VANITY NOTICE: I've just learned that I am an "EXTREMIST!" WOO HOO!! [This is NOT an OPUS]

FreeRepublic.com | April 5th, 2005 | Jim Robinson

[trussell]

I would be proud to be labeled an extremist alongside you!!

[vox_freedom]

...calling in the feds to defend life, liberty, and constitution is not all that bad.

I totally agree, as understated. If America doesn't stand for the fundamentals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness what is it that we do value and support? This particular case was shameful in many respects. Displayed was a vivid picture of an overpowering and unresponsive judiciary, a morally corrupt and spiritually vacant "husband" who was allowed to do what he wanted to the woman he had sworn to support in sickness and in health, and executive and legislative branches of government unwilling to do more than passing bills to urge further court appeals. Lastly, we had a populace that, for the most part, tolerated the killing of an innocent and helpless woman.
May God have mercy on a society that doesn't respect life, especially when it involves those who are the most vulnerable and helpless.

[ClancyJ]

....If you are pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-constitution, pro-Liberty, pro-America and post to FreeRepublic.com....

Sounds like me, guess I'm in the right place after all and I'm an "extremist".

[rdcorso]

Since when is the court not part of the government?For the sake of argument let's say that I agree with your opinion that this case is about deciding the power of a legal guardian.Did you feel the husband's motives were really sincere?Was it right for judge Greer to make a ruling that allowed Michael Sciavo to take Terri's settlement and give it to his lawyer?How about the statements that contradicted what the husband said were Terri's wishes?When he went in front of the jury and claimed he needed millions to take care of Terri for the next 52 years did you consider this a lie?Living with a woman that you have two children with and want to marry wouldn't represent a conflict of interest in your opinion?How about the connections of those in positions of authority in the case who had improper relationships?Even without the allegations of abuse there were too many questions in this case to allow a life to be taken.

[alcuin]

We rely on the equal distribution of power.<<<

Law is not a Special Olympics event.

And there's a world of difference between the fleeting powers of pols to appoint/confirm, and the generational power of their appointees.

[FBD]

RE: Madison quote (that Jim posted)
>"This is your idea of a credible source?"<

- I concede that you and lugsoul do have a point.
I realize that many atheist and left-wing sites maintain this quote is false. I believe that in Federalist Papers #37, (or 38?); Madison does write pretty strongly opposing the establishment of any particular sect of religion.

So I've decided to email the experts to verify if it's authentic or not. I'll get back to you if I get a reply.

---

http://www.virginia.edu/pjm/home.html

Subject: "Checking the accuracy of a Madison "quote" posted on many websites."

To:
jmadison@virginia.edu


Is this an accurate and verifiable quote, by James Madison? It is displayed on numerous websites:

"We've staked the whole future of American civilization not on the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us . . . to Govern ourselves according to the commandments of God. The future and success of America is not in this Constitution, but in the laws of God upon which this Constitution is founded."-- James Madison

---

Regards

[ClancyJ]

Some posters are misdirecting here.....misdirecting....misdirecting

And recalibrating the facts of a state-supported murder.

Sounds like media spin to me. Wonder how many ways he can claim Terri did not die by the hand of the state, the judges, and Michael?

[mercy]

As you have said ... no facts matter to you other than Terri Schiavo was killed.

As strongly as you feel an innocent woman was killed ... I belive that a trapped soul being used as a political football was allowed to die in accordance with her wishes.

Yes there are doubts. I made up the deficit in surety by observing that I would not want to be kept alive artificially for at least a decade, with the prospect of more decades in that condition to come, in such a state. I asked around and could not find anyone who would NOT say they would wish to die if they were in similar straits as Terri Schiavo.

It seems clear to me that your 'pro-life' stance is such that you do not recognize a 'right to die'. Even the Pope just died as he wished. He ordained that he would stay in his apartment without all the tubes and die a natural death. People should have this right. The state courts and families should have the right to such determination. That the entire Congress and the POTUS should get involved on an individual basis is absurd.

Perhaps the courts erred in the case of Terri Schiavo. I don't think it's worth turning the conservative movement upside down over it. Nor is it worth degrading state's rights over.

This is not a slippery slope issue as far as I am concerned. Human beings have the right to make such decisions. If our society is not moral enough to handle these decisions then there is no future for us.

[alcuin]

I would not want to be kept alive artificially for at least a decade . . <<<<

?

Other than that, good post.

Oh, yeah: Thanks for enhancing the inherent value factor . .

[Jrabbit]

But this isn't about you or the various people you asked.

If, as many say, Terri had no awareness and could feel nothing.....then what was the harm of letting her live? Nobody knows what therapy might have done for her. What if...she was really smiling at her mothers touch?

She was being fed and hydrated through a tube. That's all. Why not let God decide how long she was to live?

[alcuin]

But this isn't about you . . <<<

Quite right.

It's about all of us.

[EveningStar]

Either executive should have stepped in and called a halt.

Don't you think that would have been grounds for impeachment?

IMHO, the correct thing for the government to do would've been to spare her life and then allow the legislative branches at both the state and federal levels ample time to fix the law.

If Terri had benefited from that, would that have made the law an ex post facto law?

Any lawyers here who can answer either or both questions?

[Jim Robinson]

Not exactly. I said it was wrong to kill her (my opinion) and no piled on list of "facts" (meaning other people's opinions) will change it.

Obviously there were doubts. The entire case and the way it was handled was a botched up convoluted mess. That makes killing her even the more senseless. Someone should have called a halt to it. Seeing as how the judiciary refused to halt it, and the Congress was too weak to halt it, and the governor's hands were tied, then I wish there was a way the president could've stepped in. The court ordered killing of an innocent helpless woman who could not speak for herself was a violation of her unalienable rights to life and liberty, and constitutional rights to due process and equality under the law, and was a travesty of justice. When violations of a person's basic constitutional rights have gone this far, and is so clearly wrong, with no effective help from any other branch of federal or state government, who other than the president could possibly stop it?

"Right to die" when it means legalized murder is not a right at all. It's the same farce as "abortion rights." Abortion is murder. "Abortion rights" is a liberal activist made up "right." It does not exist in the constitution. "Right to die" as in a court ordering the death of an innocent helpless human being is murder in the same way abortion is murder. It is not a constitutional right.

The right to life is an unalienable right and a plank in the Republican Party platform. Something is drastically wrong with someone's thinking if he thinks defending the right to life is turning the conservative world upside down.

We've handled these kinds of decisions under our constitution for over two hundred years just fine. The world will not end if the euthanasia enthusiasts are denied.

Sorry, but abortion, assisted suicide, euthanasia, court ordered killing of helpless individuals, etc., is definitely a slippery slope. Others have called it the culture of death. I can't see how they're that far off the mark.

[k2blader]

But this isn't about you

Thank you for that, Jrabbit!

Some folks need to be reminded of that. Often.

[Jim Robinson]

Not to open another can of worms, but just what if some miracle in modern science (don't laugh, I'm doing this partly to illustrate the absurdity and hypocrisy of liberal thinking) but what if a miracle cure was found in stem cell technology, for example, or some other modern medical breakthrough makes it possible to grow new nerve cells, new brain cells, etc. Could happen the day after tomorrow. A cure for how many diseases, ailments, injuries, lost body parts, etc, is just around the corner?

[Jim Robinson]

"Don't you think that would have been grounds for impeachment?"

Perhaps. It's a risk.

"If Terri had benefited from that, would that have made the law an ex post facto law?"

Doubtful.

[MrDem]

Ordered and Adjudged that absent a stay from the appellate courts, the guardian, Michael Schiavo, shall cause the removal of nutrition and hydration from the ward, Theresa Marie Schiavo, at 1:00 p.m. on Friday, March 18, 2005,

Reading that sends chills up and down my spine!!! Cold-blooded murder!

[Bonaparte]

Kudos to you, Jim!

All they ever call me is a "reactionary," but I'll settle for that.

[MrDem]

for example, or some other modern medical breakthrough makes it possible to grow new nerve cells, new brain cells, etc.

Just in the last several years, there has been new research completely tossing out the dogma of conventional wisdom that new brain cells can not be grown. Imagine that! After all these years, THEY WERE WRONG!

Some snippets...
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Researchers have discovered that transplanted bone marrow cells can migrate to the brain and turn into neurons, a dramatic laboratory finding that may offer hope of new therapies for Parkinson's disease and other brain disorders.

Until recently, scientists thought that humans did not grow new brain cells. They thought that only fetuses could grow brain cells and the rest of us were stuck with the brain cells with which we were born. But the world of neuroscience was pleasantly shocked when researchers at Princeton University discovered in 1998 that monkeys could grow new memory cells