Posted on 03/30/2005 9:02:19 PM PST by ElkGroveDan
The dark, repellent, sepulchral face of American liberalism has rarely shown itself as clearly as it has during the past two weeks during the Terri Schiavo tragedy. At every turn, at every juncture, at every public utterance, the liberal infrastructure has been 100 percent consistent in its preference for death over life.
Why? Depending on which liberal you catch on which day it’s because her philandering husband wants her to die (ah, the advances 30 years of feminism has brought); because she expressed a wish not to be kept alive in her current circumstances (a wish no one but her adulterous husband ever heard); or because the sacred principle of states’ rights must be upheld (when can we expect to hear these liberals invoke this principle regarding abortion and gun control?).
Liberalism is so inextricably intertwined with the abortion (death) lobby that it apparently reacts reflexively against any hint of affinity with the “pro-life” position under any circumstances. What else explains the ghoulish, joyful fervor with which feminists and liberals have filled the airwaves the past fortnight with one demand: Terri Schiavo must die.
This case has nothing to do with abortion, gay marriage, taxes, judicial appointments or anything else, even though the New York Times, in an early effort to nail down the “most bizarre logic of 2005” award, saw those trying to keep Schiavo alive as part of the “larger campaign to deny gay marriage and pack the courts with conservative activists.” One wonders what’s finding its way into the Times’ water cooler.
Neither is this case about the “right to die.” No one outside Florida would ever have heard of Terri Schiavo were it clear she had chosen not to be kept alive in these circumstances. This case is about just one issue: the right of an innocent, defenseless woman not to be tortured and killed by the government.
If Terri Schiavo were a mass murderer on death row, had she butchered 10 or 100 or 1,000 people in a killing spree, the ACLU, liberals, and major media would be performing somersaults to demand that every last judicial remedy be exhausted on her behalf before she was put to death. But women who cannot defend themselves against those who would kill them for convenience can expect no such support from liberals. Instead, they are outraged at anyone meddling in her husband’s and the state’s efforts to starve her to death.
Then there is the walking piece of excrement, Terri Schiavo’s husband Michael, who contends she told him she would not want to be kept alive under these conditions. Here’s some food for thought. Nobody else — not Terri’s sister, mother, father, or friends — ever heard her say such a thing. And Michael himself never mentioned it — until nearly eight years after Terri’s accident. During those eight years Terri won a $750,000 malpractice judgment that goes to her welfare as long as she’s alive, while Michael began an adulterous relationship with another woman, a woman he has said he wants to marry and by whom he has fathered two children.
So here is the face of 21st century feminism and liberalism: placing all faith in a man who, cheating on his hospitalized wife, has fathered two bastard children while acquiring a huge financial motive to want his wife dead. And liberals wonder why they have problems with “value voters.”
Conservatives have had their missteps also in this drama, but I think President Bush said it best: “When in doubt between life and death, why not err on the side of life”? Michael Schiavo’s carnal and financial lust should not be enough reason for anyone to consent to the killing of Terri Schiavo.
Our liberals and feminists cannot make the same calculation. Their devotion to the culture of death trumps all other matters. Venal politics, unworthy of this discussion, are sufficient for liberals and feminists to turn their heads from the unhappy scene and allow this defenseless woman to be starved to death.
Anyone looking for the putrescent, cankered core of American liberalism need look no further than the sad case of Terri Schiavo.
I have a new term for the spiral-eyed-crazy and hate-filled Left: DeathF***ers.
They go nuts when you call them that. Sure fits, though.
Nope. That's what George Felos looks like under the skin mask.
Amen!
Why would M. Schiavo turn down $10 million?
Because he fears that a fair and complete evaluation of Terri's physical condition and its history would lead to him with being charged with attempted murder, and for many misdeeds as her "guardian."
And following that, he would be sued for considerably more than $10 million.
I figure that is also the reason they align themselves with radical Islam -- another cult of death.
They are worshipers of Moloch.
"and the would-be conservative bleating phonies are on the other"
Being a conservative - would you like to explain what you mean by that statement ..??
No.
You could be right, but it could also be that he made a pact with his wife and decided that fulfilling her wishes in this matter was more important than the money. Nobody but him knows for sure.
The facts are out there. One man's tardy recollection of a conversation does not a living will make. The standards for proof should be higher...a signed document, for example.
It was $1 mil - not $10 mil.
And .. the reason he turned it down was because he wants her dead .. and he wants her dead because he tried to kill her - BUT SHE SURVIVED. He cannot allow her to ever be able to speak and tell the truth about what he did to her.
He's already spent most of the money which was given to pay her hospital care .. ON LAWYERS TO LEGALLY KILL HER - all approved by Judge Greer.
No judge with an ounce of brains would have allowed an estranged abusive husband to be the guardian of his disabled wife - NEVER.
And .. since he has been living with another woman and having children - according to FL law she is his COMMON LAW wife - which means he has committed a crime in FL - and has no right to be the guardian of anybody.
There has been a motion before judge Greer's court for quite some time - asking that Michael be removed because of his inability to comply with the guardian's mandated care. Why has this motion never been acted upon ..??
Why not ..?? Afraid ..??
What was that statement all those hyperventilating liberterians were calling Jeb Bush - "all hat and no cattle" - that seems to apply here.
It will make Hitler look like a piker.
how interesting that Liberal Baby boomers will be weakening and dependent upon their children and relatives soon after.
Children in a hurry to enjoy their parents inheritance will be slaughtering their parents wholesale.
"And they that rolleth a stone, it shall return upon them."
regards,
I think many in the GOP have been trying to do things, but sadly, not enough. However, the reason Jesse drew attention was because the left (read media) loves him and was surprised by his reaction, not because he was the only one speaking out. The press just ignored the others.
Republicans don't have correct-think. Therefore, they are mental defectives. The progressive society will be better off without them.
/s
It was $1 million. I can think of two reasons he would turn it down.
1) He tried to murder her in 1990 (and possibly again since then while she was in the hospice) and he's afraid that with any slight recovering she will finger him. $1 million won't pay for a life in prison.
2) He is surely looking at selling book and movie rights. Packing up and walking away with just $1 million, certainly isn't as lucrative as the advance on his book "Death is a Wonderful Thing" -- not to mention the made-for-TV-movie "You're In My Way Terri"
My view of JJ going there is about the same as Winston Churchill's view of the Soviet Union entering WWII on Britain's side. Why he did it and whatever ulterior motives he may have are far less important than the fact tha he did it. The only unfortunate thing is that it seems to have been too late. However, it may still get more people to realize what a complete abomination Judge Greer's and the entire judicial system's murder of this innocent is and how vital it is to reform our arrrogant, totalitarian judiciary and reduce its massive, excessive power.
Because there's a good chance her condition resulted from him trying to strangle her in the first place. He's probably a Scott Peterson who didn't succeed the first time.
You all may be exactly right. Then again, there is another wrinkle. Apparently, he wants her body cremated. My understanding is that under Florida law, an autopsy is always performed before that's done. If he didn't want anyone to know, why would he risk having something done that has a chance of revealing what happened to her?
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.