WHO DO YOU BELIEVE?

YAHOO / WASH POST:

PINELLAS PARK, Fla., March 26 -- Two visions of Terri Schiavo emerged Saturday: Her husband's attorney, George Felos, said he had "never seen such a look of beauty and peace upon her." Schiavo's father, Robert Schindler, whose family has compared her complexion to that of a concentration camp victim, said "she is fighting like hell to stay alive."

Well, if right-to-die/euthanasia activist/advocate George Felos is correct, then why does he and his lying murderous lech of a client Michael Schiavo refuse to allow cameras in Terri's room!? And why are they refusing an autopsy, and a burial, and why are they going to whisk Terri's corpse away for a quick cremation?!

I think this proves EVERYTHING!

MORE THAN JUST THE CHEESE STINKS IN FRANCE

UK TELEGRAPH:

'Corruption is still rife at top level of French government'

The French judge who first uncovered the corruption scandal engulfing the country's most senior politicians has claimed that bribery and cronyism are still rife at the highest levels of government. Eric Halphen, whose investigations into kickbacks from public works programmes led to a number of President Jacques Chirac's closest allies going on trial last week, said that the prosecutions "in no way" signalled an end to the corruption that has blighted French politics for decades.

The whole French government stinks - from Elysee to Matignon to the ENA! Unless and until the French make a clean sweep, they're condemned to continued mediocrity and corruption and evermore weakness politically and economically on the international scene. Their only hope at this time is that Sarkozy will win in the next election, and that he can keep the country propped up until Sabine Herold is ready to become their Thatcher.

(BTW: Cheese is the only stinky thing in France that's good!)

BEIRUT: another neojihadist/baathist axis bombing!

(YAHOO/AP) - A loud explosion was heard in the Lebanese capital of Beirut on Saturday, witnesses and security officials said. The nature of the explosion was not immediately known. Witnesses said the blast occurred in the predominantly Christian eastern Beirut suburb of Dikweneh and flames were seen in the area.

This attack - like the two which preceded it - is part of the neojihadist/baathist plan to prevent democracy by fomenting sectarian/tribal civil war. IT WON'T WORK!

UPDATE - FOX/AP:

The blast was the third to strike Christian neighborhoods in Lebanon since last Saturday and comes at a time of political turmoil in Lebanon in the wake of the Feb. 14 assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, and the subsequent withdrawal of Syrian troops to east Lebanon and Syria. ...

Lebanese opposition leaders have blamed Syrian security agents and pro-Damascus Lebanese authorities of trying to sow fear in the community. Lebanese and Syrian authorities have denied such claims. "They (Syrians) promised Hariri ... that if they left Lebanon, they would destroy Lebanon," exiled Christian opposition leader Michel Aoun told Al-Arabiya TV. "And now they are doing it. They think they can destroy Lebanese national unity this way. But the Lebanese will remain steadfast till infinity." Aoun said the situation calls for a "changing the security organizations related to Syria. This can't be delayed."

Druse leader Walid Jumblatt held pro-Syrian Lebanese security agents responsible for Saturday's blast, saying they were trying to intimidate people. Jumblatt said he expected more car bombs in the coming days and in the run-up to parliamentary elections scheduled to be held by May. Another opposition leader, Butros Harb, said the explosions were "a political message from the authorities and those behind them" aimed at "terrorizing" the Lebanese people who are demanding freedom and sovereignty. Harb told Al-Arabiya TV that Lebanese will not be cowed by such acts and will continue seeking independence.

DEMOCRACY still the most revolutionary revolution on earth!

WHY THE LEFT DEMANDED TERRI DIE -

The Left is dominated by a materialist meme.

To the Left, the concept of a Human Soul is merely the syringe by which religion - "the opiate of the people" - is injected into the veins of the gullible.

To the Left, there is no Human Soul, only a consciousness which is strictly concomitant with a certain level of neural activity.

To the Left, if-and-when that neural activity is severely diminished, then consciousness stops, and personality and personhood disappear. And the "quality of life" for the consciousness-diminished person is nil.

To the Left, a person without personality and with no "quality of life" has "no reason to live" (and other people - even parents and siblings and children of the "brain-diminished" person - have no unselfish reason to make sure the brain-diminished person goes on living).

To the Left, this category of people - (people with no consciousness and therefore no personality or personhood, and no reason to live) - includes people with advanced dementia, brain-damage, and it also includes fetuses.

To the Left, these people are not persons, but merely cytoplasm - a mass of cells.

To the Left, if you have a fetus with Down's, then it is preferable to abort it.

The Left valorizes the intellectual/ratiocinative capacity of people, and denigrates other mental, emotional capacities. Which is why the Left has consistently advocated "Politburos", select commissions, and the rulings of judges over the Will of the People and FREE MARKETS: the Left believes that an elite knows better what is right and good and proper and efficient; the Left believes that an elite knows better than you do what's good and right for you.

And that's why the Left deplored the Congressional and Presidential intervention into the Schiavo Affair, and applauded the blatant disregard of Congress and the President by the judges: popularly elected officials are not as smart as judges; to the Left, judges are part of the elite. The will of the people (as expressed by the legislature and the executive branches) is not as valid as the learned ratiocinations of a judge.

This is the ONLY count upon which the Left is correct: judges are part of an elite - a nearly UNACCOUNTABLE elite.

But not ENITIRELY unaccountable. Judges can be impeached. I suggest that we get the Congress to hold the judges who deliberately REFUSED to hold de novo hearings on the Schiavo Case IN UTTER CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS, and then perhaps IMPEACH THEM. Judges are not above the law; no judge is above the law. And the Judiciary is not above the other two branches. (The "gay marriage" decisions of many courts underlines the Judiciary's disregard for the legislative branch and for the importance of legislating laws as opposed to making law by what is essentially UNDEMOCRATIC JUDICIAL FIAT.)

It is important to uphold the concept that each and every person - regardless of their ratiocinative capabilities - has a WHOLE Human Soul because if we do not we are condemning the weakest and most vulnerable and most dependent among us to "non-human" status, to people whose life-or-death makes is of no consequence, to people whose death might actually be a good thing (in what the erudite elite determines is in "the public interest") because their less-than-perfect lives diminish the "quality of life" of the other people in their lives (pointlessly costing them and us money, for example).

This is the type of reasoning that led to the evil eugenics policies of the NAZIS and others. And it's as fundamental to the Left's meme now as it was to the Leftist/NAZI meme then.

Like our Creator-endowed, "inalienable right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness," the Human Soul is inalienable from each human being: The autist has no less a soul than the artist, the quadriplegic has no less a soul than the track star, the brain-damaged or demented have no less a soul than even the elitists of the Left.

To the Left, the "right to die" - and to euthanize non-human/"no-longer human" human beings - trumps the "right to life" because human life presupposes a certain quality of being, a certain minimal quality of life. Below that minimal level and - to a Leftist - human life is meaningless to continue.

NOW: I know that some of you Leftists out there will argue that all the court decided was what Terri wanted, BUT THIS IS FALSE. First because Terri was NOT TERMINAL, and the feeding-tube WAS NOT NECESSARY, and the court ordered removal of the feeding-tube alone is not what's killing her! What's killing her is the UNLAWFUL order of the court to prevent anyone from giving her food and water ORALLY!

Terri's SUPPOSED desire to die (rather than live as she has been living) is SOLELY based on testimony from Michael Schiavo and his brother Brian Schiavo and Brian's wife, who gave HEARSAY testimony to the effect that Terri ONCE said that she would not want to be kept on life support if she had a terminal condition.

BUT TERRI'S CONDITION IS TECHNICALLY/MEDICALLY NOT TERMINAL - BECAUSE SHE COULD LIVE FOR ANOTHER 40 YEARS IF SHE ONLY GOT FOOD AND WATER, WHICH WE ALL NEED TO LIVE! REPEAT: Terri had no terminal disease. FACT. She could live another 40 years. And in 40 years, perhaps her condition could be cured...

I defy anyone to look at the videos of Terri and her mom - which are available at TERRI'S FIGHT - and tell me that her smiles and moans in response to her mom's attentions are not reminiscent of what we have all seen from infants as they are attended to by their mothers and fathers. Terri's smile to her mom is pure love: of her mother, and of life. It is obvious to anyone seeing that love, that Terri wants to live.

OH I CAN HEAR THE LEFT NOW: The Lefties out there saying that you cannot tell what Terri is feeling by looking at the videos. OH NO!?!? Well, that's EXACTLY what Judge Greer did, and why he argued that Terri was not responsive; he said that her responses were "random." BULLSHIT; THIS AN OBVIOUS LIE TO ANYONE WHO HAS SEEN THE TAPES

Anyone who has seen the tapes can see that Terri still has a Human Soul, and a capacity for love, and a desire for life. That's why what is happening to her is MURDER.

And it's a crying shame. The court could've and should've ruled that Terri did not adequately express a desire to be disconnected from medicine or food. Or failing that, the court could've and should've ordered that she only be fed orally. But the court bent over backwards to make sure she would be starved and deydrated to death. As Michael and his brother and his brother's wife wanted, and as they ALLEGE Terri wanted.

How sad. How avoidably sad and wrong.

Good-bye Terri... I pray you'll have a gentle crossing...

Dear God; Please Bless her soul - her whole, intact beautiful Human Soul - and please God: soothe the suffering of her loving family.

RICE ON ROOT CAUSES OF TERRORISM

From an interview Secretary Rice gave to the editorial board of the WashPost (HAT-TIP the INVALUABLE BETSY'S PAGE):

"Extremism... is rooted in the absence of other channels for political activity,"

Condi "GETS IT." Repression causes extremism, poverty and ignorance; freedom alleviates all three: free people create more ideas, goods and services; exchange more; consume more; and have more fun than repressed people.

SO: democracy and free markets and increased connectivity to the First World - i.e. more globalism - are THE ANTIDOTES TO EXTREMISM.

Those who are fearful that extremists can ascend to power democratically (in places where they do not presently hold power) miss the point: having to hold onto popularly secured power and satisfy a divergent nation will moderate the extremists as it necessarily marginalizes them: after all - they are called extremists because their positions are EXTREME, meaning that a minority hold them; in adition, extremists do NOT have solutions to reab basic problems - the kinds of things a government must contend with daily. THEREFORE, the majority of people will necessarily tire of a tyranny of the few.

OKAY: it can sometimes be very hard to throw off tyrnanny; it will be harder in North Korea than in Kyrgystan, and harder in Syria than in Bahrain. And hard in China. THAT'S WHY WE MUST DO WHATEVER WE CAN TO HELP DEMOCRACY MOVEMENTS AND DEMAND FEE FAIR AND OPEN ELECTIONS EVERYWHERE.

No tyrant can survive a free, fair and open election. That's why Assad and the Mullahs and the Chicoms, and the North Koreans, and Chavez, and Castro, and Mugabe AVOID truly free elections. And this is why we - and the entire free and properous world - should make trade CONDTIONAL on free elections.

MORE TO READ HERE, AT CAPT'S QUARTERS.

INSTAPUNDIT'S HYPOCRISY IS "RIDICULOUS ON ITS FACE"

ANDREW C. McCARTHY, NRO:

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments do not distinguish between the lives of capital murderers and the lives of other persons. They don't mention "criminal" and "civil" distinctions. In this context, they command simply that no person shall be deprived of "life...without due process of law."

There is no reason in the text of the Constitution to believe that "due process of law" should have a different meaning depending on whether the life to be taken by state action is that of a convicted criminal or that of some other person. Complementing that textual consideration are the equities involved. Given the absence of any apparent reason for having one set of due process requirements for murderers and another set for everyone else, if society nevertheless decides to have different requirements, why in the world would we think the murderers should get the better process? Such a notion is ridiculous on its face.

This HYPOCRITICAL position - which affords more rights to convicted murderers than to Terri - is EXACTLY "INSTAPUNDIT" Glenn Reynolds' position. And I say it stinks.

BUT IT'S EVEN WORSE: because Glenn Reynolds BELIEVES that because of "inevitable caprice and mistake" in the judicial system, the death penalty (while abstractly just) can never be 100% correct and that therefore it is inevitable that innocent people might be wrongly put to death, and that therefore to avoid this inevitability no one convicted of any crime should ever be put to death. (YUP: gun-toting-Glenn opposes the death penalty.)

SO GLENN IS DOUBLY HYPOCRITCAL, AND BOTH TIMES - ON BOTH LEVELS - HE FAVORS MURDERERS!

First, Glenn argues that judicial reviews are inadequate for murderers, but then argues that judicial reviews were adequate for Terri!

Second, Glenn argues that because death is irreversible and mistake is inevitable, no one should be subject to death as a penalty which is ordered by any court of law, but if death is ordered by a court of law in a civil case, then it's OKAY.

In other words, Reynolds believes that convicted murderers should NEVER get the death penalty because the CRIMINAL judicial system is imperfect, but that the judicial system is adequate in deciding CIVIL matters of life of death.

Well, Professor, since the THRESHOLD FOR EVIDENCE IS LOWER IN CIVIL CASES THAN IN CRIMINAL CASES - (hearsay is often allowed - as it was in the Schiavo case, and you can't plead the 5th, for example) - IT MEANS THAT THE LIKELIHOOD OF "CAPRICE AND MISTAKE" IS ACTUALLY HIGHER IN CIVIL CASES THAN IN CRIMINAL CASES - NOT LOWER.

Which means that when it comes to trying to avoid irreversible damage to a plaintiff that Glenn Reynolds has it exactly BACKWARDS on this issue: Reynolds blithely accepts too little and too few Due Process protections for Terri, and simultaneously grants way too much for convicted murderers. THIS IS PURE HYPOCRISY.

Which puts Reynolds squarely in the pathetic Left-wing/pro-death/pro--murderer crowd. YUP: to me - except for his support for the GWOT and the 2nd Amendment, Reynolds is an old-fashioned Leftie through and through. Which, after all, is what Glenn himself always said he was whenever others called him a conservative just because he was a hawk. Well, the Schiavo case PROVES he was right: Reynolds is a bleeding-heart liberal who would give more rights to convicted murderers than to Terri.

SEE MORE BELOW - HERE and HERE.

INSTAPUNDIT CALLS PRO-LIFE FOLKS A "MOB"

Glenn wrote this:

If I were in charge of making the decision, I might well put the tube back and turn Terri Schiavo over to her family. But I'm not, and the Florida courts are, and they seem to have done a conscientious job. Maybe they came to the right decision, and maybe they didn't. But respecting their role in the system, and not rushing to overturn all the rules because we don't like the outcome, seems to me to be part of being a member of civilized society rather than a mob. As I say, I thought conservatives knew this.

"if... then... might"... WEASEL WORDS!

Glenn Reynolds has repeatedly avowed his opposition to the death penealty because he believes that the judicial process is too frought with real and potential "caprice and mistake" to allow it to use irreversible penalties, BUT he believes that the same inevitably flawed judicial review process is fine - HONKY-DORY - for determining if Terri should live or die -- AND SHE'S NOT EVEN BEEN CONVICTED OF ANYTHING!

In effect, Glenn Reynolds says that Terri -- a perfectly stable, brain-damaged women with no other health problems, and NO TERMINAL ILLNESS -- is entitled to fewer legal rights than someone who has been convicted of MURDER.

HOW "LIBERAL" OF HIM! AND HOW HYPOCRITCAL!

The real mob here is the group of liberals who think that Terri's court-ordered death is good, when there is clear and ample evidence that the judicial decision to believe Michael Schiavo (and his brother and his brother's wife - the SOLE people testiyfying that Terri would've wanted to die, rather be a terminal patient) was FLAWED. They testified that Terri would not have wanted to live on life support if she had a terminal illness.

But Terri was NOT a terminal pateint; she had NO TERMINAL ILLNESS. There is even contemporaneous evidence that she could take sustenance ORALLY - UNTIL AFTER SCHIAVO AND FELOS decided that she had to die, and Felos (in his role as an advocate for "right to Die" law in general) had specifically seen to it that the Florida legislature had included feeding tubes as "life support" - something that is NOT TRUE IN ALL STATES! (And which should be challenged in federal court!)

Glenn is trying to have his cake and eat it too: he wants those of us on his right to get the feeling he'd be on our side, and he also wants to say that the Florida courts have done their job well. AGAIN: you can't have it both ways Glenn! There is something TERRIBLY wrong in Florida and in the federal appeals courts if Terri is put to death.

MORE HERE AT JAWA. AND A MUST READ WITH LINKS HERE, AT HYSCIENCE.

HUNG JURIES AND HUNG COURTS

A hung jury can't convict someone. Let alone commit them to death.

SO.... why does a "hung COURT" - like the 11th Circuit was on the Schiuavo case - have the right to commit someone to death!? Shouldn't we expect jurists to have the same standards as juries - NOT LOWER ONES -- ESPECIALLY IN MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATH!?

Shouldn't the fact that even just ONE JUDGE on the Appelate court wants to review a LIFE AND DEATH CASE be enough to get that case reviewed!? If one holdout juror can prevent a death-penalty verdict from being reached, then I believe that one judge of an Federal Circuit ought to have the same power - albeit TEMPORARY, and be able to UNILATERALLY issue a TRO on a death sentence until the case has been reviewed de novo. I think we do that for murder convict on death row. We should've done that for Terri, too.

COURT-ORDERED DEATH

No matter where you stand on Terri Schiavo - whether you believe she wants to die, or whether you think only her husband wants her to die - you MUST admit that her death is ONLY POSSIBLE BY ORDER OF THE COURT.

BY ORDER OF THE COURT, she is either being allowed to commit suicide, or her husband is being allowed to murder her.

Since BOTH are illegal, I wonder where is the moral victory for anyone in Terri's death?!

The RIGHT TO DIE folks believe that it's okay for Terri to commit suicide - it's an inherent right: you "own" your life, and may do with it as you choose. The RIGHT TO LIFE folks believe that human life is so precious that it should never be squelched out - not without a fight.

Which side is right? Well, look at their names... look at what their names VALORIZE: one group hails death, the other life. One group says only a "quality" life is worth living; the other says ALL life is worth living , and worth fighting for.

So vehemently do the right to die folks believe in death, that they insisted that Terri start dying even BEFORE all her rights had been adjudicated. WHAT DOES THAT SAY ABOUT THEM!? What does it say about the judges that they wouldn't even issue a TRO and allow the parents to put on a full case?!

Anyone who has seen the videos of Terri and her mother (CLICK HERE) knows that Terri is an aware human being - not fully aware, but a human being especially aware of LOVE. Maybe only as much a an infant is aware of love - BUT AWARE, NONETHELESS. None the less.

Terri is a person as needful as an infant. Of food. Of water. And love.

Now, all the courts allow her to get is love. Love can sustain the soul, but not the body. And soon - barring some miracle - Terri will die.

Those who believe her husband - that she wanted to die - will be relieved.

BUSH, SINGLE-ISSUE POLLING, AND THE MYTHICAL IMPENDING CONSERVATIVE CRACK-UP

Much hogwash has been written lately about the impending conservative crack-up. Glenn argued that the Schiavo case might lead to it; Powerline argues it would more likely be immigration.

I SAY HOGWASH.

The polls almost ALWAYS show Bush with about 43-53% approval on any SINGLE ISSUE - INCLUDING IRAQ.

But these polls are very VERY misleading because they almost always ask about the single issue in a very general way, like: "Do you approve of the way Bush has handled .....BLANK."

Because Bush is a MODERATE, he almost ALWAYS gets a fair amount of disapproval from his far-right flank (perhaps as much as 5-10% of the public), and because the Left-wing of the Democrat Party thinks Bush is a hitleriansmirkingchimp, he almost always gets a non-hearing from another 5-10% of the public. Together, these two groups INFLATE the anti-Bush number by at least 10%. That's why Bush won the election by 9 million votes and the MSM was shocked - because nearly all the polls before the election failed to depict the true overall sentiment of the public. Those critical of Bush from his right flank will NEVER vote Democrat, and they will NEVER cause a crack-up of the GOP.

SO BUSH'S NUMBERS IN THESE SINGLE-ISSUE POLLS ARE ALMOST ALWAYS MUCH LOWER THAN HIS NUMBERS TRULY ARE IN A CRUNCH, or in a head-to-head race with anyone else.

FOR EXAMPLE: Polls show that GENERAL disapproval on Iraq has run as high as 65% recently, but that disapproval total INCLUDES many people who think that Bush has been too weak (folks more "HAWKISH" than Bush), as well people who think Bush is too bellicose and unilateral, (and/or alos includes folks who think we have too few troops there, and folks who think they should all come home immediately).

Likewise, disapproval on how Bush is handling Social Security also is over 50%, but certainly includes folks like me who think that FDR's welfare plan for eldsters is nothing more than a Ponzi Scheme and should be entirely trashed. DITTO IMMIGRATION: many think he is too soft on illegals and porous borders, others think he is too tough.

The more Right-sided critics of Bush inflate the anti-Bush numbers and make Bush seem less popular than he really is because a politican has to be judged in comparison (or against) another politician.

That's why/how so MANY pundits MISREAD the polls - and always ascribe greater weakness in Bush than is truly warranted by the polls. (THIS IS WHY THEY ALWAYS MISUNDERESTIMATE HIM!)

SO: many see Bush polling badly - on particular day and on a particular issue - and then presume that this issue will lead to a crack-up of the GOP conservative hold. They see a weak politician sitting astride a teeter-totter when in fact Bush is a an "artisan of the possible" with a truly deep and simple commitment to basic universal values. In the crunch, we all know which side of an issue Bush will come down on: the values side. The CONSERVATIVE values side. And he did this in 2004 and won BIGTIME - carrying larger majorities in both bodies of Congress! And that's why the conservative movement won't EVER break-up over any one of these single issues as long as Bush is president.

The next GOP presidential candidate will have to be equally adept at PLAYING POKER as Bush has been, if he OR SHE is going to be a winner, and if conservatism is going to maintain its lead. In other words: it has more to do with how effectively the leader of the GOP handles the breadth of debate within the GOP, than any debate over any single issue.

WHY AM I SO SURE!? Two reasons: (1) Because the Left is bereft of ANY new meaningful proactive polices; the Left is reactionary. Given the choice between the NEW GOP and the Dems, most middle-of-the-roaders will choose the GOP. And (2), because the Democrat Party is moving evermore LEFTWARD (even as some of its SHREWDER pol's try to head to the middle - like Hillary and Richardson and Biden).

As a result, the standard bearers of the DNC in 2008 will have a MUCH GREATER PROBLEM winning the nomination and holding their party together (as they parade around Red America for votes), than the GOP will in their continued invasion of Blue America; (REMEMBER: Bush was closer in more Blue states, than Kerry was in Red states; Bush did better in Massachusetts than Gore!).

BOTTOM-LINE: The GOP is the BIG TENT PARTY now; therefore there's going to be more intra-party debate in the GOP than in the Democrat Party. DO NOT CONFUSE THAT FOR FAULT-LINES! It is vitality, not morbidity!

And let's face it: listening to Rice and Schwarzeneggar and Pawlenty and Santorum debate each other is ALWAYS GOING TO BE A LOT more interesting than listening to Sharpton and Kucinich and Kerry debate Hillary!

INSTAPUNDIT HYPOCRISY ON SCHIAVO CASE

The Professor, host of the what is the blogosphere's BEST BLOG: INSTAPUNDIT - recently posted that he opposes the death penalty because of "the inevitability of caprice and mistake."

Based on that, I sent the following email to the distinguished Professor:

Professor;

Do you believe that the Schiavo case is an instance of judicial "caprice and mistake," and that therefore Terri is a victim of an injustice, or that justice has been served?

Please don't cop out by arguing that since the SCOTUS didn't take the case that therefore justice had to have been served. The Dred Scot case, and the Japanese internment case each prove SCOTUS is fallible.

He replied:

It's been looked at by 22 judges, plus the Supremes several times. Ithink [sic] that's pretty good. I think the risk of error is lower, too.

I replied:

Professor;

If this review process is good enough for Terri then it is good enough for convicted murderers.

I DEMAND that you rescind your opposition to the death penalty, or rescind your opinion on the Terri Schiavo case.

You cannot REPEAT CANNOT hold both views without blatant contradiction.

I await his reply.

FOR THE RECORD: I favor life for Terri and death for convicted murderers - EACH OF WHOM GET MORE THOROUGH JUDICIAL REVIEWS THAN TERRI HAS RECEIVED! (In fact, before the death penalty is carried out, it is also reviewed by at least 22 judges, and usually goes up to the Supremes several times.) BUT, NOT A SINGLE CONVICTED MURDERER WOULD EVER BE FORCED TO BEGIN THE EXECUTION PROCESS WHILE HIS CASE WAS STILL UNDER JUDICIAL REVIEW - AS TERRI HAS! AND IF A EVER JUDGE REFUSED TO REVIEW DEATH-ROW A CASE (AS SEVERAL HAVE REFUSED TO REVIEW TERRI'S CASE) HE'D BE IMPEACHED!

IF TERRI'S CASE RECEIVED AS MUCH REVIEW AS THE AVERAGE DEATH PENALTY CASE SHE'D BE GETTING FOOD AND WATER RIGHT NOW!

Bottom-line: when the judicial review process is over - (and it looks like it is, EVEN THOUGH THERE HAS BEEN NO DE NOVO REVIEW!) - all legal means will have been exhausted. And when Terri dies due to the active removal of her food and water (which would kill anyone) it will have been an avoidable injustice. If her passing informs each of us and our society that we must all have written proxy arrangements, then her death will not have been in vain.

UPDATE: So far - no further reply from the Professor. Not surpising - he's a busy man; he was on cable TV tonight! So, I just sent him this email:

If new DNA evidence in death-row cases is okay, then why didn't any judge allow any new evidence of Terri's condition in Terri's case?

AGAIN: it seems to me that death row inmates routinely get MORE DUE PROCESS than Terri got.

Therefore; if the degree of due process we give death-row inmates is too low to assure a caprice-less and mistake-free conclusion, how can you believe that Terri and her parents got sufficient DUE PROCESS?! This was the CRUX of the Congressional bill passed to re-open her case. They wanted her to get a review every bit as thorough as one given routinely to death-row inmates - who routinely get NEW EVIDENCE, such as DNA, introduced during their federal appeals.

And you seem to miss that. INCREDIBLE. You seem to endorse the idea that a convicted murderer is entitled to greater review of his case than Terri. BIZARRE. And inconsistent.

And you will need more than to rely on the wisdom of the late Charles Black to paper over it.

If I get a reply I will post it. He is a distinguished law professor, so he may have a good answer. We will see...

MORE HERE AT JAWA!

10 reasons why Terri should be allowed to live

Slate has an article by a disability rights lawyer. She lists 10 reasons why Terri should not be starved to death. Here are the top two - (hat tip Rich Lowry at NRO's THE CORNER):

4. There is a genuine dispute as to Ms. Schiavo's awareness and consciousness. But if we assume that those who would authorize her death are correct, Ms. Schiavo is completely unaware of her situation and therefore incapable of suffering physically or emotionally. Her death thus can't be justified for relieving her suffering.

5. There is a genuine dispute as to what Ms. Schiavo believed and expressed about life with severe disability before she herself became incapacitated; certainly, she never stated her preferences in an advance directive like a living will. If we assume that Ms. Schiavo is aware and conscious, it is possible that, like most people who live with severe disability for as long as she has, she has abandoned her preconceived fears of the life she is now living. We have no idea whether she wishes to be bound by things she might have said when she was living a very different life. If we assume she is unaware and unconscious, we can't justify her death as her preference. She has no preference.

INSTAPUNDIT BLITHELY PASSES ALONG A BLATANT LEFT-WING LIE

The professor uncritically linked to and excerpted from an article from Corrierre della Serra (HT Harry's Place) in a way which gave credence to a HUGE LIE.

I think Glenn was fooled by the favorable PREMISE/CONCLUSION of the piece: That Bush is indeed a revolutionary leader.

SO.... WHAT'S THE LIE!? Here:

"... when Mr Bush spells out that he is fighting “for freedom and democracy in Arab countries,” he is turning on its head - positively, according to Mr Fassino - the traditional policy of Republican administrations that “supported fascist military dictatorships in South America in the name of political realism.”

In FACT... most of the South American dictators were propped up by DEMOCRAT PRESIDENTS: FDR and Somoza; Truman JFK, LBJ and Trujillo are BLATANT examples of Democrat/Tyrant alliances. The GOP actually did less to prop up South American dictators: Ike let Battista fall; Bush Senior ousted Noriega; and Reagan ousted a two-bit commie turd in Grenada.

Don't get me wrong: I think Bush is INDEED a revolutionary - but he's doing more than turning traditional GOP foreign policy on its head: he's overthrowing the last remnants of status-quoism, defeatism, and accommodationism - IN BOTH PARTIES - and he's doing it in the name of human rights. It's the Bush Doctrine. It's a beautiful thAng. And it's working! And we don't need no stinking Leftwing Italian correspondents to tell is it's somehow anti-GOP! When it ain't! Nuff said.

ADDENDUM: Arch-enemy of the Left, Wolfowitz is the primary architect of the policies that have DELIBERATELY weaned the USA away from pro-West dictators over the last 25 years. aND HE DID IT WITH GOP PREXIES REAGAN AND BUSH.

LEFTISM: CIRCLING THE TOILET BOWL ONE LAST TIME ON ITS WAY TO THE SEPTIC TANK OF HISTORY

Stolen from JAWA. Read the whole thing.

WMD, BUSH, SADDAM and the UN

These excerpts from Bush's September 2002 UN speech are offered to demonstrate that Bush made a case for war BEFORE THE WAR that went WELL beyond WMD - (as should've been apparent to anyone noting the name of the operation: "Operation Iraqi Freedom".

The United States helped found the United Nations. We want the United Nations to be effective, and respectful, and successful. We want the resolutions of the world's most important multilateral body to be enforced. And right now those resolutions are being unilaterally subverted by the Iraqi regime. Our partnership of nations can meet the test before us, by making clear what we now expect of the Iraqi regime.
[...]
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material [emph added].

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it [emph added], as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions [emph added].
[...]
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program [emph added]. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis -- a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty, and internationally supervised elections [emph added].

[...] If we meet our responsibilities, if we overcome this danger, we can arrive at a very different future. The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world [emph added].

YUP: that dumb ass redneck neocon biblethumping knuckledragging smirkingchimp said it right then and there SIX MONTHS BEFORE THE WAR - he even demanded that Iraqis get their human rights and internationally supervised elections!

AND EVERY ONE OF THE EXCERPTED DEMANDS WERE ENTIRELY DISREGARDED BY SADDAM - REQUIRING THAT WE ATTACK HIM AND REMOVE HIM FROM POWER - OR CONSIGN THE UN AND OURSELVES TO IRRELEVANCE.

So now, anytime - NO EVERYTIME some Leftwing asshole tells you that Bush went to war for oil, and lied about WMD, and that democracy was an after-thought - well you just tell'em they can either see the Light and admit they were wrong and that Bush was right, or they can eat shit and die.

BTW: read the whole speech; it's a gem that will shine for eternity.

FROM "HIGH NOON" TO "MAGNIFICENT SEVEN"

(AP) - Iraq says 85 insurgents killed in clash amid upsurge of citizen tips against militants.

Iraqi officials also credited other successes to a torrent of intelligence that has begun flowing from citizens heartened by Jan. 30 elections and emboldened by film footage aired on state television that shows captured insurgents confessing their roles in attacks. ''Before, the people had a neutral stance toward this issue,'' said Sabah Kadhim, a spokesman for the Interior Ministry. ''Now, they have turned against the terrorists.''

What was HIGH NOON - (the classic western in which the US Marshall is forced to confront an evil gang, who've come back for revenge, all by himself because the ungrateful towns-folk are too scared to help him) - has become THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN - (in which peasants, who are sick and tired of being pillaged by banditos, hire gunslingers to help them defend their town)!

GO READ A COMPLETE ROUND-UP OF IRAQ'S COUNTER-INSURGENCY AT THE JAWA REPORT.

JUDENREIN

"Without settlements, a two-state solution is possible. With them it becomes impossible," UN Special rapporteur John Dugard said.

I say that demanding a settlement-free West Bank is no more than demanding ethnic cleansing.

I say that Israel should be no more expected to accept that the West Bank should have no Jews than the Arabs would be expected to accept Israelis expelling all the Arabs from Israel! I remind you that Israel is 20% Arab - and all the Arabs have all the same rights as the Jews there - which is MUCH MORE than Arabs anywhere in Arabia.

Sharon made the bold move to unilaterally and voluntarily make Gaza a "Jew-free zone" in order to be better able to defend the Jewish state. But it would be a BIG MISTAKE for anyone to read into that the possiblilty that Sharon would make the West Bank ethinically cleansed of Jews. too. IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

And why should it!? If Jews and Arabs are ever truly going to be at peace, then they should be able to live peacefully within each other's borders! AS ARABS DO WITHIN ISRAEL...

I'LL GO FURTHER: UNTIL JEWS CAN LIVE AS FREELY IN ARAB NATIONS AS ARABS DO IN ISRAEL THERE WILL BE NO PEACE.

And the sooner the pro-Arab anti-Semite schmucks in the UN and the EU - like Anan and Dugard - get this the better!

OJ, Baretta and Schiavo: How to Get Away With Murdering Your Wife

All you need is a good lawyer.

Of course it helps if you can make people think she had it coming to her...

2ND NEOJIHADI BOMB ATTACK NEAR BEIRUT

A car bomb in Christian neighborhood mall kills three and injures several more.

As I posted after the first attack: the neojihadist/baaathist alliance is trying to do in Lebanon what they've been trying to do in Iraq: foment civil war and defeat democracy.

IT WON'T WORK.

CAN THE SCHINDLERS SUE MICHAEL SCHIAVO IN CIVIL COURT?

I ask because I remember another gross misconduct of justice: the OJ trial. OJ got off in the criminal proceeding but got nailed in a civil suit.

Can the Schindlers do the same thing to Michael? Can they sue him for unfairly and prematurely causing - or ordering to be caused - their daugther's death?

Perhaps in a civil suit - with different parameters than the current limited proceedings - the Schindlers can get a better hearing?

Perhaps Michael's OBVIOUS conflict of interest will be able to be brought to light?

ANY LAWYERS OUT THERE GOT ANSWER, (OR SHOULD I SAY OPINION)?

UNDISPUTED FACTS REQUIRE THAT WE SAVE TERRI

THERE ARE A FEW UNDISPUTED FACTS IN THE RECORD THAT MAKE ME BELIEVE THAT WE MUST SAVE TERRI SCHINDLER-SCHIAVO FROM HER LEGAL GUARDIAN - MICHAEL SCHIAVO:

(1) MICHAEL ONLY ASSERTED THAT TERRI WOULD NOT HAVE WANTED TO LIVE AS SHE IS NOW AFTER HE WON THE MONETARY SETTLEMENT.

(2) ONLY MEMBERS OF THE SCHIAVO FAMILY ASSERT THAT TERRI WOULD NOT HAVE WANTED TO LIVE ON AS SHE IS LIVING NOW. NOT A SINGLE MEMBER OF THE SCHINDLER FAMILY CORROBERATES THIS - ALL DISPUTE IT.

(3) MICHAEL HAS A CLEAR CONFLICT OF INTEREST: HE IS LIVING WITH ANOTHER WOMAN, AND THEY HAVE HAD TWO CHILDREN TOGETHER.

(4) SOME MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS THINK THAT TERRI CAN IMPROVE.

(5) IF MICHAEL'S PAID DOCTORS ARE RIGHT AND TERRI FEELS NO PAIN, THEN SHE IS NOT HARMED BY HER CONDITION, NOR BY HER FEEDING-TUBE WHICH KEEPS HER ALIVE; THEREFORE, HER LIFE "AS IS" IS BENIGN. BUT - IF THE SCHINDLER'S UNPAID DOCTORS ARE CORRECT - AND TERRI CAN FEEL PAIN, THEN STARVING HER IS MORE HARMFUL TO HER THAN KEEPING HER ALIVE.

BOTTOM-LINE:

IS THERE A SINGLE PERSON OUT THERE WHO WOULD GIVE THE POWER OF OUR OWN LIFE TO SOMEONE WHO HAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST OVER IT (AS MICHAEL CLEARLY HAS IN RELATION TO TERRI AND HIS COMMON LAW WIFE)!?

I THINK NOT.

It will be a sad, dark, BLACK day if the court decides against Terri's parents and let's her dubious legal guardian MURDER HER WITH THEIR HELP!

JUDGE REFUSES TO MAKE SURE TERRI LIVES

The federal judge refused to order that Terri's feeding tube be reinserted and that she be given food and water while the NEW federal case proceeds.

I find this SHOCKING, and I am very VERY disappointed.

Maybe I shouldn't be; after all, this judge was appointed to the federal court by Clinton.

COINCIDENCE? Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe he was appointed by Clinton because he's a liberal who thinks that fetuses and people who are brain-damaged don't have an intrinsic right to live - but only a conditional one.

I do not believe that if this was a DEATH PENALTY case that the judge would have allowed the state to execute the prisoner while his case was still under federal judicial review. IN OTHER WORDS: liberals like this judge routinely give more rights to convicted murderers than to this brain-damaged person.

That's just a fact.

*******

ADDENDUM:

Now, if King Solomon was deciding this case it is ABSOLUTELY clear what he'd do, because it is absolutely clear who has Terri's interests at heart: her parents. Her husband even refuses to feed her while her case is under review. WHY? Because he wants her to die as soon as possible. Even though there is not one shred of evidence that she is suffering. And even though the ONLY people who EVER testified that Terri would not want to go on living like this are all named Schiavo; YUP: isn't it strange that not one single member of Terri's family (THE SCHINDLERS) EVER heard an INKLING about this from Terri - even though the family had direct experience with other family members on life support?!

I think the judge's refusal to feed Terri whiule he hears the case reveals a pattern - a Left-wing pattern: they support killing fetuses; they're against the death penalty for murderers; they don't think that we should use our military strength to help spread democracy (as we did in Iraq), and also argue that we have no right to interfere in the internal affairs of other nations EVEN IF there is a systematic denial of human rights and genocide (as when Clinton did nothing to stop Rwandan genocide) - and they think that it's okay for brain-damaged people to be starved to death.

What do we call this pattern? I'm not sure. Maybe we should call it "Narcissistic Nihilism."

Here's my preliminary thinking:

I think the Left has bastardized an old saying, "Live and let live." To the Left, the saying has become "let me live, let them die." This is the ultimate narcissism and I think it grew out of the anti-West, counter-culture of post-modernism. In other words: it is a direct result of the Marcusian-Marxist 1960's. It's the ultimate nihilistic outburst of the Me Generation: my pregnancies are my business - not my fetuses; my country should never intervene miltarily against another until AFTER we're attacked ("the Vietcong and Saddam never attacked ME!?"); capitalism is terrorism; "Western Civilization is scourge upon the Earth fomenting racism, slavery, poverty, and global warming;" there are no intrinsic norms and therefore no such thing as deviancy: everything is permitted - including the right of an estranged husband to kill his brain-damaged wife.

Well, when everything is permitted, then people merely do what is right in their own eyes. That is the very definition of evil.

JESSICA'S LAW

May God Bless Jessica's soul, and soothe the grief of her family with the faith and knowledge that Jessica is in a better world, now.

Which raises the question: HOW DO WE MAKE OUR WORLD BETTER?

I KNOW HOW: By locking up convicted child molesters for life, (or by only releasing them after they have been PHYSICALLY CASTRATED and have had their ARMS CUT OFF; their choice).

Punishment and prisons supposedly exist to PROTECT society. If the current laws put our most precious and beautiful citizens - OUR CHILDREN - at risk of further harm then they are inadequate and must be changed!

I WISH that Americans would wake up and urge their representatives in state and federal legislatures to change the law and make child molestation punishable by LIFE IN PRISON WITHOUT PAROLE.

We can call it Jessica's Law. It will save lives. Of our children. What better thing for a law to do?

*******UPDATE: I've just set up another blog to collect names of people who favor making child molestation punishable by life in prison. Here's the LINK: JESSICA'S LAW. Go there, put "your name and town" in the comments section, and then send the page to your representatives. If we can get a few million visitors to this JESSICA'S LAW page , then maybe we can get this possible solution some more publicity and then have some positive impact on this issue. YUP: MAYBE THE BLOGOSPHERE CAN MAKE A REAL DIFFERENCE ON THIS ISSUE.

It's up to you... Go to the JESSICA'S LAW page and then send the link to a few friends. You can make a difference; together WE CAN ALL MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE!