Liberal Democrats who were beside themselves with rage over what they called the “torture” of terrorist suspects by GI guards at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison have been totally silent on the starvation torture of Terri Schiavo.
As the prison abuse scandal unfolded last May, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton could barely contain herself, calling the actions of U.S. soldiers “depraved.”
“I’m not satisfied yet that we understand fully what caused this depravity that was so shocking to Americans and such a violation of our values,” she complained to NBC’s Gabe Pressman.
“I have a problem that goes far beyond the disclosures of the horrible behavior and misconduct in the prison,” she added, saying that Bush administration officials encouraged Abu Ghraib through “a pattern and practice of misjudgments that add up to incompetence and lack of credibility.”
On the starvation torture of Terri Schiavo, however, Sen. Clinton’s reaction has been muted. On the day Schiavo’s feeding tube was removed, for instance, Clinton said … well, nothing. And she’s been silent ever since.
Failed presidential candidate John Kerry was likewise exorcised about mistreatment at Abu Ghraib, using some of the same language employed by Hillary.
Commenting on photos of the prison mistreatment, Kerry told the New York Times, “They are sickening and appalling, depraved and sad.”
But on the starvation execution of Terri Schiavo, the Massachusetts senator is apparently still searching for the right words.
Last May House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said the Abu Ghraib prison photos “reinforce my belief that a full congressional investigation is necessary.” So far, however, Pelosi has yet to lend her support to subpoenas issued by Congress last week to probe the abuse of Schiavo.
Sen. Ted Kennedy was outraged by the Abu Ghraib scandal, calling it America’s “greatest fall from grace.”
“Who gave the green light for the violations of the Geneva Convention?” Kennedy demanded.
But on Terri Schiavo, the Democrats’ foremost defender of young women has been, you guessed it, completely silent. . .. .
This is kind of “duh”, but does a good job of pulling together how the MSM is contributing in so many ways to the murder of Terri Schiavo.
With the world’s attention focused on Terri Schiavo, the media has picked up on the story of her plight. However, some say the bias in the news reporting has reached extreme levels as media outlets attempt to shape public opinion in favor of starving her to death.
One Associated Press article released Monday, “World Opinion Divided Over Schiavo,” did less to gather the opinion of world leaders on the controversial case and more to paint a false picture that world religions universally oppose the actions of President Bush and Congress to save Terri’s life.
While the news article mentioned the Vatican’s opposition to Terri’s starvation, the rest of the piece interviewed Islamic and Jewish thinkers who favor starving Terri.
The Monday AP report closed with comments from a leader of a Dutch pro-euthanasia group and quoted a German newspaper accusing American political leaders of using Terri’s case for political gain.
Other than a couple of comments from a Vatican newspaper, the article contained no quotes or attributions from world leaders or religious thinkers who oppose starving Terri.
Raimundo Rojas, the Hispanic outreach director for the National Right to Life Committee, has been following the Terri Schiavo sage closely.
“The press has the facts wrong, they have consistently used the wrong language, and there is a repeated effort in all that you read and here in the media an urgency to sway the American people that Terri is somehow less then human,” Rojas told LifeNews.com. . . . . . . . .
Is it possible for a Jew to be anti-Semitic? If it isn’t Sharon does a really good job of impersonating one. His government becomes more anti-Jewish all the time, while rewarding the palestinian terrorists for every bomb, missile, and threat. I suppose every country has their immoral, secularist liberals who are determined to do in their own country. Israel’s just happen to be in power.
Police here decided today to ban a grassroots Jewish organization from bringing 10,000 Jews to the heavily restricted Temple Mount to spark Israeli dialogue about reclaiming the holy site from its Islamic custodians, while the city police department told WorldNetDaily the Israeli government would allow a similar group of Muslims.
”We will not let so many Jews up at once. This is not the usual habits on the Temple Mount. We have to ensure that every Jewish group is going up in safety and will go up quietly,” Shmulik Ben Ruby, Jerusalem police spokesman, told WorldNetDaily.
I see, so they can only visit their religion’s holiest site if they go quietly, don’t pray (or even appear to be praying), and don’t carry anything with evil Hebrew writing on it. Do they also need to present their papers and where a Star of David on their arm. It’s pretty sad when the Israeli government is in the running with France for the worst persecution and oppression of it’s Jewish citizens.
Revava, a group with the stated mission of ”restoring self-esteem to the state of Israel by restoring national pride and values” had planned to bring 10,000 Jews to the Temple Mount April 10.
Ben Ruby said the current police restrictions of only allowing small groups of about 30 to 50 non-Muslims to ascend the Temple Mount, the holiest site for Jews, will apply on the day of the scheduled gathering. The Jewish ascent, first reported by WorldNetDaily, would be the largest Jewish presence at the Temple Mount since the Ancient Temple period according to Revava.
But Ben Ruby said the Israeli police would allow a similar group of Muslims.
”We would and we do allow 10,000 Palestinians to go up,” he said. “They are going up there to pray in their mosques.”
He recognized Jews cannot pray on the Mount: ”Yes, those are the restrictions.” . . . . . .
This is why judicial appointments are the most important issue facing this country. The Clinton Appointed federal judge who took his sweet time reviewing Terri’s case, finally got around to handing down yet another death sentence by starvation. Why the evil dictator couldn’t have made this ruling before Teri was another day closer to death, I don’t know. Terri’s parents will, of course, appeal to the 11 circuit court of appeals, but it’s not looking good for Terri.
I keep thinking the Schindler’s should petition the courts to at least allow Terri to eat and drink on her own. Michael Satan Schiavo has barred her from doing so, and the courts have thus far backed him up. Eating and drinking can’t be considered life support, and I can’t see how it can be legal to forbid a person to eat or drink. I guess what’s lawful means little to a liberal judge, though. Promoting the culture of death and devaluing human life is far more important.
I’m ashamed to be an American today. The conservative majority better start acting like a majority and making changes in this country. If they continue to be guttless wonders when it comes to appointing judges, we can always replace them with leaders who have a spine.
A federal judge early Tuesday morning refused to order the reinsertion of Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube, leaving the fate of the severely brain-damaged Florida woman unresolved.
U.S. District Judge James Whittemore said the 41-year-old woman’s parents had not established a “substantial likelihood of success” at trial on the merits of their arguments.
Schiavo’s tube was removed Friday after the appeals of her parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, to keep the tube in failed in state court. Tuesday marked the fourth day without her feeding tube.
Rex Sparklin, an attorney with the law firm representing the Schindlers, said lawyers were immediately appealing to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta to “save Terri’s life.”
That court was already considering an appeal on whether Terri Schiavo’s right to due process had been violated.
However, Whittemore found that Schiavo’s due process rights had been upheld throughout the litigation process.
Reaction from the handful of protesters outside the woman’s hospice early Tuesday came quickly.
“It’s terrible. They’re going to talk and talk and she’s going to die,” said Miriam Zlotolow, 59, of Venice, Calif.
Whittemore’s decision comes after unprecedented action by President Bush and Congress over the weekend to enact legislation allowing the Schindlers to take their case to federal courts. . . . . . .
The liberals, the Rinos, and the FEC are panic stricken. The internet has become a medium whereby the American people can voice their opinions on political matters, and diminish the ability of the MSM to filter the news and brainwash the public. Too many facts and information are getting through to people, and it’s causing no end of headaches for politicians. The answer? Blogs must be regulated!! And what better avenue for doing so than campaign finance reform.
From the Washington comPost:
The Federal Election Commission has begun considering whether to issue new rules on how political campaigns are waged on the Internet, a regulatory process that is expected to take months to complete but that is already generating considerable angst online.
The agency is weighing whether — and how — to impose restrictions on a host of online activities, including campaign advertising and politically oriented blogs.
Restrictions?!! What part of a blog are you going to restrict without infringing on their first amendment right to freedom of speech? Let me guess. . . .posting opinions on the internet that are flattering or supportive of a particular candidate will be considered a campaign contribution. Well then, dang it, there are a whole lot of people out there with bumper stickers plastered all over their cars who need to be restricted as well. Those candidates are getting all kinds of advertising that isn’t applied to their contribution limits. This must be regulated immediately!
It gets worse. More from the comPost:
“We are almost certainly going to move from an environment in which the Internet was per se not regulated to where it is going to be regulated in some part,” said FEC Commissioner David M. Mason, a Republican. “That shift has huge significance because it means that people who are conducting political activity on the Internet are suddenly going to have to worry about or at least be conscious of certain legal distinctions and lines they didn’t used to have to worry about.”
Does this make anyone else shudder. Joe citizen is being warned that there may be legal worries and lines that can’t be crossed for those who dare to engage in political activity. You may be thinking I’m being too paranoid – maybe they’re only thinking of regulating paid campaign workers who blog, right? Unfortunately, they aren’t interested in those kind of baby steps toward silencing the blogs. Exhibit A:
Questions posed by the FEC in the comPost article:
What if a campaign supporter links his Web site to a candidate’s home page? Is that considered a campaign contribution subject to government regulation? What if an independent blogger endorses a candidate? Or posts a campaign’s news release? Are those contributions?
I guess I would have crossed the “political activity line” several times last election. I linked to the White House’s website, Bush’s campaign site, and the GOP website several times in the course of blogging. Of course I also linked to Kerry’s website and other Dem sources. Those links usually pointed out some idiotic claim the Demonrats were making, or some other such embarrassing misstep, though, so that would probably still count as a campaign contribution to Bush.
This is absurd. Is all speech eventually going to be considered a campaign contribution if it favors one candidate over another? What about e-mails. What if I forward a campaign e-mail I found particularly interesting, or even just write an e-mail that is supportive of my candidate. By their logic, e-mail must also be regulated. I guess we shouldn’t be surprised. Churches aren’t even allowed to pray for a candidate without risking their non-profit status. Incidentally, this is exactly why Contender Ministries is not set up as a non-profit.
One FEC commissioner tried to tone the rhetoric down and cover for the other commissioner’s insane rantings by saying, “We regulate campaign finance. We don’t regulate speech in the abstract. We only regulate when money is spent. One of the great things about the Internet is that it’s really cheap, and if people are not spending money, then it’s really none of our business. Most of the time when people are sitting at their home computers, blogging, e-mailing — whatever they’re doing — there really isn’t any money being spent.”
Well that clears it all up for me. Not! If all that’s required is money being spent for the FEC to shift into regulate and censor mode, bloggers are in trouble. Ms. Weintraub is obviously completely ignorant of how blogs and the internet work. Blogs and most websites are not free. In order to publish your blog on the internet, you need a web hosting company and enough bandwidth to cover your site traffic. The internet fairy doesn’t just hand out server space and bandwidth to whoever wants to put stuff up on the internet. If the campaign finance police are really that ignorant of how the internet works, should they really be allowed to regulate it?
The article sums up with this:
The commission is not expected to reveal its agenda until later this month, when it releases its “notice of proposed rulemaking.” The FEC is scheduled to then invite public comments on that draft, hold a public hearing on the proposed rules and, later this summer, vote on the final regulations.
I think the FEC can expect more than a few comments from the blogosphere. The MSM won’t be able to spin fast enough to keep up. What a country. We starve the undesirables to death, and think China has the right idea about the internet.