Assinine Press's second draft of history.


he cliché is that journalism is the first draft of history. Yet a historian searching for clues about the origins of many of the great stories of recent decades...would find most contemporary journalism useless." (Bret Stephens, OpinionJournal)

No Schiavo fallout on judges: GOP

April 26, 2005

WASHINGTON -- House Republicans say they haven't opened and don't plan any new investigations of federal judges after Terri Schiavo's death despite Majority Leader Tom DeLay's promise to examine the judiciary's conduct.

DeLay, now involved in an ethics controversy over the source of funding for some of his foreign travels, escalated his attacks on the judiciary after Schiavo's death.

Nowhere near the same controversy, APparently, now involving Congresscritters Bernie Sanders, Nancy "I Was Fined!" Pelosi, Stephanie Tubbs Jones (House Ethics Committee member, ironically), Hilldabeast, Rahm "I Would Have to Kill You!" Emmanuel Soros-lakey, Paul Kanjorski, Jim "Benedict Baghdad" McDermott (not under God), Bart Stupak, Joseph Lieberman, and Bahbah Boxer. Since they're Desperats, the Alleged Press doesn't consider what they've all done "controversal"—just "business bribery as usual." So much for A Pee gleefully trying to kill one politician's career with two stones—namely, Schiavo and Paleincomparison-to-Dhimmunethical Travel Agency, Inc.

He suggested that the House look at impeaching some judges and complained that many of them are "judicial activists."

Ignoring and thus undermining every provision of a duly-enacted federal law, culminating in the judicially sanctioned murder of an innocent American. No, that would never come under the heading Impeachable Offense contained within the latest edition of High Crimes & Misdemeanors (© 1998, al-Qlinton Books and Zipper Factory).

But a majority of Republicans think that unless it can be proven that judges did something illegal, they should be left alone, said GOP Rep. Bob Inglis of South Carolina, who also sits on the Judiciary Committee. A[ntirepublican]P[inheads]

Since Representative Inglis voted in favor of the above mentioned law, and since the Always Pontificating "reporter" propagandist here supplied no quote marks (not even sneer ones), the latter's "paraphrase" of the former's actual remarks is most suspect.

Rather than dignify with anything other than summary dismissal this Addlebrained Press' second draft of its most recent yet ever blatant attempt to Revise Our History®, let's MoveOn to any of the hundreds of trustworthy and verifiable sources whose reviews of the judicial branch's misconduct, up to and including unjustifiable homicide and other deprivations of a citizen's rights under color of law, may be lent infinitely more credence. For examples, this,

Part of the problem was simply judicial incompetence—especially the court's decision, in direct violation of Florida law, to act as Terri Schiavo's guardian at key moments of the case rather than appoint an independent guardian to represent her interests, separate from the interests of her husband and her parents. But the problem went deeper than incompetence: It also had to do with ideology—with a set of assumptions about what makes life worth living and thus worth protecting. Procedural liberalism (discerning and respecting the prior wishes of the incompetent person; preserving life when such wishes are not clear) gave way to ideological liberalism (treating incompetence itself as reasonable grounds for assuming that life is not worth living)....

[Judge Robed Master George Tubeyanker Greer's] court's obligation to discern objectively what Terri's wishes were and whether they were clear—a question of fact—morphed into an inquiry as to whether she could ever get better, with the subjective assumption that life in her present condition was not meaningful life. The question became: Was she in a persistent vegetative state (PVS), and if so, can't we assume that Terri believed death to be preferable to life in such a state?

and this,

So why devote any time at all to this little life? Perhaps it is because at this time in our history lines are being drawn . . . lines that have never been clearer . . . lines that will decide the future of our kind and the perpetual life of our souls . . . and this little life and the struggle of a few to preserve it is symbolic of it all.

Those who seek her death seem to be the same ones who are the first to argue against the death penalty for murderers - the same ones who claim a woman's right to choose to kill an unborn child is sacrosanct - the same ones who claim that the law is what matters most (when it suits them) - the same ones to whom bombing a ruthless, murdering dictator is evil but uncaring when his minions kill our citizens.*

show that, when it comes to Americans' enslavement under the whips gavels of their Robed Masters, we still all have a long, long way to go before any of us reaches that Promised Land where "they should [or can] be left alone."


* Addendum: August 19, 2006, 6:11 PM — Saving from Four-O-Fourville the rest of Ray Calafell's excellent comment to Jennifer's "Where Are They, Those Most Intelligent Ones?" at A Collection of Thoughts, on March 23, 2005:

Where is the great leftist intellect, Noam Chomsky, in all of this . . . ? Where is Catholic Ted Kennedy in these heady days of "the law versus the moralists?" Where is our caring Barbara Boxer and her concern for the rights of women? Where is the socially-conscious Hillary Clinton and her wish for eternal health care for all of the unfortunates among us? Where is that first physician among us, Howard Dean, whose oath of practice swears him to "first, do no harm?" Where are the marchers who decry the bombing of terrorist targets . . . so quick to blame America for its callous disregard for the lives of our enemies? Where are the tree-hugging earth lovers, whose pursuit of life for a snail, for a mouse, has no price tag too steep for the American taxpayer to pay? Where are they when the life in question is that of an innocent?

I'll tell you where they are . . . they are in their element . . . they are in that vacuum of their own making, their consciences, if such a thing exists for them. That is why they are speechless, for to speak to what is taking place is for them to reveal the lies which they hoist upon us. They are belligerent adherents to the law of the prince of liars. They are tainted with the belief that what is wrong is right. They see white where we all see black. They know there is no God because they have no souls. They have no souls because they sold them long ago . . . to their leader, the prince of liars.

And all the while, a small, innocent life slowly, painfully ebbs away — to them unnoticed — but not to me.

	1:57 PM

Comments (registered users)