Sunday, March 20, 2005

Walking Contradiction

After spending countless weeks stressing over midterm examinations and constructing essays into the wee hours of the evening prior to their turn-in date (and then having to wake up at around 7:45am for a 9am class), I am finally on Spring/Easter Break and I can take the time now to relax for a few days before I have to shift things back into gear in order to study for the Western Civilization 002 examination on April 1st (the Friday of the week we get back from break - and you thought you had it bad) and begin to work on the Unit Three essay for English 002, which should not be as hard as the previous two essays seeing as how there is no need for a thesis but instead requires a style that reflects the editorials that I have written for either The Marquette Tribune or on this blog site. During this time I may comment on a recent event or two that I feel I should reflect on, as I will do in just a few moments, but I do not believe I will have the time to do this as consistently as I would like to (and once school starts up again then the direction of the blog will shift back toward commenting on editorials written in The Marquette Tribune).

Can you believe the Democrats in Congress? It is truly amazing as to how they can continue living with themselves when they are able to take actions that threaten the lives of American citizens, both domestically and overseas. As you are aware, I severely criticized Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards during the 2004 Presidential Campaign (man, does that seem like a long time ago now) for voting against a measure that would have allocated funds toward supplying troops stationed in Iraq. This is where the infamous “I did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it” line came about, a statement that would continue to haunt Kerry throughout the campaign. The Kerry camp cited that the White House was fiddling with the facts of the matter, stating that he had particular disagreements with several measures contained within the legislation and that was what he was truly voting against, ignoring the principle that he was in effect voting down a bill that would have supplied our troops serving in Iraq. Furthermore, if this was such a fervent issue, why is it that only twelve Democrats, including Senator Kerry and Edwards, voted down the legislation, whether it was for the same reasons or not? This is merely a sampling of the unmitigated contradictions within the decision-making amongst the liberal politicians located on Capital Hill that has brought the Democratic Party to its knee and made it the misbegotten faction it is now, a practice that continues to be enforced to this very day.

According to the Associated Press, “Democrats expressed sympathy for the severely brain-damaged Florida woman and for the plight of her family”, of course they did. They wouldn’t like to appear as if they were the aggressors in all of this, now would they? Perhaps the next time a baby … pardon, a fetus is partially born Gwen Moore or Russ Feingold can appear in front it and express their condolences to their extremity, but business is business after all … snap, snap. The Congressional Democrats “accused Republicans of ramming through constitutionally questionable legislation to satisfy the agenda of their conservative allies”. And how is it that the actions taken by the Democrats in blocking the passage of this legislation is not deemed as engaging in actions aimed at satisfying their particular base? Is it not required of congressional delegates, whether they are in the House of Representatives or the Senate, to act within the best interests of the constituents from the state they represent? How is it that the liberals in Congress are allowed to engage in actions that far exceed the solicitations of their constituents without so much as a peep from the members of the Republican Party, but as soon as the conservatives flinch so much as a muscle in the direction in which the 'religious right' desires them to move towards, there is a problem? The Democrats in this instance, though certainly not limited to this issue alone, are deliberately brushing aside the ethical code of humanity which means for man (all human beings) to protect the sanctity of life wherever it is threatened in order to serve their extremist agenda.

If you will recall, a few days ago Terri Schiavo’s feeding tubes were removed at the request of her husband, of whom I will be discussing in detail later in this entry, who claims that he is simply acting in the interests of his wife who wished to die and be spared from the suffering she had accumulated over the years in her present condition. The legislative measure in question “would give Schiavo’s parents the right to file suit in federal court over the withdrawal of food and medical treatment needed to sustain the life of their daughter”, but sadly this does not mean that the tube will be reinserted as soon as the federal court decides to hear the case. In order for that situation to come about, the federal court must side with the parents of Terri Schiavo, which I am not willing to hold out hope for seeing as how the judicial system within the last thirty years has proven time and again, more recently in the last few years then any other time, to be less then capable of performing their civic duty.

First off, whether Terri Schiavo sincerely wanted to be taken off life-support or not, this is assisted suicide which not only goes strictly against the moral teachings set down by the Catholic Church but distinctive federal laws in this country as well that have barred this vile practice, known in the realm of political correctness as euthanasia, from taking place.

For more information pertaining to the 1996 Supreme Court case that barred the practice of assisted suicide within the United States, click on the link below:
Click Here for More Information on the 1996 Supreme Court Decision on Assisted Suicide in the United States
And secondly, this would all seem to be legitimate, with the husband fighting his wife’s family for what he feels is in the best interest of his spouse, admirable if not entirely misguided, but emotions shift dramatically when one takes into account the real motives behind Mr. Schiavo’s actions.

So what is the real story behind this? Though he claims to be a devoted and loving husband to Terri, in reality her husband has been fooling around for quite some time and has finally settled down with, loosely applying the term of course, on one particular mistress who is enticed by the prospects of his soon to be acquired newfound fortune. What would that be exactly? The insurance money he would collect on the death of his wife who lay in a vegetative state in a hospital bed in the state of Florida. Only one problem remained – Terri was still alive. Her husband could collect on the insurance claim or be able to marry his mistress, who keep in mind is only with him because of that money, unless she passes away naturally. The longer Terri lives, the less of a chance her husband has on collecting that insurance money, and thus becoming less attractive by the day in the eyes of his lady in waiting. But wait, it gets even better! Did I mention that Michael Schiavo has fathered two children with this woman as well? It seems as though he has been able to have moved on with his life, so does it not make sense for Terri to do the same in ditching the tube? If you agree with this assertion, you are just as disgusting and twisted as the man who is using this lame excuse as disguise for premeditated murder.

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.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner, the Wisconsin Republican responsible for crafting the legislation, was quoted as saying, "As millions of Americans observe the beginning of Holy Week this Palm Sunday we are reminded that every life has purpose and none is without meaning", as opposed to the liberals in this country who view the cruel methods of abortion and euthanasia (or assisted suicide) as the justifiable means, in their mind, of purging themselves of the responsibility they have toward another human life.

At best (with the term being used loosely in this context) pulling the plug on Terri Schiavo and allowing her to starve to death is assisted suicide, a practice that is barred in this country, and at worst, cold-blooded murder.