crime is more deserving of the death penalty.

Justice Kennedy, while in no way minimizing the heinous nature of child rape, wrote that executing someone for that crime, assuming that the victim was not killed, violates the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment, which draws it meaning from “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.”

“When the law punishes by death, it risks its own sudden descent into brutality, transgressing the constitutional commitment to decency and restraint,” Justice Kennedy wrote.

The relatively small number of states that allow the death penalty for the rape of a child demonstrate a “national consensus” against it, Justice Kennedy wrote. Moreover, he wrote, sentencing someone to death for raping a child could have terrible, unintended consequences, given the years that typically go by between a crime and the execution of the defendant.

“Society’s desire to inflict death for child rape by enlisting the child victim to assist it over the course of years in asking for capital punishment forces a moral choice on the child, who is not of mature age to make that choice,” Justice Kennedy wrote.

The dissenters were Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., generally regarded as the conservative wing of the tribunal.

Justice Alito wrote a dissent lamenting that the majority had ruled out executing someone for raping a child “no matter how young the child, no matter how many times the child is raped, no matter how many children the perpetrator rapes, no matter how sadistic the crime, no matter how much physical or psychological trauma is inflicted, and no matter how heinous the perpetrator’s prior criminal record may be.”

The dissenters rejected the majority’s reasoning that the small number of states allowing execution of child rapists showed a consensus against the custom. Justice Alito noted that some of those state statutes were enacted even while the constitutionality of capital punishment for crimes other than murder was in doubt — thus reflecting a strong feeling in those states that the ultimate penalty was justified for such terrible harm to a child, in the dissenters’ reasoning.

Not since 1964 has anyone been executed in the United States for a crime other than murder, and of about 3,300 inmates now on death row, only two are facing execution for an offense that did not involve a killing — and both of those inmates are in Louisiana. One is the man involved in the case the court decided, Patrick Kennedy, who was sentenced to death for the rape of his 8-year-old stepdaughter and the other is Richard Davis, who was condemned for assaulting a 5-year-old girl.

The case decided on Wednesday, Kennedy v. Louisiana, No. 07-343, does not overturn the defendant’s conviction. Rather, it returns the case to the Louisiana courts for resentencing.

Kennedy v. Louisiana was the latest in a series of cases in which the justices have weighed particular applications of capital punishment. In 2002, for instance, the Supreme Court barred the execution of mentally retarded defendants, and in 2005 it banned the execution of people for crimes they committed before they were 18.

But, as Chief Justice Roberts observed when Kennedy v. Louisiana was argued on April 16: “This is quite different. It is focused on the nature of the offense.” Indeed, a theme that ran through the argument was that, while the death penalty is a punishment like no other, the rape of a child is a crime like no other.

In 1977, the Supreme Court banned death sentences for rape. But the victim in that case, Coker v. Georgia, was a young married woman, and the ruling did not specifically discuss the rape of a child. Over the past 13 years, several states have reacted to public outrage over crimes against children by amending their statutes to make the rape of a child punishable by death.

Louisiana was the first state to do so, amending its death-penalty law in 1995 to include rape of a child under the age of 12. But unlike Louisiana, the other states with similar provisions (Georgia, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas) generally limit the death penalty to defendants previously convicted of sex crimes against children.

Mr. Kennedy’s lawyer, Jeffrey L. Fisher, argued before the justices that it was “at odds with national values” for the state to execute his client, who had never committed such a crime before.

But Justice Scalia pressed Mr. Fisher on that assertion, noting that the recent trend has been “more and more states permitting the capital punishment” for the rape of a child.

As for the case at hand, Juliet L. Clark, an assistant district attorney from Gretna, La., countered that Mr. Kennedy, who weighs 300 pounds, had committed “a very savage rape” that caused serious injuries to his victim. And R. Ted Cruz, the Solicitor General for the State of Texas, who argued as a “friend of the court” on the side of Louisiana, said that Mr. Kennedy (like Mr. Davis, the other child-rape defendant on Louisiana’s death row) had “committed crimes that are just unspeakable.”

Responding to a question from Justice Ginsburg, Ms. Clark said the Louisiana child-rape law could apply regardless of the sex of the criminal or that of the victim.

And in support of her argument that crimes against children have long been viewed with special revulsion, and as deserving of special punishment, Ms. Clark pointed out that the Supreme Court ruled in 1990 that states can make it a crime to possess child pornography even in one’s home.

That ruling, in Osborne v. Ohio, carved out an exception to a 1969 Supreme Court ruling that the Constitution protects the possession of obscene material in the privacy of one’s residence. Justice Byron R. White wrote for the 6-to-3 majority in the Osborne case, reasoning that Ohio was justified in trying to “destroy a market for the exploitative use of children.”

Of the current Supreme Court, only Justices Scalia, Kennedy and Stevens took part in the 1990 Osborne decision. Justices Scalia and Kennedy were in the majority; Justice Stevens joined with Justices William J. Brennan Jr. and Thurgood Marshall in finding the Ohio law to be unconstitutionally broad.

Suddenly, the networks aren't covering Iraq.......hmmmmmmm

A clear demonstration of media bias is showing once again as the surge in Iraq continues to breed success and violence is down dramatically, but the American news media has chosen not to cover Iraq as much as it did when the war was going badly.

Remember 2006, a big national election year? The mainstream media hammered news consumers over and over and over again with one catastrophic story after another.

Democrats won just about every race in sight, carving a tsunami-like path through the coast-to-coast elections.

There’s another big election this year, and coverage of Iraq has diminished greatly. Why? Because the war is going much, much better since the surge was implemented.

When there’s good news, it just doesn’t get covered.

One excuse offered by one network that doesn’t have a single reporter in Iraq is that it‘s just too darn expensive to cover this story.

Sure it is. It was soooooo much cheaper in 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004……

The New York Times is reporting today:


According to data compiled by Andrew Tyndall, a television consultant who monitors the three network evening newscasts, coverage of Iraq has been “massively scaled back this year.” Almost halfway into 2008, the three newscasts have shown 181 weekday minutes of Iraq coverage, compared with 1,157 minutes for all of 2007. The “CBS Evening News” has devoted the fewest minutes to Iraq, 51, versus 55 minutes on ABC’s “World News” and 74 minutes on “NBC Nightly News.” (The average evening newscast is 22 minutes long.)

CBS News no longer stations a single full-time correspondent in Iraq, where some 150,000 United States troops are deployed.

You can bet if the situation was reversed, and the war effort was struggling, suddenly those ABC, CBS, NBC reports would be flooding our living rooms.

This week, there was more positive news coming out of Iraq, but as media watchdog, the Media Research Center reports, only one network, to its credit, saw fit to report the story.

Remember, folks. The more positive stories there are about Iraq, the more they help John McCain.

As we so often do on my blog on stories of this kind, when we get to this point, I ask that all you lefties who foolishly insist that the press is totally, unequivocally, 100% objective stand up, click your heels, and repeat the following refrain:


There is no bias in the media.

There is no bias in the media.

There is no bias in the media.

An old school prank gets honor student in trouble


14-year old Etan Mirenberg
is an honor student involved in lacrosse and football.

He finds himself in trouble, having been suspended from Lynbrook High School in Long Island
.

What did he do to get a suspension of 10 months?

Did he bring a gun to school?

Did he beat up another student?

Was he found with dope?

None of the above.

He gave his Spanish teacher, Sharon Cantante
, a noogie.

Grabbed her forcefully by the neck, put her in a headlock and dug his knuckles into her scalp.

The teacher cried out for him to stop.

He just kept it up, noogie after noogie.

At least, that’s what the school says.

The boy says he gave her a “pat on the head.”

His attorney, yes, attorney (That’s what parents of kids in trouble do nowadays, right? They run out and lawyer up) claims the teacher actually likes to receive noogies and encourages “noogie behavior.”

I don’t think I ever saw Matlock argue that one.

Ethan is 5-foot-3 and 150 pounds. Cantante is 4-foot-11.

On the surface, this sounds a bit extreme: 10 months, an entire school year, for a noogie?

That’s if you believe the student and his parents who hired an attorney because their poor, sweet, innocent Ethan wouldn’t do anything wrong and is being railroaded.

There’s a larger issue at play here.

You’re 14 years old.

You’re a freshman, a freshman in high school.

Not only are you supposed to be afraid of your own shadow, but as an athlete, you’re supposed to set the example for other students.

But most importantly,

You are the student.

She is the teacher.
You’re all of 14.YOU DO NOT GRAB AN ADULT AUTHORITY FIGURE BY THE NECK AND NOOGIE THAT PERSON, OR TOUCH HIM/HER IN ANY MANNER, SHAPE OR FORM…………EVER!

Read more

Whitnall schools, test the kids


The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2002 that public schools can test students in extracurricular activities for drugs.

John Neville of FranklinNOW is reporting that, “Whitnall School District officials have drafted a random drug-testing policy that would be applied to high school students who participate in athletics and extracurricular activities. Up to 25 percent of athletic and extra-curricular participants would be tested annually.

Parents and guardians of tested students would be notified of results. Students with confirmed positive results would be subject to consequences outlined in the school district's athletic and activities code, though they could also appeal the decision.

This is the right move. Students involved in sports and other extracurricular activities are held to a higher standard because they are looked upon by other students as role models and leaders. As a result, they need to exhibit the proper behavior.

There are only so many spots for athletes, cheerleaders, student government, etc. They should be reserved for the best of the best. Random drug tests are nothing to worry about if students keep their noses clean.

Page Tools