When the Terri Schiavo story became national news in mid-March, a curious subplot revolved around a talking-points memo that was reportedly distributed to Republican senators. Reported first by ABC News, and then by the Washington Post, the existence of a memo, which made crass -- and ill-advised, it turns out -- assertions that the Schiavo story was a political winner for Republicans, gave Democrats ammunition in their insistence that the GOP's involvement in the right-to-die case was more about politics than morality. The document, which described the case as "a great political issue" that would excite "the pro-life base" and be "a tough issue for Democrats," became an embarrassment to Republicans, especially when subsequent polls showed the Schiavo controversy to be an across-the-board loser for Republicans.

Right-wing bloggers, however, thought they smelled a rat, and in an almost laughable effort to connect nonexistent dots, they set off on an "investigation" and concluded the memo was likely a farce from the get-go, surmising that a wily, unknown Democratic dirty trickster had gotten a willing press to report that the memo came from the Republican side.

Led into battle by Power Line, which posted over a dozen conspiratorial-sounding posts about the memo, bloggers seized on its misspellings as proof of deception and, relying on echo chamber tips from GOP staffers on the Hill, became more and more sure in their pursuit. "Is This the Biggest Hoax Since the Sixty Minutes Story?" a March 21 Power Line headline asked. Then, on March 30, came "Talking Points Story Goes Up in Smoke." (Time magazine honored Power Line as Blog of the Year in 2004 for its role in the CBS scandal.)

But then, late on Wednesday, the Washington Post reported that the author of the memo had stepped forward: An aide to Republican Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida admitted he had written it. Now the facts are clear: The memo is real, and it was written by the Republican side and distributed by the Republican side, making it a GOP talking-points memo.

[snip]

Writing in Rupert Murdoch's Weekly Standard, Power Line's John Hinderaker insisted the memo just didn't add up, that it couldn't have been written by a Republican because it was just so ... inappropriate: "These political observations are not 'talking points' at all. These are comments on political strategy which would be out of place in argument on the Senate floor, or in a media interview." That's a basis on which to launch a conspiracy theory?

[snip]

Aside from their sloppy speculation, the episode also revealed the cloud of arrogance that hangs around bloggers from the CBS Memogate crowd. Indeed, this week right-wing blogger Michelle Malkin, busy peddling another false story -- which claims that Pulitzer Prize-winning AP photographers who captured blood-curdling images from Iraq had ties to terrorists -- demanded to know why Pulitzer judges hadn't met with bloggers to discuss their conspiracy theory before handing out their prestigious prize. Right-wing site Little Green Footballs thundered: "The media establishment puts their thumb in the eye of the blogosphere, awarding a Pulitzer Prize for photography to the Associated Press's anonymous and very possibly staged photographs of terrorists committing murder on Baghdad's Haifa Street" (emphasis added).

The only proof provided for the charge was a link to another right-wing Web site that asked supposedly probing questions about the circumstances of the photographs -- questions that were about as insightful as the ones originally posed about the Schiavo memo last week.

Even when proven to be categorically wrong, reckless bloggers don't flinch. Examining the rubble Wednesday night, after the Post published its story about Sen. Martinez, Power Line concluded, "This story serves as an object lesson in how the mainstream media can take a dopey, one-page memo by an unknown staffer and use it to discredit the entire Republican party." Only someone who is shameless, and spends weeks accusing both reporters and Democratic elected officials of being liars, could turn around and announce that a manufactured episode had served as "an object lesson in how the mainstream media" tries to discredit Republicans.

You don't lose weight by tough love, whether from your mother or your local clothing store. It's a personal choice, and a difficult choice -- and if I can't do it for myself, I'm not going to do it for the Gap."

"A lot of people in America think there is a trust -- that we take your money in payroll taxes and then we hold it for you and then when you retire, we give it back to you...But that's not the way it works. There is no trust fund, just IOUs that I saw firsthand that future generations will pay -- will pay for either in higher taxes, or reduced benefits, or cuts to other critical government programs,"

Four U.S. troops were killed in clashes and bombings across Iraq, the U.S. military said Tuesday, and videos posted on the Internet showed militants purportedly beheading an Iraqi soldier and killing a reported informer. A joint U.S.-Iraqi attack on dozens of insurgents in eastern Diyala province on Monday left two American soldiers and one Iraqi soldier dead, U.S. military spokesman said. Two U.S. soldiers were also wounded in the attack, which continued into Tuesday.

In Baghdad's southern Dora neighborhood, an abandoned taxi exploded on an expressway near a U.S. patrol on Tuesday, killing another U.S. soldier and wounding four others, said Sgt. 1st Class David Abrams, a spokesman for Task Force Baghdad.

Another explosion targeted a joint Iraqi-U.S. convoy in Baghdad's Amiriyah neighborhood, said al-Amil police captain Talib Thamir. Abrams said a blast occurred but he did not have any details.

A U.S. Marine was also killed Monday by an explosion in the sprawling, western province of Anbar.

At least 1,537 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.

Anti-abortion activism is essentially patriarchal. It insists that the woman's egg, once fertilized, is immediately a person and that the woman loses control over her body by virtue of being impregnated by her husband's sperm. It is men who dictate to the woman that she must carry the fertilized egg to term, must be a mother once impregnated by a man. For extreme anti-abortionists, even a woman who has been raped or is in danger of losing her life if she tries to give birth must be forced to bear the child. A rapist can make a woman be a mother whether she likes it or not, because his maleness gives him prerogatives not withdrawn by his mere criminality.

The Schiavo case, in contrast, appears on the surface to be anti-patriarchal. The activists in this case attempted to deprive Ms. Schiavo's husband of his status as her legal guardian and of his ability to decide, with the physicians, not to make heroic efforts to keep her alive in a vegetative state. The activists sided with his mother-in-law, thus appearing to support matriarchy over patriarchy. Why Tom DeLay thought that would be a way of beating up on the Democratic Party is a great mystery. But an even greater mystery is why his conscience would let him play politics with an issue that had touched him personally, when he let his own brain-damaged father die.

[snip]

How does Bush square all the violence he has unleashed in the world with his praise of "life?" What is the link between war-mongering and being "pro-life?"

It turns out that anti-abortionism is not about life at all. It is about social control. It helps establish a hierarchical society in which men are at the pinnacle and women kept barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen. Likewise, the Schiavo case was in part about the religious Right dictating to Michael Schiavo how he must lead his private life.

This campaign is not really about life at all, as the examples of the raped woman or the woman whose pregnancy puts her life in danger demonstrate. It is about control, and the imposition of a minority's values on others.

And that is why the Iraq war is the perfect symbol for the anti-abortionists. Colonial conquest is always a kind of rape, but now the conquered country must bear the fetus of Bush-imposed "liberty" to term. The hierarchy is thus established. Washington is superior to Baghdad, and Iraq is feminized and deprived of certain kinds of choices.

CBS is rushing a Terri Schiavo TV movie into production so that it can air the biopic during the May ratings sweeps.

There is no word on whether the network has secured the cooperation of either the Schindler family, Terri's parents and siblings, or Michael Schiavo, her estranged husband.

There are reports Michael Schiavo is entertaining offers of book, movie and TV deals for Terri's story. Industry sources say Schiavo is likely to be offered up to $2 million for a book deal and up to $2 million for a movie or TV deal.

CBS' Terri story reportedly will feature "Felicity" star Keri Russell to star as America’s tragic heroine and Dean Cain of "Lois and Clark" as the husband who relentlessly seeks an end to her life.

We believe the Word of God teaches that human life is sacred because humankind is created in the image and after the likeness of God. An absolute commitment to the unique value and sanctity of human life is fundamental to a nation that honors Almighty God. Vision America is committed to the preservation and protection of every human life from conception to natural death. We are determined and committed to bring an end to America’s abortion holocaust. We steadfastly oppose cloning, stem cell research, euthanasia and any other practice or policy inconsistent with our conviction that human life is a precious gift of the Creator God.

We believe that God instituted marriage and family as the basic building block of human culture. We further believe that God has established marriage as a sacred covenant between a man and a woman for life. And so it was for almost 200 years as our country grew and prospered under God’s hand. Yet, within our generation, America’s families have been devastated by rampant divorce, lack of personal responsibility, and a challenge to the very institution of marriage by the homosexual community. As One Nation Under God, we believe the laws and civil institutions of our land should promote and protect stable marriages. We oppose legal sanction of same-sex "civil unions" or marriages as a perversion of the Creator’s intent.

We believe God established human sexuality for the physical expression of love and commitment between a man and a woman in holy marriage. Apart from that divine intent, sexual activity becomes nothing more or less than the selfish manipulation of another human being for personal satisfaction or financial gain. America is currently drowning in a polluted sea of promiscuity, pornography, and perversion. The abuse of human sexuality, whether in illicit personal activities or through the vast influence of the visual and print media, diminishes our humanity and degrades those who indulge in it. We believe that the practice of personal decency and the standards of high moral integrity must be restored in America. Therefore, we support the enforcement and the strengthening of legislation restricting the exploitation and/or proliferation of pornography in any form.

We believe that freedom of religion is the foundation of America’s liberty. That freedom was significantly eroded in recent decades as the Bible, along with religious symbols and expression have been banished from the public square. The identification and condemnation of sin on the basis of Holy Scripture has come to be regarded as "hate speech" by many. We oppose any and every attempt to suppress or to marginalize the free expression of religion in America. Further, we support the immediate removal of IRS regulations, which severely restrict the ability of pastors to speak out on issues under political debate within the nation.

"I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country. Certainly nothing new, but we seem to have run through a spate of courthouse violence recently that's been on the news and I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters on some occasions where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in - engage in violence."

During the protracted coverage and debate of the Schiavo matter, I was struck by the disrespectful and reckless language being used against judges. One by one, my Republican colleagues took the House floor to attack judges as "unconscionable," lacking "human compassion," needing to be held in "contempt," and having "answering to do." I remember thinking that such dehumanizing rhetoric is especially dangerous in these times towards anyone, let alone judges.

Outside the halls of Congress, words flew even more recklessly and the House Majority Leader Tom DeLay called the removal of Schiavo's feeding tube an "act of medical terrorism." The Reverend Pat Robertson called it "judicial murder."

I remember thinking about Judge Rowland Barnes of Georgia, who less than a month ago, was shot to death by an angry litigant in his courtroom, along with two other court employees. I remember thinking that irresponsible words can lead to tragic results. I thought of Judge Joan Lefkow, whose husband and mother are thought to have been murdered by an aggrieved litigant. Since then, I have been trying to think of the most appropriate forum to gently call this to my colleagues' attention, and to remind them that -- no matter how strong our feelings about individual decisions and cases, we need to be cognizant of the influence we may have -- especially on those that may be disturbed, and we always need to know that -- as elected officials -- our words have consequences.

That was to be a subtle message. It is unfortunate that today my message must be less subtle because things are very quickly spinning out of control....

This apparent effort [by Senator Cornyn] to rationalize violence against judges is deplorable. On its face, while it contains doubletalk that simultaneously offers a justification for such violence and then claims not to, the fundamental core of the statement seems to be that judges have somehow brought this violence on themselves. This also carries an implicit threat: that if judges do not do what the far right wants them to do (thus becoming the "judicial activists" the far right claims to deplore), the violence may well continue.

If this is what Senator Cornyn meant to say, it is outrageous, irresponsible and unbecoming of our leaders. To be sure, I have disagreed with many, many court rulings. (For example, Bush v. Gore may well be the single greatest example of judicial activism we have seen in our lifetime.) But there is no excuse, no excuse, for a Member of Congress to take our discourse to this ugly and dangerous extreme.

My message is not subtle today. It is simple. To my Republican colleagues: you are playing with fire, you are playing with lives, and you must stop.

Senator Cornyn and Congressman DeLay should immediately retract these ill considered statements.

Constitution Restoration Act of 2005 - Amends the Federal judicial code to prohibit the U.S. Supreme Court and the Federal district courts from exercising jurisdiction over any matter in which relief is sought against an entity of Federal, State, or local government or an officer or agent of such government concerning that entity's, officer's, or agent's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.

Prohibits a court of the United States from relying upon any law, policy, or other action of a foreign state or international organization in interpreting and applying the Constitution, other than English constitutional and common law up to the time of adoption of the U.S. Constitution.

Provides that any Federal court decision relating to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction by this Act is not binding precedent on State courts.

Provides that any Supreme Court justice or Federal court judge who exceeds the jurisdictional limitations of this Act shall be deemed to have committed an offense for which the justice or judge may be removed, and to have violated the standard of good behavior required of Article III judges by the Constitution

The Minuteman Project -- an effort by citizens who have volunteered to patrol the Mexican border for illegal crossers and smugglers -- has already borne fruit even before its official launch.

Participants helped federal agents make 18 arrests near Naco, authorities said Sunday. The volunteers were surveying the border to familiarize themselves with the area before starting their regular, monthlong patrols Monday.

``You observe them, report them and get out of the way,'' said Mike McGarry, a spokesman for the project that will concentrate on 23 miles of the San Pedro Valley.

McGarry said about 200 people would be in place for Monday's patrols, although human rights activists and some authorities have questioned whether the project will attract as many volunteers as organizers expect.

Law enforcement officials said the volunteers were keeping the peace, despite concerns they might become confrontational with immigrants. Many of the volunteers were recruited over the Internet and some plan to be armed.

Her plight – which pitted her husband against her parents and siblings – has magnified what is a a very troubling pattern emerging in our nation. Religion is no longer just a sidelight in the American political scene; it has moved front and center. If those of us who consider ourselves mainstream and more toward the center don’t wake up soon, the religious right will steamroll moderation and we will find ourselves no longer living in a democracy, but rather a theocracy.

The Schiavo case was a family matter, plain and simple. It was seized upon by the same religious zealots that helped push George W. Bush into a second term as president of our nation. The Republican Party has been home to the religious right for a very long time. Today, more than ever, this party has become beholden to those that would like to ignore our rules of law and let God – their God – decide the fate of our country. What Governor Jeb Bush started and what the United States Congress and the president continued has set a very dangerous precedent. The political party that has always extolled states’ rights and less government interference thought it wise to inject themselves right smack into the middle of a family matter. Some might be asking, what should be done when the family cannot agree on something as serious as a person’s right to live or die?

That’s where our courts come into play. Right or wrong, the bigger issue here is our Constitution. The governor, our president, Congress and the Florida state legislature – all Republican or Republican-controlled – didn’t think twice before trampling all over the very basis of our greatness as a nation – the United States Constitution. They decided, in the name of a so-called “culture of life” that ignoring our judicial branch of government was a good idea. With the exception of the Florida Senate – which surprisingly refused to sign on to any legislation that would have attempted to undo the decisions of every Florida court that heard this case – every other legislative body in Florida and at the federal level thought it wise to try to overturn what 19 judges had ruled.

You keep hearing the president and his baby brother the governor talking about liberal and insensitive judges. It has become standard code for appointing as many judges of conservative leanings as possible. The irony in this is that one of the dissenting judges at the Federal Court of Appeals was in fact a Clinton appointee. Judges are supposed to uphold the Constitution and rule on the facts of a case.

Despite what you may have seen on the nightly news or read in the newspaper, the trial court judge in the Schiavo case was and remains a very religious man. He just can’t attend his own baptist church anymore because he has received too many death threats from his God-fearing fellow congregants. So much for a “culture of life.”

Oh and by the way, this newly-coined term being bandied about by our president and other Republicans trying to position themselves as the party of life is from the same party that has refused to back any kind of gun control, thus making it as easy as showing a driver’s license in order to buy a firearm in most states. This is the same president and party that has us at war in Iraq and responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people – including our own soldiers. And yes, this is the same party that would have you believe that life begins at intercourse. This is the same president that while governor of Texas signed more death warrants than any other governor in history.

The trial judge, upon hearing the evidence, ruled that Schiavo would not have wanted to live in a persistent vegetative state. He agreed with her husband, who has been vilified by the religious right as some kind of monster, that she should no longer be kept alive by artificial means. Her parents disagreed and did what they had the right to do – appeal to higher courts. Every court that has heard this case has ruled in favor of the husband and upheld the trial court.

Is it fair? Who knows? Do I feel sorry for her parents? Of course! But the fact remains that since biblical times, upon marriage, the spouses have rights for each other that supercede those of their parents. There are specific quotes in the Bible that speak to the very notion that the parents’ rights no longer exist once their children have been married. Legally, our laws have followed that very concept in upholding a spouse’s rights against those of a parent.

The courts were the proper venue for either the husband or the parents to settle their differences. In this intensely emotional disagreement, it was normal for tempers to flair and people to choose sides. Our system of government should be above emotion. Our leaders should know better than to try and legislate for a specific cause or case at the risk of weakening our entire basis of government – the Constitution. The president, his brother and their party should not be beholden to religious groups, whether it be the Christian Coalition or any other religious organization. Congress had no business intervening in a family matter.

What’s next? When will we see these religious fanatics rear their ugly heads again? Do we really want any one religion exercising that much power in this country? Look around the world, and you will see that wherever religion rules the day, so too does hypocrisy and trouble. This country has done very well, thank you, without being dictated to by the religious right. I have a great deal more respect today for the first President Bush, as he probably lost his bid for re-election because he refused to cave in to the religious right. His sons, apparently, better understand just how to cater to this powerful element of the Republican Party. Terri Schiavo should rest in peace as this horrible 15-year ordeal is finally over for her. How long the effects of this political debate lasts is another story.

Mainstream America better take their collective heads out of their rear ends before it is too late. We cannot stand on the sidelines anymore while religious fanatics hold our government hostage. It has been happening in Israel for a very long time. It is beginning to happen here as well. Our very system of government is at risk. I, for one, do not want to be here when we make the transition from democracy to theocracy.

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Almost everywhere President Bush traveled on the campaign trail last year, he lashed out at plaintiffs' lawyers for filing "junk lawsuits" that he said were sending the cost of health care out of sight.

These days the president rarely mentions the topic, and the effort in Congress to rein in medical malpractice litigation has stalled, according to proponents and opponents of the bill.