The Urban Grind

Via The Canada Free Press

Thomas J. Perrelli is the lawyer that represented that whoring adulterous, murderous beast Michael
Schiavo in his efforts to have his disabled wife Terri starved to death. And now, Perrelli has been nominated by Obama to be the associate attorney general, which is the number three position in the Justice Department.

Mr. Perrelli, a former Justice Department official and Harvard Law School classmate of Mr. Obama’s, helped raise $500,000 for the president-elect’s campaign, has worked as an attorney for the recording industry, which has significant business before the Justice Department, and represented Democratic lawmakers and voters involved in politically charged redistricting cases, an issue certain to rise again with the 2010 census.

Remember that Obama said openly that he regretted trying to intervene to save Terri from having her feeding tube removed, and in turn suffering a slow death by starvation.

If one of Britain’s leading “experts” on medical ethics has his way, the answer will be, yes!

One of the country’s leading experts on medical ethics today calls for doctors to be able to end the lives of some terminally ill
patients “swiftly, humanely and without guilt” – even if they have not given consent.

Len Doyal, emeritus professor of medical ethics at Queen Mary, University of London, takes the euthanasia debate into new and highly contentious territory. He says doctors should recognise that they are already killing patients when they remove feeding tubes from those whose lives are judged to be no longer worth living. Some will suffer a “slow and distressing death” as a result.

He argues that doctors are already effectively practicing euthanasia on patients who have no consciousness beyond the capacity to suffer pain and says this should extend to those patients who can no longer speak for themselves.

He says he is not the only medical professional to hold this view. In the article, Prof Doyal says withdrawing life-saving treatment from severely incompetent patients – which may involve turning off a ventilator, ending antibiotics or withdrawing a feeding tube – is “believed to be morally appropriate because it constitutes doing nothing. It is disease that does the dirty work, not the clinician. Yet this argument cannot wash away the foreseeable suffering of severely incompetent patients sometimes forced to die avoidably slow and distressing deaths.”

How does do people like this get to be considered “experts” on medical ethics?

At least that is what Tom Delay is seeking.

DeLay, a Texas Republican, declined to say if he believed any of the judges should be impeached but told his weekly news conference, “I’ve asked the Judiciary Committee to look at the case and the actions of the federal judiciary and make their recommendations.”

——–
And before any liberals start getting hysterical, I’d like to know why it is that these unelected judges can act with impunity. Our government consists of a system of checks and balances. So where are the checks on our out of control judicial branch?

Pat Buchanan also writes today about our activist judges, and wonders if we are headed towards becoming a judicial dictatorship.

Buchanan points out that a remedy already exists in the GOP platform, and Article III, Section 2 of our Constitution.

Under Article III, Section 2, Congress, with President Bush’s signature, can almost wholly restrict the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

Here’s what Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution says exactly:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;–to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;–to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;–to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;–to Controversies between two or more States;– between a State and Citizens of another State;–between Citizens of different States;–between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Works for me!

In the latest installment of his Judeo/Christian commentary series, Dennis Prager writes that the left seeks to restore anarchy by eradicating the many differences societies normally have. He brought up such differences as men vs. women, gays vs. heterosexuals, transsexuals vs. transgendered people, man vs. G-d, good and evil, and finally, human beings vs. animals.

It?s no secret that left wing secular humanists view human beings as nothing more than sophisticated animals. Whereas religious conservatives believe that man was created in G-d?s image. I think that?s why so many liberals were clamoring for Terri Schiavo?s death. After all, if you become so disabled as to end up in a so-called persistent vegetative state then you are reduced to being a lowly animal or even a stone. At least that was what one especially vicious troll opined on Misha?s blog the other day when he ranted that Terri was no longer human (and frankly, I was horrified at the callousness of his reasoning).

It?s also why the people at PETA see slaughter houses as modern day equivalents of concentration camps. And I guess you can say it?s why there was news yesterday of a Burmese woman deciding to breast some Tiger cubs, or why a Norwegian woman breastfed her puppies a few months ago when their mother died.

Sick, sick sick!

In terms of corrupt, out of control judges, Mel Gibson is dead accurate. He notes that something can be done about judges if people really wanted to:

“What happened to just being a human being, you know? It’s nothing more than state-sanctioned murder. All the big guys, they all have their hands tied up by some tinhorn judge down there. Come on, when they want to whip a judge, they got no problem doing that. Look what they did to [Ten Commandments proponent Roy Moore] in a heartbeat. So they can do it if they want. They just don’t want to.”

Right on, Mel!

To refresh your memory, here’s what was done to Judge Moore, a good man, and true conservative, when he didin’t tow the liberal party line:

MONTGOMERY, Alabama (CNN) — Alabama’s judicial ethics panel removed Chief Justice Roy Moore from office Thursday for defying a federal judge’s order to move a Ten Commandments monument from the state Supreme Court building.

The nine-member Court of the Judiciary issued its unanimous decision after a one-day trial Wednesday.

The panel, which includes judges, lawyers and non-lawyers, could have reprimanded Moore, continued his suspension or cleared him.

The ethics panel said Moore put himself above the law by “willfully and publicly” flouting the order to remove the 2.6-ton monument from the state judicial building’s rotunda in August.

So when it comes to the Ten Commandments, the moral foundation of our laws and society, which moonbats find offensive, it’s ok to get rid of a judge. But when it comes to starving an innocent woman to death on the hearsay evidence of an adulterous husband with ulterior motives, everyone must kowtow to that monstrous piece of sewerage, Judge George Greer. Never mind that he blatantly ignored supoenas. After all a judge’s ruling is law, and we must always always abide by the rule of law, no matter what!

Hogwash!

Alan Keyes sees grave consequences for us as a society as a result of Terri’s murder. In his view, people have substituted judicial authority for the moral authority coming from G-d. And he has a point. When it comes to driving G-d out of the public domain, it’s fine to fire recalcitrant judges. But if some piece of sewerage (in this case many pieces of sewerage) decides it’s acceptable to starve a disabled woman to death because of subjective issues like “quality of life” or because of what an estranged husband says, then it’s acceptable. Never mind that there was no will. We have to accept it since IT’S THE RULE OF LAW.

Keyes rightly compares Terri Schiavo’s murder to those of disabled German’s during the Third Reich:

Then, as now, the corruption of conscience began under the specious pretext of saving disabled people from the supposedly oppressive burden of living out their lives. By undermining the people’s sensitivity to atrocity against innocent, vulnerable individuals they prepared them callously to ignore and explain away massive atrocity against large groups and whole races and nations. If the death of one innocent helpless person counts for nothing because it is sanctioned by the formal appearance of legality, then the death of millions counts for nothing when it appears in the same disguise ? a million times nothing is nothing.

This is the calculus of evil. The judicially mandated murder of Terri Schiavo shows that it is already deeply in our midst. Already we find the guards who will deny food and water to those shriveling with starvation; already we find the jurists and media hounds who will order or advocate their destruction; already we find the public officials who acknowledge the injustice but do nothing, when their sworn duty is to defend and protect constitutional right.

As a result of this murder, many of you will no doubt have living wills made out. Yet Ace of Spades astutely (as always) points out that eventually those won’t even mean anything:

We’ve come to the point where you don’t have to execute a living will to indicate your intention to die when deemed inconvenient by your family. Henceforth, death is the default; you need to sign a living will to make clear your desire to live.

Although, who knows– somewhere down the line, I’m sure a clearly stated, signed, and witnessed “I would like to live” living will be invalidated on the say-so of a fled husband as well.

Ace also wonders what happened to the pro-stem cell research, pro miracle left on this issue:

Well? Are these medical miracles on the way or not? If they’re not, then shut up about stem-cells. If they are– why shouldn’t Terri Schiavo have had the benefit of being allowed to live until the coming of these medical breakthroughs we’re all so eagerly anticipating?

On another note, people have different ways of dealing with grief. There are some who harbor no hatred or resentment towards Michael Schiavo and George Felos, their rationale being that they’ll live with the memory of what they did the rest of their lives. More power to them, I guess. Personally, I can’t be so magnanimous. In my view, there IS a time for hate, and this is one of them:

“For everything there is a season and a time for every matter under heaven? a time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace.”

? Ecclesiastes 3

As I see it, if people don’t hate evil, how will they eradicate it from their midst, and protect innocent people?

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach lays out the defense for hatred perfectly:

Moral people, afraid of being poisoned by hate, are becoming indifferent to evil.

——–

I have heard all the arguments repudiating hate. Hatred is evil. It is the cause of all wars. It consumes the soul of he or she who hates. Silly arguments all. Hatred is only evil when it is directed at the good and at the innocent. It is positively Godly when it is directed at cold-blooded killers, motivating us to fight and eradicate them before more people die.

——–

Can a man love innocent victims without hating their tormentors? Loving victims might generate compassion for their suffering. But hating the perpetrators will generate action to stop their orgy of murder.

——–

Exhortations to hate all manner of evil abound in the Bible. The book of Proverbs declares, “The fear of the Lord is to hate evil.” Likewise, King David declares regarding the wicked, “I have hated them with a deep loathing. They are as enemies to me.” Hatred is the moral response to those who have gone beyond the pale of decency by committing acts which unweave the basic fabric of civilized living. To encounter evil is to come under the injunction of never showing even a morsel of sympathy lest we weaken our determination to destroy it.

The demonization of hatred in our time has derived principally from liberalism for which toleration of nearly everything is paramount. Hatred of evil implies both the right to make judgments, as well as a belief in absolutes, both of which are anathema to liberalism. While it has some redeeming qualities, my foremost argument against liberalism is that it harbors no abhorrence or detestation of evil.

Looks like I’ll go right on hating all of those people that could have helped Terri, but didn’t.

It looks like Michael Schiavo, George Felos, the ACLU, the pro-death groups and our judges have finally had their way.

Terri Schiavo died this morning.

Like I said, I finished all my crying last week. Now all I feel is hatred towards the judges and politicians who were either against saving Terri, or who wanted to save her, but who ultimately cared more for the “rule of law.”

I won’t say what I wish would happen to them, because it’s unprintable. Suffice it to say I will silently curse them.

Rest in peace, Terri.

From my perusal of blogs and news sites, I see that there are some conservatives who are pro-life, and who believe that Terri Schiavo should live, yet believe respecting the so-called rule of law is more important . Thus they would be against Governor Bush having Terri taken out of the hospice by force.

Frankly I don’t understand where these people are coming from. Via Worldnetdaily.com, Alan Keyes weighs in on the issue:

The Florida state constitution declares unequivocally that in the state of Florida “the supreme executive power shall be vested in a governor ? .”

——–

The Florida state constitution declares: “All natural persons, female and male alike, are equal before the law and have inalienable rights, among which are the right to enjoy and defend life and liberty ? .”

The word “inalienable” means that the rights in question cannot be given away or transferred to another by law. Now, by allowing Michael Schiavo to starve his wife to death, Judge George W. Greer transfers to Schiavo the exercise of her right to life, doing on her behalf what the Florida state constitution declares she herself could not do (since an inalienable right cannot be given away).

———

In his oath as governor he swore to “support, protect and defend the Constitution and government of the United States and of the state of Florida.”

As supreme executive, he is obliged to act in their defense, and no court order can relieve him of this responsibility.

——–

In Federalist 81, when Alexander Hamilton lists the safeguards against “judiciary encroachments on the legislative authority,” he cites in particular “its total incapacity to support its usurpations by force.”

Unfortunately, I don’t think Jeb Bush will do a darn thing.

And to think of how long Terri has survived without the feeding tube… When I went to get lunch earlier, I caught a glimpse of Randall Terry’s news conference on MSNBC. He said that Terri is weak but still responsive, and that she even urinated last night — a sign that her kidneys are still working. What a strong will to live this woman has!

Hey everyone,

Once again, I apologize for the light posting, but I haven’t been feeling well lately. It’s not that I’m ill or anything, but I have taken this whole Terri Schiavo situation *very* badly.

As I type this, Terri is rapidly fading. For the life of me, I don’t understand what our country has come to (and for any liberals reading this blog, spare me the bromides about privacy and right to die). What kind of society are we, when judges will order an innocent defenseless woman to be starved to death solely based on the words of a husband in name only, with suspect motives? You know, if I were a judge, and some man came before me wanting to starve his disabled wife to death without any written will, I would tell him to take a hike. I should think something like that would be a matter of basic human decency.

As Blue Eyed Infidel pointed out in her blog, this wouldn’t be allowed to happen to a dog. L-rd knows PETA would be up in arms. I would gladly link to her, but I’m not including any links in this post. This subject is just too depressing for me, and at this point, I can’t even bear to look at Worldnetdaily, my absolute favorite site, or any of the other news sites/blogs that are writing about Terri, or I’ll start crying again.

It’s just so hypocritical. As we all go about our daily lives and engage in business transactions with customers, vendors, etc., what’s commonly required is legitimate PAPERWORK. If it’s a matter of registering car insurance, paperwork is required. If I want to go pick up a prescription for medicine, the pharmacy will rightly require a prescription from my doctor. And never mind the aggravation of changing web hosting providers when your current host holds your domain name hostage. Never mind the fact that I’m the owner of my domain, yet my current registrar will not process my transfer request without the credit card info of my current host that purchased the domain that *I* gave them money for. (Sorry for the digression.)

Yet when it comes to starving a disabled woman to death, these evil judges have thrown out all concerns about evidence, and written wills, out the window.

Joseph Farah, whom I agree with 99% of the time, wrote in his commentary piece of about two days ago that any decent judge would take aside Schiavo and Felos and say “look, you either divorce Terri and hand over guardianship to her parents, or I’ll have the Attorney General conduct an investigation into the circumstances of Terri’s collaspe.” Again, I’m sorry, but I’m not linking to him in this post, as I can’t bear to.

And then there are those evil democrats who opposed the bill giving the Shindlers the right to take up this matter with the federal courts. Their rationale was that we shouldn’t be interfering with the state courts, etc. Yet, when it comes to our Supreme Court overturning the death penalty for minors committing murders in nineteen states, the Donks had no problem.

It’s amazing that those opposed to the execution of Mumia Abu Jamal are totally silent on this. And how long has Mumia been behind bars? I don’t hear anyone saying that Mumia has had his chance in the courts, and that it’s time to see justice done by executing him once and for all.

Anwyay, I don’t know what else to say at this point. I haven’t slept well at all this past week. And I was crying most of last night over these latest developments. Heck, I’m even in tears now as I type these words. I don’t know why this is affecting me so personally, but it is. In any case, posting will be light these next few days due to hosting issues, and to my state of mind. But once I can stand to read the news, rest assured, I will be back to posting regularly.

In the meantime, John from Wuzzadem has been blogging about Terri, and he’s linked to Blue Eyed Infidel, and others. So I suggest you go check him out.

Thanks everyone for listening to my rants.

I apologize for the light posting. I’ve been following the news on Terri Schiavo, and it’s just been too upsetting, even to blog about. But yesterday, I came across this bit of news that might be hopefull. I mean, who knows how helpful this would given the recent turn of events, but anything to get this case out of the hands of Judge George Greer, who has consistently ruled against Terri would probably be an improvement.

Luckily, President Bush will be flying in to sign off on this bill.

Naturally, serial, whoring adulterer, and almost murderer Michael Schiavo is not a happy camper. He’s busy playing the part of a loving bereaved husband. Right!

This just in, Democrats are blocking the vote, via Worldnetdaily.com

One of the opponents is Rep. Bob Wexler (D) of Florida who said the following:

“It is not the place of Congress, at the 11th hour, in the most effusive fashion, to undermine the Florida court system, particularly given the fact that it has been seven years and 19 judges who have participated,” Wexler said.

Another Democrat stuck his two cents in:

“We are seeing, sadly, the manifestation of a constitutional crisis,” said Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass. “You will have hundreds of members of Congress making a medical decision about which we know nothing.”

And another:

But Oregon’s Democratic Congressman Earl Blumenauer says the measure is immoral because Schiavo made it clear to her husband that she would not want to live in a vegetative state.

He is organizing the opposition to the measure, which comes before the House on Sunday afternoon. One-third of the members present need to vote “No” to ensure that the feeding tube is not put back in.

Has it ever ocurred to these men that the reason this case is coming up before Congress is the fact that the law in Florida has been failing Terri and her family?

You know, I’ve asked this before and I’ll ask it again. How is it that any judge in his right mind would allow such a ridiculous case to even come to trial, much less drag on for all these years. It seems so cut and dry to me. If there’s no written will, you don’t kill someone who’s not in excruciating, unmanageable pain. You err on the side of caution and humanity. And even if there is a legal guardian, that person, in my view still does not (or should not, in this case) have the right to end a person’s life without a legal, written will.

Otherwise, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach wrote an excellent commentary about this whole case, which I recommend you all check out.

Looks like there might, hopefully be a citizen’s arrest of scumbag serial adulterer Michael Schiavo and Judge George Greer, courtesy of former Green Beret commander Bo Gritz.

Gritz came bearing a notarized “citizen’s arrest warrant” addressed to Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Attorney General Charlie Crist.

His intent is to “paper” state and federal law enforcement offices with his warrant today ?? one day before Pinellas Circuit Court Judge George Greer’s deadline to begin denial of food and water to Terri Schiavo.

Gritz says the “arrest” is designed to allow officials additional options as the Florida governor and legislature maneuver to save the woman from starvation.

I think this is a good start, although it’s very late in the game.

On another note, the House of Representatives stepped in with legislation to block the removal of Terri’s feeding tube, scheduled for tomorrow afternoon at 1:00 p.m. ET.

The House bill, passed on a voice vote, would move such a case to federal court. Federal judges have twice turned down efforts by the parents to move the case out of Florida courts, citing a lack of jurisdiction.

Senate Republicans are introducing a separate bill to give Schiavo and her family standing in federal court, and they hope it can be debated on Thursday, a GOP aide said.

Under the House legislation, a federal judge would decide whether withholding or withdrawing food, fluids or medical treatment from an incapacitated person violates the Constitution or U.S. law.

It would apply only to incapacitated people who had not left directives dealing with being kept alive artificially and for whom a state judge had authorized the withholding of food or medical treatment.

Another thing I’ve noticed…It’s amazing that liberals, who are staunchly opposed to the death penalty, even for the most vicious murderers, see nothing wrong in putting this innocent, defenseless woman, who has harmed no one, to death. They say it’s about quality of life. And this is a group of people who pride themselves on being so much more tolerant of people with differences, and compassionate than conservatives. Well where on earth is their tolerance and compassion now???