Of course, ‘family’ here means her parents and brother, who have been trying to keep her alive and obtain therapy for her for almost 15 years now. I exclude her husband from this for several reasons. Since he won a massive malpractice law suit concerning his “wife’s” medical treatment, which may or may not have been responsible for her current disability, he’s fathered at least two children by another woman with whom he’s been living. So, you might say, and indeed I would, that he has a marriage to Terri in name only. Furthermore, according to Terri’s family, ‘family’ in the aforementioned sense, there seems to be more than just a tad bit of evidence that Terri suffered massive physical abuse at her “husband’s” hands which may have caused the injuries that led to her disabled state. I say “disabled” because I’ve seen the Terri Schiavo video. She’s not comatose. She laughs, her eyes are bright, responsive to family members and she reacts. Naturally, if Terri is allowed to die, as her “husband” wants, we’ll never know whether that’s the case or not. Naturally, that’s just what Terri’s “husband” wants and as a side light that’s even more interesting, he already has plans to cremate her once she’s starved to death. So, in effect, he has plans to kill-I mean murder the principle witness against him and destroy all incriminating evidence at the same time.

Into this fray comes riding the political party of compassion-the Dam-o-rats. And what do they want to do? By an overwhelming majority they want to help Michael Schiavo get away with murder. But the really intriguing thing here is just how they went about arguing for it. Suddenly, they’ve become advocates of states’ rights, strict interpretations of the Constitution, limited judicial authority, personal freedom and family values. It was quite an evening of entertainment to see Barney Fink, err, excuse me, I mean ‘Frank’, turn into a Massachusetts version of John C. Calhoun. In fact, I thought at any moment John Conyers was going to make an argument on behalf of slavery as a states’ rights issue. He nearly did. For the ultimate in role reversal, the only thing we were missing was a northern Dam-o-rat caning a Southern Republican. Oh, I forgot myself. To be historically correct that should happen in the Senate.

What we did hear was Mr. Conyers argue that this bill was a slippery slope that allowed the government to intrude into our private lives, that it kills the separation of powers that define Federalism, and that it gives up Jeffersonian Democracy. In short, the bill does everything that Mr. Conyers has worked for over the last 15 years.

Now, don’t be misled. What Mr. Conyers thought the bill would kill, as far as the separation of powers is concerned, is the overwhelmingly liberal judiciary that has built up in the last 40 years. Separation of powers for a Dam-o-rat means that all the power is separated from Congress into a liberal judiciary. Being the student of history that he is, Mr. Conyers, of course, failed to realized that there hasn’t been any Jeffersonian Democracy in this country since Thomas Jefferson boffed his female slaves. I suppose that’s what Mr. Conyers wants to preserve. Yes, Dam-o-rats want you to have all the personal freedom your private life can soak up, except when it comes to your Social Security money. Then Jeffersonian Democracy is a remnant of the era and evil of slavery. The more I think about it the more I think Mr. Conyers was confusing re-runs of The Jeffersons with democracy.

I almost snarfed my non-adult beverage up through my nose when I heard Jerrold Nadler, D-rat from New York, lecture the tube about the evil of unelected Federal judges interfering in our private lives. On any other day of the week Mr. Nadler would think that’s the very purpose of the Federal Judiciary and he would thank the good Lord that they are unelected. Since D-rats lose more elections than they win, the unelected judiciary has been their favorite way of forcing Marxism down our throats since FDR.

Michigan Dam-o-rat, Michael Capuano took his 30 seconds of fame to yell “Stay out of my family!” You know, I wonder if he was yelling that when Janet Reno ordered Federal jack-boots to kidnap Elian Gonzalez from his Florida relatives? For that matter, I wonder if Mr. Nadler from New York was just as outraged about the unelected Federal judge who supported her?

Steny Hoyer, D-rat from Maryland decried the lose interpretation of the Constitution, which is a change from two weeks ago when D-rats were singing the praises of the Supreme Court for declaring unconstitutional the execution of minors, based on their favorite liberal theory of constitutional interpretation, viz., our “living” Constitution which can change its meaning every two or three months. Only now they see it as an unchanging bedrock of 200 year old Jeffersonian democracy.

In all honesty, I do have to say that I heard one semi-cogent constitutional argument for murdering Terri Schiavo from a D-rat. It came from the aforementioned Mr. Nadler of New York. He called Terri’s bill a “bill of attainder.” And of course, he’s right about that. Terri’s bill is a bill of attainder. But in the same breath he also called it an “Ex Post Facto Law,” which, of course, it isn’t. (An Ex Post Facto Law makes you a criminal now for something you did in the past when it wasn’t a crime.) So I have my doubts that Mr. Nadler really knew what he was talking about. But that hasn’t stopped D-rats from passing bills of attainder in the past, one of which was the misnomered “assault” weapons ban of 1994.

On another point of Constitution trivia, bills of attainder singled out individuals to make them criminals and subjects of punishment. As a bill of attainder, Terri’s bill is rather odd. It singles out Terri, yes, but it does so to save her life. Always count on a Dam-o-rat to side with death.

As an end to our story the bill passed overwhelmingly, 200 to 58. Republican sponsors of the bill claim it was a bi-partisan effort. I just wish Republicans would come clean and tell the truth … about the party of compassion. But to do that they’d have to hate Dam-o-rats as much as I do. So I’ll tell you the truth. 154 Republicans voted for the bill as did 46 D-rats. 52 of the latter voted against it along with 3 Republicans. So, 98 D-rats participated in the vote. The rest stayed away, over 184 of them. Why? So they wouldn’t have to be on record opposing their party and siding with Republicans--Terri Schiavo be damned. And that’s a telling statistic.

Why is it that this vote, to save Terri Schiavo, displayed such a partisan divide? What cord does it strike with traditional D-rat sentiments that the party of compassion once again becomes the party of death? A liberal caller to C-Span summed it up aright. It’s abortion politics, straight up. They realize the principles involved are the same. The argument you make to save Terri is a right to life argument. And that’s something the Party of Death just can’t stand. Rather than side with it, they’d even prefer the States’ Rights arguments of slavery.

Oh, one more thing-a prediction. Before the week is out the Party of Death will have found a Clinton appointed Federal judge to declare this bill, Terri’s bill, unconstitutional. Bet your bottom dollar that when that happens, Mr. Nadler and his fellow D-rats will be kissing the buttocks of some unelected Federal judge.