The institutions are firmly in place to protect those who are convicted of murder, no matter how thoroughly certain it is that those condemned are fully immersed in the culture of death.
But Terri Shiavo is granted no hearing no matter how many reports of misconduct have gone excluded from a hearing, no matter how many inconsistencies in the actions and testimony of the principals left officially in charge of her care.
Our courts have given institutional protection to a handful of questionable characters, preventing the obviously most loving members of the innocent victim from coming to her aid.
How can conservatives I've argued with personally, and some others all over be thinking first of smaller, albeit important principles, such as economic consequences?
Why isn't the *Death Cultivation collection still intact?
Why was this editorial, with its singularly unique perspective about the Death Cults joy over the way this poor woman's case has been booted -- since the Death Cultists' viewpoint has been avoided by MSM outlets -- removed from the editorial forum?
The collective institutionalization of death ideology seems to have permeated much deeper and faster even at the common-man level of society than even I, however pessimistically tilting, thought possible.
And the newsreader, from whatever network Salem broadcasting was using, I heard her refer to the end of "the Shiavo right to death case," or nearing the end, or some other phrase equally chilling.
I wish to point out something else here.
Their framing this as a "Right to Death" instead of a "Right to Live" case informs me clearly what's in the heads of the heads of those networks. I said heads of the heads because it can't be in their hearts; they'd need one first.
The Agents of Death can hardly wait.
Oh, if you want to shudder some more, go and read C.S.Lewis' That Hideous Strength and be very sure these monsters know how they mislead the public and know very well where they want to lead us.
Near the end of the essay that started this thread is the line: