Still Waiting

Dakota Voice ^ | 1/29/2007 | Carrie K. Hutchens

[8mmMauser]

I don't know about anyone else, but I am still waiting for Michael Schiavo to make a correction on his blog about what "actually" took place in Colorado when he went there (to the debate) to supposedly ask Congresswoman Musgrave one question and she and her staff supposedly tried to have him removed. He called it, "My unreal night in Colorado - with radio link" (Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 08:05:14 PM PST). I'll say (from what I read) that it was his "unreal night".

As I said before in "Standing up and Admitting a Mistake: Not Schiavo's Style?",  if four uniformed officers were around my seat, I would have some idea of what was going on. I certainly wouldn't be sitting in "duh mode" to only be told later of what took place right there around me, as Michael suggests he was. If Michael's account is realistic -- his response and reaction is not. Nor is his response appropriate now that he has "learned" what he was "allegedly told" is not what took place. One would think if he can't get the words out that he was mistaken, he could at least have removed the inaccurate entry from his blog.

He has done neither.

I'm also still waiting to read about, "Also, maybe tomorrow I'll post about my election-eve rally with Bill Clinton in Florida." (A real election impact by Michael Schiavo, Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 10:40:34 AM PST).  Indeed, I would love to read that story by Michael, since I read it was not possible. Not if he was implying it was the Bill Clinton that is the former President of the United States. Will be interesting to see what he says about that if he ever does.

If Michael couldn't get it straight what happened at the Musgrave debate or even if he spent election-eve with former President Bill Clinton -- do you suppose he might have gotten Terri Schiavo's wishes mixed-up as well? (He does claim to have a bad memory from what I read.) Makes one wonder. At least makes me wonder. Whatever...

I'm still waiting for the corrections if not the explanations!

 

Carrie Hutchens is a former law enforcement officer and a freelance writer who is active in fighting against the death culture movement and the injustices within the judicial and law enforcement systems.

[8mmMauser]

Were it not for Pat Boone my hero in the olden days, I may never had learned to bop. (gulp...) He is still a hero in a real way as indicated two years ago today. Note the hostility of the media source...

..........................

Fox News Channel tried again to drag the husband of Terri Schiavo through the mud Wednesday (March 23) when entertainer Pat Boone appeared on The Big Story with John Gibson and suggested that Terri Schiavo's persistant vegetative state was caused by an attempted homicide.

Boone was responding to a question from Gibson about why Terri Schiavo's parents, rather than her husband, Michael Schiavo, should have the final say on whether she is kept alive via a feeding tube.

Boone replied that when paramedics responded to Michael Shiavo's call for help when his wife suffered a heart attack, they initially thought they were responding to a homicide attempt. "What caused this heart attack to begin with?" asked Boone. He said Terri Schiavo was later found to have multiple broken bones.

Boone implied that Michael Shiavo had an ulterior motive in wanting not just to let his wife die, but "to put her away."

"Why does the husband so desperately not want his wife to live when all he has to do is let her parents who love her take care of her? That's a big question," he said.

Pat Boone: Was Schiavo Heart Attack a Murder Attempt?

8mm

[T'wit]

>> from placing a helium-filled plastic bag over his head while surrounded by family members.

Ah, the perfect picture of "death with dignity." Just slip a balloon over my head and watch me thrash around.

[8mmMauser]

A letter to the editor two years ago today:

.....................................

Terri Schiavo is a living, breathing person. Her husband wants her dead. Her parents want her alive and have offered to take care of her for as long as she lives. There is no living will to show what her wishes might be, but her husband says she told him if she was ever in this situation, she would want to be put to death. That is what we are told. She probably will not die on her own, so something must be done to make her die. The choice of her husband is to starve her to death. A very slow death. It is not known whether there would be pain connected to her starving or whether she would feel that pain.

The motivation for the two sides is pretty clear. The husband has a common-law family, accumulated after Terri's medical problem began, and her death would free him up to make that family legitimate. The parents want her to live, like most parents would want, even though the possibility of her getting better is slim to none.

Being a parent to four adults and grandparent to 13 and great-grandparent to 14 with one grandchild right now in a coma from an auto accident, I am on the side of Terri's parents that she should not be put to death at the hands of her husband and the Florida courts. She should not be sentenced to death for something she has no control over.

Ed Anderson
Kirkland

Parents have the more altruistic reason for choice

8mm

[T'wit]

>> Pat Boone: Was Schiavo Heart Attack a Murder Attempt?

Shockingly, I vote no. I see it as involuntary manslaughter. I think Michael was trying to punish Terri, not to kill her. As I figure it, he was on top of her, holding her down, unaware that she was asphyxiating. He stayed there too long.

God knows, if he was aiming to kill her, he could have done it with ease. Another 30 seconds on her back would have done it. Furthermore, his hysteria afterward belies an intent to kill. If this was a calculated act, he could be expected to finish it and get rid of the body (for which he had NO explanation).

[8mmMauser]

It would have been more euphoric and joyful had he worn a clown outfit and held a bouquet of other helium balloons in his hand, with a calliope playing and an organ grinder waiting for spare parts.

[8mmMauser]

But at least Pat Boone saw the sinister possibility as the media cheerfully looked away.

[8mmMauser]

Oops, a downside. Who would have thought?

A couple who sued a fertility clinic after the wife gave birth to a daughter whose skin they thought was too dark for her to be their child may proceed with their lawsuit, a judge has ruled.

Thomas and Nancy Andrews, of Commack, N.Y., sued New York Medical Services for Reproductive Medicine, accusing the Manhattan clinic of medical malpractice and other offenses. They said the Park Avenue clinic botched the insemination of Nancy Andrews' eggs.

L.I. Couple: Eggs Fertilized With Wrong Sperm, Baby's Skin Doesn't Match

8mm

[8mmMauser]

I pinged your thread above.

[T'wit]

>> It would have been more euphoric and joyful had he worn a clown outfit and held a bouquet of other helium balloons in his hand, with a calliope playing and an organ grinder waiting for spare parts.

Yes! And more dignified, too! Wearing a red tennis ball on your nose sends a quiet but forceful message of dignity... purpose... class. Somehow, we all look up to a person with a red tennis ball on his nose.

Stuffed animals are good, too. Over all the years, Michael wouldn't let Terri have any stuffed animals, greeting cards or religious medallions. Somebody must have warned him he'd better give her a Teddy or two for her death scene. You never can tell when someone will smuggle in a camera.

[Dante3]

You hit the nail on the head - the left hates. And not only hates, but hates with a passion that often detours them from reality.

[T'wit]

>> But at least Pat Boone saw the sinister possibility

You bet. Pat Boone has taken some guff over the years for being... well... too nice. But I can't recall a single bad word anyone has had for him. He must carry himself well.

[8mmMauser]

From Helen Valois writing in Renew America about ID for animals and what it portends. We saw the same program in France going full swing over a decade ago and it was nearly incomprehensible even then how invasive this socialism is.

Our farmer neighbors there were no longer independent farmers as we would picture, were instead just employees working for the government, tentative workers on what used to be the family farm. They were required to keep up the personnel folder on each animal, and if one died outside of government say so, they were in trouble. Killing an animal for themselves was unthinkable.

No smiley faces here or hopes it will be more benign. Up close it is ugly socialistic smothering control, very real, and soon to come unless stopped.

It is saying, when you think about it, the same thing it said in the Schindler-Schiavo slaying, and in the confiscatory Kelo decision as well. It is saying that it no longer respects our unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. What used to be the American government and is now only a shadow of its former self told the Schindler family members they could only maintain the life of their dear daughter and sister with the government's expressed permission, and the government withheld that permission. It told the homeowners in the Kelo case they could only occupy their own homes with the government's permission, and the government withheld that permission. Now, through NAIS, everyone who owns a livestock animal of any kind is being told they can only own them with the government's permission. Does anyone see a pattern here? When will we see it, and put a stop to it as well?

To answer our original question, then, NAIS is not a benign attempt to curb the bird flu, or any other imagined or actual biological threat. It is a socialistic power grab with ramifications far beyond what might be immediately apparent. Just because an agenda is achieved through regulation rather than legislation doesn't give it the right to remain unconstitutional. What is the point of vigorously defending our freedoms abroad while calmly handing them over to bureaucrats back here at home? What do life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness mean any more, if they are to be constantly redefined by those with the power to back up that redefinition through the power of the sword?

NAIS: Get the government out of my barnyard!

8mm

[8mmMauser]

March to the left without DeLay...

This comes from a site which states the cold winter weather is also proof of Global Warming. I wonder of those of the Church of Global Warming call their faith Warmism.

In true liberal form just like those liberal trolls hiding in our folds, they project and twist words to opposite meanings, just like their father the father of lies.

In inviting former Congressman Tom DeLay onto their program to discuss the Iraq War, ‘Meet the Press’ lowered the bar for honest debate. After all, he resigned his office because he was indicted. His voice should carry absolutely no weight as this war is discussed. He has no right to interject his feelings and opinions of this war as he did so with the Terrie Schiavo case. In both cases he is wrong. Let us be our own hammers to confront him.

Everyone who speaks truth to power, as far as ending our occupation in Iraq, are true and real patriots and I am sick of folks like DeLay stating the opposite.

Here is what he said on MTP, “Well, I--it, it is my opinion that when you go to war, we ought to all come together. You can debate going to war, that's a legitimate debate. But once you have our soldiers and our, our young people dying on the battlefield, we should come together, and we shouldn't have what we had yesterday on the Mall of, of, of--in Washington, D.C. When the--those are not, in my mind--my opinion, patriots that are talking about impeaching the commander in chief.”

Bush, DeLay, Perle and others are collaborators against American People

8mm

[8mmMauser]

Bah for the U. of M.

How would Lori have gotten along with Rabbi Tauber we quoted yesterday?

...........................

Secular humanists, free-thinkers, skeptics, nontheists, rationalists, atheists, agnostics and self-described infidels adore Lori Lipman Brown.

Religious people -- from many traditions -- like her a lot, too.

The soft-spoken, unfailingly pleasant Brown, director of the Secular Coalition of America, lobbies legislators in Washington, D.C., on issues of separation of church and state.

She visited Minnesota this week to talk to groups ranging from the University of Minnesota's Campus Atheists and Secular Humanists to Or Emet, also called the Minnesota Congregation for Humanistic Judaism.

Brown, 48, who grew up in New York in a close-knit secular Jewish family, is riding a tide of national interest in atheist and humanist philosophies. Books by outspoken atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris have been bestsellers for months, and recently U.S. Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., became the first member of Congress to say publicly that he does not believe in a supreme being.

"There's been a turning point," said Brown, a former high school teacher, law professor and Nevada state senator. "I think what happened was that the James Dobsons of this world went too far. Also, many people, including religious people, have been shocked by faith-based efforts to stop stem-cell research, and by the Terri Schiavo case, where politicians were diagnosing her medical condition based on video clips.

"The public has decided that it's no longer going to go along with everything outspoken religious people say," Brown said. "Look at all the people who went out and rewrote their living wills after the Schiavo debacle."

Still, Brown acknowledged that poll after poll finds that Americans say atheists are the demographic group they trust the least.

She is convinced that will change over time.

She has worked closely with "moderate people of faith" on many issues, including opposing proselytizing by military chaplains in Iraq ("they're supposed to serve the soldiers' needs, not their own agendas") and pressing Congress for greater scrutiny of faith-based initiatives, which she described as unfairly, lucratively and even illegally favoring the religious right.

Such efforts can protect nonbelievers and people of all faiths from discrimination and unfairness, she said.

Brown's activism does not include trying to talk religious people out of their faith. Still, she's forthright about being faith-free.

"There's a misconception that if you don't believe in a supreme being, you won't lead an ethical life," she said. "That's just not true. We all have consciences. All of us want to live in a society where we can be free and happy.

"Also, not believing in an afterlife means we are willing to work especially hard to make sure this life is as good as possible for all of us."

Activist works for good of believers, nonbelievers alike All people can benefit from opposition to undue religious influence in public life, says Secular Coalition lobbyist Lori Lipman Brown.

8mm

[8mmMauser]

Two years ago today, Peggy Noonan said this in the WSJ. What has changed with the trolls and apologists of the left?

God made the world or he didn't.

God made you or he didn't.

If he did, your little human life is, and has been, touched by the divine. If this is true, it would be true of all humans, not only some. And so--again, if it is true--each human life is precious, of infinite value, worthy of great respect.

Most--not all, but probably most--of those who support Terri Schiavo's right to live believe the above. This explains their passion and emotionalism. They believe they are fighting for an invaluable and irreplaceable human life. They are like the mother who is famously said to have lifted the back of a small car off the ground to save a child caught under a tire. You're desperate to save a life, you're shot through with adrenaline, your strength is for half a second superhuman, you do the impossible.

In Love With Death The bizarre passion of the pull-the-tube people.

8mm

[8mmMauser]

Two years ago today...

BTW, the cop who has turned his back had a decent shred of humanity in him. I think about it often and hold out hope for him.

..............................

Here you see what things have come to in the Terry Schiavo case. The 14-year old boy, which you see below, was handcuffed, arrested, and taken into police custody for trespassing when he tried to bring a glass of water to Terry Schiavo. Couldn't they have just taken the glass of water away? Since when can you handcuff and arrest a minor in public? Granted his parents are partly to blame for bringing him here when they knew what they were trying to do was against the law, but all of this needs to come to an end before something worse happens.

Regardless of how strongly you feel about the Terry Schiavo case, there is no excuse to break the law or even worse use or teach your children to do it.

Arrested Development

8mm

[8mmMauser]

Two years ago today...

...............................

The US Supreme Court declines to hear the appeal filed by the parents of Terri Schiavo to have her feeding tube reinserted. Florida judge George Greer likewise declines to open Schiavo's records to the Florida Department of Children and Families (Reuters)

Judge

8mm

[8mmMauser]

Two years ago today...

I am reminded of two Easter season assaults on the senses of decent people.

They say it as if it were a bad thing. Good is bad, bad is good. Is Easter season a time when such darkness descends?

...............................

MSNBC political analyst and former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan advocated sending "federal marshals" into the hospital room of Terri Schiavo to reinsert her feeding tube. Yet when the Clinton administration sent U.S. marshals to seize Elian Gonzalez from his great-uncle's Miami home and return him to Cuba in 2000, Buchanan described the government's intervention as "a police-state tactic one associates with a Communist tyranny, not the United States."

On the March 23 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, Buchanan asserted: "What George Bush ought to do right now is send federal marshals in and pick up Terri Schiavo and put that ... food and hydration tube back into her." Buchanan added: "Action [by the president] ... creates consensus."

~Snip~

On April 22, 2000, the Associated Press reported Buchanan's condemnation of federal action in the Elian Gonzalez case:

The predawn Easter weekend raid on the home of the Miami family of Elian Gonzalez was a police-state tactic one associates with a Communist tyranny, not the United States. The devoted family that gave Elian months of love and affection was treated like a gang of kidnappers. But the real kidnapper of Elian Gonzalez is Fidel Castro; Mr. Clinton and [then-Attorney General] Janet Reno acted as his accomplices.

Buchanan called for sending "federal marshals" to reinsert Schiavo's feeding tube, but labeled federal intervention for Elian Gonzalez "police-state tactics"

8mm

[8mmMauser]

Two years ago today...

The dividing line already starts to focus.

.....................................

From Fox News host John Gibson's interview with nationally syndicated radio host and former Reagan administration official William J. Bennett on the March 22 edition of Fox News' The Big Story with John Gibson:

GIBSON: Is there -- before I run out of time and gotta run, because it's coming soon -- do we now have the following political divide: Republicans stand for parents' right and life, and Democrats have sided for questionable husband and dying?

BENNETT: In a lot of peoples' minds, that's it.

Only on Fox: John Gibson suggested that "Republicans stand for parents' right and life, and Democrats have sided for questionable husband and dying"

8mm

[8mmMauser]

Two years ago today...

Dr. Tony

.............................

I want to share my opinion about some of the "rule of law" topics.

First of all, the courts don't make law, nor do they have the sole responsibility for the interpretation and imposition of the law. The President swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. The 5th ammendment protects citizens from loss of life without due process. The 14th ammendment protects citizens from state laws that seek to deprive them of this due process. The federal courts review state court actions everyday. Remember, death penalty cases make it to federal courts all the time. The Supreme Court of the US has the ultimate authority to review state cases.

The Congress of the United States has the authority, granted by the Constitution, Article 3, I believe, to direct the jurisdiction of the federal courts. It is perfectly legal for the Congress to direct a federal court to review a state action.

The law passed by Congress required the federal court to perform a de novo review of this case. This is where the "rule of law" was flouted! The reviewing judge did not perform a de novo review, without deference to the state judges rulings, but simply reviewed the procedures and said there was no procedural reason to believe the family would prevail and refused to act. The judges responsibility was to review the facts of the case and render findings of fact, with regard to the opinions and findings of the state judge.

Another example of flouting the rule of law was when the state judge disregarded a Congressional subpoena. No judge has the authority to ignore a Congressional subpoena.

There is considerable disagreement among the nurses and doctors who have had contact with TS. There are numerous affidavits from those nurses and doctors that have been ignored by the courts. Numerous people have offered testimony that MS was interested only in getting rid of TS.

What's wrong with performing a PET scan or an MRI to look at TS's brain? Why won't MS allow this?

Read this by CodeBlueBlog.

Ann Coulter addressed this same issue better than I, in her usual irreverent manner:

As a practical matter, courts will generally have the last word in interpreting the law because courts decide cases. But that's a pragmatic point. There is nothing in the law, the Constitution or the concept of "federalism" that mandates giving courts the last word. Other public officials, including governors and presidents, are sworn to uphold the law, too.

As I've said before, you should read anything Thomas Sowell writes. Here, he said:

Terri Schiavo is being killed because she is inconvenient to her husband and because she is inconvenient to those who do not want the idea of the sanctity of life to be strengthened and become an impediment to abortion. Nor do they want the supremacy of judges to be challenged, when judges are the liberals' last refuge.

Another Terri Schiavo post

8mm