Creationists Have More Fun

Just as they used to say about blondes, creationists have more fun (except in this case, it's true).

The Robbinsdale Radial disagrees with my take on creation, evolution, the age of the earth, etc. I don't mind. I was once somewhere in the vicinity of where he is now.

I used to try and harmonize what I heard from pop culture about the age of the earth, evolution and such to what the Bible says about our origins. In doing so, and without a serious examination of the evidence on both sides, I bought into some of the theories such as "Day-Age" and "Gap Theory."

It was at the first creation event sponsored by the Black Hills Creation Science Association about 10 years ago that I first discovered that (a) not only are those theories completely irreconcilable to both the creation account in the Bible but also to what the Bible says about humanity's sinful condition and the reason Christ came to die for us, but (b) there are a multitude of theories, based on a multitude of evidence, that are completely scientific and match with what the Bible tells us about how the universe came to be as we currently experience it.

What it all boils down to is this: both atheists and creationists examine and accept the same evidence, they just interpret it through a different set of presuppositions, or lenses, i.e. a worldview. The atheist presupposes everything had to come about through completely naturalistic causes (i.e. no supernatural causation), and the creationist presupposes God is the ultimate author of all things and natural laws.

Interestingly, the creationist interpretation not only fits together and functions easier, it also fits the evidence better than the naturalistic interpretation.

Below is a comment I left on the RR's blog in response to his latest post. Hopefully it will shed further light on the point I'm making:

The fact that the earth orbits the sun does nothing whatsoever to creation science or the Bible's account of creation. However, I think the case can still be made that humanity is still at the top of God's concern because we were created in His image (He says so) and He sent His Son to die a terrible death to save us from our sinful condition (He didn't send Jesus to die for Mars or Alpha Centauri or even dolphins, but for humans).

As for Galileo, that incident has been twisted around as an excuse to bash the creation account. Galileo, a Christian, was working against a prevailing Aristotelian mindset that some in the church had also latched onto (just as some have accepted theistic evolution today). There were also other political factors in play that affected the situation. He was NOT persecuted for "frightening the church with science."

You claim that I and other creationists are "missing out on the wonder and excitement of it all," but that is 180 degrees from the truth. Knowing the Creator PERSONALLY and trying to figure out how and why He did so many incredible things is the greatest wonder and excitement imaginable! Because, you see, God makes all His creative wonders work through SCIENCE.

The thing that naturalists intentionally blind themselves to is the fact that God, as author of science (the mechanics of creation) is able to supersede those scientific laws (those actions of supersession are what we call "supernatural").

Just as the programmer of a computer operating system is able to go into the programming code and change what it does and how it performs (i.e. operate outside the programming), God can "operate outside the programming" and create things at an accelerated rate (or even instantly), or create global floods, or heal the sick, or raise the dead. Why? Because he's the master programmer.

You and I can't rewrite Windows or OS X because we're not OS programmers. Humans can't do supernatural acts--unless empowered by the Master Programmer--because we're not that Master Programmer.

But trying to figure out how and why God created things as he did is one of the most exciting things in the world.

Finally, you speak about the theory that the earth is 4 billion years old as if it was a fact (actually that theoretical age has been changed many times). Yet you have not a single piece of evidence that proves it. Oh, I know all about radiometric dating (that dated the 1980 Mount St. Helens lava dome at several million years old) and the geological column (which relies on circular logic and throwing out "inconsistent data" to have even a hope of being useful). But those are hardly better than throwing a dart at a map.

Ignorance is one thing. Refusing to examine the evidence is another. I've examined the evidence of both sides, and that of an ancient universe and evolution are woefully lacking. I encourage you to take a serious look, too. Read up on the subject. Come out to the seminar next weekend. You might be surprised how much sense it makes.

Hijacked for Political Gain?

I was reading the Austin American-Statesman's editorial, "Baby Emilio ordeal puts focus on suffering, community's obligation", (Editorial Board, March 24, 2007), regarding the 16-month old (Emilio Gonzales) that is scheduled to be removed from life-support on April 10th, unless a facility is found to take him into their care. It was an editorial that actually sounded as though it was advocating "Obligated Death". Amazing how that attitude has taken hold right under the nose of the majority of Americans. Where were we when this was happening?

I found one of the comments to be curious.

"It's unfortunate that Gonzales' tragedy has been hijacked for political gain. Some disability rights advocates have used this situation to allege that the medical community wants to kill people with disabilities, and accuse the hospital of murder. Without medical intervention, Emilio would have died long ago. "

Hijacked? Such an unusual term to use. Does this mean that the tragedy belonged to the hospital, doctors and members of the ethics committee and advocates came along and stole it from them? It must be what was meant. It has to belong to someone to be hijacked by another. And if we are to believe that someone hijacked the tragedy for political gain, does this mean that the hospital et al then lost political advantage and their gain?

Another interesting statement:

"Not only is that care expensive, it is taking staff and resources — doctors, nurses and equipment — from other patients who could benefit from them. There needs to be a limit on how long physicians and hospitals have to provide costly, aggressive care with no benefit to the patient. Adversaries argue about those definitions, but the diagnosis of trained, experienced physicians carries much weight. "

(Like physicians never make mistakes and malpractice suits are merely figments of someone's imagination.)

And another:

"Emilio's situation cannot be considered in a vacuum of individual rights. When a case is diagnosed as hopeless, irreversible and fatal, the burden on caregivers and the community has to be counted. Indefinitely extending care with no benefit is a burden that must be considered. "

Are these comments nice ways of saying ... Burden on society? Useless? Waste of money and resources? No-value life? "Obligated Death?"

We need to wake up and see what is happening around us. We need to study the consequences of our acts and lack of action. First today it is little Emilio and those such as him, but who will be next? Who next will be receiving the expensive care that is needed for someone it might benefit? And then who will be after that?

The editorial closed with...

"It is painfully difficult for Gonzales to accept her first and only child's fate. It would be for anyone.

But her claim for Emilio is a claim that is not infinite. Many of us have to face the reality that, at some point, whether or not to sustain the life of a loved one is a medical decision, not an emotional one. "

A medical decision? Are we to take it that the medical decision is in spite of the family's wishes, not to mention the patient's? Are we to accept that someone else has the right to decide when we are too big a burden for our potential value?

The editorial spent a great deal of care in using words like comatose to paint a hopeless case. What about Andrea Clark? What about the conscious woman that expressed her will to live who was given a 10 Day Notice? These notices are too easily given and as proven by Ms. Clark's case, not all recipients are comatose and without a chance to live. The decision should rest with the patient and family, not the hospitals, doctors and so-called ethics committees that do have an agenda that does not necessarily have the well-being of the patient first and foremost.

Hijacked for political gain? It sounds more like someone is worried about the hospitals, doctors and ethic's committees losing their political ground and absolute power over life and death of the most vulnerable. Yes, that is what it sounds like! Could it be?

Exposing the Minimum Wage Lie

Clark Sowers of Belle Fourche has an excellent Forum piece in the Rapid City Journal today entitled "Poverty not caused by businesses, but by lifestyles."

This section sums up his excellent analysis as good as anything:

One thing I can say as a business owner, I at least provide jobs; something a freelance writer and radio journalist, churches and even government doesn’t do without me and my fellow business owners.

What is most ironic is the desire of many people to artificially provide for those who already have the capacity to improve their lives by hard work, diligence and education.

These “poor” can change their lives if they choose to. There are untold inspirational stories of those who have done so.

Sowers also points out the irony (dare I say, bull) that pooh-poohs morality on one hand (when it opposes a liberal pet issue) but suddenly becomes pious when it can be twisted to support a liberal pet issue.

For the liberals who won’t want the “morality” of abortion shoved down their throat, it seems they want this “morality” shoved down mine.

and

The “bleeding hearts” who wring their hands over minimum wage choose to turn their backs on the unborn who never have the chance to be born, struggle and succeed or fail on their own merit because “government needs to concentrate on other “moral” priorities that “really matter.”

The unborn are the real “poor.”

Well done, Mr. Sowers!

Just Maybe There is Hope Yet!

I was reading the Bennington Banner article, "Suicide bill goes down in House" by Neal Goswami, Staff Writer (March 22, 2007), and couldn't help thinking that maybe there is hope for us yet.

The article is regarding the assisted suicide bill that was recently before the House in Vermont, but that isn't what got my attention. It was the comments made by two of the representatives involved in the vote -- Representative Mary Morrissey, R-Bennington, and Representative Anne Lamy Mook, D-Bennington.

Goswami reported Representative Morrissey as saying:

"I think the people's voices were really heard in the state of Vermont," she said. Earlier in the day, Morrissey had criticized legislators and the media for using a Zogby International poll that showed 82 percent of Vermonters supported the measure.

"There is just something that is not adding up in regards to H.44. I have listened to committee testimony, television commercials. Polls continue to state that 82 percent of Vermonters support it," Morrissey said. "I guess if Vermonters read it or hear it often enough, they will believe it. Certainly all of us in the building know that poll often can be taken with leading questions."

Goswami further reported:

Morrissey questioned legislators and media reports stating that a majority of Vermonters supported H.44, An Act Relating to Patient Choice and Control at the End of Life. Morrissey also said she was disappointed that an amendment that would have called on Vermonters to vote on the issue was defeated in committee.

"What are we so afraid of in this building or body to not ask the people of Vermont?" said Morrissey. "Are we afraid of the misleading statements that 82 percent of Vermonters support it won't hold up to a vote? I guess I can only wonder."

I was totally impressed! A representative that not only didn't listen to the polls, but questioned them and said so in public? One that actually suggested that if the media, and others, reported those figures often enough that people might come to believe them, even if their accuracy was in question? But better yet, she questioned why the hesitation to prove the poll results with a vote by the people?

My being impressed didn't end with her.

Goswami wrote,

Rep. Anne Lamy Mook, D-Bennington, voted against the legislation after most of the constituents that contacted her said they did not support it.

"I truly believe in the concept of choice that H.44 gives one, but I am very mindful of the word representative in front of my name and responded to the wishes of my constituents," said Mook.

A representative that responds to the wishes of her constituents instead of voting per her own person beliefs! ?!?

What is all this? Is it contagious? Is there a chance it will spread and infect all politicians and those who vote them in? One can only hope! One can only hope! But just maybe there is hope for us yet!

Vermont: Physician-Assisted Suicide Bill Voted Down

According to the Burlington Free Press ( burlingtonfreepress.com ) article, "House votes down physician-assisted death bill" by Ross Sneyd (AP March 21, 2007),

"The Vermont House voted down an initiative Wednesday that would have given terminally ill patients the ability to hasten their deaths with the help of a physician."

It was said,

"They rejected arguments that the procedure amounted to suicide. “Suicide is really an act of desperation,” said Rep. William Frank, D-Underhill. Someone who chose to take advantage of the law would be someone who wanted to continue living but who sought the medicine to give him or her the choice of ending life if it became unbearable. "

“It is important to have choice,” Frank said. “No one should dictate what these values should be.”

No matter the spin -- to take one's own life IS suicide!



Whatever the reason for doing so -- it IS suicide!



To try to call it anything else -- IS an agenda in the making!



What people need to keep in mind is...



Suicide has existed as a "choice" throughout history. That won't change with the house voting down this initiative in Vermont. It hasn't taken the "choice" from people about being able to kill themselves, but it might save some who don't want to be killed off. After all, it is only a step from assisted-suicide to obligated death and the right for others to kill us off. If there is any doubt, look at Texas and the "Futile Care Law". That should say it all!

The Big Spin: The Allegation of Solely Meddling in Private Family Matters

Bobby Schindler, the brother of the court ordered starved and dehydrated to death Terri Schiavo, wrote the article, "Politicians still wrong in Terri's case", which appeared in the WorldNetDaily on March 21, 2007. In it, he discusses presidential candidate Mitt Romney's recent comments regarding the Terri Schiavo case. He goes on to say about politicians,

"But not all of the blame lies with them. Romney's comments and similar remarks made by other politicians about Terri's situation have, in my opinion, been prejudiced by a media that have oversimplified what Congress did by spinning it as "meddling in a private family affair."

Bobby Schindler reiterates what everyone knows that was staying on top of the events surrounding his sister's case,

"In reality, Congress enacted a law to afford my sister's constitutional and statutory civil rights claims to be heard in federal court. This law already exists for every convicted murderer on death row.

How can people claim to know so much about the Schiavo case and either not know what the purpose of the law was or conveniently leave that little fact out when discussing it? A little piece of information that makes an enormous difference in how the general public might react to it. After all, why should anyone be upset because a law was enacted to give a disabled person the same right as any convicted murderer on death row?

It was Michael Schiavo that went to "public" court requesting to pull the feeding tube after he became engaged to his present wife.

It was Michael Schiavo's actions that made the case public, rather than a private family matter.

And as Bobby Schindler said, "It is laughable to then complain Congress got involved in a "private family matter" when by that time Terri's case was getting so much worldwide media attention it was about as private as the Super Bowl.

The bias media and their handlers are the ones that put the spin on things. They are the ones that repeatedly reported the inaccurate as the absolute truth. The ones that continually stated that Terri Schiavo had suffered a heart attack or a stroke. The ones that continually gave the impression that Terri Schiavo was on life support such as a ventilator. Or how about the ones that said she was actually "brain dead"? All of these inaccuracies did play a part in how people were voting on polls. So, it was nothing more than a win by deceit.

Though many are trying to portray Terri's Law as an act of meddling in "private family matters", it was not. It was an attempt to create a fail-safe, just like the law is a hopeful fail-safe for the convicted murderers on death row. It is an attempt to make sure there were no mistakes prior to, rather than thereafter. After all, once a person is dead it is definitely too late to correct the mistake.

A spin? The big spin was (and continues to be) how the inaccuracies were presented as the truth and how an innocent woman was put to death by court ordered starvation and dehydration simply, it appears, because she was disabled and in the way. There is no justification for how she was put to death. That wasn't a "private family matter" -- that was a national disgrace and no spin will make it otherwise!

Paul E. Scates Archives

Archived columns by Paul E. Scates.

Quality of Life Requirements Lead to Execution of Defective Life Forms

Anyone who knows me, and many who don't, knows my feelings about "Quality of Life" judgments that lead to the "Obligated Death" requirement syndrome now implanted into our society. How did that happen? Where were we when that mentality came into our lives and took over what was once called humanity? Where were we indeed?

In reading the news release (March 20, 2007) from Not Dead Yet, a very well known national disability organization, I'm reminded of how some doctors are quick to give up on those who are less than perfect. Doctors who dare to suggest a life isn't worth living because it isn't worth it by their standards. A judgment they, and their fellow futile care advocates, impose upon others, even in some cases, without regard to the patient's wishes and the wishes of his (her) family. But then... who is the patient to have a say anyway? After all, it is only his (or her) life that is on the line and at risk of being snuffed due to the new rules on the playground of life.

In the news release from NDY (March 20, 2007), the ethics committee is alleged to have decided, with regard to Emilio Gonzales, that a ventilator lacks "dignity" and merely "prolongs death".

In that same news release, it is reported that "A powerful affidavit submitted by disability activist Nick Dupree contests those characterizations of life on a ventilator. A 26-year-old Dupree has been on a ventilator since he was 13 years old."

The "so-called" ethics committee knows better about what life is like on a ventilator than one who actually lives life on one? I think not!

But it gets even better.

Doctors gave up on Nick Dupree's 6 month old brother. Their mother did not. Due to her insistence, Jamie was treated and sent home with his mother. He is now 24-years-old. Who was right? The doctors or the mother? Obviously, the baby's mother! Yet, we are suppose to look at doctors as though they are all knowing and above making mistakes?

Doctors, whether some of them wish to believe it or not, are human beings just like the rest of us. They can, and do, make mistakes no matter how good they are or how hard they try. (No human, as of this date, has achieved perfection.) And with that said... who are these doctors and others on the "so-called" ethics committee that seem to think they have all the answers, are god-like, and have the right to impose their "Quality of Life" standards on others, especially without invitation to do so?

How do they get on and qualify for the committee?

What are the rules and standards established?

What are the safeguards to prevent or correct wrongful decisions prior to the point of no return?

Are the members held to a highest level of accountability for all decisions made?

There are many questions that Texans should be asking, but so should the rest of us. After all, Texas isn't the only state that is striving to legally rid itself of the devalued weak and alleged-burdensome. Look at Florida. Look at Oregon. Look at all the states that want to implement "assisted suicide". But while they are doing that, Texas seems to want to get out ahead with the "Obligated Death" portion of it all with their "Futile Care Law" that gives a ten day notice of intent to execute and exterminate the defective life forms (in their care) that they feel do not meet the "Quality of Life" requirements.

Texas has always talked about being the biggest and having the biggest and best of all things. Guess now, they want to have the biggest lead on the opting people out? Too bad that they don't have the biggest hearts and repeal the law of execution of the innocent but ill among us. Yes, too bad. But then... who knows??? Maybe tomorrow, they will be working to do just that!

South Dakota Gets High Marks for National Defense

A KELO report from Mar. 19 shows that despite the whining of a few on the Left, South Dakota remains patriotic and is doing her part in defending the nation.

The National Guard's commander for recruitment and retention, Major John Weber, says South Dakotans choose the Guard largely because of family traditions and local connections.

As someone who spent 10 years in active duty military, my hat is off to those serving in the National Guard. Any military life has dangers and sacrifices, but the Guard solder, with such drastic transitions back and forth from civilian to military to civilian life, is to be especially commended!

Socialism, Universal Healthcare Unbiblical

Rev. Mark Creech's latest column explains why socialism in general, and universal healthcare in particular (a manifestation of socialism) are inconsistent with a biblical worldview:

The Bible teaches God is a creative and productive being and man, who is made in His image, was created for the same. Economic systems that perpetuate or construct dependence or reward sloth strike at the very heart of what it means to be human. Thus, the apostle Paul admonished the Thessalonians: 'For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.' (II Thessalonians 3:10) Certainly, those who cannot provide for themselves, despite every effort they can summon, should be helped in the form of charity. Nevertheless, the Scriptures teach that ingenuity and industry are what should be rewarded, while laziness or failure to provide a service the public needs should go unrewarded.

Why are liberals always wrong, and why does socialism always fail to live up to its promises?

What is more, socialistic principles fail to take into account man's depravity -- his fall away from God and into sin. The socialist contends if man's environment is changed, he will change. He'll be better to his neighbor. It discounts man's need for redemption in Christ and contends that if all have an equal share, then there is less reason to war and steal, etc. But the fact is socialistic principles change nothing about human nature and only concentrates economic power in the hands of a few sinful individuals who are more able to exploit the public.

With the South Dakota legislature looking at major modifications to healthcare in South Dakota, I cringe because I agree 100% with Creech's concluding warning:

Whatever the solution, any plan fostering more dependence on the government is not only extremely dangerous, but immoral. Perhaps the country would do well to consider the warning of John Cotton, a founding father of the Massachusetts Bay Colony: "Let all the world learn to give mortal men no greater power than they are content that they shall use, for use it they will."

Texas: Brief Reprieve for Little Emilio Gonzales

According to News 8 Austin ( Mother gets more time to find new hospital for dying son , March 21, 2007 , 11:30 AM ) , little Emilio, the toddler that was scheduled to be executed under the Texas Futile Care Law on Friday, March 23, 2007, has been given a reprieve. It appears the hospital is giving the mother, and those assisting her, until April 10th to find a facility that will accept him into their care.

Last year, the family of Andrea Clark, the patient at St. Luke's Hospital in Houston TX, was fighting the decision of the so-called ethics committee that had scheduled her for execution under the "Futile Care Law" as well . This scheduled execution was in spite of the fact that Andrea Clark was actually CONSCIOUS and had expressed her desire to live. With attention drawn to her case, and especially due to the efforts of her family and attorney, Andrea received a reprieve and passed away naturally instead of being forced to die at the hands of man.

One would think the Clark case was enough to draw attention to, and concern about, this "FutileCare Law", but apparently it wasn't. The law still remains on the books and in use by hospitals in Texas. But there is light at the end of the tunnel.

People are learning about the "Futile Care Law" -- some for the first time -- and exactly what patient/family rights it gives away and puts into the hands of the doctors, hospitals and so-called ethics committee. I'm sure is was more than a shock to many to learn such a law exists in Texas and could someday threaten their life or the life of a family member.


With information coming forth and the public and public officials becoming aware and informed about this law, it appears changes are being attempted. According to an article appearing on 3/20/2007 on the DallasNews.com , "Dying toddler brings futile care bill to forefront " By PAUL J. WEBER, Associated Press:

"State Rep. Bryan Hughes, R-Mineola, said that while he is respectful of doctors' opinions and hospital resources, no one but the family or patient should decide when to pull the plug.

"Ten days is not long enough for a patient in these circumstances," said Hughes, author of the House bill."

Maybe changes are before us and this will be the last time any have to write about the pending execution of someone who is guilty of nothing more than being ill or disabled. We shall see! We shall see! God knows we will be watching!

Destructive Compassion

Dennis Prager's latest column is (as usual) excellent! It points out how utterly stupid our politically correct ideas of compassion have become--and how destructive they are.

Prager tells about a friend who attended his son's baseball game:

His son's team was winning 24-7 as the game entered the last inning. When he looked up at the scoreboard, he noticed that the score read 0-0. Naturally, he inquired as to what happened -- was the scoreboard perhaps broken? -- and was told that the winning team's coach asked the scoreboard keeper to change the score. He and some of the parents were concerned that the boys on the losing team felt humiliated.

What a bunch of wusses! Not the team that was losing, but the idiot coach and parents who treated the losing team like babies.

Prager's column points out the many areas in which this infantile politically correct "compassion" erodes the best values of society.

Reflecting on those areas, I recalled that some of my greatest triumphs and successes have come out of some of my greatest failures and embarrassments. Failure and embarrassment is a great motivator to get it right next time.

Prager points out how politically correct "compassion" drives a stake into the heart of justice:

Compassion in social policy almost always produces unfair results. Compassion for murderers allows them to keep their lives after taking the life of another. Compassion for minorities leads to affirmative action, which means that individuals who are not members of a designated minority will be treated unfairly. Compassion for immigrant children led to bilingual education, which subsequently prevented most of those children from advancing in American society.

Creation Science Seminar Coming to Rapid City

The Black Hills Creation Science Association (I was once on the board until I resigned to pursue other endeavors) is hosting an Answers in Genesis creation seminar March 30-31.

You can read about it and some background regarding the science/creation/naturalism debate in today's Rapid City Journal column.

If he hasn't already read it, I'm sure Chad will read with rapt wonder. :-) By the way, I like the new look of your banner, Chad.

Editorial: Europe - Thy Name is Cowardice

The op/ed below was emailed to me by my e-friend Paul Scates who shares his fantastic writing with the readers of Dakota Voice.

Paul said he checked Snopes for its veracity. I also checked and found it referenced in the Derby Reporter, which says it was written by a German citizen and published in Germany's largest daily paper, Die Welt.

EUROPE - THY NAME IS COWARDICE

(Commentary by Mathias Dapfner CEO, Axel Springer, AG)

A few days ago Henry Broder wrote in Welt am Sonntag, "Europe - your family name is appeasement." It's a phrase you can't get out of your head because it's so terribly true.

Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives, as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to toothless agreements.

Appeasement legitimized and stabilized Communism in the Soviet Union, then East Germany, then all the rest of Eastern Europe, where for decades, inhuman suppressive, murderous governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities.

Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and even though we had absolute proof of ongoing mass-murder, we Europeans debated and debated and debated, and were still debating when finally the Americans had to come from halfway around the world, into Europe yet again, and do our work for us.

Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European Appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance," now countenances suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians.

Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore nearly 500,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace movement, has the gall to issue bad grades to George Bush... Even as it is uncovered that the loudest critics of the American action in Iraq made illicit billions, no, TENS of billions, in the corrupt U.N. Oil-for-Food program.

And now we are faced with a particularly grotesque form of appeasement. How is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic Fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere? By suggesting that we really should have a "Muslim Holiday" in Germany?

I wish I were joking, but I am not. A substantial fraction of our (German) Government, and if the polls are to be believed, the German people, actually believe that creating an Official State "Muslim Holiday" will somehow spare us from the wrath of the fanatical Islamists. One cannot help but recall Britain's Neville Chamberlain waving the laughable treaty signed by Adolph Hitler and declaring European "Peace in our time".

What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership get it? There is a sort of crusade underway, an especially perfidious crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims, focused on civilians, directed against our free, open Western societies, and intent upon Western Civilization's utter destruction.

It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than any of the great military conflicts of the last century - a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot be tamed by "tolerance" and "accommodation" but is actually spurred on by such gestures, which have proven to be, and will always be taken by the Islamists for signs of weakness. Only two recent American Presidents had the courage needed for Anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush.

His American critics may quibble over the details, but we Europeans know the truth. We saw it first hand: Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, freeing half of the German people from nearly 50 years of terror and virtual slavery. And Bush, supported only by the Social Democrat Blair, acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic War against Democracy. His place in history will have to be evaluated after a number of years have passed.

In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic self-confidence in the multicultural corner, instead of defending liberal society's values and being an attractive center of power on the same playing field as the true great powers, America and China.

On the contrary - we Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to those "arrogant Americans", as the World Champions of "tolerance", which even (Germany's Interior Minister) Otto Schily justifiably criticizes. Why? Because we're so moral? I fear it's more because we're so materialistic, so devoid of a moral compass.

For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt, and a massive and persistent burden on the American economy - because unlike almost all of Europe, Bush realizes what is at stake - literally everything.

While we criticize the "capitalistic robber barons" of America because they seem too sure of their priorities, we timidly defend our Social Welfare systems. Stay out of it! It could get expensive! We'd rather discuss reducing our 35-hour workweek or our dental coverage, or our 4 weeks of paid vacation... Or listen to TV pastors preach about the need to "reach out to terrorists. To understand and forgive".

These days, Europe reminds me of an old woman who, with shaking hands, frantically hides her last pieces of jewelry when she notices a robber breaking into a neighbor's house.

Appeasement?

Europe, thy name is Cowardice.

National Disability Group Supports Efforts to Save Emilio Gonzales

IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 20, 2007

National Disability Group Supports Efforts to Save Emilio Gonzales
Activist Nick Dupree provides affidavit about the dignity of life as a ventilator user


Not Dead Yet, a national disability rights group, is strongly supporting efforts to save the life of Emilio Gonzales, a seriously ill infant whose life may end on Friday, March 23 under the infamous Texas "futility law".

The Texas chapter of Not Dead Yet has been part of the effort to overturn the current draconian "futility" statute in Texas - an effort that has been effectively stonewalled by the special interests of medical facilities, medical professionals and bioethicists.

Unfortunately, reversing the latest implementation of this statute can't wait for a change in the law. Emilio Gonzales, who is 16 months old, will die next week when the Children's Hospital of Austin removes him from a ventilator.

Attorney Jerri Ward, representing Emilio's mother Catarina Gonzales, is moving on multiple legal fronts to prevent the implementation of the impending death sentence. Today, she filed for a Temporary Restraining Order against the hospital to prevent the planned removal of Emilio's ventilator. She has also filed a complaint with the U.S. Office of Civil Rights and has claimed that the hospital's actions represent unlawful discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

According to news reports, Emilio's use of a ventilator lacks "dignity" and merely "prolongs death," according to the ethics committee at Children's Hospital.

A powerful affidavit submitted by disability activist Nick Dupree contests those characterizations of life on a ventilator. 26-year-old Dupree has been on a ventilator since he was 13 years old.

"I do not consider living with a ventilator a burden that makes my life unworthy of being lived. I do not, and have never, considered it an assault on my human dignity and person," says Dupree in his affidavit. Dupree also writes about his brother Jamie. Doctors wanted to give up on Jamie when he was 6 months old and intubated. Due to his mother's insistence, Jamie was given a tracheostomy and sent home on a ventilator. Jamie is 24 years old now.

It's a good thing there were no "futility laws" enabling doctors to overrule Jamie's mother when he was 6 months old.

Not Dead Yet opposes futility laws as an unconstitutional denial of due process, purportedly authorizing state sponsored medical killing. "We need to get rid of the futility law threatening the life of Emilio Gonzales and others like him in Texas," said Diane Coleman, president of the
group. "Any theory that the ethics committee procedure satisfies due process requirements is ludicrous."

Not Dead Yet is a national disability organization that fights legalization of assisted suicide, euthanasia and other types of medical killing.

###

For more information, contact:

Not Dead Yet
7521 Madison St.
Forest Park, IL 60130
708-209-1500
http://www.notdeadyet.org

No More Thought Than Opening a Can of Beans

The deadline is fast approaching with little Emilio Gonzales scheduled to be snuffed out by the Brackenridge Children's Hospital in Austin, Texas. Oh, the administration, medical staff and so-called ethic committee that is involved will all no doubt cry that they are acting under the law -- the "futile care law". Whatever they are acting under, the fact still remains that they are offing a baby. Offing him rather than fighting to give him a fighting chance. And this is what medicine has come to? How pathetic.

Melanie Childlers, one of Andrea Clark's sisters, wrote:

"We have been in touch with the Bishop of the Austin Diocese--Bishop Aymond--who you would THINK would stick up for the life of this little child, but who instead supports killing little Emilio Gonzales. I guess if you're on Medicaid, your life just isn't as worthwhile as it would be if you had good insurance. Bishop Aymond's number is: 512-476-4888. Please call him and if you can't get him on the phone, leave a message, letting him know how you feel about the Catholic Church's approval [see note below] of the murder of this small child. Keep in mind: This is a CATHOLIC-owned hospital! The head of the Catholic Conference of Bishops is Andrew Rivas. His phone number is: 512-339-9882; please call him and let him know how you feel about this issue. "

(Read entire article: Toddler Forced Off Life Support - Help Needed, March 18, 2007 )

I would say that I am really surprised at Bishop Aymond's reaction, but after the Terri Schiavo case, I'm not surprised so easily. Life just doesn't seem to be treasured as it once was. Rather than priceless, it comes with a price tag that is measured by how much we are getting in the way of those who want us to have the "Right to Die", even if dying wasn't in our immediate plans. Oh well! Looks to me like we skipped over the "Right to Die" phase and just jumped right into the "Obligation to Die" one.

Emilio Gonzales might not live even if treated aggressively by doctors that care enough to fight, but he should have that fighting chance. His mother should have that fighting chance. She shouldn't be left with the loss of her child and the feeling that she failed him because she couldn't stop them from pulling the plug. She should at least be left with the knowledge that she did everything she could to protect the child she loved and it was just time for God to call him home. God making the decision, not some anonymous so-called ethic committee.

Life is a gift and should be treated as such. The day that thought is lost is the day that we become nothing more than zombies feeding upon the flesh of others with no more thought than opening a can of beans.