Friday, January 04, 2008

Suzie All-Caps: Being a retard for God.

You just know this is going to be good:

Pro-life Women Jailed, 10 Years After Begging Abortionist To Quit

Lincoln, NE - Pro-life activists Shari McKee and Melissa Abbink were jailed on December 28th, 2007, (Feast of the Holy Innocents), for speaking to Lincoln abortionist Winston Crabb on two occasions in front of his home 10 years ago. Abbink faces five months in jail while McKee has been sentenced to serve eight months behind bars.


Here's an idea -- let's follow that last link to see what really happened:


Well, then ... that's an auspicious beginning and suggests we're going to get an unbiased presentation, but let's soldier on, anyway, shall we? (emphasis added)

... In February, 1998, both were charged with violating the “focused picketing” ordinance even though neither had signs and both incidents lasted only a minute each, just long enough to plead for the lives of pre-born children as he walked from his car to his house.

Really? Is that all it was? I know ... let's go to the actual source, shall we? That's always so much more enlightening (all emphasis tail-waggingly added):


On February 6, 1998, at approximately 7:05 a.m., Melissa Abbink and Sharon McKee approached the Lincoln, Nebraska, residence of physician Winston Crabb from the north, walking in a southerly direction on the sidewalk adjacent to 24th Street in Lincoln. As Abbink and McKee approached the Crabb residence, they began to yell at Crabb’s son, who also resides in the Crabb home, that he should be afraid for his soul and that he should stop killing babies. When Abbink and McKee realized that they were not calling out to Crabb, but to someone else, they acknowledged their mistake; at that time, they were approximately 50 to 55 feet from the front step of the Crabb residence.

Crabb’s son, who was outside on his front step as Abbink and McKee approached, went inside the house and called the Lincoln Police Department. Crabb was upstairs in his house when Abbink and McKee approached. When Crabb first noticed Abbink and McKee, they were standing on the sidewalk, one on either side of the end of his driveway, approximately 1 to 11/2 feet from his property line. In an attempt to avoid the disruption caused by Abbink and McKee, Crabb left his house, got into his car, and drove away. Realizing that Abbink and McKee had decided to follow him, Crabb returned to his house. Abbink and McKee followed Crabb back to his residence and parked their car on the street adjacent to Crabb’s property. After getting out of their car, Abbink and McKee once again flanked Crabb’s driveway and continued to shout at Crabb.

After Crabb returned to his house, he telephoned the Lincoln Police Department. While Crabb and his son were waiting for the police to respond to their calls, Abbink and McKee were standing on the sidewalk between the Crabb property line and the street adjacent thereto. Abbink and McKee again stood approximately 1 to 1 1/2 feet from the Crabb property line, where they remained until the police arrived on the scene.

The police arrived at approximately 7:30 a.m. and observed Abbink and McKee still standing on the sidewalk flanking Crabb’s driveway. After the police arrived, Crabb came out to the sidewalk near the area where Abbink and McKee were standing as Abbink and McKee continued to shout at him. The police separated the parties, after which Abbink and McKee were issued citations for disturbing the peace in violation of Lincoln Mun. Code § 9.20.050 (1992); the complaints against Abbink and McKee were subsequently amended to include charges of focused residential picketing in violation of Lincoln Mun. Code § 9.40.090 (1997). Specifically, count II of the amended complaints alleged that Abbink and McKee “intentionally or knowingly engage[d] in focused picketing in that portion of a street which abuts on the property upon which the targeted dwelling is located, or which abuts on property within fifty feet of the property upon which the targeted dwelling is located, in violation of L.M.C. section 9.40.090.”

Well, gol-lee, Sergeant Carter -- apparently, Suzie All-Caps is completely full of shit, isn't she? But here's the best part, from the "Operation Rescue" article:

The last two years have been spent seeking a commutation. The women’s cases were brought before the Board of Pardons, which was very sympathetic, but refused to act because the Board does not review misdemeanor cases. The Board referred the cases to the Mayor of Lincoln, who has refused to act claiming he does not have the authority to grant commutations.

According to the women’s attorneys, the Mayor clearly does have the authority to commute misdemeanor sentences.

“We are asking pro-lifers to write to Mayor Beutler and ask him to commute the sentences of these two women,” said Larry Donlan, Director of Rescue the Heartland. “Be sure to point out that the Pardon Board says he has the authority to do so. Be polite and remember, it is a commutation that we are after, not a pardon. Like the parable of the widow, we are seeking justice for these two brave, God-fearing women. Only Mayor Beutler has that ability to grant that justice. He can do so by merely picking up the phone.”

Yes, those would be your hang-em-high, law-and-order conservatives, begging desperately to not have to be accountable or personally responsible for their actions. And Suzie All-Caps embarrasses her species yet again.

: My favourite part of this bogus outrage is how the parties involved keep yammering about how this happened 10 years ago, while one commenter at the OR site writes:

Isn’t there something in the Constitution or bill of rights that claims we have due process in a timely manner? They should not be going to jail for something of this nature, 10 years after the fact

An excellent point. And why has it taken this long for justice to be served? Oh ... right:

After exhausting the appeals of the criminal cases, the convictions were upheld by the Nebraska Supreme Court on September 10, 1999. However, for reasons unknown, the mandate did not come down until September 28, 2005, over 6 years later!

The last two years have been spent seeking a commutation.

Yeaaahhhhh. You know, you really don't get to extend the legal process to its limit, then complain about how long that process took, if you catch my drift. And I think you do.


counter-coulter said...

A couple of things seem odd about the case:

1) If this happened 10 years ago, why are they actually going to serve time now? Is Lincoln that backed up?

2) 5 and 8 months seem kinda stiff for protesting. Usually these things are a fine and time served. I'm wondering if this "focused picketing" law is a reaction to something larger that happened.

counter-coulter said...

Well your "after snark" explains my first question. So much for those conservatives that are just so sick and tired of the "frivilous appeals process".

Red Tory said...

That’s too funny. What a lying sack of parrot droppings.

Hey, I don’t know if you noticed, but checkout the “Labels” on that b.s. “News” site of hers. This from the woman who says she doesn’t talk much about abortion. In the “Abortion” category 171 posts. In the “US Politics” category, 2. Oh, and “Culture” whatever that might be, got a whopping 1.

counter-coulter said...

I did a little more searching and found this:

'Army of God' letters claim responsibility for clinic bombing

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Federal law enforcement authorities have received two letters claiming responsibility for last week's bombing attack at a Birmingham, Alabama, women's clinic that left an off-duty police officer dead and a nurse critically wounded, CNN has learned.

This bombing occured on January 29th, 1998. So it was only a couple of weeks later that the incident that Suzy all caps refers to occured.

Balbulican said...

In September a group of Catholic organizations in Newfoundland announced a press conference to kick off a new anti-child poverty initiatives. One of SUZANNE'S co-foetishists, a serial demonstrator, sent the organizers AND media a note demanding the right to make a statement relating to The Rights Of The Unborn at their press conference. Not surprisingly, they declined, and when he showed up to disrupt their meeting, he was escorted off the premises by the police.

SUZANNE'S rendering of this event, of course, was that a concerned Catholic trying to raise a critical issue had been brutally suppressed by the wicked authorities - she completely omitted any mention of his quite clear avowal to disrupt their meeting on child poverty to grab airtime for his propaganda.

In writing that, by the way, I struck a familiar problem. When referring to "SUZANNE'S dishonest omission of relevant information", for example, should one use a capital "S" to mark the possessive? Or is a lower case "s" correct, as in "SUZANNE's exoneration of any extremist with whom she agrees"? Inquiring minds want to know.

LuLu said...

Inquiring minds want to know.

When you use an acronym in the possessive, the "s" after the apostrophe is usually lower case. Now we just have to figure out what SUZANNE is an acronym for ... any suggestions?

Niles said...

"Sophistic Ur Zealot Abortion Narcissist Needing Enemas"

How many entries are we allowed?

LuLu said...

Teh funny. As many as you want ...

Pale said...


All I can come up with. lol.

jj said...

She (who)

Huh? Huh?

LuLu said...

JJ, I think we have a winner ...