Talk about paranoia... wow!!!!!
Now let's talk substance. Of course you have the right to die... just
fill out the DNR form.
Oh yes and lets see the choices the left gives us... kill a baby,
there's one.
How about selecting a school... no they want us to go to the state
school.
How about owning our retirement accounts... no, they want the government
to own them.
How about using our property as we see fit... no, they put onerous
restrictions on the use of real property for the 'common good'.
How about driving our choice of vehicles... no, they want to price gas
out of the reach of most people so we have to resort to underpowered
rice rockets.
How about owning a gun to defend ourselves from criminals they let loose
on society... no, they want believe it is more honorable to be dead that
to survive a mugging.
How about being judged on our merits rather than some social planners
schemes... no, they want people in positions because of their
demographics rather than abilities.
I could go on... but I think you get the point. I have yet to hear
anything from the left that would even hint that I would be more free by
being under their thumb.
Try again without the anti-religious bigotry.
Larry Miller
-----Original Message-----
From: Leland Jackson [mailto:lelandj At mail .D.O.T smvfp.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 6:53 AM
To: ProFox Email List
Subject: Re: [OT] A Blow to the Rule of Law
Hi Larry,
I will start with the right to die. I follow with the right of state
citizens to due process under their state laws without Religious Righter
motivated Federal interventions.
It appears to me US executive branch and US legislature are making the
rule as they go, and to hell will the constitution. We may already be a
theocracy as the Bush Administration and Religious Righters are seeking
to bring about targeted results, and are then looking at way in which
the desired result can be achieved. This has already resulted in
circumvention of the US Democratic process in at least two instances.
One was a legislative bill passed to deny the Supreme Court their right
to review constitution issues surrounding the rights of Gays to equal
rights. The other was unconstitutional special legislation to review
the state of Florida due process concerning the handling of Terri
Schiavo.
If the supreme court is already so crippled by the powers of the
executive branch coupled with the Republican controlled Legislature, to
the extend it can no longer perform its duty, then why not just disband
the Supreme Court, enact a new theocratic rule of law, and be done with
it. Here is a definition of a theocracy:
1. Government of a state by the immediate direction or
administration of God; hence, the exercise of political
authority by priests as representing the Deity.
1913 Webster
2. The state thus governed, as the Hebrew commonwealth before
it became a kingdom.
1913 Webster
3. literally "the rule of God," however this is thought to be
expressed (e.g., by His revealed principles, by His chosen leaders, by
Himself in the person of the Son, etc.); the word is variously used by
writers for different intended conceptions, some using it as a code word
for uniqueness of Old Testament Israel, others using it for any social
system where the church rules the state (or is not separated from it),
and still others for a civil government which strives to submit to the
socio-political standing laws revealed by God (in Old or New Testaments)
Regards,
LelandJ
Larry Miller wrote:
>You know... I hear this all the time... but what personal freedoms do
>you think will be restricted... other than, perhaps, the ability to
kill
>a baby.
>
>Cutting regulations increases freedom. Help me out here... without
>clichés, what personal freedoms do you think will be taken away?
>
>Larry Miller
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Leland Jackson [mailto:lelandj@mail.smvfp.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 8:14 PM
>To: ProFox Email List
>Subject: Re: [OT] A Blow to the Rule of Law
>
>Hi Bill,
>
>The Religious Right, and the Administration, may be laying a foundation
>upon which they will attempt to pass legislation to further restrict
our
>
>personal freedoms and cripple our protection under the constitution.
>Terri is/was being used to pull on the heart strings of the American
>public, in an attempt to build public support for whatever legislation,
>amendment, or law will be coming next. The Terri Schiavo case is very
>important; because, its about the jurisdiction of each state to
>legislate its own law, except in special areas, as long as the state
>laws do not violate citizens constitutional freedoms and rights.
>
>In my opinion the US congress violated states rights in passing special
>legislation to allow Uncle Sam to step into a jurisdiction clearly
>belonging to states. This make the Terri Schiavo legislation
>unconstitutional. It is/was also about the separation of power within
>each state between the state legislature, the governor, and the state
>judiciary. Jeb Bush back down form taking action that would violation
>state judicial findings, and admitted that taking such action were
>clearly beyond his powers, even though, the Religious Righter were
>twisting his arm mightily. The Terri Schiavo case has tremendous
>important and already has unconstitutional legislation passed that
could
>
>be used as a precedent later. I didn't hear a word about Terri Schiavo
>on the News tonight, but I'm very sure we have not hear the last about
>this, and their will be attempts from the Administration and the
>Religious Righters to pass legislation in this area, so keep your guard
>up.
>
>Tom DeLay did use the Terri Schiavo issue to shift attention away from
>accusation about his unethical conduct, and to gain support from the
>Religious Righter, so this stuff is all multifaceted and tied together.
>
>Regards,
>
>LelandJ
>
>
>Bill Arnold wrote:
>
>
>
>>I've been through the loss of both parents, in "not easy" ways as
well.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>The point I just tried to make is that these decisions are personal,
>>private, family matters that have nothing to do with gov't, and that
>>these highly publicized cases are merely being used as fodder by big
>>media looking for a diversion.
>>
>>If there is a dispute between family members over a member of the
>>
>>
>family
>
>
>>that can't be resolved within the family, then the only involvement of
>>the legal system should be to choose who gets to decide, but certainly
>>not to make the decision for them.
>>
>>
>>
>>Bill
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> It's already been my turn. I was the medical proxy for
>>>my parents, and
>>>my father was in an advanced stage of Alzheimer's Disease. Not only
>>>could he not recognize nor respond to people, he couldn't
>>>even remember
>>>how to swallow. As a result, he aspirated some saliva and developed
>>>pneumonia.
>>>
>>> All it would have taken is a single word from me, and
>>>the doctors
>>>would have administered antibiotics to control the infection.
>>>It was up
>>>to me to say no.
>>>
>>> I've been there and had to make that decision. So has
>>>Terri Schiavo's
>>>father, who refused to give his own mother dialysis when she was
>>>terminally ill. So has Tom DeLay when his father was dying. These are
>>>not murderous thoughts; these are difficult decisions that have to be
>>>made out of love for the dying person. My father had died
>>>several years
>>>before his body did.
>>>
>>> ___/
>>> /
>>> __/
>>> /
>>> ____/
>>> Ed Leafe
>>> http://leafe.com/
>>> http://dabodev.com/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
[excessive quoting removed by server]
©2005 Larry Miller |
|
