World Gone Mad

Thursday, March 31, 2005

Who Killed Terri Schiavo?

Who killed Terri Schiavo?

"Not I," said her husband. "I was only carrying out her wishes."

"Not I," said her husband's lawyer. "I was just doing my job."

"Not I," said the probate judge. "I was just following the law."

"Not I," said the Governor. "I don't have the power to save her, even if I am the supreme executive of the State of Florida under the Florida Constitution, and expressly empowered to protect the rights of all Florida citizens. That's just not enough."

"Not I," said our nation's chief executive. "I've done everything I can do. Who do you think I am, the President of the United States or something?"

"Not I," said the Congress. "After all, didn't we come back from vacation to pass a law?"

"Not I," said the federal judges. "We know a hot potato when we see one. No mere Act of Congress can force us to take action!"

"Not I," said the pastors and religious leaders who passed by without a word.

"Not I," said the doctors, the sheriff's police, the nurses and the hospital attendants. "We were just following orders."

"Not I," said Terri Schiavo. "I wanted to live."

Wednesday, March 30, 2005

Make No Mistake, The Schiavo Case Has Been Thirty Years In the Making

Ever since Roe v. Wade, Congress has punted time and time again on the issue of when life begins -- or to put it in the language the Left loves -- who qualifies as a "person" entitled to the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment. Of course, the real issue is, WHO GETS TO DEFINE IT. If you have the power to define who a "person" is, then in very real terms -- like in Terri Schiavo's case -- you literally have the power to decide who lives and who dies.

Congress could have passed a statute defining a "person" under the Fourteenth Amendment to mean "a human zygote from the moment of conception." But they didn't. You have to ask, why not?

The answer is, Congress found it politically easier to pass the ball to the courts, where the Supremist Court and lower federal courts ruled time and again to narrow the definition of "personhood" for Fourteenth Amendment purposes until, voila all of a sudden it's permissible to abort a child up until the moment of birth. Now, the death-worshippers will use the Schiavo case to narrow it more, at the other end of life. If Terri Schiavo is not a person, then of course it's legal to kill her.

Every time one of these horrendous court decisions came down, all the Republican politicians did was cluck their tongues and say, "Isn't it awful?" and then stick out their hands for more campaign contributions. Of course, it made a good fundraising line. They could say they needed more money so the next Supreme Court justice wouldn't be a "judicial activist." Then, after all the reporters left, they breathed a sigh of relief that they didn't have to put their name on a roll call vote.

After thirty years of this political football, this game of pass-the-buck, is it any wonder the federal courts refuse to hear the appeals of the Schiavo family? They're no dummies. They've seen this play before -- Congress trying to pass the buck to them, hoping they will take the heat But the judges are too smart to take the heat. They're not going to agree to retry the case de novo, no matter how many statutes Congress passes telling them to do that.

Now, the executive branch has joined the other politicians in Congress, hiding behind the judiciary, hoping no one will notice, letting the unelected judges take the heat. It's all enough to make a person cynical.

Put another way, it's corruption. And it's been going on for thirty years.

The Politicians Who Just Passed By

Terence Jeffrey's column today on Townhall about says it all:

Horrified that a disabled woman was being deliberately starved and dehydrated to death in their own country, many good neighbors went to the inn where Terri was now imprisoned and reportedly attempted to peacefully bring her a drink of water. Police arrested them.

Thus in America, in 2005, law and morality were turned upside down. Those who sought to take an innocent life were defended by judges. Good Samaritans were jailed.

This event will be remembered as a giant signpost along the highway leading America down into the Valley of Death. We are being driven down that highway by judges who are a law unto themselves.

If liberal judges now remove the Ten Commandments from every public building in the land, if they jackhammer the Decalogue from the walls of the Supreme Court itself, they would only symbolically re-enact the real act of vandalism they have already committed: "Thou shall not kill" has been denied the full force of law in this republic.

You can kill human embryos for medical research. You can kill an unborn child up to the moment of birth. You can kill a helpless, disabled woman.

Who's next? Who knows? Our Founding Fathers believed the right to life is an inalienable gift from God. Now, liberal judges play God, taking the right to life from innocent people as they deem fit.

They will continue to do so until our legislators and chief executives -- who take oaths to defend our rights -- work up the courage to use their own lawful authority to stop them.

"Woe unto you who call good evil and evil good."

Monday, March 28, 2005

Show Us Your Legal Authority, Governor

The Governor claims:

"I don't have powers from the United States Constitution or – for that matter from the Florida Constitution – that would allow me to intervene after a decision has been made."

Well, Governor -- show us the beef. Post your legal authorities on the Internet so all can see them.

Surely if the "controlling legal authority," as Al Gore would put it, is so overwhelming, we will all be convinced.

Gov. Bush Washes Hands of Schiavo Matter

(2005-03-27) -- In a symbolic move, designed to show Terri Schiavo's supporters that he has done all he can do to spare her life, Gov. Jeb Bush today publicly used a disposable moist towlette to "wash his hands of the matter."
"I find nothing deserving death in this woman, but I'm only the supreme executive of Florida," the governor told a crowded news conference. "Perhaps if our constitution called for a balance of powers to protect our citizens against judicial abuse, I could do something. But as it stands, she is in the hands of the judges. It's their job to determine what is truth. If she dies, it's not my fault."

In related news, Gov. Bush continued his Easter tradition of pardoning a Florida citizen chosen by a statewide poll of judges. This year's candidates for pardon were Mrs. Schiavo and burglar who had killed a homeowner during a break-in.

The burglar won in a landslide.

Saturday, March 26, 2005

Worse Than The Nazis

We are worse than the "good Germans" in Nazi Germany in at least one respect -- they at least had guns pointed at them, with the threat of prisons, concentration camps, or worse if they disobeyed orders.

We don't even have that excuse. We're going along of our own free will.

We are even more blameworthy than they were.

Friday, March 25, 2005

"We Must Obey God Rather Than Men."

Thus says the Word of God, in Acts 5:29.

What say you, Governor Bush?

Mr. President?

Governor, You've Got the Power

"It is frustrating for people to think that I have power that I don't, and not be able to act," Bush told The Associated Press on Thursday. "I don't have embedded special powers. I wish I did in this particular case."

Governor, I respectfully beg to differ. Not only do you have the power of the executive under the Florida Constitution, you have the duty in starkest moral terms to side with life, and not death.

The whole world is watching.

Alan Keyes and Dr. D. James Kennedy Agree: It is Gov. Bush's DUTY To DISOBEY Judge Greer's Order

Dr. Kennedy's exhortation from yesterday.

Alan Keyes article from yesterday.

The moral authority exists. The legal authority exists.

What is the Governor waiting for? Either there is a higher moral law, or there isn't. If there is, then he must follow that higher law.

...But What We Get From Our Leaders is Mumbo-Jumbo

Here is Gov. Bush, attempting to explain why he has refused to exercise his executive powers under the Florida Constitution. Fasten your seat belts:

"We never said that unilaterally we would do something that's against the court. I've been asked to do it by a lot of people — a lot of the advice I'm getting over the Internet and over television and the like. I know that there were lots of rumors of things that aren't accurate. I have a duty to uphold the law and I have been very consistent about that..."

The "advice I'm getting over the internet" includes the email I sent, which is summarized in the post below.

This situation calls for Christians, men with a backbone, to stand up and be counted. But instead, we get gobbledygook from Gov. Bush.

From Pres. Bush we get: "I'm going to sit back and watch the courts make their decisions."

You call this leadership? How much money did we send in to the Republican Party over the past 32 years when they promised us over and over they were going to undo Roe v. Wade?

Meanwhile, Terri Schiavo is being starved and tortured to death.

Thursday, March 24, 2005

...And Bill Bennett Agrees, Too

"Governor Bush pledged to uphold the Florida constitution as he understands it, not as it is understood by some Florida judges. He is the rightful representative of the people of Florida and he is the chief executive, in whom the power is vested to execute the law and protect the rights of citizens. He should use that power to protect Terri's natural right to live, and he should do so now."

Bill Bennett and Brian Kennedy, NRO Online 3/24/05

Ann Coulter To Gov: Do Your Duty

"President Andrew Jackson is supposed to have said of a Supreme Court ruling he opposed: "Well, John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." The court's ruling was ignored. And yet, somehow, the republic survived.

If Gov. Jeb Bush doesn't say something similar to the Florida courts that have ordered Terri Schiavo to die, he'll be the second Republican governor disgraced by the illiterate ramblings of a state judiciary. Gov. Mitt Romney will never recover from his acquiescence to the Massachusetts Supreme Court's miraculous discovery of a right to gay marriage. Neither will Gov. Bush if he doesn't stop the torture and murder of Terri Schiavo."

Ann Coulter, March 24, 2005

In Ann's column today, she agrees with my point below -- the use of national guard troops by President Eisenhower is a sound historical and political precedent for Gov. Bush to intervene and: (1) take Terri into protective custody pending a full state investigation; or (2) carry out an administrative order for the reinsertion of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube; or (3) both.

It's hard to argue with this logic. When will Gov. Bush adopt it? Time is running out . . .

The Whole World Is Watching

The following is my email sent to Hugh Hewitt a short time ago:

Hugh, I have to reluctantly disagree with your comment on last night’s show that civil disobedience is not called for here.

When the laws of men are in direct conflict with the higher moral law of God – and they clearly are here – a Christian’s duty is clear. He must stand for God’s law no matter what the consequences, even if that means civil disobedience. Peacefully, yes. Prayerfully, yes. Reluctantly and as a last resort, yes.

But stand he must.

The Christians in ancient Rome interposed themselves between gladiators and their victims, and died for their trouble. Pagan Rome became Christian as a result. We must do no less.

Momma, Where Were You When They Tried to Kill Terri Schiavo?

"The temple of justice has been defiled." -- Judge Kenneth Starr, during the Whitewater scandal

“Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just.” – Thomas Jefferson

"If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do? -- Psalm 11:3

Wednesday, March 23, 2005

Will Pres. Bush Just Sit Back and "Watch the Courts Make Their Decisions?"

The following was sent via email to President Bush:

Dear President Bush,

A short time ago you were quoted as saying:

"This is an extra sad case, and I believe in a case such as this, the legislative branch, the executive branch ought to err on the side of life, which we have. And now we'll watch the courts make their decisions.”

Sir, with all due respect, is that all you can do? Sign a bill? Are you going to simply sit back and watch the courts make their decisions, or rather not decide, in favor of Mrs. Schiavo’s continuing to live? We know from history that once this line is crossed, it will be extremely difficult if not impossible to reverse its devastating effects -- not to mention, of course, the irreversible death of Mrs. Schiavo. Either all human life is sacred, or it is all vulnerable to whatever political wind blows at the moment.

When the southern states attempted to violate the Constitutional rights of black students in the 1960’s, presidents stepped forward and exercised their executive powers. They sent in federal troops to ensure the rights of those minorities were protected. The right to life is even more fundamental than the right to a racially desegregated public education.

I beg you to take action. Do not listen to your political advisors who urge caution. This is a clear case of the law of man standing in direct opposition to the law of God. Your duty as a Christian is clear – stand for God’s law, no matter what the consequences.

Our prayers are with you in this difficult and trying hour for our God-given freedoms and for our country.


Gov. Bush, Obey The Laws of God, Not the Laws of Men

It is almost a foregone conclusion the U.S. Supreme Court will not hear the appeal of the parents of Terri Schiavo.

A political precedent for Pres. Bush to intervene and order federal marshals or troops in to prevent carrying out Judge Greer's death order does exist. Traditionally, the federal government has deferred to states in matters involving guardianship and family law. However, presidents have exercised their executive powers to intervene in desegregation disputes in the South during the 1960's.

If President Bush declines to intervene, the next step would be up to Gov. Bush. The issue he will face, while painful, is clear: should he obey the laws of God, or the laws of men? He cannot do both.

As a Christian, his duty is clear -- he must stand on the side of life, no matter what the cost. Let us pray and work to that end, and then go and do likewise.

Monday, March 07, 2005

Does Suffering Fit the Christian for Heaven?

In his article, "A Good Reason for Evil," Greg Koukl of Stand To Reason suggests:

"God's purpose for creating us was to develop us into certain types of people who were fit to spend eternity with Him. He does that by conforming us to His image by helping us grow through the process of living in a fallen world."

So, in the suffering of the Christian, is it God's purpose to fit him for heaven?

I am going to have to search the Scriptures to see if this is so. If it is, it would have direct and dramatic impact on things such as work, trials, sickness, unsaved relatives, etc. for the believer. It would put a whole different light on the daily inconveniences of life, which we in postmodern America are so fiercely devoted to stamping out at all costs -- just turn on the radio to any commercial station and get an earful of that!

The reason for this fierceness is, of course, that postmodern man has abandoned God, and as Koukl correctly points out, has enthroned himself as god. As god, the Imperial Me cannot ever be troubled, pained, or inconvenienced by anything. So the purpose of life becomes making me happy (i.e., making me feel good) at any cost. Thus, postmodern man demands a god in his own image, one whose sole purpose is to make life for me happy and pleasurable.

Devotion: No Lasting City

"For here we have no lasting city..." Heb. 13:14a (ESV)

The city of man, which unsaved mortals are so fond of, is intended to be permanent. Men put their most strenuous efforts into constructing buildings, streets, parks and monuments. They imagine these will last forever, and so employ painstaking architecture and expend vast sums of money to build ever greater edifices of stone, brick, glass and steel.

Yet on September 11, 2001, two towering skyscrapers -- the vaunted gems of man's supposed wisdom and power in the city that perhaps most graphically represents the city of man in our day -- fell to the ground in only minutes. What more compelling evidence could there be of the fact that the city of man -- however lasting it may seem -- in reality is transient, and is indeed passing away?

The Christian, however, looks not for the city of man but the City of God. The child of God knows, for he has graciously been taught, that "here we have no lasting city." The City of God, which is the Christian's true home, will never pass away.

Take heart, Christian. Your city lies not far ahead.

Friday, March 04, 2005

Justice Scalia Speaks Truth to Power

There are so many sterling nuggets of truth in Justice Scalia's Roper v. Simmons dissent that it is difficult to pick out the finest. Here is a sampling:

"...all the Court has done to look over the heads of the crowd and pick out its friends."

"Because I do not believe that the meaning of our Eight Amendment, any more than the meaning of other provisions of our Constitution, should be determined by the subjective views of five Members of this Court and like-minded foreigners, I dissent."

"Words have no meaning if the views of less than 50% of death penalty states can constitute a national consensus."

"By what conceivable warrant can nine lawyers presume to be the authoritative conscience of the Nation?" (Good question, that!)

"What kind of Equal Justice under Law is it that -- without so much as a "Sorry about that" -- gives as the basis for sparing one person from execution arguments explicitly rejected in refusing to spare another?" (But of course, we all know that consistency is just the hobgoblin of small minds, Justice Scalia. Didn't you go to law school?)

"If juries cannot make appropriate determinations in cases involving murderers under 18, in what other kinds of cases will the Court find jurors deficient?"

"Though the views of our own citizens [who voted in favor of permitting juries to impose the death penalty on murderers under 18] are essentially irrelevant to the Court's decision today, the views of other countries and the so-called international community take center stage."

"...whereas the Court is not content to accept what the States of our Federal Union say, but insists on inquiring into what they do, (specifically, whether they in fact apply the juvenile death penalty that their laws allow), the Court is quite willing to believe that every foreign nation -- of whatever tyrannical political makeup and with however subservient or incompetent a court system -- in fact adheres to a rule of no death penalty for offenders under 18."

"More fundamentally, however, the basic premise of the Court's argument -- that American law should conform to the laws of the rest of the world -- ought to be rejected out of hand. In fact the Court itself does not believe it."

"To invoke alien law when it agrees with one's own thinking, and ignore it otherwise, is not reasoned decisionmaking, but sophistry."

And here is the clincher:

"In a system based upon constitutional and statutory text democratically adopted, the concept of 'law' ordinarily signifies that particular words have a fixed meaning." (How passe, Justice Scalia. How unsophisticated you are! Don't you know that in deconstructed, postmodern America, words have absolutely no fixed meaning? Surely with such plebian views, you are no longer qualified to pass on such important issues.)

Once again, we see that postmodernism carries within itself the seeds of its own destruction. Once judicial elites arrogate unto themselves power, and in the process rob the People of their God-given rights, the "result will be to crown arbitrariness with chaos," as Justice Scalia puts it in the closing sentence of his dissent.

Then, of course, it is but a short path to brutal tyranny. And, of course, the first act of the tyrant would be to eradicate all traces of postmodernist thoughts and actions. Thus does postmodernism -- like all human philosophies -- self-destruct.

Wednesday, March 02, 2005

Nation of Cows?

So the U.S. Supremist Court has ruled that no state can impose the death penalty on anyone under 18 --now what? Will there be a single voice raised in the White House or the Congress against this despicable outrage?

We now have a majority of Supremist Court justices (plus one waffler) who have no qualms whatsoever about overruling the will of the duly elected representatives of the people (that means YOU and YOUR CHILDREN). What's worse, they are more willing to trust European countries and the United Nations than they are the considered judgments of American juries!

In other words, your vote doesn't count, your jury service doesn't count, your elected state representatives don't count. You are nothing. We, the nine Wise Men and Women, will decide everything important for you. We smart people just feel like this is the right thing to do, and you dumb people will just have to go along with it.

Do I exaggerate? Read Justice Scalia's brilliant dissent -- he guts the majority's non-reasoning and exposes it for what it is.

I will blog later with some of the dead-on quotes from Justice Scalia's dissent -- which, like his brilliant dissent in Lawrence v. Texas and his many others, should be required reading in all our law schools.

For now, though, the question is whether freedom-loving citizens will do what freedom requires them to do -- march in the streets against these tyrants in black robes! These in-justices are systematically dismantling brick by brick the freedoms our Founding Fathers built so carefully (and prayerfully) into our Constitution.

Will anyone care? Will George Bush speak out? Does anyone even realize what's being done to them?

Or are we now a Nation of Cows?