Ah yes. There's also the Pratt Street Massacre in Baltimore on April 19, 1861 when a bunch of soldiers opened fire on a civilian crowd of protesters. And then there's Janet Reno's thugs. More policemen "enforcing the law"
Posted on 03/29/2005 8:07:57 PM PST by Palladin
A professor at a Bible college near Scranton, Pa., was arrested Tuesday as he tried to storm into the hospice caring for Terri Schiavo.
Dow Pursley, 56, was zapped with a Taser stun gun and tackled to the ground by officers before he reached the door, Pinellas Park police said. He became the 47th protester arrested.
Pursley, who is on the faculty of the Baptist Bible College & Seminary in Clarks Summit, Pa., had two bottles of water with him, police said. He was charged with attempted burglary and resisting arrest.
Baptist Bible College officials said in a written statement that Pursley was not acting on the school's behalf and had traveled to Florida on his personal time.
"He is a dedicated man with strong beliefs and God-given convictions," the statement said.
Pursley is the clinical director of counseling programs for the theological college's graduate school. He also helps oversee a campus clinic that offers psychological counseling based on biblical teaching.
Baptist Bible College spokesman Mark Robbins said that while the college "believes in the sanctity of life," it has not taken an official position on the Schiavo case.
Doctors said that Schiavo, 41, would probably die within a week or two after the tube was removed on March 18. She suffered catastrophic brain damage in 1990 when her heart stopped for several minutes because of a chemical imbalance.
I understand it was civil disobedience, but what would he have done if allowed into her room?
Dear Dominick,
Yes, I agree, if they'd struck that law, the current legal arguments against the murderers would be stronger.
However, murderer greer's order is still illegal on the face. Your quotation of law includes:
"...including artificially provided sustenance and hydration,..."
Giving a cup of water to a disabled woman is hardly "artificial sustenance or hydration." She swallows her own saliva (or did when she was permitted by the murderers to have any). But the murderer greer forbids even offering her a cup of water.
Furthermore, I'm reasonably sure that this applies to end-of-life circumstances, not to the severely disabled.
Finally, as the murderer m. schiavo has violated the legal obligations of guardianship for some years, it is not legally legitimate to rely on the authority of a clearly-discredited and clearly-conflicted guardian (can you say "he's got a live-in and a couple of illegitimate kids to support?").
We have tyrannical rule by judges. They have twisted the written law where they could and disregarded the written law when they had to, in order to achieve their own purposes.
Political leaders who fail to see the overthrow of the constitutional order inherent in this situation will be unable to fix what needs fixing.
sitetest
That would have been up to the protester. I don't believe he has any medical background.
IOW, you've made a post full of "personal, unsubstantiated insults that hinge on slurring a person personally" with "no proof, no documentation, no hint of a verifiable whisper" other than "smarmy innuendos" against me in an effort to accuse me of the very same thing.
Good job, cad. You've just admitted to your theft of another projector!
I'd crawl over miles of broken glass to avoid Civil War threads. Please have mercy on this mod by not dragging them here.
cad (kAd) n. A man whose behavior is unprincipled or dishonorable.
Someone who is morally reprehensible.
A person who behaves crudely or dishonorably.
An ill-bred man.
A person lacking in finer feelings.
A lowbred, presuming person; a mean, vulgar fellow.
One who is morally reprehensible.
A villian, scoundrel, wicked or evil person; someone who does evil deliberately
Synonyms: bounder, blackguard, dog, hound, heel
Aside from Non-Sequitur, you're about the most appropriately named person n this entire forum!
Ah yes. There's also the Pratt Street Massacre in Baltimore on April 19, 1861 when a bunch of soldiers opened fire on a civilian crowd of protesters. And then there's Janet Reno's thugs. More policemen "enforcing the law"
You too, please knock off the personal stuff, regardless of who might have started it.
You mean like you just did, right?
Talk about nursing a grudge against another freeper.
AKA "anti-fundamentalist" matters.
I simply found it very odd that this particular poster would follow me over to a post deep in a Terri Schaivo thread to start an unprovoked civil war flamewar. Windsong is correct that he seems to harbor some sort of grudge against me, but I find even that odd because I've only had about 3 or 4 exchanges of any substance with him ever, and most of those were many, many months if not years ago. Why he'd appear out of the blue and start making off-topic rants against me here is a mystery.
Against laws that contradict the laws of God, YES.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
—
Ok. You have our permission to refrain from entering the CW threads ;o)
I know some of them have spoken out againt the government sponsored starvation of Terri Schiavo, but that's hardly enough, and it's nothing near what they have the potential to do.
These evangelical leaders have been conspicuously absent from rallying the troops and getting behind Terri Schiavo in large numbers, something they can really shine at when motivated to do so. I don't see it happening for Terri Schiavo.
Dear Dominick,
"Wholly legal by definition."
The order is illegal on its face. It is only legal by the definition of the murderer greer and a judiciary that believes it is beyond questioning.
The actual law gives no authority to prevent individuals from offering a cup of water to Terri.
Why wouldn't her parents feed her or give her water? Because they would be arrested. By whose orders? By an out of control, authority-usurping judge who is violating the letter of the actual law, replacing his own law for what is actually written.
However, Gov. Bush is unwilling to face down the murderer greer, and the Schindlers, of themselves, have no governmental authority to exert in the situation.
The case does NOT turn on the law you cited above, as that law is not applicable to giving someone a cup of water, or from killing someone who is not terminally ill. The case turns on the illegal orders of a tin-horn, two-bit dictator worthless probate judge, backed up by other judges who rightly understand that if they don't back this worthless POS, then the entire edifice of judicial usurpation and overthrow of the actual Constitution will be threatened.
The judiciary is out of control.
The legislature and the executive must exert their authority to rein the judiciary in. President Bush or Gov. Bush could merely exercise their police powers and ignore the illegal acts of the judge. Congress could ask the Justice Department to have the murderer greer arrested for obstructing a lawful subpoena, and circumventing federal law.
Once Terri were taken into protective custody, what would the judge do? Have a fit of apoplexy? Send the bailiff over to take her back? This is part of the checks and balances of our system of government. The law enforcement and military are under the control of the executive, not the judiciary. The judiciary requires the cooperation of the executive to enforce its rulings. If the judiciary acts unconstitutionally, there is nothing in the Constitution that requires the executive to enforce those unconstitutional actions.
But the Bush boys (all hat, no cattle) have bowed down to their black-robed judicial masters and have acceded to the tyranny of judicial supremacy.
Fundamentally, we will not win the battle for life until power is taken back from the judicial tyrants who have unconstitutionally usurped it.
sitetest
What felony...giving water to Terri?
You're right; my apologies.
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.