Posted on 03/28/2005 7:09:05 AM PST by amdgmary
By the time you read this, Terri Schiavo may well be dead, and America will have taken the next step down the road to democide. While the brothers Bush may not have found it within their executive powers to prevent a woman from being legally starved to death, they did manage to con an entire nation into thinking that they did not act because they could not.
This is most unfortunate, because it is quite clear that neither George Bush nor his brother Jeb ever had any intention of saving Mrs. Schiavo from death by starvation. Like Pontius Pilate, they engaged in meaningless political machinations intended to deflect the blame from themselves while pretending that they were helpless to act. A simple executive order from either man would have sufficed to see the woman fed; the notion that the president has too much respect for either the 10th Amendment or the separation of powers doctrine to act is simply laughable.
For you see, George Bush has yet to veto a single law on the grounds that it requires exercising a power not specifically granted to the United States by the Constitution; instead, he has lobbied hard for many such unconstitutional laws. The Constitution gives the federal government no power with regards to children being left behind, for example. And every IRS tax court, every Justice Department immigration court, is a far greater violation of the separation of powers than the insertion of a feeding tube into a starving woman's stomach.
As for Jeb Bush, it's hard to know precisely what his position is since he's been hiding out ever since the Florida Legislature decided that it's down with offing the disabled. Considering the number of elderly concentrated in the Sunshine State, you'd think the Florida voting public would be paranoid about anything that might conceivably lead toward eradicating the useless eaters of society, but then, I suppose someone's got to play on all those golf courses.
Which leads us to what this affair is really all about. This is not a Democrat or Republican thing – many of the pro-starvation judges have been Republican appointees – it is a demographic thing. Already, the elderly soak up a staggering amount of national resources, as the blessings of technology allow them to live longer while turning them into wrinkled chemical cyborgs. This would be unobjectionable to anyone, except for the fact that the elderly are not paying for most of the expense of their much-needed medical treatments, and they are collecting Social Security for many more years than anyone previously envisioned.
The move to health maintenance organizations 20 years ago essentially sealed the doom of the elderly. It is already a well-established fact that when the health of an individual is at odds with the profitability of these government-mandated corporations, the individual is out of luck. This trade-off, writ large, serves as an example of what we can expect to see over the next 30 years when the "right to die" will become the "responsibility to die" and quality of life becomes a legal question to be determined by Department of Health bureaucrats instead of a pallid excuse to justify high taxes in certain locales.
It won't happen overnight. Schiavo simply represents the first nibbling about the margins. But soon will come the Fox News debates about the terminally ill and the mentally disabled – if an Alzheimer's patient can't even recognize his own daughter, is he really there anymore? It's customary to dismiss slippery slopes as a false form of hypothesis, but when there's both historical and international models that are obviously being followed, we're no longer talking about possibilities, we're looking at time frames.
And eventually they'll get around to the cripples and the Jews. This is an inspired evil that stems from a supernatural source whose inhuman goals are always the same: death, division and destruction. If you don't see how these things connect, recall that it was Jesus Christ who said: "I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."
Keep that in mind the next time you're trying to decide if your government is on the side of the angels or not.
I agree; the logic which is being used to ensure Terri's death is quite circular.
Nonsense! If anything, both Bush Boys come off looking like panderers.
Shiavo solves Social Security? WHat next, she'll end poverty?
World Net Daily has long been on the road to irrelevancy...
That's true, I suppose, depending on how one defines anarchy. Many believe that the mindless groupies and political profiteers who facilitate a controlling oligarchy’s willful destruction of our Constitution are much worse than "Anarchists" since they pervert government to the detriment of their fellow citizens.
At least anarchists aren't p#$$ing on your back and telling you its raining. The come right out and say that government has to go.
Great. More comparisons to Jesus and the Nazis.
The state ordered death of someone who's life has been ruled valueless while maintaining the appearance of following the law. If the shoe fits!
The real problem is judicial overreach. The back of judicial supremacy in our tripartite system of government must be broken, and the legislative and executive branches need to be empowered to exercise their respective spheres of authority as the Founding Fathers envisioned.
It should be apparent to all that the lying, lunatic, liberal left wants Terri Shiavo, and all like her, dead. It is a well established fact that all dead people vote democrat for eternity. The demonic left is merely adding to its voting base to enable it to steal all future elections and assure enough votes to do with social (in)security whatever they want.
That's why I propose and amendment to the Constitution. Allow an executive finding, matched with a vote of both houses of Congress, to vacate a judicial ruling. Let the states follow suit with appropriate laws or amendments. Details like the maximum time which can elapse before the other two branches take office and the size of the majority required in each house can be worked out. But provide an opportunity for the elected officials to b*tch-slap the courts when they step out of line.
Shalom.
Greatest country that ever existed? That's what the Germans thought. They got rid of hundreds of thousands of disabled Germans. We've got a long way to go to catch up.
I suppose most people would prefer no government to one that is so perverted and corrupt as to force people to support their own demise. Perhaps, very soon, there will be that great enlightenment that mass suicide is not the ultimate fate assigned to humanity.
I suppose my main problem is mostly with the calls for Jeb Bush's head on a platter, especially when so many have spoken so highly in praise of him in the past. You are correct: this case in itself does carry profound implications. A grave injustice has been done against Terri, both by her husband and by the courts. If neither Bush did anything at all, I would certainly hold it against them. From what I can tell, though, Jeb has already taken risks in the actions he has already taken up to this point for the sake of Terri's cause. I guess I just don't like seeing support for him thrown out the window because he "didn't do enough" on top of what he tried to do already.
The right to life ought to be sancrosanct, and with good reason. My concern is mostly with the fallout that could occur as a result of actions that the media and the Democrats will portray as illegal abuses of power. As I said in an earlier post, perception is everything. You and I know that the Executive Branch has a right to act and keep the courts in check. The average person who watches sports and sitcoms instead of learning the fundamentals of these issues doesn't. When he hears the news, he will be more inclined to accept the talking heads' at their word that these were illegal actions. Part of the reason this administration has been so successful is that it has shown an ability to give the Democrats solid ammunition to use against it. We mustn't think for an instant, though, that they would lack the ability to hit us with everything they've got at the first chance they get their hands on something strong.
We need judicial reform. The first step to accomplishing that is to get decent judges on the bench, which we are in the process of working on. Being able to break the filibuster and put judges on the bench that hold life to be a sacred right is the only way we will win this in the end. Honestly, I worry whether we would be in a position to do that had the president or governor taken more drastic action (and yes, you are most likely right, it probably would not involve a firefight of any sort). All the Democrats would have to do is make jokes about how the president wants to put in his own judges so that he can get his brother off for "illegal dictatorial" actions and the Republicans in the Senate, being the weaklings they are, will most likely back off even the thought of breaking the filibusters. All these matters are connected.
ArGee - I loved your quote. Terri's fight IS worth fighting. I think, though, that there comes a time when one must admit defeat in the battle so that he can withdraw his forces so that he can win the war. That does not mean we give up hope for Terri, that we stop trying to rescue her. But it also does not mean that we ought to place all of our blames on those that must act with the broader context in mind.
At any rate, while I disagree with both of you, I know that you believe as you do because you have good hearts and want to see right done, from both constitutional and human standpoints. Let us hope that, by God's will, some good can come of all this in the end.
One hopes so.
I am more concerned about 2006, though. Gains could consolidate our ability to reform the courts, but losses could cripple it.
That is a good question, and your point is well taken. I am not sure I have much of a response to that one though. The right to an equal education, while important, certainly does pale in comparison to the right to life, and certainly that was as volatile situation if there ever was one. Your point deserves more thought.
The only point I can throw out there is that the State of Alabama back then is not completely parallel with the court system today, which is the problem that we face. The court system has set itself up as the law, not merely the interpretor of the law. Although the President might have faced opposition from the people of Alabama and the South as a whole back then, I am curious as to the degree of support he had across the nation as a whole at the time. I would imagine that his position was a bit stronger than President Bush or Governor Bush might be in with a similar action.
Regardless, as I said before, it is a point well made and bears further consideration.
I'm not at all sure just what you're hoping for.
I don't agree with that either but he is responsible for what he does and what he doesn't do. The facts of this case, including the extent of Executive powers, will be coming out. The Bushes will take heat from both sides whether they act or not. They can stand on principle or they can stand on expediancy but they can't stand on the law because the law has been thoroughly muddied here.
From what I can tell, though, Jeb has already taken risks in the actions he has already taken up to this point for the sake of Terri's cause.
I don't see any great risk in anything he has done thus far. If it's risk of criticism in the press and from the Dems all he has to do is show up at the office to get that.
My concern is mostly with the fallout that could occur as a result of actions that the media and the Democrats will portray as illegal abuses of power.
Conservatives can act and deal with leftist reaction or they can play it safe and let the left have its way. They'll be demonized either way. The President has always handled it very well. He tells the truth and says he acted in good faith. Seems to work.
Being able to break the filibuster and put judges on the bench that hold life to be a sacred right is the only way we will win this in the end.
I'm not as certain as you are that that is the only way. It needs to be done but it isn't getting done. At any rate there is a citizen who is being killed by state order and everything about the case smells like a skunk trapped in the outhouse.
Thank you for a reasonable reply and a sincere objective look at my POV. FReegards, TigersEye
Regardless of whether we agree, it is always interesting to have a civil discussion. I find them a bit lacking around here at times... FReegards, MWS
I would agree. The reason I haven't answered the FReep poll is that there is much about what Jeb and W. have done regarding this, and what they have struggled through, that I don't know. I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on this particular issue because of the stands they have taken when I did know.
Regarding fighting and winning, what war can be winnable if we lose this battle? I understand that we will have to keep fighting, but it's almost like saying, "OK, we'll give them everything west of the Catskills because we can't fight for that anyway but we'll defend eastern New York and New England with much greater vigor if we pull back now."
Yes, I know. I'm exaggerating. The murder of an innocent, whether it's that 12 year old girl, Jessica, or Terri Schiavo gets me that way.
Shalom.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.