Obama: Bill to Fund Troops a 'Distraction'

Obama and the Democrats are a disgrace.

They call a bill to assure that our troops will be funded a "distraction."

From Eric Cantor:

It’s alarming that a bill that funds our troops and could likely pass both the House and the Senate has been termed as a “distraction” by the White House. No one wants to see the government shut down, but Republicans are committed to ensuring that our men and women in uniform serving in Afghanistan, Iraq, and around the world will be paid if that happens. The White House is directly jeopardizing that.

It's obscene that Democrats would be willing to play politics with our troops serving around the world, fighting and dying.

Obama vows to veto H.R. 1363 – Department of Defense and Further Additional Continuing Appropriations Act of 2011.

The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 1363, making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2011, and for other purposes. As the President stated on April 5, 2011, if negotiations are making significant progress, the Administration would support a short-term, clean Continuing Resolution to allow for enactment of a final bill.

For the past several weeks, the Administration has worked diligently and in good faith to find common ground on the shared goal of cutting spending. After giving the Congress more time by signing short-term extensions into law, the President believes that we need to put politics aside and work out our differences for a bill that covers the rest of the fiscal year. This bill is a distraction from the real work that would bring us closer to a reasonable compromise for funding the remainder of Fiscal Year 2011 and avert a disruptive Federal Government shutdown that would put the Nation’s economic recovery in jeopardy.

...It is critical that the Congress send a final bill to the President’s desk that provides certainty to our men and women in military uniform, their families, small businesses, homeowners, taxpayers, and all Americans. H.R. 1363 simply delays that critical final outcome.

If presented with this bill, the President will veto it.

It's ridiculous for Obama to talk about "distractions" when he failed to pass a budget last year.

What "distracted" him and his Dem comrades then?

Obama and the Dems need to take responsibility for their failure instead of engaging in fearmongering and silly whining.

Chris Larson - TIME's 100 Most Influential People 2011

Does Wisconsin state senator Chris Larson have an inflated ego?

YES.

Larson believes that he is one the most influential people of 2011. And he wants you to believe it, too.

Larson tweets:

Vote here for the Wisconsin 14 in TIME magazine's 100 most influential people of 2011. Thanks for your support!... http://fb.me/VMjSjIzA

"Wisconsin's 'Fab 14' State Senators" are praised by TIME magazine.

They've revolutionized the very concept of the filibuster. Presented with a state budget plan that limited the rights of public employees, 14 Democratic members of the Wisconsin state senate, recognizing that they were outgunned in the chamber, decided their best course of action was to pick up and leave the state with the aim of forcing a compromise. You can't have a vote if you don't have a quorum. When their 22-day adventure came to an end they returned to Madison, they became a flash point for both union rights and austerity in debt-ridden America. Derided as the "most shameful 14 people in the state of Wisconsin" by the Republican state senate majority leader, they also became folk heroes on the left. Pins were printed in their honor, and people even learned their lawmakers' names.

These people would only be considered folk heroes by seriously twisted individuals.

They ran from their responsibilities. They attempted to block the will of the people by overturning the results of the November 2010 elections.

If you don't get what's wrong with that, odds are you live in Madison or you're a union boss or you're a Leftist or you're Obama.

Jimmy Fallon: Government Shutdown

JIMMY FALLON: It turns out the White House might have to lay off staff members if the government shuts down on Friday. It's really bad news for nonessential workers - interns, pages, Biden.

Obama Campaign Promises 2012 - Top Ten

PRESIDENT OBAMA CAMPAIGN PROMISES FOR 2012

10. Be more of a warlock, less of a troll

9. Keep unemployment below 75%

8. Fight three wars and the fourth one is free

7. Replace Space Shuttle with this (Image: Don Rickles drops pants and fires rocket)

6. Get fat like the rest of America

5. Send troops to quell feud between Meat Loaf and Gary Busey

4. Fortune cookies actually tell fortunes, no more of this lucky numbers crap

3. Less talk, more rock

2. Pardon Lindsay Lohan

1. Go back to being that cool, smoking badass we all fell in love with

Late Show with David Letterman
April 6, 2011

I think Obama will manage to keep promise #9.

Video.

Obama and Ryan Budget Plans

A picture is worth a thousand words.

This chart from the Congressional Budget Office succinctly depicts the difference between Obama's budget plan and Paul Ryan's budget plan.



From Forbes:

Forget all this talk about giant “spending cuts” of $6.2 trillion in Congressman Ryan’s budget plan. That’s music to my ears, but it’s also based on Washington’s bizarre budget math – i.e., the screwy system where politicians can increase spending but say they’re cutting spending because the budget could have grown even faster.

What really matters is how much money government is spending this year compared to how much money will be spent in subsequent years. Using this common-sense benchmark, let’s look at two competing proposals.

According to the new numbers released today, Congressman Ryan’s budget plan will result in government growing, on average, by almost 2.8 percent annually over the next 10 years.

President Obama’s budget plan, by contrast, would increase the burden of government spending by an average of nearly 4.7 percent each year.

This chart compares the two budget plans. Because Chairman Ryan does not let spending grow as rapidly, cumulative spending over that period will be $6.2 billion less than it would be based on the President’s plan. That’s an impressive amount of money that taxpayers will save if Ryan is successful, but it’s not a spending cut.

I'd like those Leftists insisting that Ryan's plan contains "spending cuts" that are harsh and extreme to explain what's so harsh and extreme about a plan that allows the "budget to grow faster than inflation, which is projected to average less than 2.1 percent annually over the 10-year period."

Being responsible should not be labeled "extreme."

Obama: Four More Years

Paul Ryan: 'The GOP Path to Prosperity'

Paul Ryan has a plan.

From his op-ed in the Wall Street Journal:

Congress is currently embroiled in a funding fight over how much to spend on less than one-fifth of the federal budget for the next six months. Whether we cut $33 billion or $61 billion—that is, whether we shave 2% or 4% off of this year's deficit—is important. It's a sign that the election did in fact change the debate in Washington from how much we should spend to how much spending we should cut.

But this morning the new House Republican majority will introduce a budget that moves the debate from billions in spending cuts to trillions. America is facing a defining moment. The threat posed by our monumental debt will damage our country in profound ways, unless we act.

No one person or party is responsible for the looming crisis. Yet the facts are clear: Since President Obama took office, our problems have gotten worse. Major spending increases have failed to deliver promised jobs. The safety net for the poor is coming apart at the seams. Government health and retirement programs are growing at unsustainable rates. The new health-care law is a fiscal train wreck. And a complex, inefficient tax code is holding back American families and businesses.

The president's recent budget proposal would accelerate America's descent into a debt crisis. It doubles debt held by the public by the end of his first term and triples it by 2021. It imposes $1.5 trillion in new taxes, with spending that never falls below 23% of the economy. His budget permanently enlarges the size of government. It offers no reforms to save government health and retirement programs, and no leadership.

Our budget, which we call The Path to Prosperity, is very different. For starters, it cuts $6.2 trillion in spending from the president's budget over the next 10 years, reduces the debt as a percentage of the economy, and puts the nation on a path to actually pay off our national debt. Our proposal brings federal spending to below 20% of gross domestic product (GDP), consistent with the postwar average, and reduces deficits by $4.4 trillion.

...Here are its major components:

• Reducing spending: This budget proposes to bring spending on domestic government agencies to below 2008 levels, and it freezes this category of spending for five years. The savings proposals are numerous, and include reforming agricultural subsidies, shrinking the federal work force through a sensible attrition policy, and accepting Defense Secretary Robert Gates's plan to target inefficiencies at the Pentagon.

• Welfare reform: This budget will build upon the historic welfare reforms of the late 1990s by converting the federal share of Medicaid spending into a block grant that lets states create a range of options and gives Medicaid patients access to better care. It proposes similar reforms to the food-stamp program, ending the flawed incentive structure that rewards states for adding to the rolls. Finally, this budget recognizes that the best welfare program is one that ends with a job—it consolidates dozens of duplicative job-training programs into more accessible, accountable career scholarships that will better serve people looking for work.

As we strengthen and improve welfare programs for those who need them, we eliminate welfare for those who don't. Our budget targets corporate welfare, starting by ending the conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that is costing taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars. It gets rid of the permanent Wall Street bailout authority that Congress created last year. And it rolls back expensive handouts for uncompetitive sources of energy, calling instead for a free and open marketplace for energy development, innovation and exploration.

• Health and retirement security: This budget's reforms will protect health and retirement security. This starts with saving Medicare. The open-ended, blank-check nature of the Medicare subsidy threatens the solvency of this critical program and creates inexcusable levels of waste. This budget takes action where others have ducked. But because government should not force people to reorganize their lives, its reforms will not affect those in or near retirement in any way.

Starting in 2022, new Medicare beneficiaries will be enrolled in the same kind of health-care program that members of Congress enjoy. Future Medicare recipients will be able to choose a plan that works best for them from a list of guaranteed coverage options. This is not a voucher program but rather a premium-support model. A Medicare premium-support payment would be paid, by Medicare, to the plan chosen by the beneficiary, subsidizing its cost.

In addition, Medicare will provide increased assistance for lower- income beneficiaries and those with greater health risks. Reform that empowers individuals—with more help for the poor and the sick—will guarantee that Medicare can fulfill the promise of health security for America's seniors.

We must also reform Social Security to prevent severe cuts to future benefits. This budget forces policy makers to work together to enact common-sense reforms. The goal of this proposal is to save Social Security for current retirees and strengthen it for future generations by building upon ideas offered by the president's bipartisan fiscal commission.

• Budget enforcement: This budget recognizes that it is not enough to change how much government spends. We must also change how government spends. It proposes budget-process reforms—including real, enforceable caps on spending—to make sure government spends and taxes only as much as it needs to fulfill its constitutionally prescribed roles.

• Tax reform: This budget would focus on growth by reforming the nation's outdated tax code, consolidating brackets, lowering tax rates, and assuming top individual and corporate rates of 25%. It maintains a revenue-neutral approach by clearing out a burdensome tangle of deductions and loopholes that distort economic activity and leave some corporations paying no income taxes at all.

Anyone who thinks there isn't a significant difference between the Republicans and the Democrats isn't paying attention.

Ryan concludes on a very positive, hopeful note. In that sense, he reminds me of Ronald Reagan.

This is America's moment to advance a plan for prosperity. Our budget offers the nation a model of government that is guided by the timeless principles of the American idea: free-market democracy, open competition, a robust private sector bound by rules of honesty and fairness, a secure safety net, and equal opportunity for all under a limited constitutional government of popular consent.

We can reform government so that people don't have to reorient their lives for less. We can grow our economy, promote opportunity, and encourage upward mobility. This budget is the new House majority's answer to history's call. It is now up to all of us to keep America exceptional.

The difference between Ryan's words and Obama's "Are you in?" couldn't be more dramatic.

Here's a real plan for real change to provide real hope for America's future.

Jon Stewart: Obama and Transparency

On the campaign trail, one of Obama's promises was transparency. He was going to make government more transparent. His White House would be the most transparent ever.

He broke that promise. He smashed that one into a trillion pieces.

Video, from Breitbart:



Transcript

JON STEWART: When you (Obama) were running for the White House, you wanted to look at what the White House was hiding. Now you live in the White House and you want everyone to stop being so f---ing nosy. When you don't live in the White House, sunlight is the best disinfectant. When you live in the White House, disinfectant stings.

In fact, since taking office, this has been the administration that's prosecuted more whistleblowers in two years than in the preceding 40 years; that meets with lobbyists across the street from the White House so they don't have to disclose they're meeting with lobbyists; and - this is true - censored nearly 200 pages of internal e-mails about their efforts to make government more transparent.

Unless they're hiding the fact that they've made government completely transparent because they wanted to surprise us.

How weird has this administration's record on transparency gotten?

(clip)

CHRIS WALLACE: President Obama received an award for transparency Monday.

(clip)

BROOKE BALDWIN: That meeting was completely closed to members of the media.

(clip)


JOE JOHNS: They not only closed the meeting to the media, they didn't even put it in the president's public schedule.

Maybe Obama will actually make good on his promise and achieve the transparency he brags about when he closes Gitmo.

Never.

Obama 2012

Obama e-mailed me this morning.

He's running for president in 2012.

Friend --

Today, we are filing papers to launch our 2012 campaign.

We're doing this now because the politics we believe in does not start with expensive TV ads or extravaganzas, but with you -- with people organizing block-by-block, talking to neighbors, co-workers, and friends. And that kind of campaign takes time to build.

So even though I'm focused on the job you elected me to do, and the race may not reach full speed for a year or more, the work of laying the foundation for our campaign must start today.

We've always known that lasting change wouldn't come quickly or easily. It never does. But as my administration and folks across the country fight to protect the progress we've made -- and make more -- we also need to begin mobilizing for 2012, long before the time comes for me to begin campaigning in earnest.

As we take this step, I'd like to share a video that features some folks like you who are helping to lead the way on this journey. Please take a moment to watch:



In the coming days, supporters like you will begin forging a new organization that we'll build together in cities and towns across the country. And I'll need you to help shape our plan as we create a campaign that's farther reaching, more focused, and more innovative than anything we've built before.

We'll start by doing something unprecedented: coordinating millions of one-on-one conversations between supporters across every single state, reconnecting old friends, inspiring new ones to join the cause, and readying ourselves for next year's fight.

This will be my final campaign, at least as a candidate. But the cause of making a lasting difference for our families, our communities, and our country has never been about one person. And it will succeed only if we work together.

There will be much more to come as the race unfolds. Today, simply let us know you're in to help us begin, and then spread the word:

http://my.barackobama.com/2012

Thank you,

Barack

"Barack"?

Not "President Barack Obama"?

I guess Obama doesn't want people to think of him as the president. He prefers the good old days when he didn't have a record.

Think of him as "Barack." Like him. Forget about his failure to lead, his overreaching, his abuse of power, and his litany of broken promises.

Obama asks, "Are you in?"

No.

Sorry, Barack.

Everybody knows you now. You'll have to defend your record as president, and it's not pretty.

"Are you in?"

That is really lame. We're not playing poker.

Hope Isn't Hiring

Obama 'Greatest Orator of Modern Times' - Roger Simon

On CNN's Reliable Sources Sunday, Roger Simon, Politico, had high praise for Obama's oratory skills.

Video, from Breitbart:



Transcript, from NewsBusters:

HOWARD KURTZ, HOST: So is the press starting to sour on the stalemate in Libya?

Joining us now here in Washington, Roger Simon, chief political columnist for Politico; Dana Milbank, columnist for "The Washington Post," and in San Francisco, Debra Saunders, a columnist for "The San Francisco Chronicle."

Roger Simon, are the journalists and the anchors we just saw now aggressively challenging and acting openly skeptical about the Obama policy in Libya?

ROGER SIMON, CHIEF POLITICAL COLUMNIST, POLITICO: Yes, and that's a good thing. We're supposed to be openly skeptical.

The bloom isn't entirely off the rose between Obama and the press, but reporters are starting to concentrate more than ever on what he says rather than how he says it. We will stipulate that he's the greatest orator of modern times, but now we're looking beyond that in every speech for what he's actually telling us.

Obama is the greatest orator of modern times?

That is laughable.

How does Simon define "modern times"? The 21st century?

It's nuts to consider Obama the greatest orator of modern times.

What's more pathetic is Simon's admission that reporters have been so dazzled by Obama that they haven't been scrutinizing the content of what he says.

The crush the press has had on Obama is an embarrassment. Are these professional journalists, or are they groupies?

They never should have been swooning. They should have been serving as reporters. Truly embarrassing.

Some examples of Obama's oratory "greatness":

The "Breathalzyer"



The "Corpse-man"



The "Twitters"



The "Uh"





The "E-pants-ipation"



"E-pants-pation" still makes me laugh.

No matter what Simon says, the fact is Obama is NOT the greatest orator of modern times. He pales in comparison to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. or President Ronald Reagan. I think even Jesse Jackson is better than Obama.

Without a teleprompter, the man is lost. With his teleprompter, he struggles. He doesn't connect with his audience. He simply reads, sometimes with disastrous results.

When it comes to content, Obama really falls apart.

Let's deal in reality.

Fareed Zakaria and Jay Leno

Jay Leno continues to bombard his audience with political drivel from Leftists.

The latest Leftist to appear on the Tonight Show was Fareed Zakaria.

Naturally, Zakaria carried water for Obama. He kept yapping about Libya and the "smart diplomacy" of the Obama administration.

Yes, it's been absolutely brilliant.

Right.

As usual, Leno didn't challenge the Leftist Zakaria at all.

Leno really has changed. Since his prime time fiasco, he doesn't hesitate to reveal his personal political leanings.

He rarely books conservatives on the show, so any political discussion is incredibly slanted and annoying. There's no balance. Leno rarely plays devil's advocate. It's a liberal echo chamber.

Here's video, followed by some interview transcript:

Fareed Zakaria, Part 1

Fareed Zakaria, Part 2

Transcript

JAY LENO: What is Obama's weakness?

FAREED ZAKARIA: I think Obama's weakness is he's a very smart guy but he's very cool, which is good. You're calm, you're collected, but there's almost too much cool. There's an unsentimental...

LENO: Unemotional.

ZAKARIA: Yeah, you think about the problem of Americans who are unemployed. You talk about 20 million, maybe 25 million Americans -- I think if there was some way that he could connect with them. I think they understand he can't wave a magic wand and do something about it, but he needs to in some way give voice to their feeling of hopelessness and frustration. He's not as good at that as he is at the pure analysis.

Oh, good grief.

That's all Zakaria could up with when it comes to Obama's weakness?

Obama's weakness is a lesser strength?

What a hack!

When Leno brought up the 2012 election and the Republican nominee, Zakaria stressed the Tea Party's influence, suggesting extremism. That's right out of the Dems' talking points and Chuck Schumer's big mouth.

ZAKARIA: The party has changed a lot. This is not Ronald Reagan's party. This is not Richard Nixon's party. This is a party animated by the Tea Party, by populism, by all these new forces. And so I think it's much less going to play by the old rules. And so when people look at a Sarah Palin and say, 'Well, she can't get it,' she energizes that base like nobody else does.

Then Leno set up Zakaria to take some shots at Glenn Beck.

LENO: Let me ask you something just to have some fun here. Glenn Beck -- what did he call you? An 'America-basher' and a 'useful idiot.'

ZAKARIA: Yeah, because I corrected his math. He went on a show with his chalkboard and, you know, explained how 10 percent of Muslims are all, are terrorists.

LENO: 9.8. Ten percent!

ZAKARIA: Ten percent, you know. And I just pointed out if you do the math that means there are 157 million terrorists around in the world, and by the State Department's counts there have been only, what, 10,000... you know, 1000 terrorist events. If you assume 100 people involved in planning, it's just the math doesn't make any sense.

So I just think, look, it's the easiest thing to call somebody when you disagree with them an America-basher. I'm an immigrant. I'm not an American by accident of birth as Glenn Beck is. I'm an American by choice. I came to this country.

LENO: (Laughs, applauds)

I can understand why Zakaria would want to respond to Beck's name-calling, and defend himself. That's fair.

However, Zakaria's remarks do serve to diminish those of us blessed to be born in America, as if he has some greater authority because he chose to be an American.

I don't like that argument.

I don't think of myself as "American by accident of birth." I'm just a proud citizen, grateful to be an American. My pride and gratitude are no accident.

Also, Zakaria derides Beck for calling him an "America-basher."

Will Zakaria condemn the protesters in Wisconsin and their comrades around the country for calling Governor Scott Walker Hitler and other hideous names?

Next topic: The Birther controversy.

LENO: You know I like Donald Trump. He's a friend of mine. He's been here. Why... You can't be president if you weren't born here. If it didn't come out before the election, what is this nonsense? Why does this keep going on?

ZAKARIA: Look, I think that some of this -- maybe there are people who feel genuinely worried about this -- I think some of it is being used by politicans as a coded way to talk about race and the fact that he's different from us, whatever that means. I think it's a great shame because first of all, it's unbecoming, it's un-American. Secondly, you know, look at this last census. What does it mean to be different for us? You've got 15 million Hispanic Americans. You've got a country that is increasingly a mixture of minorities. You know, look at us. We all have funny last names. Right? I mean, join the club.

And there's the race card.

I think Trump just wants publicity. He's shrewd. He's knows how to get it. Call Rosie O'Donnell a fat pig and question Obama's birth certificate, whatever it takes to get attention. It's about self-promotion. But that's not the issue. Zakaria is especially offensive when he calls Americans racists and bigots.

This code crap is silly. It's insulting to the majority of Americans who have policy disagreements with Obama and don't approve of the job he's doing as president.

While I'm sure there are some people against Obama because he's half black, most of us against Obama are critical of his policies and values, not his skin color.

This is the 21st century.

Another Leftist hijacks Leno's show. I blame Leno for handing over the controls.

Terri Schiavo: Terri's Day 2011 - Life and Hope

Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo
December 3, 1963 - March 31, 2005


Today marks the sixth anniversary of Terri Schiavo's death.

She died after her family lost a prolonged, contentious battle for her right to live. Terri's parents, Mary and Bob Schindler, lost their precious daughter, and her siblings, Suzanne and Bobby, lost their beloved sister.

What haunts me about Terri's death is that she was not terminally ill. She was not dying. Michael Schiavo successfully fought in court to have his wife starved and dehydrated to death. She was sentenced to die.

On Nightline, March 15, 2005, while Michael Schiavo was on his media blitz to win over public opinion, he said:

"Terri will not be starved to death. Her nutrition and hydration will be taken away."

Unbelievable.

For me, that statement sums up the twisted lies of the Culture of Death proponents and the brutality of Terri's court-sanctioned murder.

There was so much disinformation disseminated about Terri's condition, before and after her death.

The Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation, a group dedicated to "Helping Families Fight for Those Who Cannot Fight for Themselves," provides straightforward answers to frequently asked questions about Terri, her life and death.

These facts are important in understanding the wider social ramifications of Terri's death:

Was Terri dying?

No. Terri suffered from no terminal disease or condition and her cognitive disability did not jeopardize her life in any way. She was simply a physically healthy woman with a brain injury.

Was Terri brain dead or in a coma?

No. Brain death is not a catch phrase used to describe a persons condition but rather an authentic medical diagnosis determined when respiration and other reflexes are absent. Coma is a profound or deep state of unconsciousness. An individual in a state of coma is alive but unable to move or respond to his or her environment. Terri was neither brain dead, nor was she in a coma.

Were there any machines keeping Terri alive?

Absolutely not. Contrary to media reports, Terri did not require life sustaining equipment such as a ventilator. The only thing keeping Terri alive was the same thing that keeps every one of us alive – food and water.

Was this an “end-of-life” issue?

No. Terri’s case should not be confused with legitimate end-of-life cases in which patients are terminally ill and imminently dying. As already stated, Terri was neither ill nor dying.

Was Terri in a Persistent Vegetative State?

No. Despite Judge Greer’s ruling, and in keeping with the 40 medical affidavits submitted to the court, all evidence proves that Terri was not in a PVS. Terri’s behavior and ability to interact with her surroundings did not meet the medical or statutory definition of persistent vegetative state.

Did the autopsy prove that Terri was in a Persistent Vegetative State?

No. The autopsy was unable to determine whether or not Terri was actually in a persistent vegetative state. In fact, on three separate occasions, the report stated that an autopsy is unable to determine if a person is in a persistent vegetative state because the person must be alive in order to make such a diagnosis. The autopsy did prove that that, prior to Terri's death, she was physically healthy and would have lived a long life had she not been dehydrated over a period of two weeks.

Were Terri’s parents able to make any decisions regarding her medical care or well being?

No. From 1993 until her death, Terri’s parents were not allowed to participate in her care. As guardian, Michael Schiavo had 100% control over Terri. He refused to allow her parents to help their daughter in any way. In fact, during the final weeks of her life, Terri’s parents were informed that if they so much as tried to give her a drop of water, or provide comfort care in any way, they would be arrested by the armed police officers who guarded her room 24 hours a day.

Was Terri receiving any rehabilitation in the years prior to her death?

No. Terri was essentially warehoused and abandoned from 1992, when Michael Schiavo ordered all rehabilitation and therapy stopped, until her dehydration death in March of 2005. This was in spite of the fact that countless doctors said Terri’s condition could have improved with continued rehabilitation and therapy – and that her condition had been improving while she was receiving therapy.

Why did the court allow Terri to be killed?

Permission to starve and dehydrate Terri to death was granted based on hearsay evidence that surfaced almost eight years after her collapse, alleging that she wanted to die.

Did Terri have an advance directive?

No. Terri had no written advance directive that indicated her wishes. The court allowed her to be killed based only upon hearsay evidence provided by Michael Schiavo, his brother and his sister-in-law – ignoring testimony by Terri’s biological family and lifelong friends to the contrary.

Was there money involved?

Yes. A trust fund of nearly $800,000 was established and earmarked for Terri’s rehabilitation and therapy, with Michael as the inheritor in the case of Terri’s death. Tragically, the bulk of this money was instead used to pay Michael Schiavo’s attorney fees in his quest to end her life.

Did the court recognize the money Michael Schiavo stood to inherit as a conflict of interest?

No. In fact the court failed to acknowledge that not only was Schiavo’s monetary interest a conflict, but that he had moved on with his life, was engaged to be married to another woman, and already had children with the other woman. In short, his role as guardian was rife with conflicts of interest.

Did Terri have her own attorney?

No, she did not. In fact, the judge in this case defaulted as her guardian/attorney.

Was it appropriate for Congress to step in to assist in Terri’s case?

Absolutely. Congress has every right to pass laws that prevent the deaths of innocent persons.

Was this a private family matter?

No. Michael Schiavo chose to take the matter out of the realm of privacy by introducing it to the courts in 1998. It was Terri’s family who reached out to Congress for help in saving her life. Michael had essentially already started a new family with his fiancé and children.

What did the law passed by Congress actually do?

It gave Terri the right to a federal review – for a federal judge to make sure that her due process rights had not been denied. This is the same right given to all prisoners on death row.

After Terri died of dehydration on March 31, 2005, President George W. Bush remarked:

I urge all those who honor Terri Schiavo to continue to work to build a culture of life, where all Americans are welcomed and valued and protected, especially those who live at the mercy of others. The essence of civilization is that the strong have a duty to protect the weak. In cases where there are serious doubts and questions, the presumption should be in the favor of life.

In Terri's case, there were serious doubts and questions. Nonetheless, she was sentenced to death, an agonizingly slow-motion execution. That atrocity happened even though we had a pro-life president in the White House.

Now, of course, we have Obama in the White House, the most radical anti-life president to ever occupy the Oval Office.

On February 26, 2008, in Cleveland during a Democrat primary debate between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, candidate Obama invoked Terri Schiavo.

Nat Hentoff wrote a piece about that for Jewish World Review.

In none of the endless presidential candidates' debates has there been a meaningful discussion of the rights of disabled Americans. However, in the Feb. 26 debate in Cleveland, Barack Obama casually and ignorantly revealed his misunderstanding of the basic issue in the highly visible and still-resonating official death sentence of a disabled woman, Terri Schiavo. I have repeatedly called her death the result of "the longest public execution in American history."

When moderator Tim Russert asked Hillary Clinton and Obama if "there are any words or votes that you'd like to take back ... in your careers in public service," Obama answered that in his first year in the Senate, he joined an agreement "that allowed Congress to interject itself (in the Schiavo case) into the decision-making process of the families."

Obama added: 'I think that was a mistake, and I think the American people understood that was a mistake. And as a constitutional law professor, I knew better."

When he was a professor of constitutional law, Obama probably instructed his students to research and know all the facts of a case. The reason Congress asked the federal courts to review the Schiavo case was that the 41-year-old woman about to be dehydrated and starved to death was breathing normally on her own, was not terminal, and there was medical evidence that she was responsive, not in a persistent vegetative state.

So if Obama had the opportunity to take back a vote he cast in his years in public service, it would be the one he cast to offer a disabled woman the right to a federal review – for a federal judge to make sure that her due process rights had not been denied, the same right given to all prisoners on death row.

Obama said, "I think that was a mistake, and I think the American people understood that was a mistake. And as a constitutional law professor, I knew better."

Clearly, Obama is on the wrong side when it comes to promoting a Culture of Life and safeguarding the civil liberties of the weak and vulnerable.

Obama actually regrets voting to grant Terri the right to a federal review before being sentenced to death. He regrets having voted to support Terri's right to due process. I find that extremely troubling.

Obama's regrets about granting Terri Schiavo due process and his attitude about the value of her life are even more disturbing given the passage of government-run health care.

Ezekiel Emanuel, one of Obama's top advisers on health care and brother of Rahm Emanuel, takes this stance:

[Health services should not be guaranteed to] individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.

People like Terri won't stand a chance of receiving treatment or being treated with dignity when health care becomes rationed by the government. They will be denied services because funds are limited. The disabled and the elderly lose under ObamaCare.

Terri's dramatic experience deeply touched so many people, even though nearly all of us were witnesses from afar. For me, her story helped clarify the value of life and what I consider to be our moral obligation to protect the weak and disabled. Her devoted family's desire to care for her and their efforts to save her life were truly inspiring.

Terri's story is a lesson in love.

The struggle for life to prevail, when engulfed in a Culture of Death, is a challenging but morally imperative endeavor.

When speaking of his sister's plight, Bobby Schindler recalls the words of Thomas Jefferson: "The care of human life and happiness and not their destruction is the first and only legitimate object of good government."

Obviously, Obama is no Thomas Jefferson. We've already seen the energy Obama puts into his assault on the dignity of human life. Our work to counter his extremist agenda will be more difficult but more important now than ever.

Although today is a sad day, we can honor Terri's memory by continuing to work to build a lasting Culture of Life; keeping in mind the words of Cardinal Jose Saraiva Martins, that "an attack against life is an attack against God."

On this sixth anniversary of Terri's death, I pray that her parents, her siblings, her other family members and her friends find comfort and peace.
_________________

Prayer in Remembrance of Terri Schiavo

Lord God, I thank you today for the gift of my life,
And for the lives of all my brothers and sisters.

I know that life is always a good,
and that it never loses its value
when it is beset by weakness or injury.

Lord, thank you for the life of Terri Schindler-Schiavo.
Even in her suffering and death
She revealed Your glory
and truth that life is always sacred.

As I remember Terri, I also commit myself
to be active in the pro-life movement,
And never to stop defending life
Until all my brothers and sisters are protected,

And our nation once again becomes
A nation with liberty and justice
Not just for some, but for all,
Through Christ our Lord. Amen!

_________________

Observe Terri's Day, March 31, 2011.

Terri Schiavo Life & Hope Network, in collaboration with Priests for Life, announces the, "International Day of Prayer and Remembrance for Terri Schindler Schiavo, and All of Our Vulnerable Brothers and Sisters," (Terri's Day!), which will be observed each year on March 31, the anniversary of her death.

Activities for Terri's Day:
Suggested Activities for Individuals, Parishes and Schools For Terri's Day 2011!

---Say the Prayer in Remembrance of Terri daily, the week before and after Terri's Day.

---Hold a Memorial Service and/or Mass on Terri's Day.

---Conduct or participate in a parish or school essay contest about what happened to Terri, and the issues surrounding care for the disabled and their right to life.
Create and publicize a website in honor of Terri.

---Invite a speaker to your school, parish, or community organization to address issues surrounding the care of the disabled.

---Organize a letter writing campaign in remembrance of Terri by one or more individuals to local papers or blogs.

---Spend time volunteering at a nursing home or hospital.

---Spend time with a disabled friend or relative.

---Write to or visit elected officials regarding legislation that would increase protection for people facing circumstances like Terri did.

---Fill out, and make others aware of the "Will to Live".

---Register to vote and participate in elections. Challenge candidates on their views regarding Terri and those who face the same challenges and dangers she did.

_________________

Jimmy Fallon: Obama, 'Dancing with the Stars'

JIMMY FALLON: Last night, President Obama's speech on Libya was actually scheduled early so it wouldn't interrupt Dancing with the Stars. That's ridiculous. This is a major historical event that affects the lives of millions of people. I can't believe it was almost interrupted by Obama's speech.

That's right. Last night, there was another big episode of the show Dancing with the Stars. Yeah, but it was preceded by Obama's new show - Dancing around the Objectives in Libya.

Critics are saying that President Obama seemed defensive and slightly angry during his speech on Libya. Sounds like somebody's March Madness bracket isn't doing so hot.