Replies

"People who want government sticking their noses into what consensual adults do only to and with themselves go against the conservative principles of Jefferson and even Reagan. "

===

I highly recommend that you read Ann Coulter's article. She addressed this extensively.

Here is a link and an excerpt:

THE EMPEROR'S NEW ROBES by Ann Coulter

http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/printer_friendly.cgi?article=48

"Also on the pro-killing side are conservatives still pissed off about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 who are desperately hoping to be elected "most consistent constitutionalist" by their local Federalist Society chapters.

You can't grow peanuts on your own land or install a toilet capable of disposing two tissues in one flush because of federal government intervention. But Congress demands a review of the process that goes into a governmental determination to kill an innocent American woman — and that goes too far!

It's not a radical extension of current constitutional doctrines — even the legitimate ones! — for the federal government to assert a constitutional right to life that cannot be denied without due process of law under the Fifth and 14th Amendments. Congress didn't ask for much, just the same due process John Wayne Gacy got.

But people even stupider than lawyers have picked up on the vague rumblings from "most consistent constitutionalist" aspirants and begun to claim that Congress' action is an affront to "limited government."

Of course, the most limited of all possible governments is a king. We don't have that sort of "limited government." What we have is divided government: three branches of government at the federal level and 50 states with their own versions of checks and balances.

Or at least that was the government designed for us by men smarter than we are. We haven't had that sort of government for decades.

Alexander Hamilton's famous last words in "The Federalist" described the judiciary as the "least dangerous branch," because it had neither force nor will. Now the judiciary is the most dangerous branch. It doesn't need force because it has smoke and mirrors and a lot of people defending the moronic scribblings of any judge as the perfect efflorescence of "the rule of law."

This week, an indisputably innocent woman will be killed by the government for one reason: Judge Greer of Pinellas County, Fla., ordered it.

Polls claim that a majority of Americans objected to action by the U.S. Congress in the Schiavo case as "government intrusion" into a "private family matter" — as if Judge Greer is not also the government. So twisted is our view of the judiciary that a judicial decree is treated like a naturally occurring phenomenon, like a rainbow or an act of God.

Our infallible, divine ruler is a county judge in Florida named George Greer, who has more authority in America than the U.S. Congress, the president and the governor. No wonder the Southern Baptist Church threw Greer out: Only one god per church!

It's a good system if you like monarchy and legally sanctioned murder. But spare me the paeans to "strict constructionism" and "limited government."

1. Anne completely misses the fact that the core of this matter is not that he state decided Terri was not worthy or healthy or alert enough to live, but that they found, right or wrong, that there was clear and convincing evidence that it was Terri's wish to refuse treatment, even if it was life-sustaining.

Once that critical question was decided, we need to focus on attacking that point, or whether she could get better enough to "change her mind", or getting the legislature to tighten up the "clear and convincing" standard -- not wasting our time and energy on other nonsense like how cruel it is, or misleading interps of bone scans.

2. Anne also says it is the duty of the National Guard to protect our borders.

I prefer this one from Freeper David Gold of KSFO and ABC talk radio:

Posted by davidtalker to sinkspur
On Smoky Backroom 03/24/2005 10:08:00 PM CST · 518 of 6,101

Thanks for the thread. Thanks for a refuge of sanity here.

Conservatives are now doing what the Libs couldn't accomplish. Rip each other apart and risk dragging down the movement. Some have called it a Conservative "Crackup." All I know is that this is extraordinarily painful.

I have fought tooth and nail for this movement for thirty years. Now, with success at hand we are witnessing the coming apart of a very solid coalition of Social, Process, Libertarian, Populist and other "hybrid" Conservatives. The inability of people to deal with different points of view in a very difficult and complex case without vicious insults is very sad.

I feel it would be best to start all over with Terri Schindler's case. I pray the last ditch efforts to replace the feeding tube is successful. However, I am not happy with the process. I do not believe the Federal Government has any business in the case. I despise the hyperbole, the misrepresentation and outright lies that have been concocted to make the case. There is so much misinformation and ignorance out there and it is taken as gospel. It is not pretty. It is not what I expect from Freepers and our Movement.

This situation is causing me great difficulty. I consider myself a Social Conservative, a libertarian and a "Process" Conservative. Thus, this case leaves me incredibly CONFLICTED.

Just being "conflicted" is not enough for many. I have said on the air (KSFO-San Francisco) I support Terri's struggle. We do not starve people to death in this nation. But, to many that's not good enough.If I express reservations of any sort concerning the pro-Terri zealots or discuss my concerns about questions of Federalism issues, I am questioned about my Christianity. Some say "you are brainwashed by "G-D Michael Schiavo"...

I'm a big boy. The criticism comes with the territory. However, what really hurts is seeing what we have worked for coming undone. The Nation is watching this display and seeing a scene that fits all of their stereotypes of what they believe "The Religious Right" to be. How many of you saw the 10 year old boy handcuffed in Pinellas Park (where I lived when I did a show in Tampa-St.Pete 1980-83)and taken to jail for trying to bring water into the hospice. What do you think the average American thought when viewing that scene? I have interviewed Randall Terry and Bo Gritz over the years. We agree about most issues. However, I find it disappointing to see them out front and the face of our movement.

It is time to get back to basics. What I have fought for over the years is in jeopardy. I was doing Conservative talk radio before it was "cool." When Rush was "playing the hits."When we were in the wilderness it was easy. Now that we have a good deal of the power our movement has lost its way.

The Republican Party has long since abandoned Conservative principals. It has become a "Governing" Party. Not a Conservative vehicle. The display of Congressional hearings on steroids in baseball followed by the unfortunate Congressional involvement in the Schiavo case is simply the perfect symbols of how we have lost our way.

Conservatism is about the government that governs least governs best. Government is a necessary EVIL. We should be concerned that we have lost sight of the notion of individual Freedom which brought most of us to the Movement. Hayek, Friedman,Kerr et al.

The GOP should concern itself with defending the nation. Providing security in the war on terror, and keeping our military as strong as it can be. The GOP should be about turning back the welfare State, defunding the Left, protecting our borders, cutting our tax burden, and generally downsize the Federal Government.

Activist Judges are a HUGE problem. There is tyranny on the bench. I discuss these out of control unelected officials all the time. However, the Schiavo display is simply providing the Libs with fodder in the battle to keep Bush nominees off the Court. They will appeal to their base and, more importantly, to average middle of the road voters, with "see what you get if these people control our Courts?" The display the extremists are putting on plays right into their hands. And the irony is, I see nothing to suggest there is "judicial Activism" in this case. I know the arguments. I have read the legal particulars ad nauseum. The Judges have simply followed established law and Florida Statutes. They haven't made law. Quinlan and Cruzan have established the guardianship issues. Scalia in Cruzan made it clear. This is NOT A FEDERAL CONCERN.

I have never posted anything remotely as emotional and as lengthy as this in all my year here. I do it because we need some sanity. People of good will can disagree without being called names and worse. Disagree without being disagreeable. This is a very complex and personal issue. People here deserve to be treated with respect. And when the Schiavo ordeal has been resolved I just hope and pray we can come together and move forward to push legislation in the States, where the issue belongs, that clearly protect those who would die such a horrid death. Then Terri Schiavo will not have suffered in vain.

Ann Coulter has used the standard liberal yankee sneer at the South.

"Also on the pro-killing side are conservatives still pissed off about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 who are desperately hoping to be elected "most consistent constitutionalist" by their local Federalist Society chapters.

If you are against some Federal action, it's because you are really a racist who hasn't gotten over integration.

You can't grow peanuts on your own land or install a toilet capable of disposing two tissues in one flush because of federal government intervention. But Congress demands a review of the process that goes into a governmental determination to kill an innocent American woman — and that goes too far!

Because government still does so many things that it should not do, does that mean we should ask it to do another?

If we can save just one person, won't (insert whatever government travesty is being legislated at the moment here) be worth it?

It's for the Childrun.

Ann has turned into a classic 60s Liberal for a week because it's the only way to make sense of supporting Terri Schiavo's case.
That's what happens to your morals when you study Law.

SO9