Schools have a Problem with Photos of our Protectors

The lunacy of the leftwing, PC, zero tolerance policies, which I blogged about here yesterday, continues. Michelle Malkin posts a piece regarding a photo of our country's finest, bearing scary weapons, no less, which cannot be shown to our tender public school children. Why? Because weapons of any sort, even photos, are not tolerated by the esteemed elite administrators of our prestigious government schools.

Maybe ALL of the gov't schools across the fruited plain need to be swarmed with military photos of all sorts in an effort to shame these effete elitists into some common sensical reality. I'll be happy to post email addresses of any and all schools, administrators, teachers, etc. But that wouldn't be nearly as effective as parents en masse swarming their own local schools with whatever necessary anti-PC information particularly pertinent to their own school system. This zero tolerance debacle needs to be addressed on a local basis by parents.

It would be fun if countless parents would demand that school administrators post pro-military posters in high school hallways...yeah, like that'll happen!

Quote of the Day

With Terri Dead, (the) American Left can now turn its attention to saving Scott Peterson.

Rush Limbaugh

Malkin: "GEORGE FELOS: GHOUL"

Thank you, Michelle, for cataloging some of the background of that Felos fellow. I wonder how many TV's were destroyed today by lamps, ashtrays, shoes, handguns (where's Elvis when you need him?) or whatever was within reach when this ghoul did his "death conference?" If you haven't done so already, you owe it to yourself to explore the links Michelle Malkin has posted at her blog. This guy is an extreme piece of work. That anyone put credence in this Kavorkian wannabe is disturbing.

Michelle's piece is only a starting point. Read everything you can find on this man. He is what he appears to be, even to the casual observer...dark and macabre.

More about Felos here.

Terri Fallout

When Terri's horrific ordeal is over and she is finally able to rest in peace, what is going to happen politically and culturally? You already see certain politicos making sure they cover their asses. No doubt some judges will do the same. Depending on the size of the backlash, there will be more who come out of the woodwork and declare they were doing everything they could do behind the scenes to save Terri's life. Will there even be a backlash? If not, will that give the "deathheads" license to go full speed ahead with their agenda of euthanasia?

It's my opinion that there is going to be a huge backlash, the likes of which we have never seen in this country this side of the civil war. And all but a very few of the left will have come down on the wrong side of this issue. All out war (ie, political) will take place in the appointment of federal judges because the left can only win in the courts and they will do whatever they have to do to win this ideological war. It will not be a fair fight and it certainly won't be pretty!

The republicans had best get on the stick posthaste to make sure that a simple majority is all that is necessary for judges to be approved. And they would be smart to nix the inappropriate nomenclature now known as the "nuclear option." The republicans have the majority so they shouldn't use the language of their minority opponents.

When Terri dies, you better fasten your seat belt folks, because it's going to be a real bumpy ride for a while.

The judicial/legislative/executive branch war is going to bring out the worst in everybody. (Note to Christians: mind your p's and q's. Don't let down in prayer. Support the good guys, and pray for our country. The culture war has been kicked up notches heretofore unknown to mankind.)

Zero Tolerance in Schools--A Liberal Legacy

For the unseen things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being realized by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, for them to be without excuse.
Because, knowing God, they did not glorify Him as God, neither were thankful. But they became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing to be wise, they became fools ......

Romans 1:20-23

Will the madness of politically correct zero tolerance policies in government schools ever cease? Almost weekly we hear of head shaking tales bereft of all common sense. The stories would be curiously humorous if it weren't for the fact that lives are often ruined by these inconsequential policy faux pas. Take for example Eddie Evans' son; a twelve year old Houston student who mistakenly arrived at school forgetting his three inch boyscout knife was in his pocket:

In third period the boy discovered that the three-inch pocketknife he had taken to his last Boy Scout meeting was still inside his coat - a definite no-no under the school's zero-tolerance policy. Unsure what to do, he consulted a friend before putting the knife in his locker. The friend turned him in and, after lunch, police arrested him and took him to a juvenile-detention center without contacting his parents, according to senate testimony.

Mr. Evans says the school then expelled his son for 45 days and enrolled him in an alternative school for juvenile offenders. By the end, the First Class Boy Scout, youth leader at church, and winner of an outstanding- student award was contemplating suicide. "All the teachers knew it was an honest mistake, but none of that mattered because of the school's policy," says Evans two years later.

Similar stories abound around the country. Happily, some folks are sick and tired of this nonsense and are trying to change the system. At least in Texas.

Evans is one of the many parents who are trying to change the state's Safe Schools Act of 1995. In fact, Texas - one of the nation's toughest-minded states when it comes to crime and discipline - is now at the forefront of a small but growing movement to relax zero-tolerance policies enacted by states in the 1990s.

More than a dozen bills that try to bring a less rigid approach to school discipline have been introduced in the Texas legislature this session, including one that requires school officials to consider a student's intent. The bill is currently moving through the House of Representatives.

"We have seen a number of states toy with the idea of scaling back or trying to make the process of school discipline more rational," says Bob Schwartz, executive director of the Juvenile Law Center in Philadelphia. "But Texas is ahead of the curve at this point."

Indiana, Mississippi, and Pennsylvania are also weighing the issue at the legislative level this year, with the introduction of several bills aimed at softening strict school-discipline policies.

"Just talking about it suggests that, if not a pendulum swing, a pendulum creep is in play," says Mr. Schwartz, though he cautions that many states have given their school districts discretion when it comes to discipline, making the issue hard to legislate.

Two Worthy Reads

There are two outstanding articles at The American Thinker today relating to Terri. Both are essential reads. One has to do with the scary Brave New World in which we live and how it's going to get "braver" as time goes on. Author, Timothy Birdnow, offers some insight on the culture of death; past, present and future:

This obsession with death can be seen throughout history. Consider the butchery during the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, and the Nazi atrocities. Consider the careless disregard for life by all the former communist regimes. In Leftist societies, life is cheap. Abortion is a holy sacrament to the liberal. To the deathheads, human will is the final master, and death serves as an instrument of that will.

By controlling the time, place, and manner of death, the deathheads have a semblance of the powers of the divine. Possibly, that is why the death of Terri Schiavo is so important to them. They want the right to control the end of life as a means to reinforce and sanctify their own inner beliefs. They also know that the Schiavo case is going to set a memorable public precedent. If they could force the death of Terri despite the pro-life forces arrayed against them, they would establish their right to command death for the innocent. If they have the right to kill when their reason adjudges it necessary, they have established their coequality with the Creator.

The other must read linked on Thinker is the most recent Mark Steyn column. He writes about the legality versus morality of Terri's "sentence." Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right which he illustrates by something Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau said some time ago:

A couple of decades back, north of the border, it was discovered that some overzealous types in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police had been surreptitiously burning down the barns of Quebec separatists. The prime minister, Pierre Trudeau, shrugged off the controversy and blithely remarked that, if people were so upset by the Mounties illegally burning down barns, perhaps he'd make the burning of barns by Mounties legal. As the columnist George Jonas commented:

'It seemed not to occur to him that it isn't wrong to burn down barns because it's illegal, but it's illegal to burn down barns because it's wrong. Like other statist politicians, Mr. Trudeau . . . either didn't see, or resented, that right and wrong are only reflected by the laws, not determined by them.'

That's how I feel about the Terri Schiavo case. I'm neither a Floridian nor a lawyer, and, for all I know, it may be legal under Florida law for the state to order her to be starved to death. But it is still wrong.

Be sure to read these important pieces in their entirety. Both are excellent.

"Minuteman" Project Begins This Week

The Minuteman Project begins in southern Arizona later this week. The project is made up of volunteers from all over the country who are congregating near Tucson and will be observing illegal border crossings in Cochise County:

The Minuteman Project is a monthlong endeavor where organizers plan to deploy civilian volunteers at Cochise County's U.S.-Mexico border, in turn reporting any illegal border activity to the U.S. Border Patrol. The project is focusing on the San Pedro Valley, a hot spot for illegal border crossings

More about the project can be found here.

According to The Washington Times:

Members of a violent Central America-based gang have been sent to Arizona to target Minuteman Project volunteers, who will begin a monthlong border vigil this weekend to find and report foreigner sneaking into the United States, project officials say.

James Gilchrist, a Vietnam veteran who helped organize the vigil to protest the federal government's failure to control illegal immigration, said he has been told that California and Texas leaders of Mara Salvatrucha, or MS-13, have issued orders to teach "a lesson" to the Minuteman volunteers.

What we have here is a group of concerned citizens, who, last week, were called "vigilantes" by President Bush, being threatened by an illegal violent gang. Should be interesting!

La Shawn Barber asks: Who Will Protect the Minuteman Volunteers?

Michelle Malkin's New Immigration Blog

The hardest working woman in America has an important new blog which will concentrate on our out of control border problems. The Immigration Blog is the creation of Michelle Malkin and she calls it a spin off of her regular blog. Malkin has called upon a handful of writers close to and familiar with our immigration problems. This is going to become a "must visit" site if you want to be up on the latest immigration info. Visit often. I'm linking it right under Michelle's existing link.

A View from The Scotsman

A powerful piece from Europe on the Schiavo debacle, Time for a moral revolution, is a must read. Particularly interesting is the impression that we are the ones who wish to export our "values" around the world while thuggishly starving a young lady to death. Does sound a bit hypocritical doesn't it? Don't miss it. Please read the entire piece.

What's with the Morphine?

Someone just reported that Terri is sedated on morphine. I thought she was in a coma; that she is brain dead; that she can't feel anything; that she is unaware of what is happening to her. Why is she being sedated if all those things are true and starvation is a beautiful and euphoric way to die?

According to Inside Cover Story:

On Wednesday, for instance, the Los Angles Times reported:

"Doctors say that going without food and water in the last weeks of life is not traumatic, and that the body is equipped to adjust to such conditions."

The paper quoted Dr. Perry G. Fine, vice president of medical affairs at the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization in Arlington, Va.

"What my patients have told me over the last 25 years is that when they stop eating and drinking, there's nothing unpleasant about it – in fact, it can be quite blissful and euphoric."

"It's a very smooth, graceful and elegant way to go," Dr. Fine added.

Here's the other side of the coin:

"Barbara Weller, who is one of the attorneys for the Schindlers, says that the last time she checked in, not very many hours ago, Terri's eyes and tongue were bleeding now.

"Her eyes are sunken and her skin continues to flake off," Weller added.

On Thursday Terri's parents reported that their daughter now resembles "an Auschwitz victim."

At the request of Michael Schiavo's attorney, Judge George Greer has banned cameras and video equipment from her room, precluding the possibility that a photographic record of her deteriorating condition might be kept.

The eyewitness accounts stand in stark contrast to predictions from medical experts cited in numerous media reports who insisted that Terri's starvation death would not be gruesome.

Quite a contrast!

Hats Off to Lanny Davis AND Jesse Jackson

Having never been a fan of Lanny Davis or the politicos he supports, I bid him congratulations for speaking out in Terri's behalf. See Inside Cover Story:

"'In this situation on a personal and moral level, I go with the parents who are willing to take care of this young woman,' former White House Counsel Lanny Davis told Fox News Channel's Geraldo Rivera. 'And I cannot comprehend why this husband is standing in their way.'"

Update: Rita Cosby just interviewed Jesse Jackson and he vociferously comes down on Terri's side stating that she is being starved to death.

Wouldn't it be great if a groundswell of non-partisan/bi-partisan support figuratively swarmed the dominant zeitgeist and a change of heart overcame the purveyors of death. If it's not too late.

Bloggers Must be Getting to Them

David Shaw has a piece in the Los Angeles Times which questions the legitimacy of blogs and bloggers. If blogs and other news making sites on the web (read, Drudge) have no legitimacy, why all the fuss?

I have no delusions that my little baby blog has any influence whatsoever on anyone, but of course, the Times piece lumps all blogs into a wishful little lump of irrelevance. The arrogant MSM would love it if Drudge (8 to 11 million visits/day, depending on the news cycle) were irrelevant. They hate him. They would love it if the big bloggers like Power Line, Instapundit, Michelle Malkin, Captain's Quarters, Hugh Hewitt, and so many others, (not to mention the talk radio power houses a la Rush who paved the way for the countless internet sites) weren't breaking stories and causing iconic anchors to leave in ignominy, or actually calling to account the Old Gray Lady when bogus stories appear.

Is it any wonder the MSM is barring the New Media from "journalism" by being the ones who define it? Who really cares how they define themselves or others?

It all boils down to truth. If someone files fake stories, someone, somewhere is going to check it out and uncover it. That wasn't always as possible as it is now. That works the same for everyone, whether you're Drudge or CBS. No one is exempt from the truth.

Miniature Violin Alert

Kofi Annan is depressed! Things have been tough over on the East River this year what with all the pesky allegations of sexual abuse and that food for oil deal in Iraq. That his son is intimately connected to the latter controversy has Kofi between Iraq and a hard place (sorry!). Anyway, here's part of the story:

KOFI ANNAN, the United Nations secretary-general, is said to be struggling with depression and considering his future. Colleagues have reported concerns about Annan ahead of an official report this week that will examine his son Kojo’s connection to the controversial Iraqi oil for food scheme.
Depending on the findings of the report, by a team led by the former US Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker, Annan may have to choose between the secretary-generalship and loyalty to his son.

American congressional critics of the UN are already pressing him to resign over the mismanagement of the oil for food programme, and even his supporters have been dismayed by the scandals on his watch, including the sexual abuse of children by UN peacekeepers in Congo.

Freeper, reddog, in a post dated 3/26/05, suggested that "Kofi ought to move the UN to Las Vegas and 'go legit' the same as Michael Corleone did..." heh heh

Prepare yourself for a propaganda campaign of international proportions if you-know-who decides he wants this job.

"Killing her for her own good"

An excellent piece by Lenny Cacchio:

It’s a messy situation, this Terri Schiavo case. It has become a tangled legal knot emotional, moral, and political thorn bushes, reinforced by accusations of abuse, improprieties, and raw evil.

I have my opinions about the motives of the Schindler’s and of Michael Schiavo, and you probably have yours. God knows their hearts and will be their judge. But here is something I don’t get: I do not understand why so many people want to see Terri Schiavo dead. And I do not understand the insistence on making her death a slow, lingering one. And I do not understand how this can be spun as “forcing” her to live versus “allowing” her to die. We have passed into an Orwellian world where death is freedom and starvation is compassion. As Isaiah said, “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness.” (Isaiah 5:20 NIV)

Our cultural milieu substitutes the subjective “quality of life” for the nobility of the “sanctity of life”. At what point does one’s life lack enough quality to make it worth living, and who has the right to decide that? Some in this culture no longer defend the right to life and instead speak eloquently, if you have ears to hear, about the duty to die.

On August 3, 1941 Bishop Clemons von Galen stood in his pulpit in Nazi Germany and said, “For the past several months it has been reported that, on instructions from Berlin, patients who have been suffering for a long time from apparently incurable diseases have been forcibly removed from homes and clinics. Their relatives are later informed that the patient has died, that the body has been cremated and that the ashes may be claimed. There is little doubt that these numerous cases of unexpected death in the case of the insane are not natural, but often deliberately caused, and result from the belief that it is lawful to take away life which is unworthy of being lived.

“This ghastly doctrine tries to justify the murder of blameless men and would seek to give legal sanction to the forcible killing of invalids, cripples, the incurable and the incapacitated. I have discovered that the practice here in Westphalia is to compile lists of such patients who are removed elsewhere as ‘unproductive citizens,’ and after a period of time put to death. … ccording to some doctor, or because of the decision of some committee, they have no longer a right to live because they are ‘unproductive citizens’. The opinion is that since they can no longer make money, they are obsolete machines, comparable with some old cow that can no longer give milk or some horse that has gone lame. What is the lot of unproductive machines and cattle? They are destroyed.” (From Cardinal von Galen, by Heinrich Portman, English translation by RL Sedqwick, 1957, pp. 239-246. See Bishop Clemens August Count of Galen)

One must wonder if the duty to die crowd is applying the same calculus. Do we have the right to life because we are children made in God’s image? Or is our value to society a strict cost-benefit formula? Are we becoming what the Nazis envisioned, where a life is valued only if that life contributes to the cogs of the state?

Follow the dollar and sense where the winds are blowing. The question is whether ailing human beings cost society more than they contribute. Do the weakest among us have a claim upon humanity and therefore have a right to life even if they impose costs rather than benefits? Do people have a duty to die because their presence imposes an inconvenience on others?

These moral questions go beyond legalities and judiciaries, and speak to how we view the value of each member of the human race. The question has become one of convenience and finances. Personally, I prefer the country I once knew, where the right to life was more precious than the culture of death.

"Exit Strategy" Sought by Iraqi "Insurgents"

From The Financial Times:

Many of Iraq's predominantly Sunni Arab insurgents would lay down their arms and join the political process in exchange for guarantees of their safety and that of their co-religionists, according to a prominent Sunni politician.

Sharif Ali Bin al-Hussein, who heads Iraq's main monarchist movement and is in contact with guerrilla leaders, said many insurgents including former officials of the ruling Ba'ath party, army officers, and Islamists have been searching for a way to end their campaign against US troops and Iraqi government forces since the January 30 election.

It's called surrender!

The success of the Iraqi elections has been pretty disheartening to many of the "insurgents" and they would like to become more involved in the political process:

Unlike Mr Zarqawi's followers, who are thought to be responsible for the big suicide bomb attacks on Iraqi civilian targets, the other Sunni insurgents are more likely to plant bombs and carry out ambushes against security forces and US troops active near their homes.

Sharif Ali said the success of Iraq's elections dealt the insurgents a demoralising blow, prompting them to consider the need to enter the political process.

They could call it the "Insurgent Party!" Yeah, that's the ticket!

(H/T to Freeper, West Coast Conservative)

Quote of the Day

...by Rush Limbaugh:

This is nothing but a divorce case; He gets the house and she buys the farm.

Another Battle on the Horizon

James D. Miller, Assistant Professor of Economics at Smith College, is calling it The Coming War on Blogs and he may be right, but I think it's just another encroaching battle in the ongoing Culture War. Regardless, it's an excellent piece that explains the why's and wherefore's of the coming attacks on free speech and the internet:

It's a universal law of capitalism: when an industry faces a new and significant threat to its profits and powers it turns to the government for protection. Well, bloggers who write on current events are challenging the mainstream media (MSM), the most politically well-connected industry in America. Watch for the MSM to start using their political influence to burden bloggers.

Essential Reads of the Day

Here's a good place to start. Peggy Noonan's column today examines "the bizarre passion of the 'pull the plug' people."

From the LA Times; a Mayo Clinic doctor changed his mind about Terri upon examination. See what Dr. William Cheshire has to say about Terri. The Times' article starts out good, in praise of Cheshire, but, of course he's marginalized toward the end because he's 'pro-life'.

The Washington Times has a piece which illustrates the not too surprising bias of the MSM. It's not revelatory, but it will show you how they have covered this monumental story.

On a day filled with disheartening news about Terri, here's some good news about Iraq from the New York Post Online Edition: (those who will delight in Terri's death will probably be horrified at this news)

March 24, 2005 -- BAGHDAD — U.S. and Iraqi forces killed 85 terror fighters at a suspected training camp along the marshy shores of a remote lake — one of the highest guerrilla death tolls of the two-year war, officials said yesterday.

The Washington Times is reporting that President Bush is characterizing the "Minuteman Project" as vigilantes. This may come back to bite him and any other politician who disregards this debachle. These are nothing more than concerned citizens outraged by the nonchalant politicos who refuse to do anything about our horrendous border problems.

And now for some bittersweet food for thought from the ever thoughtful Ann Coulter:

Greer has cut off the legal rights of Terri's real family and made her husband (now with a different family) her sole guardian, citing as precedent the landmark "Fox v. Henhouse" ruling of 1893. Throughout the process that would result in her death sentence, Terri was never permitted her own legal counsel. Evidently, they were all tied up defending the right to life of child-molesting murderers.

Given the country's fetishism about court rulings, this may be a rash assumption, but I presume if Greer had ordered that Terri Schiavo be shot at her husband's request — a more humane death, by the way — the whole country would not sit idly by, claiming to be bound by the court's ruling because of the "rule of law" and "federalism." President Bush would order the FBI to protect her and Gov. Bush would send in the state police.

What was supposed to be the "least dangerous" branch has become the most dangerous — literally to the point of ordering an innocent American woman to die, and willfully disregarding congressional subpoenas. They can't be stopped — solely because the entire country has agreed to treat the pronouncements of former ambulance-chasers as the word of God. The only power courts have is that everyone jumps when they say "jump." (Also, people seem a little intimidated by the black robes. From now on we should make all judges wear lime-green leisure suits.)

Yet, Another Brilliant Question.....

By Laura Ingraham as she closed out her program today:

When Terri dies, where will the celebrants go for their victory party? How will they celebrate?

Another Brilliant Question...

Heard on Laura Ingraham's radio program:

Why do we go to such pains to save beached whales and dolphins instead of just letting nature take its course?

A Brilliant Question...!

.....asked of David Limbaugh in one of his emails:

If Terri were truly unable to take anything by mouth and letting nature or God decide if it's time for her to die is the objective, then why bother forbidding oral fluids and/or food?

(Note: here is a reference point regarding Terri's ability or inability to eat and drink.)

Malkin: The Schiavo Case and the MSM

Michelle Malkin's most recent piece on Terri and how it's being covered is found at Human Events Online. If the blogosphere has been covering it mostly from the right, it would be safe to say the MSM has been covering it from the left. Be sure to read her column. Michelle has been doing yeoman's work on this and other stories that the MSM won't touch at her blog. Go there!

Right to Die or Right to Kill

The brilliant Thomas Sowell weighs in on Terri's plight in his most recent column:

If the tragic case of Terri Schiavo shows nothing else, it shows how easily "the right to die" can become the right to kill. It is hard to believe that anyone, regardless of their position on euthanasia, would have chosen the agony of starvation and dehydration as the way to end someone's life.

A New York Times headline on March 20th tried to assure us: "Experts Say Ending Feeding Can Lead to a Gentle Death" but you can find experts to say anything. In a December 2, 2002 story in the same New York Times, people starving in India were reported as dying, "often clutching pained stomachs."

No murderer would be allowed to be killed this way, which would almost certainly be declared "cruel and unusual punishment," in violation of the Constitution, by virtually any court.

Terri Schiavo's only crime is that she has become an inconvenience -- and is caught in the merciless machinery of the law. Those who think law is the answer to our problems need to face the reality that law is a crude and blunt instrument.

Make no mistake about it, Terri Schiavo is being killed. She is not being "allowed to die."

She is not like someone whose breathing, blood circulation, kidney function, or other vital work of the body is being performed by machines. What she is getting by machine is what all of us get otherwise every day -- food and water. Depriving any of us of food and water would kill us just as surely, and just as agonizingly, as it is killing Terri Schiavo.

Many on the left are deploring Congressional "interference" in turning this into a federal case, but Constitutional scholar and esteemed judge, Robert Bork, says it's not all that unusual, according to CNSNews:

Bork, a Reagan administration nominee whom the U.S. Senate refused to confirm, called the federal legislation signed by President Bush early Monday morning something that "happens with some regularity."

"[The new law has] given jurisdiction to a federal court to hear, in effect an attack upon a state court outcome, but we do that all the time," said Bork, who authored the 2003 book "Coercing Virtue: The Worldwide Rule of Judges" and is currently a distinguished fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute.

"They (the Congress and the president) are not overstepping their legal bounds, they have a right to confer jurisdiction on a court," Bork said, just hours before a federal district court was due to hear the Schiavo case.

Bork went on to answer the charge of republican hypocrisy by "expanding" the role of the federal judiciary:

Bork also dismissed the argument that congressional conservatives and President Bush were being hypocritical by expanding the role of the federal judiciary. "The hypocrisy is the other way. I think what the Democrats see is once you talk about life in this way, you are tangentially or obliquely raising the abortion issue. I think that scares the hell out of them," Bork said.

"They don't want to view life as anything -- unless it's the death penalty of course. If somebody murdered somebody, they would be against giving them death but if it's an innocent unborn child or a Terri Schiavo, they are all for it," Bork added.

He also emphasized that in his view, congressional action in the Schindler Schiavo case does not mean "trashing the constitution."

"That's ridiculous ... This is an effort to use their undoubted power over jurisdiction," Bork said.

"Killing people for their own good..."

This is from the History Place via my friend, Lenny Cacchio:

"In October of 1939 amid the turmoil of the outbreak of war Hitler ordered widespread "mercy killing" of the sick and disabled. Code named "Aktion T 4," the Nazi euthanasia program to eliminate "life unworthy of life" at first focused on newborns and very young children. Midwives and doctors were required to register children up to age three who showed symptoms of mental retardation, physical deformity, or other symptoms included on a questionnaire from the Reich Health Ministry."

"The Nazi euthanasia program quickly expanded to include older disabled children and adults. Hitler's decree of October, 1939, typed on his personal stationery and back dated to Sept. 1, enlarged 'the authority of certain physicians to be designated by name in such manner that persons who, according to human judgment, are incurable can, upon a most careful diagnosis of their condition of sickness, be accorded a mercy death.'"

"...Allegiance to the culture of death?"

An excellent piece by David Limbaugh is now up at his blog. Please read the entire piece, but here are a couple of his thoughts:

And isn't the essential argument of those wanting the tube removed that Terri's wishes ought to be honored? Since Terri left no legal document directing her death in these circumstances, shouldn't the system require clear and convincing evidence that Terri indeed would want to die in these circumstances? Yet the court is relying on the hearsay evidence of Terri's estranged husband, Michael.

The question is whether as a society we want to resolve these very difficult, doubtful cases in favor of death.

I detect more than a bit of intellectual dishonesty among many favoring Terri's death. They are claiming they merely want to honor Terri's wishes, yet they rely on her tainted husband, callously discount the testimony of her loving parents, blindly accept the disinformation that Terri is in a purely vegetative state, and ignore multiple firsthand accounts, including from examining physicians and nurses, that Terri is responsive, sometimes animated, and definitely wants to go on living.

Limbaugh writes about the possible motivations of those who so ardently insist she be allowed to die a heinous death. Be sure to read, "More Prayers for Terri."

Be Sure to get the "Anti-Living Will!"

The past few days I've been hearing on news reports, various editorials and just on Bill O'Reilly, that if you want to avoid the nightmare that is the Terri Schiavo brouhaha, be sure to have a living will. That premise assumes Terri wants to starve to death and is being impeded by those fighting on her behalf. She didn't have a living will and her estranged husband and Judge Greer are treating her like she does. Either way she's going to die (unless someone intervenes) just as if she had a living will. So what if you don't want to die in such a situation, you don't have a living will, and your creepy estranged spouse insists otherwise...such as Terri?

Let's assume that when Terri was younger and healthier and all was hunkydory, she saw some pathetic soul unable to care for herself and she said in passing, "I never want to live like that." Most folks can identify with that scenario, but if her husband heard that and she didn't do a living will to make it legal, then how can she be held responsible for a passing comment she may or may not have made? Shouldn't a legal document or lack of one be the deciding factor in such a case? Apparently not!

Which leads me to believe there should be a new legal document called "the anti-living will." Maybe it could bear the Terri Schiavo brand name so it will be immediately understood. The Terri Schiavo Anti-Living Will would insure that no one could allow you to be starved to death against your will. It would be important to record it at the courthouse and mail certified copies to friends and relatives who you can count on to fight for your life, in the event your spouse wants you dead.

Drudge Plays Audio of Terri

Matt Drudge played an audio tape Sunday night, on his nationally syndicated talk show, of Terri Schiavo, which was serupticiously recorded by her father on Friday afternoon after her feeding tube was removed. Her dad asked her various questions and she audibly responded but was unable to sound out words. The recording lasted several minutes.

She hears and she responds in her own way. She's not in a 'vegatative state' as if she were in a coma.

Those who come down on the side of letting her die will see it as a life not worth living just as those on the right will see it as a girl crying out to live.

Kudos to Mark Levin

Conservative attorney, talk show host, judicial streetfighter and author of Men In Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America continues to enjoy brisk sales of said book. The Washington Post's headline on the linked article seems to express surprise and maybe even dismay, that such a book is selling so well:

Yet this publishing phenomenon has gone almost completely unnoticed outside conservative circles.

"The fascinating thing is that it's a bestseller on a subject where 100 percent of us who present ourselves as experts haven't read it," said David Garrow, a law professor at Emory University who has written widely on Supreme Court history.

"It's a classic case of a fired-up red-state America," said conservative talk-radio host Laura Ingraham, who has had Levin on her show. "It's a classic case where the mainstream media misses the boat of a whole segment of society that has a big, big problem with the courts injecting themselves into matters that should be left up to the people."

"Men in Black" was the brainchild of executives at Eagle Publishing Inc., the corporate parent of Regnery Publishing, a 58-year-old conservative house that published "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry" during the 2004 presidential campaign.

In mid-2004, Eagle approached Levin, a former aide to President Ronald Reagan's attorney general, Edwin Meese III. Levin turned the book out in time for release Feb. 7.

"Our audience has been screaming for a book on the courts," said Jeff Carneal, president of Eagle Publishing. Carneal spoke at a recent Eagle-sponsored reception in honor of the book at Morton's, a downtown restaurant; the guest list included Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) and Theodore B. Olson, formerly President Bush's solicitor general, along with numerous lawyers, think tank staff members and lobbyists.

Carneal said the initial press run for "Men in Black" was 80,000 -- a large number for a nonfiction book -- and that Eagle has ordered 85,000 more copies in response to the demand. Company officials estimate that half of all the books printed so far have sold. The list price is $27.95 per hardback copy.

"Men in Black" offers a conversational but uncompromising version of a familiar conservative legal critique: that "judicial activists" on the bench frequently toss aside black-letter law or constitutional text in favor of their own policy preferences.

Levin unfurls his argument through chapters with titles such as, "Justices in the Bedroom," concluding the book with a call for judicial term limits and a congressional veto over the court's rulings.

"It's written in plain English and not for Harvard Yard," says Levin, who received a bachelor's degree at the age of 19 from Temple University and later graduated from law school at the same institution.

Levin says that he has done 150 to 200 interviews on talk radio, the vast majority on shows hosted by conservatives. He has appeared on Fox News -- but his book has not been reviewed in such major daily newspapers as the New York Times or The Washington Post.

NewsMax: "Terri Can Eat Normally"

NewsMax is reporting:

Sunday, March 20, 2005 10:19 a.m. EST
Nurse: Terri Can Eat Normally

A certified nursing assistant who cared for Terri Schiavo in 1997 filed a sworn affidavit in the case stating that she was able to feed Schiavo normally on multiple occasions - but that husband Michael Schiavo would only allow a feeding tube.

Heidi Law, a CNA at the Palm Gardens nursing home, testified: "At least three times during any shift where I took care of Terri, I made sure to give Terri a wet washcloth filled with ice chips, to keep her mouth moistened. I personally saw her swallow the ice water and never saw her gag.

"[Another CNA] and I frequently put orange juice or apple juice in her washcloth to give her something nice to taste, which made her happy. On three or four occasions I personally fed Terri small mouthfuls of Jello, which she was able to swallow and enjoyed immensely."

Law testified that the only reason she didn't attempt to feed Ms. Schiavo more frequently was "because I was so afraid of being caught by Michael."

Editorializing on the case in light of Law's account, the Pittsburgh Post Gazette said Sunday: "It is one thing to withdraw a feeding tube; another entirely to withhold that day's meal tray."

Carla Sauer Iyer was a registered nurse at the same facility. In her own affidavit Iyer testified that Ms. Schiavo was capable of speech, explaining, "[Terri] spoke on a regular basis, saying such things as 'Mommy' and 'help me.'"

When she put a washcloth in Terri's hands to keep her fingers from curling together, Iyer said, "Michael saw it and made me take it out, saying that was therapy" that he had forbidden.

"Throughout my time at Palm Gardens, Michael Schiavo was focused on Terri's death," the RN noted. "Michael would say 'When is she going to die?' 'Has she died yet?' and 'When is that bitch gonna die?'"

Hat tip to FreeRepublic.

World Magazine Blog: Choose life

World Magazine Blog features some wise advise from C. Everett Koop speaking on euthanasia:

"... we must be wary of those who are too willing to end the lives of the elderly and the ill. If we ever decide that a poor quality of life justifies ending that life, we have taken a step down a slippery slope that places all of us in danger. There is a difference between allowing nature to take its course and actively assisting death. The call for euthanasia surfaces in our society periodically, as it is doing now under the guise of "death with dignity" or assisted suicide. Euthanasia is a concept, it seems to me, that is in direct conflict with a religious and ethical tradition in which the human race is presented with " a blessing and a curse, life and death," and we are instructed '...therefore, to choose life." I believe 'euthanasia' lies outside the commonly held life-centered values of the West and cannot be allowed without incurring great social and personal tragedy. This is not merely an intellectual conundrum. This issue involves actual human beings at risk..."

Ace: A Good Protest Idea

Here's a protest that'll serve as a '2fer.' Ace, of Ace of Spades HQ, suggests sending food and water to the hospice where Terri is being held without sustenance. The more we send in, the more attention it will garner. The food and water can then be distributed to the hungry, or wherever there's a need. A win/win situation.

Go read Ace's post and the comments he's getting on this subject. Why not start sending those care packages right now? Here's the address of the hospice:

Food & Water for Terri
Hospice House - Woodside
6770 102nd Ave
Pinellas Park, FL 33782

Noonan to Politicians: "Think of Yourselves!"

In case you missed it or neglected to read it, please read Peggy Noonan's most recent column on the Schiavo debacle. She's as wise as ever.

There is a passionate, highly motivated and sincere group of voters and activists who care deeply about whether Terri Schiavo is allowed to live. Their reasoning, ultimately, is this: Be on the side of life. They remind me of what Winston Churchill said once when he became home secretary in charge of England's prisons. He was seated at dinner with a jabbery lady who said that if she were ever given a life sentence she'd rather die than serve it. He reared back. No, he said, always choose life! "Death's the only thing you can't get out of!"

She tells the republicans flat out that if they allow Terri to die, they will pay big time at the polls:

Here's both a political and a public-relations reality: The Republican Party controls the Senate, the House and the White House. The Republicans are in charge. They have the power. If they can't save this woman's life, they will face a reckoning from a sizable portion of their own base. And they will of course deserve it.

Air Force One Pavillion at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library

Here's a glimpse of the soon to open Air Force One Pavillion at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation & Library. Be sure to take the video tour.

Contact Your Congressmen

There is an easy to use box on this site which allows you to access the President and Congress. It's on the right hand side...just scroll down to find it or go here.

Politicos on all levels need to be relentlessly swarmed by bloggers and individuals until Terri is fed and given proper care, which should include therapy that has been withheld from her by her husband.

Keep in mind that she is being made to die on the hearsay of her unfaithful and estranged husband. There was no 'living will,' and she never expressed to anyone else her desire to die under these or any other circumstances. There has never been an investigation into how this trauma occurred.

This is not a 'right to die' case...it's a 'right to live' issue. Why the rush to death? If there are unanswered questions, shouldn't the courts err on the side of life?

Quote of the Day

From Rabbi Shmuley Boteach:

The humanity of every society is determined first and foremost by how it treats its most helpless citizens, and a nation that is prepared to murder a feeble and vulnerable woman who can breathe but not eat on her own must take a deeper look at the source of its ethics.

Terri: "I waaaaaaaant (to live)!"

From Newsmax Inside Cover Story

Friday, March 18, 2005 5:41 p.m. EST
Terri: 'I Waaaannt [to Live]'

A mentally disabled woman whose court-ordered starvation-execution began Friday attempted to contradict her estranged husband's claim that she wants to die hours before her feeding tube was disconnected, an eyewitness is claiming.

Barbara Weller, an attorney for Terri Schiavo's parents, told reporters Friday afternoon that during her visit earlier in the day she told Ms. Schiavo: "Terri, if you would just say, 'I want to live,' all of this will be over."

According to pro-life activist Randall Terry, who recounted the scene to radio host Sean Hannity, Schiavo tried desperately to repeat Weller's words.

"'I waaaaannt ...,' Schiavo allegedly said, in a prolonged yell that had police stationed nearby running into her hospice room.

"She just started yelling, 'I waaaannt, I waaaannt,'" Terry said, according to Weller's account.

At that point police ejected Weller, he said.

A corroborating story is at WorldNetDaily and here via Stand in the Trenches.

You can help here and here.

Thank you La Shawn and Mark Scott!

Many thanks to La Shawn Barber's Corner and Tapscott's Copy Desk for linking Isn't It Rich recently on their blog rolls. I can't tell you how much I appreciate their support! These guys are good. They are both essential reads each and every day and I encourage my readers to earmark them and visit them on a regular basis!

Thanks "Huckleberries Online!"

My thanks to D.F. (Dave) Oliveria at Huckleberries Online for the link and honorable mention. I found 'Huckleberries' at Michelle Malkin's blog...went to his site and got homesick for the Inland Empire, the Great Northwest and the breathtaking beauty that I took for granted while growing up there. It's always a treat to visit Dave's 'Huckleberries Online,' headquartered in gorgeous Coeur d' Alene, ID. Check it out!

1:30 p.m. Another expatriate who once lived in Spokane has added a link to Huckleberries on his blog. Texan Rich Glasgow does the honors this time via his blog, Is(n't) It Rich, here. (Note to bloggers: the best way to show your appreciation for another blog is to add a link to it on your blogrolls.)

Death by Dehydration/Starvation

More than ever, Terri needs our prayers. Miracles happen and it's a miracle that she's survived the evil judiciary for this long. If all "this fuss" about Terri wasn't taking place by the family and the thousands of Terri supporters, she would have been dead years ago. She lives. She's not a vegetable and her captors refuse to allow her to be seen in public. Why? What have they to hide?

Terri's food and water supply has been removed and her slow death has begun. Congress has attempted to intervene, but nothing further can happen until Monday, although, there are those in Congress working overtime to try to save her. An equally powerful, if not MORE powerful force is doing everything to make sure she dies in the name of the "right to die".

This isn't a "right to die" case, it's a right to live case. There is no living will. Nothing was ever written down by Terri saying that she would want to starve to death. The court has ruled that she must die on a "word of mouth" basis by her estranged husband who is living with his girlfriend with whom he has fathered two children. Conflict of interest?

Terri has begun the painful rigors of dehydration. In a story by Michael J. Gaynor, in the Michigan News, reports on what her death will be like unless someone intervenes:

"....the [likely] various effects from the lack of hydration and nutrition" as follows:

"Brophy's mouth would dry out and become caked or coated with thick material. His lips would become parched and cracked. His tongue would swell, and might crack. His eyes would recede back into their orbits and his cheeks would become hollow. The lining of his nose might crack and cause his nose to bleed. His skin would hang loose on his body and become dry and scaly. His urine would become highly concentrated, leading to burning of the bladder. The lining of his stomach would dry out and he would experience dry heaves and vomiting. His body temperature would become very high. His brain cells would dry out, and the thick secretions that would result could plug his lungs and cause death. At some point within five days to three weeks his major organs, including his lungs, heart, and brain, would give out and he would die." (Brophy v. New England Sinai Hospital, No. 85E0009-G1,10/21/85:28-2]

There was "compassion" for Brophy, of course

When he began having seizures, anticonvulsant medication was administered via the tube, as were antacids to prevent hemorrhaging and laxatives to make him more "comfortable" as he died.

That did not transform what surely is a cruel and unusual way to be killed into an uncruel and usual one.

Food and water are NOT medical treatment.

They are not therapeutic.

They do they treat diseases.

They are necessities of life.

Withholding them is murder.

Withholding them with judicial approval is legalized murder.

Hitlerian, in fact.

The idea of euthanasia as a method of dealing with severely disabled people is not new.

In 1939 the Third Reich initiated what was known as T-4 Euthanasie Programme, an aggressive campaign to put severely disabled individuals "out of their misery".

The program was disguised by its participants as a merciful end to "lives unworthy of life."

A German Federal Archive report acknowledged that "Nazi Germany used hundreds of hospitals and clinics to kill at least 200,000 handicapped, mentally ill and other institutional patients who were deemed physically inferior."

Hitler's "Final Solution" was a logical next step.

For one who did not respect the sanctity of all human life and believed that some humans really should be classified as "sub-human" or "germs."

Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, described Hitler's euthanasia program as a kind of training ground for the Nazi regime to "fine tune" its "technology of death" before the Holocaust.

The so-called "right to die" movement has grown quietly and over many years.

It has distorted public perception of dying and led some state and federal lawmakers and judges to substitute a right-to-die for THE right to live.

It has done so with misleading words.

Beginning in 1980, the Hemlock Society promoted itself as an organization devoted to the concept of "death with dignity."

Sounds great.

Like "Final Solution."

But, it is a euphemism for death by starvation.

And horrendous.

Like "Final Solution."

Hemlock Society became "End-of-Life Choices."

People like choices.

And tend to overlook the fact that not all choices are reasonable and permissible.

Some are gravely sinful.

Murder is a grave sin and a crime.

Suicide is not a legitimate choice.

But, End of Life Choices seeks "civil and criminal immunity to physician, pharmacist, and people who are present to assist the patient (in committing suicide)."

The appealing language used in support of that anti-life agenda has created a climate in which Terri Schiavo is gravely imperiled.

George Felos, Michael Schiavo's attorney, often is portrayed as heroic instead of Hitlerian.

Felos calls Terri's supporters "right-wing fanatics."

HE is the fanatic.

Dr. William Hammesfahr, a Nobel nominee in medicine, generously offered to treat Terri and provide her rehabilitation without charge.

Michael Schiavo and Judge Greer think her starvation to death is best.

THEY are fanatics.

They should announce that their motto is: Better dead than disabled.

A jury awarded Terri approximately $700,000 for her on-going medical care in a malpractice suit filed by Michael against her doctor.

The jury also awarded Michael $300,000 for loss of companionship.

During the trial, Glenn Woodworth, Michael's attorney, argued that, even though Terri was in a "vegetative state," "you can tell she has some sense of her predicament." He also told the jury that "she knows her husband and looks into his eyes."

With the malpractice case successful concluded, however, Michael opted to take Terri off "life support" and refuse her antibiotics for infection.

Terri was not on a respirator or any other high-tech life support system.

Her "life support" has been a gastric tube through which she receives food and water.
Michael needed a judge to "bless" his plan to end Terri's life.

Terri's parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, have kept Terri alive by opposing Michael's decision.

Thanks be to God for them.

Terri's parents say that Michael never mentioned that Terri didn't want life support until after the malpractice settlement and that, with further treatment, her condition could improve.

Judge Greer initially did the right thing.

He appointed an attorney, Richard Pearse, Jr., to study the case and recommend a solution.

Pearse issued a report that questioned Michael's credibility.

He pointed out that Michael had stopped pursuing treatment for Terri only after the malpractice award.

And that if Terri died, Michael would inherit the $700,000 and be legally free to marry a woman he'd been engaged to for four years.

And that if Michael divorced Terri, he would lose any claim to the $700,000.

Michael's position: Pearse was personally biased against the removal of feeding tubes and that the reason Michael had not filed for divorce was that he didn't want the Schindlers to have the authority to keep Terri on life support.

What a guy!

But, on February 11, 2000, Judge Greer ruled, even though there was no written evidence or advance directive indicating that Terri wished to forego life support, that Michael could order all food and fluids withheld from Terri starting on March 12, 2000

The starvation process started twice, but reprieves for Terri were won.

Now the starvation process is set to resume, on March 18, 2005, at 1 PM.

Prior to 1993, Terri was in rehabilitation and had improved to the point of being able to say "yes," "no," and "stop that."

But, Michael stopped her therapy and began moving her to different facilities, finally placing her in a hospice for dying patients.

Did he have an interest in making sure she could not answer "yes" or "no" to certain questions?

Under Michael's supervision, Terri's teeth were not cleaned for ten years, according to Terri's father.

Amazing.

Even the Hemlock Society insists on "excellent oral hygiene."

Or is that only AFTER the starvation starts?

On November 22, 2002, Judge Greer once again ordered that all Terri's food and fluids be withdrawn.

"Viewing all the evidence as a whole," Judge Greer wrote, "and acknowledging that medicine is not a precise science, the court finds that the credible evidence overwhelmingly supports the view that Terry [sic] Schiavo remains in a persistent vegetative state." [Order, Schiavo v. Schindler, No. 90-2908-GD-003 (FL. Cir. Ct. Nov. 22, 2002)]

Catastrophe can follow when a judge misuses his broad discretion in fact-finding.

Because appellate judges do not see witnesses testify and don't offer an independent review of the facts, deferring to the trial judge,

During the further hearing ordered by the appellate court, a physician testified that Terri had a "suspiciously rigid neck," and that the only other time he had seen this in a cardiac arrest patient was in a case of an attempted strangulation.

That prompted Patricia Anderson, an attorney for Terri's parents, to recheck Terri's medical records.

And find a report on a total-body scan performed on Terri in 1991, 13 months after her collapse.

The scan showed that Terri had fractures of the first lumbar vertebra as well as several thoracic vertebrae, fractures of both sacroiliac joints and both knees and ankles, multiple rib fractures, and a compression fracture of her thigh.

But, Judge Greer denied a motion to allow discovery of this body-scan evidence during the hearing.

That denial was deplorable.

During the January 2000 hearing, Terri's friend and co-worker not only testified that she frequently saw bruises on Terri and that Terri had said they were from her husband "pinching her," but that Terri and Michael had had a violent argument on the day Terri had collapsed and she had been concerned for Terri.

None is so blind as one who will not see.

After that, Michael petitioned Judge Greer for permission to use some of Terri's malpractice settlement money, which is supposed to use for Terri's care, to pre-pay her cremation and burial expenses.

Oblivious to the alarm bells that sounded, figuratively, Judge Greer granted the petition!

And Judge Greer has stayed on the starvation course instead of admitted that he had been way off course.

Terri's funds have been dissipated on the cause of starving her to death instead of rehabilitating and caring for her.

What a waste.

The appropriate authorities should be considering whether Judge Greer is fit for his judicial office and whether Terri was the victim of criminal behavior.

Maybe PETA could come to Terri's aid. They wouldn't allow a field mouse to suffer this ignominy!

Please see my post, "When Is That Bitch Gonna Die?"

Pray for Terri and her family. Pray that the battle between life and death is won by those who stand for life:

Eph 6:10 Finally, my brothers, be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might.
Eph 6:11 Put on the whole armor of God so that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
Eph 6:12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the world's rulers, of the darkness of this age, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Eph 6:13 Therefore take to yourselves the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.

Contact your U.S. Representative and your Senators and respectfully ask that they do whatever they can to save Terri's life and for a proper investigation into the irregularities which may have caused this trauma.

Boortz on ANWR

Good overview on ANWR at Nealz Nuze . Here are some of his quick facts to keep in mind:

Caribou? They don't care. The population of the Central Artic caribou herd near the oil fields of Prudhoe Bay has grown an average of 8.5% per year. The oil exploration operations don't bother them a bit.

When ANWR was created in 1980 a section was set aside for oil exploration. It is that area in which the Senate has approved oil exploration. Imagine that. Exploring for oil in a section of ANWR that was set aside for exploring for oil. Who would have thunk it?

Take the highest estimate of oil reserves from ANWR, then take the lowest. Use those numbers to come up with a mean estimate of ANWR oil potential. That figure is 10.4 billion barrels of oil. That much oil could meet the total petroleum consumption needs of the state of New York for 34 years; Georgia for 54 years, Maine for 259 years, Pennsylvania for 39 years. That is not an insignificant amount of oil.

If the most optimistic estimates of oil reserves in ANWR turn out to be true, it would be enough to replace 30 years of oil imports from Saudi Arabia. That is not an insignificant amount of oil.

Will oil production from ANWR exceed estimates? Who knows? The estimates for Prudhoe Bay were around eight billion barrels of oil. So far we've extracted 14 billion barrels .. and we're not near through.

Now we need to concentrate on building more refineries. The last refinery built in this country was in 1973:

The last oil refinery built in the U.S. was finished in 1973. We have become complacent about the gas mileage we get from the cars we buy. We have become zealous in our environmental requirements restricting oil and gas production and have needlessly increased costs to the producer. There are literally thousands of local regulations covering gasoline that make the shift from winter gasoline to summer gasoline a logistical nightmare for producers.

Recovered "Vegetative State" Patient Knows the Pain of Feeding Tube Removal

Kate Adamson miraculously recovered from being in a 'vegetative state' which was much more severe than Terri Schiavo's and she recalls the pain and terror of being removed from the food and hydration tube:

Withdrawal of food and water was “one of the most painful experiences you can imagine”

CLEARWATER, FL., March 14, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - On Saturday a rally of over three-hundred of Terri Schiavo’s most die-hard supporters heard the first-hand account of the sufferings and remarkable recovery of Kate Adamson. Struck down in 1995 at the age of thirty-three by a rare double brainstem stroke, Kate, then a mother of two young girls, was completely paralyzed; she was unable even to blink her eyes. Like Terri Schiavo, the medical staff treating her questioned the merit of continuing granting Kate the most basic human right of food and water.

Terri Schiavo, although not nearly as severely disabled as Adamson once appeared to be, is slotted to have her feeding tube removed at 1:00 pm this Friday. Similarly, Kate Adamson’s feeding tube was at one point removed for a full eight days before being reinserted due to the intervention of her husband (also a competent lawyer).

Frequently described by medical authorities as a humane way to die, Kate - now as vibrant and beautiful as before her stroke - testified before the crowd of Terri’s family and supporters that this form of legalized execution was “one of the most painful experiences you can imagine." Unable to respond or to indicate awareness, Kate Adamson asserts, “I was just like Terri…but I was alive! I could hear every word. They were saying ‘shall we just not treat her?’...I suffered excruciating misery in silence.”

This personal testimony confirms what Terri supporters have long suspected—that the execution sought by her husband Michael Schiavo is anything but painless and humane. Furthermore, Kate’s remarkable recovery to nearly full mental and physical health—-she still suffers partial paralysis of her left side—-gives Terri supporters hope that Terri too may still experience a similar recovery, if granted proper care and treatment.

During her early-afternoon speech Kate declared that “If they want to kill Terri they should have the guts to put a gun to her head” rather than condemn her to such a slow and painful death. She finished off by summing up the full import of the Schiavo case, saying, “The measure of a society is how they treat the least of us. Life is sacred or meaningless, there is nothing in between.”

Contact Kate Adamson by visiting her website.

Do yourself a favor and visit her website.

Senator Byrd and the "Nuclear Option"

First of all, the "Nuclear Option" refers to whether or not Israel decides to take out Iran's nuclear bomb facility and has nothing to do with the Senate's procedural processes. The term in the context of the senate action to vote on procedure should more accurately be referred to as the "constitutional option". So how about it, reluctant republicans; why not take the lead by changing the leftist terminology and then get down to business changing the rules like the constitution allows. See US Senator John Cornyn's website for a rundown on the hypocrisy of Sen. Robert Byrd on this issue:

U.S. Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) had an op-ed in the Washington Post today (‘Nuking’ Free Speech, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5692-2005Mar3.html) arguing against the current Senate proposal to restore the rights of the majority and end the unprecedented filibusters against the President’s Judicial nominees. But his arguments were both factually wrong, and historically inconsistent with his own voting record.

Sen. Byrd said that restoring Senate tradition “could rob a senator of the right to speak out against an overreaching executive branch or a wrongheaded policy. It could destroy the Senate's very essence -- the constitutional privilege of free speech and debate.” But history—and Sen. Byrd’s own actions—prove otherwise.

Please be sure to look at this site. It spells out the dem's duplicity and explains what the rules are. The problem is that no one in any official capacity is making any headway bringing this to the attention of the public. What gives?

The republicans need a spokesman who can explain this issue in easy to understand terms and then sell it to America. Someone in Congress, that is. Much of mainstream America is getting impatient with a minority of democrats in Congress who continue to make the rules and win the verbal wars. Get with it, you guys in the majority. Majority, get it?

Schlafly: Is Relying On Foreign Law An Impeachable Offense?

Phyllis Schlafly, in her most recent column, suggests that it should be impeachable for the judiciary to base rulings on foreign law. And why the hell not? On what basis is this tactic employed? Could it be that the Supremes believe they answer to no one and are able to do so until death do they part?

At a time when the electorate has shown it wants a more conservative representative government, the left leaning minority is apoplectic that they may be about to lose their most effective method of passing liberal ideology--by judicial fiat.

The majority of the Supreme Court apparently has decided that enforcing popular opinion, be it domestic liberal ideology, or foreign, is just fine and dandy. That's not what the founding dad's had in mind.

Here's some of what Schlafly pointed out in her column:

The supremacist five claimed that most other countries don't execute seventeen-year-olds. However, most other countries don't have capital punishment at all, so there is no distinction between seventeen- and eighteen-year-olds.

Furthermore, most other countries don't allow jury trials or other Bill of Rights guarantees, so who knows if the accused ever gets what we would call a fair trial? Over 90 percent of jury trials are in the United States, and we certainly don't want to conform to non-jury-trial countries.

The supremacist five must think they can dictate evolution of the meaning of treaties as well as of the text of the Constitution.

They cited the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which our Senate year after year has refused to ratify. They also cited the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which we ratified only with a reservation specifically excluding the matter of juvenile capital punishment.

DC sniper Lee Malvo was seventeen during his infamous killing rampage, so now serial killers like him won't have to worry about the death penalty. The terrorists and the vicious Salvadoran gangs will be able to assign seventeen-year-olds as their hit men so they can "get away with it."

We recall that the Supreme Court ruled in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992 that it could not overturn Roe v. Wade because that might undermine "the Court's legitimacy." But in the Simmons case, the Court flatly overturned its own decision about juvenile capital punishment in Stanford v. Kentucky only 16 years ago.

As Justice Scalia pointed out in dissent, the Court's invocation of foreign law is both contrived and disingenuous. The big majority of countries reject U.S.-style abortion on demand, so the supremacist justices conveniently omitted that "international opinion."

Our runaway judiciary is badly in need of restraint by Congress. A good place to start would be a law declaring it an impeachable offense for justices to rely on foreign law in overriding the U.S. Constitution or congressional or state law.

More on Justice Scalia's critical comments of the Supreme Court rulings here and here.

Mark Levin's current best seller, Men In Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America is essential reading as is Judge Andrew Napolitano's book, Constitutional Chaos : What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws.

"U.N. reaches out to win back middle America"

This is their idea of reaching out to red state America? I'm afraid they've misjudged us. The Washington Times reports that they are going to do some minor tweaking to its "human rights machinery"... like that'll work!

"Judicial Homicide?"

According to Barbara Simpson, if Terri Schiavo is removed from her feeding tube, it will be nothing short of murder:

Do you hear it? I do. The countdown clock is ticking – the zero hour is 1 p.m. EST, March 18 ... five days from today.

On that day, a young woman in Florida will begin being murdered by the judiciary. It appears no one can stop it. Now that's power.

On that day, the tube supplying food and water to an infirm young woman, Terri Schiavo, will be removed. It will be done for just one purpose: to kill her. To end her life.

Her father, Robert Schindler, calls it "judicial homicide."

Where are the feminists, the media, the bleeding hearts who worry about cruelty to terrorists...:

Screaming feminists are always at the ready with their mouths and their marching when it comes to "women's rights." Terri Schiavo is a woman with a two-timing husband who has treated her negligently for 15 years and wants her dead. Where are the feminists?

Bleeding hearts hold candlelight vigils to prevent the execution of condemned murderers, regardless the heinousness of the crimes. Terri Schiavo committed no crime; she fell victim to some unknown malady or unexplained injury and is now an impaired human being who, on court order, will be killed by neglect – removal of food and water. Where are the bleeding hearts?

Human-rights activists condemn the United States for our capital punishment laws and for allegations concerning prison treatment. They march and demonstrate and rail. Terri Schiavo has been refused therapy, medical treatment, proper equipment, even walks outside and now she is to be starved and dehydrated to death, on court order. Where are the human-rights activists?

Churches preach and teach about the sanctity of life, the rights of the innocent, of kindness to the infirm, of gentleness for the afflicted. Terri Schiavo is alive and breathes on her own. She is not sick but she is infirm, having suffered brain damage from some unknown cause. She needs only food and water to survive, no more than any other human being on this planet. The system has decided she will die – that her food and water will be stopped. Where are the churches?

The media consistently take the side of the downtrodden, the have-nots, the poor. They pride themselves on presenting the "truth" with "no bias." They report Terri is vegetative, in a coma, has no consciousness, had anorexia, had a heart attack, had a chemical imbalance, and really, really wanted to die. None of this is true. Most ignore the story. If newspapers do carry it, it's a tiny throwaway buried deep in the paper. Where are the media?

Terri's life is in the hands of a judge and he is absolutely unwavering in his interpretation of the law:

The law is supposed to deal with justice; is supposed to be impartial; is supposed to protect the helpless and innocent. Terri Schiavo has been denied treatment and therapy, which might improve her physical condition. The judge ignores that.

Tests could better evaluate her condition. The judge refuses them.

There are x-rays that show Terri suffered major physical trauma. The judge refuses to allow them into evidence.

Every single petition filed by Terri's family has been denied by Judge George Greer for 8 years. This week, he denied a request by the state of Florida to investigate allegations of abuse. Last week, he denied a petition by her parents to allow Terri to be divorced. He is supposed to be acting in Terri's interest, yet he has never seen her and has just one position: Terri Schiavo will be starved and dehydrated to death. It could take as long as 15 gruesome days for her to die. Where is justice?

When a couple marries, each hopes to trust the other. Terri's husband Michael was alone with her when her "incident" happened 15 years ago in their apartment, cutting off oxygen, leaving her brain damaged an unable to swallow.

He won nearly $2 million in lawsuits, but spent virtually all of it on legal efforts to stop feeding her so she'll die. He says she wouldn't want to live that way, but it's only his word. Heresay.

If Terri got therapy so she could speak again, perhaps she could tell the world what she would want. Of course, she might also be able to tell the world what happened that night that left her crippled.

Terri's priest wants to visit and administer communion. Her husband threatens the priest with arrest. Her parents want to visit and take pictures with her. Her husband requires a policeman be present and forbids photographs.

He refuses to divorce her so Terri can be home with her parents. He refuses all their requests, including that she be buried in a Catholic ceremony if she dies. He demands immediate cremation.

He hasn't said when he will marry his "fiancee" by whom he has two children. Infidelity to the nth degree, but he maintains he is Terri's loving husband. His "fiancee" is either brave or stupid – time will tell.

The real bravery is that of Terri's parents and siblings. They have fought for her for 15 years, trying to save her life, spending every cent they have trying to buck what clearly is a corrupt legal system in Florida. How they've managed, I cannot comprehend except they are blessed.

Terri Schiavo needs our help. This is not mercy killing. She is not a vegetable. She is not brain dead. She is a damaged human being, but she is human. If we ignore that or pretend that because she is "damaged," she has no value and it's OK to kill her, we are no better than the Nazis who picked and chose who would live or die.

We fought a world war to stop that mentality. We must not fall victim now.

David Limbaugh's most recent column, Prayers for Terri, is up and is an excellent companion piece to this. Be sure to read it.

Just Do It!

Why, oh why are things of this nature so obviously leaked? Wouldn't it be a little naive for anyone to think that Iran isn't already clued in to this probability. So what is the point of leaks such as these?

The Online Coalition: Protect Freedom of Speech

Be sure to sign this letter to the FEC. Doesn't matter where you stand politically; the right to speak, or write your opinion has to be upheld. There is safety in numbers so pile on and add your name to this bi-partisan coalition. Thanks!

Under Siege: Invasion of Illegals near Tucson

From the Tucson Weekly, Leo W. Banks chronicles what life near the border is like for the ranchers in Arizona. Please read Under Siege. Here's a portion:

You can't name a category of human being--good-hearted or crooked, kind or mean--or a nation, religion or ethnic group that isn't using this border to sneak into America illegally. The numbers boggle the mind. In January alone, the Border Patrol in the Tucson sector impounded 557 smuggling vehicles, confiscated 34,864 pounds of marijuana and arrested 35,704 illegals, according to agency spokesman Jose Garza.

The important number is one they can't pinpoint with certainty: how many got through. But figure it this way, using the common belief that, conservatively, for every arrest the Border Patrol makes, another two illegals make it through: With almost 500,000 arrests in the Tucson sector last year, that means somewhere in the neighborhood of 1 million illegals broke into the country successfully last year--an average of almost 3,000 every 24 hours. And arrests for 2005 are up 10 percent, according to Garza.

Because of the sheer number of illegals--as well as their desperation, their willingness to destroy property and intimidate, and the always-simmering fear--Cowan and husband, Bob Giles, have sold most of their cattle and are significantly scaling back their ranching operation.

Ironically, it's the dems who are taking notice of this problem, getting the jump on what the republicans should have been doing all along. Michelle Malkin blogs about this today.

If the Bush administration doesn't do something about this huge border/security problem immediately, support for him will wain and Sen. Clinton is wasting no time capitalizing on it.

Hat tip to Free Republic for his story.

Where are the Human Rights Organizations? Where are the Women's Rights Groups?

K.L. Marsala has an excellent piece at The American Thinker demanding answers from the people and organizations who demand civil rights for terrorists at Guantanamo Bay. The same people are silent when it comes to forcibly taking Terri Schiavo's food and water from her. Why aren't the feminists sticking up for Terri? Please read Marsala's piece.

You can access her website here.

High Gas Prices? Short Supply? Thank You Environmental Whackos!

Today's must read is from the inimitable Neal Boortz, (Dallas should be so lucky to have him on the air). Don't let anyone mislead you; there is no oil or gas shortage...one of the main problems is the inability to refine it. It's been 25 or 30 years since we've built a refinery in this country. Why? Because of the stringent EPA regulations and the whacked out leftist environmental activists who religiously deter virtually every act of capitalism, especially when it comes to the production of energy. Do yourself a major favor and read today's Nealz Nuze.

Rush Called it Years Ago

Maine State Representative Brian Duprey, (R) has introduced a bill which would make it illegal to abort a 'fetus' which bears the 'gay gene' if and when the 'gay gene' is ever found. Bill O'Reilly just interviewed him. He has the support of at least one gay and lesbian group in Maine. At the risk of stealing Rush's thunder, he told us this would happen years ago.

O'Reilly correctly called Rep. Duprey on the probability that he was using the gay and lesbian lobby against the pro-abortion folks to make abortion that much more difficult for at least a portion of the unborn.

Kudos to Rep. Duprey. It'll be very interesting to see the reaction of the pro-abortion lobby.

Shep Smith--a Class Act

Shep Smith, of Fox News fame, bade Dan Rather a classy farewell contrasted with Walther Cronkite's. Shep praised Rather for being a Southern Gentleman, for jumping in with both feet, for his Texas idioms and for recently offering a Fox News producer a ride on CBS's private jet to Iraq while in the midst of his problems which cost him his job. So long, Dan Rather, and thanks, Shep for the classy send off.

Delusional Quote of the Day

According to an article at MSNBC, Dan Rather said:

"First of all, from where I sit, I am leaving on a high note,"

Whatever.

"The Greatest Success Principle"

This is from my friend Lenny Cacchio who received it from Joe Calhoon, an acquaintence of Lenny's and one of the "good guys" in the Kansas City area. It's worth sharing. I know he won't mind:

The World's Greatest Success Principle

In 1983, I made a decision to become a full-time speaker, trainer, and business consultant. My first mentor in the speaking business was Cavett Robert.

Each year, the National Speakers Association gives an award called "The Cavett." It's like an Emmy or an Oscar for professional speakers, but it's not based solely on performance; one of the primary criteria for receiving the award is a spirit of giving.

The Cavett Award is a true tribute to the nature of Cavett Robert -- one of the most giving, caring, loving people I've ever known.

So it won't surprise you that as I began my career, Cavett advised me, "If it's worth doing for a fee, it's worth doing for free until people will pay you for it." So, I spoke for free.

Anywhere. Everywhere. Any place they'd have me, I'd deliver my message -- Rotary, Kiwanis, Lions, Chambers of Commerce, etc.

Years later, I could trace virtually every piece of business to someone who had heard me give one of those free speeches.

There you have it -- give, and you receive.

The most prosperous people I know -- the ones who are overflowing in health, happiness, and prosperity -- are the ones who are consistently giving. They give encouragement, service, advice, and their best contributions.

Jim Rohn, the nation's foremost business philosopher, suggests that we either "plant in the spring or beg in the fall." You can't harvest a crop you don't plant.

Right after the Sept. 11 tragedy, one of my hospitality clients in New York experienced a significant drop in business revenues. The executive team met to discuss their strategies for moving forward.

Obviously, making sales calls to their NYC clients was not at the top of their agenda. What were they to do? One of the leaders had an idea: Why not call their clients in NYC and give those individuals an opportunity to leave the pressure of the city and be guests at my client's safe and secure island resort in upstate New York?

Everyone knew it was the right thing to do. Rather than being paralyzed in their discomfort about how to handle 9/11, they gave their customers the gift of hospitality.

What do you think happened as a result? You know -- you give, and you receive.

The "Preference Cascade"--Today's Essential Read

Glenn Harlan Reynolds, contributing editor of Tech Central Station has an excellent piece which explains the cultural phenomenon of Preference Cascades. He actually wrote about the subject three years ago, but it seems more descriptive of what might be called the present zeitgeist culturally and politically here and what appears to be happening in the Middle East:

Three years ago, I looked at the phenomenon of "preference cascades" -- in which people who have been obliged to conceal their true beliefs by social pressure or sheer force suddenly discover that a lot of other people feel the same way -- and wrote:

"This illustrates, in a mild way, the reason why totalitarian regimes collapse so suddenly. (Click here for a more complex analysis of this and related issues). Such regimes have little legitimacy, but they spend a lot of effort making sure that citizens don't realize the extent to which their fellow-citizens dislike the regime. If the secret police and the censors are doing their job, 99% of the populace can hate the regime and be ready to revolt against it - but no revolt will occur because no one realizes that everyone else feels the same way.

This is precisely what happened to the Mainstream Media. They controlled the flow of information but even though vast numbers of people disagreed with the content, there was nothing they could do but tune them out. The advent of Talk Radio and the Internet took away their monopolistic role and in a relatively short amount of time, they have been rendered obsolete.

But that's not the thrust of the article. It has more to do with totalitarian governments and why they stifle free speech. Please read Mr. Reynolds' piece. It's illuminating on many levels.

A Good Sign?

A Fred Kaplan piece, in Slate Magazine, says President Bush will regret choosing John Bolton to be the next ambassador to the U.N.:

Just as it looked like George W. Bush might be nudging toward multilateralism, he goes and appoints John Bolton as his ambassador to the United Nations. There could be no clearer sign that the contempt for the international organization, which was such a prominent feature of Bush's first term, will extend into his second term with still greater force and eloquence.

Apparently, John Bolton is not a big fan of the U.N.

According to The New York Times:

"John Bolton will be a U.S. ambassador who aggressively pursues the U.S. national interest at the United Nations, which includes fundamental reform of the U.N., and bringing the U.N. kicking and screaming into the 21st century," he said. "The White House has chosen someone who will be tenacious and aggressive in pursuing the president's goals."

Staunch critics of the U.N. are not altogether sure what the President has in mind for the future of the U.N. At a time when they seem weak and irrelevant due to rampant corruption and unresolve, something like this comes along, giving one pause. Still, it will be interesting to see how Kofi and the rest of the thugs react to him if he gets past the Senate.

The ubiquitous and hard working Michelle Malkin blogs the matter here.

Official U.N. reaction to Bolton's nomination here.

One More Reason Women Shouldn't be in Combat

Why don't the rest of the armed forces take a lesson from the Marines and just say no to women. War doesn't need to be an equal opportunity for both sexes. And isn't it interesting that the groups who vigorously protest war will be the loudest in demanding women be on the front lines. Women at war, for me, is just another argument for keeping women away from war zones.

Hat tip to The Raw Story.

"Jolly Good Felons"

Any surprise that the dems want felons to vote? Wish they would be as zealous making sure our foreign based troops got their vote counted. See John Fund's take on the matter.

Press Release from Terri's Parents

Released yesterday from Terrisfight.org, the Schindlers are receiving more affidavits from experts in the medical field which support Schindler's case:

For Immediate Release
March 5, 2005 - 3.30pm ET (GMT-5)

Attorneys for Bob and Mary Schindler have filed 17 affidavits in support of their motion asking Judge Greer to let medical evaluations be performed on Terri in light of recent advances in medical technologies.
The affidavits are from various experts in the medical field. They are urging that Terri be evaluated based on the fact that new evaluation and therapeutic technologies can significantly impact brain damaged and disabled persons. Many of them have stated that there is strong likelihood that Terri is in a minimally conscious state.


More affidavits are expected to be filed next week in support of the Schindler's motion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Affidavit of Dr. Ralph Ankenman, MD
Affidavit of Dr. Pamela Hyikn, SLP

Affidavit of Dr. Beatrice Engstrand, MD
Affidavit of Dr. Jill Joyce, Phd

Affidavit of Dr. Alyse Eytan, MD
Affidavit of Dr. Philip Kennedy, MD, Phd

Affidavit of Dr. Harry Sawyer Goldsmith, MD
Affidavit of Dr. Kyle Lakas, MS, CCC, SLP

Affidavit of Dr. Jacob Green, MD
Affidavit of Dr. Richard Neubauer, MD, PA

Affidavit of Dr. Carolyn Heron, MD
Affidavit of Dr. Ricardo Senno, MD, MS, FAAPMR

Affidavit of Dr. David Hopper, PhD
Affidavit of Dr. Stanley Terman, MD, Phd

Affidavit of Dr. Lawrence Huntoon, MD
Affidavit of Dr. J. Michael Uszler, MD

Affidavit of Dr. Richard Weidman, MD

The affidavits are availble to be read at the above link.

Neat Photo Essay

Human Events posts a terrific photo essay by Carrie Devorah, in two parts. Here's part I and part II. Great piece! You can even buy the poster here.

Heteronormative Alert!!!

Sensitivity training classes may be in order at Harvard University. Apparently, the folks in the Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender, and Supporters Alliance (BGLTSA) are exhibiting heterophobic behavior by accusing actress Jada Pinkett Smith of being overly 'heteronormative' in a speech she gave recently. Ms. Smith was relating her life story which happens to be from the heterosexual perspective. Naturally, that caused many of the heterophobic gays in the audience to feel uncomfortable. See the story here with your own eyes. This heterophobic behavior is a cry for help. Surely, within the hallowed halls of Harvard there are trained counselors able to deal with this anti-social dysfunction.

Update: An excellent article on the 'heteronormative anomaly' here.

Another Dunce in the Whitehouse

H/T to "wagglebee" at FreeRepublic for this piece by Pat Sajak:

So now we find ourselves with democratic elections in Afghanistan and Iraq; Syria announcing a pullout from Lebanon with elections to follow; small, but unprecedented, steps toward real elections in Egypt and Saudi Arabia; and perhaps the best shot ever at a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Naturally, we are now being told that all of this could fall apart and, even if it doesn’t, these were things that were bound to happen anyway.

It must be extraordinarily maddening to be so smart and to watch helplessly as epochal events occur during or right after the watches of dunces and idiots, and to see these people given credit by some for these events. To make matters worse, when the really smart people are in power (Carter, Clinton), international events seem to conspire against them.

Be sure to go to Sajak's site and read the entire piece.