Res Publica 2005

McCain-Feingold's Desire for the Voice of the People:

If you have been following the story of Terri Schaivo, you might find the following worth thinking about:

For Immediate Release
March 5, 2005 - 3.30pm ET (GMT-5)
Attorneys for Bob and Mary Schindler have filed 17 affidavits in support of their motion asking Judge Greer to let medical evaluations be performed on Terri in light of recent advances in medical technologies.

The affidavits are from various experts in the medical field. They are urging that Terri be evaluated based on the fact that new evaluation and therapeutic technologies can significantly impact brain damaged and disabled persons. Many of them have stated that there is strong likelihood that Terri is in a minimally conscious state.

More affidavits are expected to be filed next week in support of the Schindler's

motion.

The link takes you to where you can read the affidavits

Bogus Gold puts it very well:

John McCain and Russ Feingold. Two rumored presidential hopefuls who ought not earn a dime of revenue, or a word of support from any blogger, from now until forever.

Not only was their "campaign finance reform bill," which was lauded for taking the money out of politics, proved laughably ineffective by the last election. Now they are pushing the FEC via a lawsuit to stifle political speech on the Internet. It seems as long as they call it a "contribution" instead of "speech," they see no First Amendment violation.

Obvious to anyone but a modern judge, this violates the letter and the spirit of the First Amendment. Heck, it might as well spit on the Constitution altogether. It's simply a power grab by a bi-partisan elite who fear the power of democracy the Internet is enabling. They want something easier to control. Well tough.

Should blogging be considered an in-kind contribution to a political campaign? Is there an official designation for freedom of speech and freedom of the press which requires that you are a large corporate institution before you are considered worthy of having a true voice?

What part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." does McCain and Feingold not understand?

Bloggers of the right or left, if you want the right to petition the government, to have a voice in politics, to have the right to be heard on the internet, it is time to make your voice heard. Write. Email. Complain most loudly!

Need an idea of how to complain? Go see the letter that the Captain's Quarters has.

Some others blogging this:

Josh's Weblog
Mount Virtus
Bunker Mullican
Polipundit

There's a lot more out there, but I am sure that's enough to get you excited about this power grab!

It's out on PDF. You can read it here

RALEIGH (AP) — The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill must recognize a Christian fraternity that has waged a legal fight challenging the school's nondiscrimination policy.

The preliminary injunction issued by U.S. District Court Judge Frank W. Bullock Jr. will remain in place until the case is resolved, possibly by trial.

Alpha Iota Omega was stripped of its status as an official campus group because the fraternity wont accept nonbelievers or gay students. The university revoked the recognition after fraternity members refused to sign the school's nondiscrimination policy.

The three-member fraternity sued last year, saying UNC-CH had violated their constitutional rights to free speech, free assembly and free exercise of religion.

Recognition gives the fraternity access to student funds and university facilities.

The preliminary injunction put the Christian fraternity "on the same footing as nonreligious organizations which select their members on the basis of commitment ... ," Bullock wrote in an order issued Wednesday.

The merits of the case probably favor the fraternity, but the order is consistent with the university attorneys "current unofficial interpretation of their nondiscrimination policy," Bullock wrote.

The university's policy "raises significant constitutional concerns and could be violative of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution," he also wrote.

Attorneys for the fraternity were happy with the judges preliminary injunction.

Another case of a university preferring totalitarian techiniques vs. the US Constitution. Diversity is has it's place, but forcing one's views on a person to the point of forbidding them or interfering with their constitutional rights is not. Beyond that, universities lose depth and strength and potential when they force world views on people. Learning and critical thinking are not aided by forcing feeding in this way.

A Certain Slant brought up this point:

I'm Catholic, so when I read at BlogsforTerri just moments ago that among the motions Circuit Court Judge Greer will rule on during a hearing in his court scheduled for 1:30pm EST on Friday, March 4th, is whether or not Terri Schiavo is permitted to receive the sacrament of Extreme Unction, I came out of my chair. I'm not a lawyer. If a lawyer reads this post, I would very much appreciate an explanation of why this poor woman, a baptized, practicing Catholic at the time of her brain damage in 1990, needs the approval of a judge to receive the sacrament of Extreme Unction as she approaches death (should Judge Greer's death sentence not be overruled by a higher court)?

For non-Catholic readers of this post, Extreme Unction, otherwise known as the "Last Rites" of the Catholic Church, is an annointing of the dying by an ordained priest to give strength to the soul, mind, and body of the soon departed. It is a blessed sacrament.

Why is Terri Schindler-Schiavo's "Freedom of Religion" under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution a matter on which Judge Greer must rule?

For someone who is Catholic, this is an outrage. The implications, and possibly the precident have frightening implications:

Silent Raindrops asks, discussing this:

Where are we going if we allow the courts to decide if and when we can receive the Sacraments of our faith? This is extraordinarily dangerous ground. Not only do we jeopardize our ability to receive the Sacraments, as this author wisely points out, do we also run the risk of judicial interference in the right of the Church to withhold those Sacraments when it is appropriate as a matter of dogma?

Does the court have a right to tell a person how and when they can worship, or tell that church how to manage its normal affairs?

The fact that there is a dispute (no doubt part of the tug of war between Michael Schaivo and the Schindlers) is sad. But if the judge rules against the allowing a priest to be with her for her passing, a normal Catholic procedure, we could be entering a slippery slope of court controlled religious practice.

Not a pleasant thought.

It has been the thing the last several years for universities to pass speech codes in the name of diversity, that when pushed in courts of law almost always fail because they are infringements of the first amendment.

Douglas Kern over at Tech Central Station wisely notes: Big academia promulgates the illusion of free speech while quietly enforcing the de facto reality of opinion censorship. A great example of this has been the brohaha over Larry Summers at Harvard mentioning that statisically, men do better at maths than women, and as a result there are fewer women in the math and science fields in acadamia as a result. The data is there, it is a real fact, but he has spent the last half year it seems apologizing for stating what it true because uts not acceptable speech in his circles. Opinion (even backed by the facts) censorship.

Mike Adams tells us this story about the University of Alabama:

Last semester, the faculty senate at the University of Alabama (UA) passed an Orwellian speech code designed to restrict “any behavior that demeans or reduces an individual based on group affiliation or personal traits, or which promotes hate or discrimination.”

Anyone armed with an 11th grade education can see that such a speech code is unconstitutional. Indeed, many of the UA “diversity initiatives” such as the Vagina Monologues would be banned under such a code, if the university had any intention of applying the code equally. Come to think of it, booing an Auburn football player would be banned under the code, too.

There evidently is some double talk that they are using this as a way of not being obligated to pay for performances that the faculty deems offensive and that they never intended to really use it as a speech code.

The student senate, though, isn't buying it. They recently passed the following:

WHEREAS the right to free speech is an inalienable human and civil right that is protected by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of
Alabama;

WHEREAS free speech is absolutely vital to the mission of any university, where new and often controversial ideas must be discussed openly and rationally in order to make advances in knowledge;

WHEREAS the Faculty Senate of the University of Alabama has recently passed a resolution urging the University of Alabama to regulate the speech of students at the University of Alabama;

WHEREAS speech codes have been used by other colleges and universities to silence dissenting speech, not merely so-called “hate speech”, and to persecute those with unpopular opinions;

WHEREAS there are currently numerous legal challenges pending against such speech codes, and the adoption of such a speech code at the University of Alabama would invite a lawsuit against the University that would be costly and would greatly tarnish its public image;

WHEREAS in the words of Thomas Jefferson, “Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it”;

WHEREAS by defending free speech for all students, one in no way condones any kind of hate or intolerance; On the contrary, one is promoting tolerance of others despite their differences, especially their differences of opinion;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the University of Alabama Student Senate most strongly urges the Administration and the Faculty Senate of the University of Alabama to refrain from adopting any form of speech code, even one that purports to ban only so-called “hate speech”;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the University of Alabama Student Senate most strongly urges the Administration and the Faculty Senate to adopt policies that explicitly protect free speech for all students at the University of Alabama;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT copies of this resolution also be sent to Dr.
Robert Witt, President of the University of Alabama, Dr. John Mason, President of the Faculty Senate of the University of Alabama, the Tuscaloosa News, the Crimson White and Dateline Alabama for informational purposes.

I do not know why, really, that universities, once the bastion of free thinking, became a hothouse of totalitarian behavior done in the name of liberty, but example of example of this subjugation of the academic ideal has been in the news as of late.

Who will suffer for it? America>

Who is fighting it? Liberty loving Americans, especially the young.

And that is a wonderful thing to see.

WriteWingBlog is passing around this message. It's a good message, and I encourage you, if you feel that Terri is being railroaded into the hand of a painful, judicially mandated death when noone knows for real if this is something she would have ever chosen for herself, then read it, pass it on, and act on it.

Dear Friend:

I’m writing to you today because we are at a critical point in our efforts to save the life of Terri Schindler-Schiavo. Her estranged husband, Michael, will remove her feeding tube on March 18th at 1:00 p.m., as mandated by the courts. Never was there a more crucial time for you to get involved. YOU can help make a difference in saving Terri’s life with very little effort on your part. Time is of the essence.

The first thing you can do is to become informed, quickly, about the misinformation being perpetuated in the mainstream media and by Michael Schiavo and his attorney. Please visit BlogsForTerri and TerrisFight for extensive resources.

One of the most heinous distortions being reported is that Terri is in a “coma,” “persistent vegetative state,” or even “unconscious.” The truth is, Terri laughs, speaks from a small vocabulary of words, responds to others and is very aware of her surroundings. Numerous witnesses have testified to this and videos taken by her family also prove her abilities.

No one can “pull the plug” on Terri, as some have advocated, as she is not hooked up to any life support machines. She is simply being given nourishment through a feeding tube. Nothing more. Is helping someone eat and drink artificial life support?

Secondly, the mainstream media would have us believe that Terri’s guardian, Michael, is looking out for her best interests. In fact, Michael has denied Terri any rehabilitative therapy whatsoever and won’t even allow for her teeth to be brushed or sunlight to shine into her room.

Michael is now living with a woman (his “fiancé’) and has two children by her. That, at the very least, creates a conflict of interest in his guardianship. But there are other questions that may further compromise his role as guardian.

Medical experts have testified that bone scans show that Terri suffered some sort of physical trauma during the time of her collapse, injuries that one doctor suggests is consistent with having been beaten and possibly even strangled. And experts have testified that Michael’s behavior fits that of an abusive husband. (Again, you can find this evidence at Terri’s site: http://www.terrisfight.org ) No one knows the truth about what really happened but the suspicious circumstantial and anecdotal evidence should have motivated an investigation. None was conducted.

Although it is speculation, if Michael is the cause Terri’s injuries, it would explain why he doesn’t want her to receive rehabilitation and why he wants her to be starved to death. It would also explain why he wants her cremated immediately after her death (to hide any evidence implicating him in her injuries). Again, this is speculation. Only an investigation can reveal what actually happened.

Terri deserves to have her OWN legal counsel (which she has been denied so far) and Michael should be removed as her guardian since sufficient evidence proves there is at the very least, a conflict of interest.

Michael claims that he is merely carrying out Terri’s wishes and says that she expressed a desire to die in such circumstances. However, such a desire was never made known to her family and friends and no written documentation exists to support his claim. Furthermore, Michael’s former girlfriend, Cindy Shook, testified that when she asked Michael what Terri’s wishes were, his reply was, “How the h*** should I know we never spoke about this, my God I was only 25 years old. How the h*** should I know? We were young. We never spoke of this."

In addition, Terri's friends, family, co-workers and fellow church members dispute Michael's claims, and state that Terri was extremely upset when comatose woman Karen Ann Quinlan was disconnected from the respirator that had been keeping her alive years ago.

Another myth just surfaced recently, when the AP reported that Terri collapsed from an eating disorder. But the AP writer cited not one shred of evidence to support this claim.

Pamela Hennessy, spokesperson for the Schindlers stated, "there was never a determination by any court nor the Florida Department of Health that Terri Schiavo ever suffered from any eating disorder, bulimia, anorexia or compulsive behavior that would lead to a heart failure at the age of 26. Though Michael, Terri's estranged husband, accused Terri's general practitioner of ignoring a supposed eating disorder, Florida's Department of Health cleared him of wrongdoing or negligence in the case."

Finally, Terri has never received a proper medical evaluation by a team of experts that can testify as to her current abilities and her future potential with rehabilitation. At the very least, such an evaluation should be mandated before any decision is made in this case.

Now that you know the facts, here’s what you can do to help fight for Terri’s rights:

Here is what you can do to help Terri:
1. Pray for Terri and her family.

2. Blog - communicate the truth about what is going on and rally support for Terri and the Schindlers.

3. Visit BlogsforTerri ( http://www.blogsforterri.com) for information and to join the team of blogs for Terri.

4. Deluge Gov. Jeb Bush with emails and phone calls. He has the power to intervene. Here is his contact information:

Governor Jeb Bush
jeb.bush@myflorida.com
850 / 488-4441
850 / 487-0801 (fax)

(A sample letter for you to use can be found here: http://writewingblog.blogspot.com/2005/02/sample-letter-to-use-for-terri-schiavo.html#comments)


5. Support HB701(click here).

6. Important - Bypass the Mainstream Media - pledge support paid advertisements in various newspapers to inform subscribers about what is really happening to Terri. [http://www.blogsforterri.com/pledge.php] Your participation in help is desperately needed.

7. Call, write, fax, or email the contacts listed at Blogs For Terri: http://www.blogsforterri.com/archives/contacts/index.php


Please forward this email to all of your friends and family. Together, our voices can make an impact in the fight for Terri’s life. Please don’t remain silent while her life hangs in the balance. She needs each and every one of us to speak up for her. Now, more than ever.

There has been some weird things done in the name of free speech lately. During the elections, evidently people thought that stealing people's property, slashing tires or keying cars was an acceptable exercise of free speech. It didn't matter that destroying stuff that didn't belong to them might be considered theft or vandalism. What mattered was their viewpoint.

Lately, we still see this mentality exposed. First there's the person who was in the news last week bragging about how he feels it perfectly fine to rip off and destroy those yellow ribbon car magnets because he disagrees with the speech they represent.

I don't think it dawned on him that it's repressive to prevent other people from having free speech too, much less small scale vandalism.

We see this in colleges a lot. One of the complaints about the Ohio bill based on the Horowitz Academic Bill of Rights is that instructors complain how this will infringe on their rights. But the ones complaining frequently already infringe on the rights of students who disagree with them by forcing them to discuss only viewpoints that match the professors politics, and often punish those who disagree with them.

Free speech is the right not just for my viewpoint, but for all viewpoints. It's in the dialog between the two that truth is worked out. Surpressing either side of the dialog because you don't like it is repressive, and has more to do with totalatarian behavior than the American way of life.

Thomas Sowell mentioned something today that I thought was worth thinking about:

Back in the days of the divine rights of kings, it might be understandable why a given monarch might think that what he wanted was all that mattered. But, in an age of democracy, how can millions of people live together if each one asserts a divine right to impose his or her will on others?

That's not free speech, and it is the antithesis of what our country was founded on.

Windows media video of Terri Schiavo

Once upon a time, Judge Greer allowed Michael Schaivo the right to starve his wife to death, because he believed it to be more humane. But as Blogs for Terri notes: On Friday Judge Greer put us on notice that he has ordered Michael Schiavo to remove the feeding tube in three weeks (as opposed to allowing him to do it, now he is ordering him to do it).

Some people would call this judicial tyranny, that a judge would execute someone in this situation.

Others might just call it legal murder.

If you don't want the future of our country to allow non-criminals to be killed by judicial fiat, I suggest you take the time in these days we have left to make your voices heard.