|
Terri Schiavo, Lessons
On every level, this case reveals point after point
highlighting the desperately broken state of our nation.
- We see the broken spiritual condition of our
citizens. The American church is broken.
When we should be standing for the weak and
helpless, we contend for their destruction in the name of
compassion? What is right has become wrong and wrong become right.
Where is our fear of God? This is the clarion call of this web site. Not many churches chose
to take the side of Terri's life in this situation, something that
will be answered to when we meet God. We must repent, get out of
our comfort zones and stand for God's principles, whether or not
they are appreciated by the rest of society.
Thomas
Jefferson wrote:
"[The People] are the ultimate, guardians of their own
liberty."
John Adams on October 11, 1798
wrote:
We have no government armed with power capable of
contending with human passions unbridled by morality and
religion. Avarice, ambition,
revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of
our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our
Constitution was made only for a moral and religious
people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of
any other.
John Adams
in 1776 wrote:
Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for
liberty, but it is religion and morality alone, which
can establish the principles upon which freedom can
securely stand. The only foundation of a free
constitution is pure virtue; and if this cannot be
inspired into our people in a greater measure than they
have it now, they may change their rulers and the forms
of government, but they will not obtain a lasting
liberty. They will only exchange tyrants and tyrannies.
|
We see the broken state of our families.
Who can best speak for someone who cannot speak
for themselves? Isn't the family the best source of protection and
love? The mother aborts her baby. The husband kills off his wife
who is a problem. The family cannot work in concert together to
fight for the loved one's appropriate care. The 'husband' has a
common-law marriage with children by another yet claims to speak for
Terri best. This is very suspicious since the decision is to
irrevocably extinguish her life when her blood relatives desperately
want to save her. (See also
1,2)
For example, within 2 weeks of the Terri Schiavo
case, we find another case in Georgia where the true next of kin of
an 81 year old woman (Mae Magouirk) is her brother. His medical
guardianship was removed by a court to give a granddaughter
the rights to decide medical care for her grandmother. Mae Magouirk
was not comatose, she had glaucoma and a dissection of the aorta.
Her granddaughter in the name of compassion decided that she
wouldn't want to live like that. She withdrew food and drink and
placed her in a hospice instead of a hospital. Her reason?
“Grandmamma is old and I think it is time she went home to Jesus.
She has glaucoma, and now this heart problem and who would want to
live with disabilities like these?” It is great to know that
clearer minds prevailed here and Mae Magouirk was airlifted to
University of Alabama, Birmingham for care.
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43688
- We see the broken state of the health care system.
We think physicians are well trained, objective
and hold true to the Hippocratic Oath that obliges us to preserve
life. Not anymore, sad to say. Physicians have allowed colleagues
to incrementally march away from these previously unbreakable
concepts as lives can be lengthened by technology. We become
followers of our society rather than leaders. Therefore,
physician's political ideologies have taken the place of strict
adherence to principle.
We have courts trusting opinions of physicians
whose testimonies are tainted by their bias toward death. A bias
toward life is in tune with God's principles and removes any
self-centered motivation for decision making. It is a choice
leading to additional difficulties and effort. Courts want to
believe these so-called "experts" who make a living testifying for
their favorite cause. These "expert" physicians who are so
strongly opinionated can speak so matter of factly as if they
obviously are correct. At the same time, none can definitively
claim that Terri was completely without any cognitive abilities
within the last few months of her death. The only neurologist who
examined her within 2 weeks of her death claimed some cerebral
function. Which of you can say that they are never wrong? Have
doctors ever made mistakes? Unfortunately, we all make mistakes.
It is better to err on the side of preserving life.
Once again, we find that moral relativism has
taken hold, even in medicine. In law, it is expected that there is
a finding of fact with witnesses for both sides and the court then
decides the case. Why should physicians accept starvation ever
being advocated by a fellow physician? We have no business
considering euthanasia as well. Physicians should recalibrate our
purpose and to hold each other accountable for decisions that go
against long held principles. We should be leading the charge to
preserve life and not to be used in a quest for choosing acceptable
forms of life. We should be unwavering in our resolve to take care
of health and life, never to compromise these goals. In the end,
physicians are just people who make mistakes too. We had more
problems leading to the killing of Terri.
We hear cries to preserve life only when there is
some 'quality of life'. In fact, no matter how disabled, ill,
immature or painful a life is, there is truly quality in that
individual's life. It doesn't really matter whether or not someone
would 'want to live like that' or not. This is a rather strange
concept for most of us. Everyone who is alive affects others around
them. Difficult situations become opportunities to show love for
another without expecting anything substantial in return. True
selfless giving is learned by those who care for the person. We
then find ourselves growing in attributes that please Almighty God.
For those who refuse to accept this most difficult, restricting
challenge, they demonstrate a lack of love and choose to indulge in
personal gain. Yes, being faced with the choice to care for someone
who likely will never recover reveals the true way we are. It
gives us imperfect individuals an opportunity to grow in love for
another.
Having said that, of course there are times when
death is welcome and is unavoidable. Terri Shiva was nowhere close
to such a condition, until the cruel courts starved and dehydrated
her to death. Her parents, who loved her at their own expense,
desperately wanted to give her the simple necessary nutrition to
sustain life. No big deal. A tube in her stomach and drain some
cans of milkshake like stuff into her gut and she is fine and
dandy. But, this was considered "life support". I need food too.
I need water. I need "life support". We all do.
What a terrible way to kill someone, true cruel
and unusual punishment for someone who has not been convicted of a
crime. If she was a prisoner in the state of Florida and was being
treated this way, the civil libertarians would be fighting on the
other side of the fence. I have respect for Dr. Timothy Johnson of
ABC News but when asked about if starvation is painful in this
situation, he replied 'the experts say (starvation and dehydration)
is not painful in the persistent vegetative state and if they see
any agitation, this can be treated with medications'. Excuse me,
but why would she start showing agitation that needs treating? If
so, she must be in pain or at least quite uncomfortable. Her pain
is likely not experienced the same as if it was someone with full
consciousness, but still misery. Cruel and unusual. Disgusting.
She would be better off if she got the death penalty and was killed
by lethal injection. Shame on the arrogant judges who ignore
reason.
- We see the complete failure of our government to
protect the most vulnerable of its citizens. We start with the legal
system.
We have a love of the "living will".
Let us consider this option carefully. Terri could have never
imagined years before that she would possibly find herself in this
specific predicament years down the road. If you ask a teenager if
they would want to live like someone functioning and
enjoying their life well in their 80's, of course they would
indicate they would not want to live in this way and they
would rather die younger. If wants were so important, we
should have no problem with someone committing suicide. The courts
and Michael Schiavo felt that she would want to be starved
to death instead of living as she had been. In fact, even though
there is no evidence that that truly was her wishes, if she had
signed a living will, who would that have helped?
Suppose, as at least one neurologist who examined
her, felt that he could see a response in her face when calming
music was being played in the room. She could have been perfectly
happy in her level of existence despite her limited consciousness.
She didn't need medications for 'agitation' till she was being
starved. If this was the case, and we have no evidence whatsoever
it was not the case, then if she had signed such a living will years
before, she would have signed her own death warrant. Judgment
changes with time and circumstances. Who would have been helped if
she had signed such a document? Those who wanted her dead.
Generally, those most inconvenienced by her existence (and attorneys
who write them up).
A suggestion? Surround yourself with people who
understand you well, who care for you, care for life and fear God.
People who care for your happiness and who can make good decisions
as things arise. People who believe it is better to give than to
receive. Those who will seek advice from doctors and get additional
opinions, if needed. Then your unforeseen circumstance will be
handled in the best means possible, even though you do not make the
specific decision at that time.
The lie is that "if only Terri had a living
will"! She would have been starved years ago. Not a good
plan, if you were Terri. If nothing else, her life has impacted
millions. We are all expendable, we all are valuable.
- We see further dissolution of the people's
control of the government. Our nation was founded with three
branches, not necessarily co-equal, as many have incorrectly
reported lately. Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist
Paper #78 the following-
| Federalist Paper
#78
...Whoever attentively considers the different departments
of power must perceive that, in a government in which they
are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the
nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous
to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will
be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The
executive not only dispenses the honors but holds the sword
of the community. The legislature not only commands the
purse but prescribes the rules by which the duties and
rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary,
on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or
the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the
wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution
whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor
WILL but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon
the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its
judgments.
This
simple view of the matter suggests several important
consequences. It proves
incontestably that the judiciary is beyond comparison the
weakest of the three departments of power;
that it can never attack with
success either of the other two; and that
all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself
against their attacks. It equally proves that though
individual oppression may now and then proceed from the
courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can
never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so
long as the Judiciary remains truly distinct from both the
legislature and the executive. For I agree
that "there is no liberty if the power of judging be not
separated from the legislative and executive powers." And
it proves, in the last place, that as liberty
can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would
have everything to fear from its union with either of the
other departments; that as all the effects of
such a union must ensue from a dependence of the former on
the latter, notwithstanding a nominal and apparent
separation; that as, from the natural feebleness of the
judiciary, it is in continual jeopardy of being overpowered,
awed, or influenced by its co-ordinate branches; and that as
nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and
independence as permanency in office, this quality may
therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient
in its constitution, and, in a great measure, as the citadel
of the public justice and the public security.... |
Although, in my humble opinion, I
would disagree with Hamilton in his conclusions (primarily by the
clarity of historical evidence, impossible to fully appreciate in
his weaker prospective understanding without the luxury of
hindsight), the above points out some valuable information. First,
many of the founders felt the judicial branch was the weaker branch,
not co-equal, and should be in such a position. Second, the above
recognizes that the Judiciary must be kept in check with the
Executive and the Legislative branches. Once the checks were
ignored by those we placed in office to protect our rights, the
Judiciary became the strongest of the branches and tells everyone
what can and cannot be done. This is the place of a monarch, or as
Jefferson calls this danger in a few hands, the oligarchy. The
justice's opinions tell us what to do. Is this freedom?
September 28, 1820 Thomas
Jefferson wrote:
You seem... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters
of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine
indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of
an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not
more so ... and their power [is] the more dangerous, as they
are in office for life and not responsible, as the other
functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution
has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to
whatever hands confided, with corruptions of time and party,
its members would become despots.
In 1821, Jefferson
wrote:
The germ of dissolution of our federal government is
in...the federal judiciary; and irresponsible body (for
impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow) working like gravity
by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little
tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief,
over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped
from the States.
In 1819, Thomas
Jefferson wrote:
The Constitution is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the
judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they
please.
In 1804, Jefferson
wrote:
Nothing in the Constitution has given them [the federal
judges] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to
the Executive to decide for them... But the opinion which
gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are
constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in
their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and
executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a
despotic branch.
|
In fact, when the Legislative and
Executive branches allow the Judiciary to
walk all over them, the Judiciary enjoys the unrestricted freedom to
pursue mischievous actions. The people largely can elect only those
in the Legislative and Executive branches. Therefore, only they are
empowered to speak with the strength of the people. As this nation
is to be an exercise in self-control by the people, when the other
branches give the strength to the Judicial, the people lose their
voice and our freedom. Those we elect have insufficient fortitude
to take on the worst judges in impeachment. This would rightfully
fire a message across the bow of the arrogant judicial frigate and
perhaps cause it to change direction more in line with the
Constitution. The rudder has it drifting toward "emanations
and penumbra" and foreign judicial rulings (of the Supreme
Court!) when the justices would rather not be 'bound in the chains
of the Constitution', as Jefferson suggested.
There is plenty wrong with our
Judicial branch of the government. It is totally out of
control. The justices killed Terri too. In fact, the
11th Circuit Court in Atlanta upheld the rulings upon appeal.
President GW Bush had appointed Atty. Gen. Bill Pryor from Alabama
to this court in a recess appointment after the Senate Democrats
'filibustered' his nomination. Bill Pryor was outspoken
against abortion in the Senate confirmation hearings. Bill
Pryor did not even dissent against the 11th Circuit ruling on
Terri. He voted to uphold the disastrous, unconstitutional
ruling on 4 of 5 appeals. He did not even show up for the 5th
decision. He was the prosecutor in the tribunal against Chief
Justice Roy Moore for the reason that Moore said he will acknowledge
God in his position.
Bill Pryor was the poster child of the great Bush
nominees being blocked by the 'evil Democrats'. In fact, he
turns out to make horrible choices when decision making is
necessary. He was wrong about Chief Justice Moore and he was
wrong about Terri Schiavo. How can we think that if President
Bush's nominees are elected, things will improve. They will
not. Nothing short of impeaching the worst and limiting the
court's jurisdiction will help. This goes back to
Congress who has fallen asleep, even with Republican control.
We must wake up!
Thomas Jefferson
In
questions of power, then, let no more be said of
confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by
the chains of the Constitution. |
Our Constitution is based on God's
Law. That is why it is so powerful and protects our freedoms.
James
Madison wrote:
We have staked the whole future of American
civilization, not upon the power of government, far from
it. We have staked the future of all of our political
institutions upon the capacity of mankind for
self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us
to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain
ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God |
-
Our President also failed to do his duty
to the Constitution, to the people corporately and to Terri. He owes
the people his oath to defend the Constitution. It is a dereliction of
duty to do otherwise. This failure removes our ability to control our
government. Is it not for the people? Handing it to others who we
cannot even elect to their position is a failure to the people.
On March 31, 2005 (see
below),
President Bush said:
"...I urge all those who honor Terri
Schiavo to continue to work to build a culture of life,
where all Americans are welcomed and valued and protected,
especially those who live at the mercy of others. The
essence of civilization is that the strong have a duty to
protect the weak. In cases where there are serious doubts
and questions, the presumption should be in the favor of
life.
The most solemn duty of the American
President is to protect the American people...."
He urges "those who honor Terri Schiavo to
continue to work to build a culture of life". On the surface,
this sounds respectable but when you think about the reality of
what has happened with her, we find he is not one of those
people he is talking about. In fact, as these people who are
crying out for justice for Terri have literally begged the Bush
brothers to save her from judicial tyranny, it has fallen on
deaf ears. A lot of people are working to 'build a culture of
life' only to find their president is actively opposing their
efforts by his unwillingness to engage in the necessary battle.
Does that seem too harsh? People did what they
could outside the hospice in Florida, within the law. Our
president chose to sign a bill that was summarily dismissed by a
little judge. What did he do in response to this offense?
Nothing, except act disappointed. The difference? He was elected
to fight those battles by record numbers of voters in the last
election. He failed. He effectively worked against building the
culture of life as he did not do his duty and to honor his
office. He did not follow the clear instructions of the
Constitution. He chose the easy way out, ultimately leading to
Terri's starvation.
President Bush swore according to
Article II, Section
I of the U.S. Constitution:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will
faithfully execute the office of President of the United States,
and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend
the Constitution of the United States."
Article II, Section. 2:
The President shall be Commander in Chief
of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the
Militia of the several States, when called into the actual
Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in
writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive
Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their
respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant
Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United
States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
Article II, Section 3:
... he shall take Care that the Laws be
faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of
the United States.
Webster's 1828 dictionary
(definitions most closely to the founding father's use) defines
"execute" as:
EX'ECUTE, v.t. [L. exequor, for exsequor; ex
and sequor, to follow. See Seek.]
1. Literally, to follow out or
through. Hence, to perform; to do; to effect; to carry into
complete effect; to complete; to finish. We execute a purpose, a
plan, design or scheme; we execute a work undertaken, that is,
we pursue it to the end.
2. To perform; to inflict; as, to execute judgment or
vengeance.
3. To carry into effect; as, to execute law or justice...
What does it mean that the laws be faithfully
executed? To use the power of the sword, when necessary, with the force
under the President's control, to make sure the laws are followed as
above.
Our President did not fulfill his Constitutional duty
as laid out in Section 3. Terri is dead. He did not protect her. He had
the power of the sword to rescue her and had the Constitutional duty to
save her. In fact, even after her death, he
further acknowledged here, "The most solemn duty of the
American President is to protect the American people." Given
his position, how could he fail the weak and the dependent on his watch,
especially since he knew he should.
He then says: "The lives of our citizens are at
stake." How true. How tragic. How self-convicting.
President Bush then spoke of the "Weapons of Mass
Destruction". To Terri, so what?
Her terror came from our own government,
not some fanatical Islamic murderer. Even they would have killed her in
a more humane way. Not our courts, they chose to starve her, a
completely uncivilized way to die, in the name of 'death with dignity'!
We should be much more concerned about the unbridled power of our own
government than the occasional scum bag fanatics. Fanatics in black
robes who speak in backwards logic are a million times more dangerous.
Tyrants who change the meaning of terms to fit their own agenda. Tyrants
who take our God-given rights away that were won by the blood of many
great Americans. Americans who we are unworthy of even washing their
boots. And the president pretends to protect Terri and others
like her. When, in fact, he gives his own power (entrusted to him by the
voters) to exactly those judicial tyrants who deserve none.
Why would we elect anyone at all? Every law today must
be approved by unelected judges when the Legislature and the Executive
branches don't do their job and protect their power and their
legislation. Today it isn't uncommon that the President's signature
doesn't even have dry ink on the new law before some judge arrogantly
declares it unconstitutional, as was done with the Partial Birth
Abortion Ban. Over and over, we elect more impotent leaders and we
should only expect the same results. The oligarchy that Thomas Jefferson
warned us about makes all the rules, leading to the dissolution of our
government of self-rule. The people have no voice in our government. It
is anything but "self-government" at this time. We are ruled not by King
George but by the courts. Neither are close to the democratic republic
established by our founders. They warned this could happen if the people
did not do their own duty, as we haven't.
|
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/03/20050331.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 31, 2005
President
Discusses Schiavo, WMD Commission Report
Room 450
Dwight D. Eisenhower Executive Office Building
 WMD
Commission Report
11:31 A.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Today millions of Americans are saddened
by the death of Terri Schiavo. Laura and I extend our
condolences to Terri Schiavo's families. I appreciate the
example of grace and dignity they have displayed at a
difficult time. I urge all those who honor Terri Schiavo to
continue to work to build a culture of life, where all
Americans are welcomed and valued and protected, especially
those who live at the mercy of others. The essence of
civilization is that the strong have a duty to protect the
weak. In cases where there are serious doubts and questions,
the presumption should be in the favor of life.
The most solemn duty of the American President is to protect
the American people. Since September the 11th, 2001, we've
taken bold and vigorous steps to prevent further attacks and
overcome emerging threats. We face a new and different kind
of enemy. The threats today are unprecedented. The lives of
our citizens are at stake. To protect them, we need the best
intelligence possible, and we must stay ahead of constantly
changing intelligence challenges.
So last year I issued an executive order creating an
independent commission to look at America's intelligence
capabilities, especially our intelligence about weapons of
mass destruction. I asked two fine Americans to chair this
commission, Judge Laurence Silberman and former Senator
Chuck Robb. They have done an excellent job. I appreciate
your service to our country. ... |
Copyright © 2005, Dio, Inc.
mailto:diojqa@dutyisours.com
Dio, Inc.
P.O. Box 1811
Pelham, AL 35124
|
view