Mychal Massie is the former chairman of the National Leadership Network of Black Conservatives-Project 21 – a conservative black think tank located in Washington, D.C. He was recognized as the 2008 Conservative Man of the Year by the Conservative Party of Suffolk County, N.Y. He is a nationally recognized political activist, pundit and columnist. He has appeared on Fox News Channel, CNN, MSNBC, C-SPAN, NBC, Comcast Cable and talk-radio programmingMore ↓Less ↑
The Terri Schiavo case is not about a right to life or a right to death; it is about a right to humanity, protection under the law and morality. These basic provisions having been denied her, Florida, indeed America, becomes no better than the societal sewers of the world that sanction indiscriminate euthanasia.
We have been led to believe that our system of government protects the innocent, the helpless and that our laws are humane and moral. Terri Schiavo has shown us that such is not the case. Judge Greer has shown us the intolerable inflexibility of the courts toward all but the corrupt.
A reader’s sister wrote: “I remember the first class I took at paralegal school where our professor, who was a lawyer by the way, said the law is not moral and that you should never believe for a minute that morality and the law cross paths, nor does one have anything to do with the other. I think most people want to believe the law was founded on moral grounds but unfortunately, as we often see in these rulings, it is not.” (Used by permission without attribution).
It is hard too argue in favor of morality in law when what amounts to a former spouse, a man with a common-law wife and two children some 15 years after the fact, is given standing to make life-and-death decisions despite there being capable, willing parents. How can this man be common-law married to one woman yet still make decisions for Terri, whom he has not divorced? Is that not tantamount to bigamy? At the very least is it not a direct conflict of interest?
Where is the morality in Florida’s law when the starving of an animal is punishable by imprisonment of one year and a $5,000 fine, but the starving to death of a vibrant human being is considered humane? Where is the morality in a judicial proceeding that recognizes a right-to-die activist (Dr. Ronald Cranford), who advocates starvation of Alzheimer’s patients, as a credible authority in Terri’s best interest? Cranford has recommended starvation for those who have not needed feeding tubes. (See “Starving for a Fair Diagnosis” by Rev. Robert Johansen, National Review, March 16).
Where is the credibility of a jurist who has doubtfully never encountered a criminal he wouldn’t shake the doors of hell for, but finds Dr. William Hammesfahr, the 1999 Nobel Prize nominee in this field of medicine, less credible than Cranford, the right-to-die activist?
Where is the morality and credibility in a legal system that permits convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal no fewer than eight appeals thus far since his being sentenced to death for his crime in 1982. There was nothing circumstantial about his conviction. The evidence was overwhelming, yet his last appeal resulted in the death penalty being thrown out and a new sentencing trial ordered. It is more than likely that Jamal, like the majority of those on death row, will die of natural causes, including old age, before they will ever be made to pay for their crimes. Yet Terri is denied a trial de novo. The very system that demands Terri die contorts itself to ensure murderers the right to abuse the system and deny their victims justice.
Where are the Hollywooders who support Jamal? Is not Terri worthy of their support? Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton can go to the pissoirs of terrorist despots; can they not come to Florida to demand justice for the Schindlers?
We know the ACLU is busy defending the Marxist University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill and the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, and we know that former Attorney General Ramsey Clark is busy preparing his defense of Saddam Hussein, but surely there must be one ACLU lawyer available to help plead for Terri.
Why are not Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., John Kerry, D-Mass., and the wretched little Gollum Harry Reid, D-Nev., attacking Florida’s Judge Greer as they have the president over Abu Ghraib? Would it make more of a difference if her last name were Muhammad? Why has Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., not come to Terri’s defense? If as all presume she has presidential aspirations, she should note there are two things a real leader has she doesn’t – guts and a willingness to make unpopular decisions.
The Humane Society of the United States concluded abuse toward animals and people go hand in hand. So for those who like me thought, “They wouldn’t treat a dog the way they’re treating Terri,” I now say they would and they do.
According to Pet-Abuse.com, Florida is second only to California (330 cases) in reported cases of pet abuse (including starvation) with 271. Ergo, Judge Greer’s treatment of Terri is just in keeping with said findings.
Lending further support to the Humane Society’s finding is the recent selfish, senseless rape and murder of Jennifer Lunsford. Forcible sex offenses in Florida have become as common as its 70-degree weather. Yet sexual predators like John Couey are given more grace under Florida law than Terri.
In the absence of Janet Reno, if there were ever a time for America to get angry and demand an end to judicial tyranny that time is now. Those who are obstructing judicial nominees in the Senate must be held accountable. Jurists like Greer must be shown America will no longer tolerate anti-human actions. Now is the time for every American concerned with what continues to happen in our courts to come to the defense of our country.