Court Orders Feeding Tube Be Removed from Democratic Party

WASHINGTON DC — In a long-anticipated move, a federal appeals court today ordered that the tube providing life-giving nutrients to the Democratic Party be removed.

“It was inevitable,” said George Stephanopoulos, a long-time friend and advocate of the Party. “Everybody knew the Party died a few years ago. This was just a public recognition of that fact.”

The Party had been on life-support for four years, following the onset of a wasting disease that led to the deterioration of the spinal cord and, subsequently, of the cerebral cortex. Physicians say deterioration of the nervous system to such an extent renders normal mental life, such as thinking and feeling, impossible.

“That would explain a lot,” former liberal activist and Democratic Party confidant Jane Fonda said, calling the recent behavior of the Party “inexplicable.”

Republican House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who is under investigation for possible House ethics violations, made similar observations. “It was clear that [the Party] was dying. Sometimes it was so quiet,” he said, “you barely noticed it was there.”

In recent months, family and friends of the Party had rallied to its aid. “We tried,” said former presidential candidate John Kerry, citing the recent election of controversial figure Howard Dean as the Party’s chair. “But the Party we knew is gone. In its place is just a hollow shell of what once was a vigorous, vibrant political group.”

Still, some close to the Party insisted that recovery was possible, citing occasional movement and utterances. “I heard it distinctly,” Niko Strada, relative of the Party, said. “It looked at the buttons on my shirt and shouted, “I waaant.” When asked if he knew what the Party wanted, Strada insisted that it wanted “to live.”

But doctors are skeptical of such claims. Ari Johansen, Chief of Neurology at Mount Sinai Hospital, confirmed last week’s diagnosis. “It’s typical for a national party, after suffering such extensive damage to its nervous system, to still move randomly and even seem to respond to stimuli. But it’s just an illusion.”

Written by Rob at realitique

Liberals Hate Terri Schiavo...and want her dead.

I wish I could have said it the way Kevin McCullough did:-)

LIBERALS HATE TERRI SCHIAVO: Yesterday a chap named Jake took exception to the my most recent column in the Illinois Leader. Sometimes not all of my syndicates allow all hyperlinks to be printed in the column. (Same column with links.) Which is too bad because the sources of information I use strengthen the conclusions I draw. But I thought the e-mail exchange with Jake is telling...

Jake started it all with this...

My god...how can you tell such bald-faced lies with a straight face? Your nobel prize winning Doctor lied to you...go re-read the court transcripts, you moron...Just curious....which uncle or close family friend touched you in a bad way when you were young? Something must have happened to make you so angry, bitter, and inconsolable. Hey, why don't I behave like the the conservative press and make sh*t up about you, as you and others did about Michael Schiavo....hmmm..."which conservative radio host and blogger has had several closeted gay rendezvous over the past ten years?".....Yeah, I can stoop to your level, you f*cking moron...

Jake Daab, Senior Vice President, J Land Company LLC
220 N. Smith Street, Suite 300, Palatine IL, 60067
847.215..5517

Trying to give him the benefit of the doubt I requested...

Be so kind Jake, point to one factual inaccuracy in the column.

He gave it his best shot...

With pleasure, Kev! Shall we start with reviewing the actual testimony, under path of ALL of the expert doctors? Not just your doc? For that matte let's look at his actual testimony....AND by the way, how he came to his observational conclusions. I'm left to conclude by your distorted take that every judge who reviewed the facts of this case ignored the medical facts, when, in fact every expert on record in the court transcripts agreed with the PVS diagnosis. Well, there are some foca who concluded otherwisq after looking at a video. You've never cared about the truth though. You pick and choose sources. Typical conservative blather, but hardly the real world. By the way, when does the family have the right to refuse care? In Tom Delays case? When does a husband lose that right? When you decide he's not a good husband? Does the law not apply if conservatives disagree? Come on, Kev, crystalize this issue for me. Aside from making political hay, what are the two main issues you have a problem with? Tell me your first hand knowledge. Tell me how many times you've spoken with MIchaell Schiavo. Tell me exactly which statute, or part thereof, that you think the court erred on. Otherwise I'm left to surmise that you're merelyn regurgitating erroneous right wing blather.
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

Given the nature of his response - again in answer to an inquiry to supply one factual inaccuracy - I was forced to reply...

So not one factual inaccuracy can be pointed to.

Jake, medical doctors came to different conclusions in the case. Even Dr. Cranford indicates that Terri responds to stimulus and can see - then he goes into court to tout the PVS line that Michael SOUGHT.

Terri is NOT terminal, she is not comatose, the only thing that is killing Terri is starvation. These are the facts.

You may dislike them - but the truth is often inconvenient.

And the whole meme about "19 judges" reviewing the case is hogwash - they ruled on legal standing. Judge Greer is the only judge that has ruled on the merits.

The two main issues I have a problem with?
1. Michael's conflict of interest in the case - and why he changed his mind after winning the large settlement.
2. If Michael is right and the family is wrong - it bothers no one. The family is willing to give him the money and take care of Terri until she dies naturally. If the family is right and Michael is wrong (or ill-motivated) we are establishing a precedent that allows another human being to legally starve someone who would otherwise live. State sanctioned murder of an innocent person is a violation of Article One of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and our Declaration of Independence.

Jake, I know you hate my viewpoints - and that's fine. But if even you were being railroaded the way Terri is - and you had no desire to be starved to death - I would be fighting for you just as hard.

Sorry - but I think the right to live - is the first and foremost fundamental right guaranteed to us under the American justice system.
~KMC

As of the writing of this post - there has been no final response from Mr. Daab. The point of my showing you the back and forth of this however serves a valuable purpose. Jake is prototypical of most Liberals. They ask demands of proof, they question the motives, and they call conservatives names. They are unable to point out any specific grounds for criticism of those who stand for truth and justice...yet they call them liars, f*cking morons, right wing blather, and more.

Read it from his blog at http://www.crosswalk.com/news/weblogs/kmc/?cal=go&adate=3%2F29%2F2005

Reply to a comment.

Yesterday I had this as a comment to my post.

"Ann Coulter? lol.... For Christ's Sake.
Who will you quote next? Adolph Hitler? Lucifer?
Your talking points definitely make more sense now, knowing who inspires you.
Open your mind a little bit, and read a little from the enlightened. I still recommend Thom Hartmann's book, "What Would Jefferson Do?"
Since you have such a desire to better understand your "enemy", try reading their actual words instead of what your nut job influences tell you about them. "

Notice the attack on the person, not the substance of what was said.

I will now quote another source as a reply to this persons question:

“If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees.” William Jefferson Clinton

In all fairness, quotes like these really do nothung more than increase the fighting between the "left and right." I did have another comment by another reader. That person made me proud by getting to the subject matter instead of the personal attack. Soon I will prepare a response to that comment regarding states rights.

RE: THE LEFT

"Liberals' newfound respect for 'federalism' is completely disingenuous. People who support a national policy on abortion are prohibited from ever using the word 'federalism.' I note that whenever liberals talk about 'federalism' or 'states' rights,' they are never talking about a state referendum or a law passed by the duly elected members of a state legislature -- or anything voted on by the actual citizens of a state. What liberals mean by 'federalism' is: a state court ruling. Just as 'choice' refers to only one choice, 'the rule of law'
refers only to 'the law as determined by a court'. As a practical matter, courts will generally have the last word in interpreting the law because courts decide cases. But that's a pragmatic point. There is nothing in the law, the Constitution or the concept of 'federalism' that mandates giving courts the last word. Other public officials, including governors and presidents, are sworn to uphold the law, too." --Ann Coulter