Wednesday, March 23, 2005

Born and Raised by Hypocrites

The hypocrices of this Terri Schiavo case are truly driving me insane …

First, we have the ACLU, the extreme left-wing organization whose purpose they claim is to protect the individual freedoms and liberties of every American citizen, and their hypocritical stance in this debate. Considering what the organization advocates for, you would think that they would take the side of Terri in this scenario but instead they backing the man who is seeking to take away her individuals rights (right to due process and, more importantly, right to life) through the act of cold-blooded murder. Excuse me, would any of you brightly informed individuals care to point out to me where within the context of the Constitution of the United States it states that every citizen of this nation has the ‘right to die’? Don’t bothering looking it up because it does not exist anywhere within the contents of the document. This is yet another fabricated invention of the liberal mythology concerning the Constitution of the United States, joining the ranks of such classics as the “right to privacy” (which is actually the cobbling together of bits and pieces from several of the amendments to the Constitution) and the “Separation of Church and State” (which documents such as the Northwest Ordinance strictly forbids).

Then there are the Democrats located on Capital Hill who have publicly objected to the government’s intervention into this ‘private’ matter, this in spite of the fact that this course of action by Michael Schiavo is a clear violation of one federal law or another, either as an act of assisted suicide or murder depending on your view of the situation.

First off, rather then taking the time to repeat myself, I will reference a paragraph from a recent post on the matter in which I discussed how the liberals in Congress only believe in the specifics of procedural matters when it serves to benefit their interests:

The liberals care only for the specifics of congressional procedural measures when it stands to serve their particular interests, specifically the image of the party against the conservative majority in Congress. Take for example the left’s fervent desire to go through the proper channels, specifically the United Nations Security Council, in obtaining the legislation needed to use justifiable military force against the nation of Iraq, this in spite of the fact that no such resolution was ever requested in light of the Clinton Administration’s bombing campaigns against Kosovo and Bosnia, which I might add involved no invested United States interests whatsoever as to make use of military force against these countries necessary. The need to obtain approval from the United Nations in a declaration of war against another nation only became necessary when President George W. Bush, a Republican, stood to benefit politically from invading Iraq in the upcoming presidential election should the United States swiftly take action against Saddam Hussein. So even if they could not entirely block Bush from pursuing an invasion of Iraq, it would severely limit his options and would allot enough time for the liberals to build up support through their propaganda channels, such as, in an effort to mobolize against the war effort.
And secondly, when they have found themselves on the losing end of this debate (a scenario that is not an uncommon occurrence within the Democratic Party as of late) they then resort to accusing the conservatives in Congress of using this situation in an attempt to solidify support amongst their religious base. Beside the fact that this situation is not about delegating authority over the political football but instead the moral obligation to ensure the quality of life of all American citizens, how are the attempts made by the congressional liberals to block passage of the legislation through either the House of Representative or the Senate, or both, is not seen as the fulfillment of a specific agenda?

And lastly, there is the situation involving Michael Schiavo and his mistress with whom he has not only had a longstanding relationship with but has also found it in himself to father two children with her as well in the midst of this chaotic battle for his wife’s ‘right to die’. I can not tell you for sure whether this woman is in on the fact that Michael is pushing so hard for this case in order to collect on Terri’s life insurance or not, and I do not believe that we will ever know for sure, but what we can assume is that this woman is either an especially gifted actress or she truly is as dumb as this scenario makes her sound. There are many out there who have questioned the fact that if Michael truly wanted to move on with his life then why didn’t he simply file for divorce against Terri and let that be that. First off, by divorcing her he cuts himself out of a chance to collect on her life insurance, which has been the basis for his fighting as admirably (loose association of the word) as he has, and secondly, his mistress would then refuse to marry him if he were to do that. According to friends close to the couple, the mistress has flatly refused to marry Michael should he file for divorce from his wife because as a Catholic she can not marry a divorced man. Oh, I see now, you find it contradictory to your deep-seeded spiritual beliefs to marry a divorced man and yet it is entirely acceptable for you to not only engage in the clear act of adultery but quite possibly conspire to commit murder as well.

Hypocrisy begets Hypocrisy ...