Jeb Bush Won't Feel Impact From Schiavo???

I actually think Jeb Bush's career is done, or at least presidential aspriations. Regarding presidential aspirations, he says "no, no, no" but he means that as much as when Hillary when she says it. He might become a senator, but he'll never win the nomination. He already has two strikes against him having two Bushes preceeded him. We don't need dynasties and power families.

I don't think the Schiavo case will be completely forgotten by 2016. The Christian conservatives, "the base," have longer memories and I don't think they'll jump in support of the man who fiddled.

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. - It seemed like Jeb Bush was in a no-win situation by taking up the cause of trying to keep Terri Schiavo alive.

He was going against polls that showed two out of three people thought government
shouldn't get involved. Then when courts stopped him from stepping in, some of his conservative Christian base criticized him for not doing more. But many people agree the Schiavo case was not a political issue for Bush and that the governor will not be hurt by it — especially since he doesn't have plans to run for office again any time soon.

"I can't see it having any impact on Jeb Bush and his political future," said Darryl Paulson, a University of South Florida political science professor. "He's not going to be running again in '06 and he says he's not running for the presidency and every one of his advisers is taking him at his word."
Florida limits governors to two terms and Bush's ends in January 2007. Even if Bush eventually decides to run for president, those close to him firmly say it will not be three years from now when his brother leaves office. By the time 2012 or 2016 roll around, the Schiavo case will be a distant memory.

Terri Schiavo and a part of America died today

Terri Schiavo passed away today. The thing most people don't understand. They, as a healthy 30-something say "I wouldn't want to live like that." It's not their decision, it's her decision and there isn't any proof that Terri would like to have been starved to death. All that existed was hearsay of an adulterous husband.

Michael Schiavo is a discrage to mankind. If I were the Schindlers I don't think I would have voluntarily left the room. I would have made them arrest me. Even worse than Michael, I think is George Felos. He is so creepy the way he describes all the events. There are few things I would enjoy more that punching George Felos.

I am disappointed in the Florida legislature, especially those who have "R" next to their name and voted against the bill to save Terri. I was disappointed Jeb went to Greer for "permission" to let the DCF take Terri into custody. I didn't understand why, when it was plainly obvious Greer would say no. After he asked and Greer said no, it was infinitely harder to do so. Either, Jeb didn't want to put an ounce of his political career on the line or he deliberately wanted to have this option killed so he wouldn't have to do any more.

Our politicians ask our soldiers to go and fight in Iraq so that civilians sitting in an office can go home without being bombed. They'll speak of how proud they are, etc, etc. Can't we ask our politicians to be 1/10 as brave? To put a couple of approval rating points on the line?

Michael Schiavo was at his wife's bedside, cradling her, when she died a "calm, peaceful and gentle" death, a stuffed animal under her arm, and flowers arranged
around the room, said his attorney, George Felos. Her parents, Bob and Mary
Schindler, were not at the hospice at the time, he said. "Mr. Schiavo's
overriding concern here was to provide for Terri a peaceful death with dignity," Felos said. "This death was not for the siblings, and not for the spouse and not for the parents. This was for Terri." The feud between the parents and their son-in-law continued even after her death: The Schindlers' advisers complained that Schiavo's brother and sister had been at her bedside a few minutes before the end came, but were not there at the moment of her death because Michael Schiavo would not let them in the room.

"And so his heartless cruelty continues until this very last moment," said the Rev. Frank Pavone, a Roman Catholic priest. He added: "This is not only a death, with all the sadness that brings, but this is a killing, and for that we not only grieve that Terri has passed but we grieve that our nation has allowed such an atrocity as this and we
pray that it will never happen again."

Jackson Prays With Terri Schiavo's Parents

Wow, Jesse Jackson in Florida supporting the Schindlers. I would never have bet on that, but good for him. After all the race hustling and political grandstanding, at least he's supporting Terri. If we had a few more self proclaimed compassionate liberals in favor of Terri, perhaps she would have had a better chance.

PINELLAS PARK, Fla. - The parents of Terri Schiavo met and prayed Tuesday with the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who called her impending death "an injustice."

Joining the conservatives who have rallied to the parents' cause, the liberal Jackson said he would call state senators who opposed legislation that would have reinserted Schiavo's feeding tube and ask them to reconsider.
Terri Schiavo was in her 12th day without food and water. Her husband and guardian, Michael Schiavo, has insisted that he was carrying out her wishes by having her feeding tube pulled. His lawyer said Monday that an autopsy was planned to show the extent of Terri Schiavo's brain damage.
Jackson's arrival Tuesday was greeted by some applause and cries of "This is about civil rights." "I feel so passionate about this injustice being done, how unnecessary it is to deny her a feeding tube, water, not even ice to be used for her parched lips," said Jackson, who has run for president as a Democrat. "This is a moral issue and it transcends politics and family disputes."
"I wanted the Reverend Jackson here for moral support," said Mary Schindler, Terri Schiavo's mother. "I feel good with him here. Very strong. He gives me strength."

Apathy is Lethal

When the Nazis came for the communists, I did not speak outbecause I was not a communist.
When they came for the social democrats,I did not speak outbecause I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists I did not speak outbecause I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the JewsI did not speak out because I was not a Jew;
When they came for me,there was no one left to speak out.---Martin Niemoeller (1939, Germany)

Jeb Bush on Terri Schiavo's last days

With judge after judge deciding against Terri, it seems that she is out of options and will soon die of starvation. Can Jeb Bush intervene? Some say he can. It dumbfounds me to think that he, as governor, could pardon a murderer against the wishes of the victim’s family, the jury, and judge, but he is powerless to feed a starving brain damaged woman. Regardless, it would need a great act of courage by Jeb Bush to save Terri.

Sometimes we hear a story about a man rushing into a burning building to save a child. The mother is outside screaming for someone to save her daughter. People gather around and put forth a litany of excuses as to why they cannot help. It’s too hot in there. We’ll both be killed. She’ll be dead by the time I get there. However, one man doesn’t hesitate and rushes in.

We are proud of our soldiers. In Fallujah, a marine, Sgt. Rafael Peralta rolled onto a grenade to save his fellow soldiers. We ask our soldiers to put their lives on the line for us back home. Is it unreasonable of us to ask an elected official to put his political career on the line to help a brain damaged woman? Isn’t it time we had hero in our office?

In June 1939, President Roosevelt turned away the St. Louis, a ship filled with 900 Jewish refugees. It was politically risky. The ship was forced to return to Europe. We’ve all thought that if we live in Germany in the 1930s, we would have helped the Jews or if we lived in the South in the 1850s we would have helped the slaves. We’ve all thought that somehow if we were in a situation like that we would have the courage to do what is right. I know one day, I will be in a contentious situation, and I pray that I will have the courage no matter the consequences. In the meantime, I, instead, pray for Jeb Bush.

Perhaps Jeb will play it safe and go on to have a successful political career. Perhaps he will be 90 someday, sitting and reflecting on his life, wishing that he could go back to today and put in all on the line for one chance to save Terri.

List of Shames (a work in Progress)

The Main Stream Media has been working overtime to convince the public that removing her tube is moral.

NY Times:

Reuters: Schiavo Videotape Misleading, Experts Say
many experts agree the tape is a cruelly misleading trick of biology.
"Pictures do lie," said Dr. Lawrence Schneiderman, a physician and bioethicist at the University of California, San Diego.

LA Times:
Ceasing Food and Fluid Can Be Painless
Concerns for Schiavo’s comfort have galvanized the debate. But experts say dying of starvation and dehydration is a peaceful end for the ill.

USA Today: Schiavo not likely to experience a painful death, neurologists say
Terri Schiavo has had no food or water since Friday, which has led her parents and their supporters to complain that she could be experiencing a painful death. But neurologists on Wednesday said that based on court findings of her condition, her body gradually will shut down in a painless process that will lead to death.

The Judges:
Ed Carnes and Frank M. Hull - 11th circuit court
George Greer - Pissant district judge

Those in the House that Voted against the Bill to save Terri
Baldwin Berkley Bishop (NY) Brown-Waite, Butterfield, Capuano,Cardin, Carnahan, Carson, Castle, Clay, Cleaver, Clyburn, Conyers, Davis (FL), Dent, Dicks, Doyle, Evans , Frank (MA)
Gutierrez, Hastings (FL), Holt, Hoyer, Israel, Kaptur, Kennedy (RI), Larson (CT), Levin, Lewis (GA)Matsui, McDermott, McKinney, Miller (NC), Moran (VA), Murtha, Nadler, Olver, Pallone, Pascrell, PaynePrice (NC), Reichert, Rothman, Schiff, Schwartz (PA), Scott (VA), Shays, Spratt, Strickland, Thompson (MS), Van Hollen, Visclosky, Wasserman-Schultz, Watt, Weiner, Wexler, Wu




The Heroes (Growing list)
State Sen. Dan Webster
Judge Charles R. Wilson
Tom DeLay
Dennis Hassert
The Nurses
Sean Hannity
Michael Savage
Rush Limbaugh
Yeas in Congress (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll090.xml)

More on Schiavo

There's little I've been able to focus on besides the Terri Schiavo case. Despite the best efforts of most of Congress, a federal judge has denied the parents' new motion.

Two Major Points:
1. Only the word of Terri's husband demonstrates that she wanted to die. That's what most of the media keeps obmitting along with the fact that he How can Schiavo's husband be considered acting in Terri's best interests when he lives with another woman and has children by her? It dumbfounds me how the courts do not see his position as guardian as comprimised.
2. This is horrible precedent to set. There are many severely disabled are there that need to be fed. When all we need to do starve someone to death is take the word of a slimy man, how small of a step is it to killing of the retarded? Determine the quality of "life is low" and then starve them?

The Vatican eloquently sounded off on the case in their paper, L'Osservatore Romano:

Who can, before God and humanity, pretend with impunity to claim such a right?" L'Osservatore Romano said. "Who — and on the basis of which criteria — can establish to whom the 'privilege' to live should be given?"... "Who can judge the dignity and sacredness of the life of a human being, made in the image and likeness of God? Who can decide to pull the plug as if we were talking about a broken or out of order household appliance?" the paper said. AP

World Net Daily sounded off on that ABC Poll which found that 63% of people would side in favor of the slimy husband. I serious doubt they would if they knew the facts in the case. Remember all Schiavo needs is food and water and that she is NOT on life support. It would be a wholly different situation if Terri was on life support and the husband was faithful. Instead ABC, in typical communist style, skewes the poll:

"the question posed by the news network portrayed her as having "no consciousness" and being on "life support," rather than an awake, responsive patient with a feeding tube. "Schiavo suffered brain damage and has been on life support for 15 years," the poll informed respondents. "Doctors say she has no consciousness and her condition is irreversible. Her husband and her parents disagree about whether she would have wanted to be kept alive. Florida courts have sided with the husband and her feeding tube was removed on Friday. What's your opinion on this case – do you support or oppose the decision to remove Schiavo's feeding tube?"

Sounding off on Terri Schaivo

There are few cases which are truly unbelievable as Terri Schiavo. There are so many questions unanswered. There are so many unbelievable actions by man that dumbfounds me.

1. The husband claims that "Terri wanted to die if she was ever in a such a state" on starting in 1997.
2. The husband is living with another woman, has children with him and wants to kill his wife? His position as caring guarding is comprimised and should be dismissed.
3. The husband has denied access to Terri and has done everything possible to deny access to Terri by others.
4. Why does the husband want Terri dead so badly? The incident The parents have offered to take her.
5. How can society allow anyone to starve someone to death? Remember she is not on life support. One judge is yields so much power?

I've been watching the members of Congress and their reactions to this case.

What rational man would allow this? Why are so called "liberals" on the side of the evil (yes, evil). The same liberals that protest any execution or the same liberals that would be up in arms if someone tried to starve a dog. Why do they foresake a human?

This case is now more important. It will set the standard for years to come. Will a single judge and a comprimised man be allowed to starve a person?

The Men in Black

One again, liberal judges upsurping the will of the people by forcing their opinion onto the country. Polls routinely show that only 25-30% of America are in favor of gay marriage. That's not how a democracy works!

The highlighted quote is the source of the problem. Judges aren't evaluating the law with respect to the constitution, but inserting their own opinion. The idea of a "rational purpose" is for the elected legislature to decide....not one man!

SAN FRANCISCO - A judge ruled Monday that California can no longer justify limiting marriage to a man and a woman, a legal milestone that if upheld on appeal would pave the way for the nation's most populous state to follow Massachusetts in allowing same-sex couples to wed.

In an opinion that had been awaited because of San Francisco's historical role as a
gay rights battleground, San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer said that withholding marriage licenses from gays and lesbians is unconstitutional.
"It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners," Kramer wrote. AP via Yahoo

Protests in Lebanon

I'm glad to see the Lebanese aren't being bullied by the Syrians. The Syrians orchestrated a pro-Syrian Hezbollah rally last week and the Lebanese responded in force. I seriously doubt this would be happening without Bush going into Iraq.

BEIRUT, Lebanon - Hundreds of thousands of opposition demonstrators chanted
"Freedom, sovereignty, independence" and unfurled a huge Lebanese flag in Beirut
on Monday, the biggest protest yet in the opposition's duel of street rallies with supporters of the Damascus-backed government.

Crowds of men, women and children flooded Martyrs Square, spilling over into nearby streets, while more from across the country packed the roads into Beirut — responding to an opposition call to demonstrate for the removal of Syrian troops from Lebanon.
"We are coming to liberate our country. We are coming to demand the truth," said Fatma Trad, a veiled Sunni Muslim woman who traveled from the remote region of Dinniyeh in northern Lebanon to take part. The assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri exactly one month ago sparked the series of protests against Syria, the dominant power in Lebanon....
Monday's protest easily topped a pro-government rally of hundreds of thousands of people last week by the Shiite Muslim militant group Hezbollah. That show of strength forced the opposition to try to regain its momentum....
"They are challenging us, and we are here to show them that we will not accept," said banker Farid Samaha as he joined the demonstration. "We are determined to liberate our country and we will not stop."

More on the Recent Court Decision

ABA President Robert J. Grey Jr. hailed the ruling, which he called "truly a landmark decision."
"Society and the law have long recognized this with restrictions on such things as a juvenile's ability to vote or consume alcohol," he says. "Today, the court also recognizes that juveniles are different, and that those differences make the death penalty a cruel and unusual punishment for them." Gray comments regarding voting and other age restrictions are not analogous, because they are legislative issues, not judicial decrees.

Kennedy stated that "the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty." International opinion may influence public opinion and hence the legislatures, but it should not influence an interpretation of the law. What does foreign law or foreign opinion have to do with US law?

An additional point that makes this decision even more absurd: something like abortion is a relatively new issue as abortion didn't exist in 1790. However, the death penalty and the death penalty for juveniles did. So if "juveniles" received the death penalty back then, and the original framers had no objection then...then their intent was never to withhold the death penalty in such cases. So, if that people who wrote the document did not interpret capital punishment for "juveniles" as cruel and unusual in 1790, then it is not any more cruel or unusual today. Again, if there was a national consensus (as Kennedy claims) against a juvenille death penalty that the legislatures would made laws against it.

As usual, the dynamic duo, Scalia and Thomas are right on the money. "The court thus proclaims itself sole arbiter of our nation's moral standards-and in the course of discharging that awesome responsibility purports to take guidance from the views of foreign courts and legislatures," Scalia wrote. "Because I do not believe that the meaning of our Eighth 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."

Unfortunately, Rehnquist will be eventually retiring, which means that Bush will need to replace a conservative with another conservative before he has a shot of replacing a liberal with a conservative. Due to the increase in public awareness of judicial activism, I think Bush will research more of a potential judge's ability to be an "orginialist." Kennedy was a Reagan appointee , Stevens was a Ford appointee, and Souter was a Papa Bush appointee. Although O'Connor dissented on this one, her leftward tilt in recent years is distressing. Of the 9 on the bench, 7 were appointed by Republicans, but only 3 are conservative.

A break with humor

Sometimes you need a break.... some good humor.

http://www.digitalroom.net/index2.html

More Court Action!

Hot off yesterday judicial activism, I'm not sure how this one will turn out.

Earth to David Condo: The government is in the business of morality. That's what a law against murder, rape, or theft is. That is why some states do not have the death penalty. That's morality and the government, which allegedly represents our society, is in it.

WASHINGTON - Ten Commandments displays should be allowed on government property because they pay tribute to America's religious and legal history, the Supreme Court was told Wednesday, in cases that could render a new definition of the role that religion plays in the life of the nation.
"The idea of having a fence around the Ten Commandments to make clear the state has nothing to do with it, I think that is bending it too far," said acting Solicitor General Paul Clement, in arguing against a strict First Amendment wall between church and state. David Friedman, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union who is challenging courthouse displays in Kentucky countered: "An assertion that the Ten Commandments is THE source, THE foundation of our legal system ... that is simply wrapping the Ten Commandments in the flag, and that's endorsement."
In their comments and questions from the bench, justices were reluctant to adopt a blanket ban on such displays. They struggled to formulate a clear constitutional rule that could determine the fate of thousands of religious symbols on public property around the country, including one in their own courtroom featuring Moses holding the sacred tablets. Justice Antonin Scalia noted that legislative proclamations and prayer invoking God's name are permissible. "I don't see why the one is good and the other is bad," he said...."I don't think government should be in the business of morality," said David Condo, 40, of Beltsville, Md. AP

UGH! More Sorry decisions from the Supreme Court...

Supreme Court continues to impose it's liberal values on the country. Personally, if I was on a jury, I may have a difficult time sentencing a juvenille to death. However, it depends on the crime and the nature of the crime. Some of these so-called juvenilles, 17 years old, know what they are doing.
This is, yet again, another legaslative issue. My other problem is that this could be used to try to overturn the death penalty all together. If the death penalty is cruel and unusual for 17 year olds, does it become suddenly less cruel if that guy commited the same crime the next year?
Another point - a juvenielle can have an abortion without parental consent as they are apparently mature understand the ramifications of the decision, but if you are 17 and rape and kill, you were too immature to understand that it was wrong.

WASHINGTON - A closely divided Supreme Court outlawed the death penalty for juvenile criminals on Tuesday, declaring there was a national consensus such executions were unconstitutionally cruel and ending a practice that had brought
international condemnation.

The 5-4 decision, which overturns a 1989 high court ruling, throws out the death sentences of 72 murderers who committed their crimes as juveniles and bars states from seeking to execute others. Nineteen states had allowed death sentences for killers who committed their crimes when they were under 18.

In an angry dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia disputed that a "national consensus" exists and said the majority opinion was based on the "flimsiest of grounds." The appropriateness of capital punishment should be determined by individual states, not "the subjective views of five members of this court and like-minded foreigners," he wrote.