There's something admirable and inspiring about a person who says, "These are the principles and morals by which I will live my life," and then proceeds to do so, right to the very end. Someone like that serves as an example for all of us. Such a person was Pope John Paul II. He learned about dignity and the value of life early, and fought to advance those principles right until the moment he died.

Pope John Paul II, born Karol Wojtyla, was a man with a steadfast belief in a set of solid moral values in a world where morality is frowned upon and values shift with the wind. He studied for the priesthood in secret during the Nazi occupation of his native Poland, while he performed with an underground theater group. (Before entering the Church, he wanted to be an actor.) He began his work as a religious leader under the disapproving atheism of Communist rule, becoming an auxiliary bishop in Krakow in 1958. He was made a cardinal in 1967, and elected to the Papacy in 1978.

The growing cult of death won a victory in the battle to devalue life with the judicial murder of Terri Schiavo. Sentenced to die on hearsay alone, for no crime greater than being brain-damaged and voiceless, Terri slowly starved to death while nutrition and water were withheld from her by court order. Every attempt to reverse the court's decision or alter Terri's state-sanctioned fate was blocked by the judicial system, a system that has lost any right to use the word "justice."

For decades, the pro-death secularist Liberals have been whittling away at the respect for life we once held. They have openly supported anti-life policies, from abortions without parental notification to late-term abortions of viable babies to the "right to die" of people who aren't actually dying. Now, with the death of Terri Schiavo, they have turned the judiciary into a vehicle for killing off the unwanted as well as the unborn. We have been taught to accept death as an easy solution, not an inevitability to be put off as long as possible. Adversity is not something to be faced with courage. Death is merely a "choice," like whether to order chicken or veal.

Once upon a time, before our judicial system decided that unborn children were "nonpersons" with no more right to live than a tapeworm, a judgment like that handed down by Judge Greer would have been impossible. If American culture still had the reverence for life it had just 40 years ago, mercy and reason would have tempered Greer's decision, instead of this soulless strictness about adhering to the letter of the law above all. It wouldn't and shouldn't have been merely a question of who had the right to kill Terri, but whether it was right to do so at all. The slow erosion of our values has coarsened us the to the point where many of us shrug off the deliberate killing of a helpless person by our courts as "probably for the best." This apathetic attitude persists despite the fact that the person in question was in no danger of dying, and had a family willing to care for her for the rest of her life.

In this struggle to weaken our sense of right and wrong, activist judges have taken upon themselves power they were never intended to have. Thomas Jefferson warned us that renegade judges could be a danger to liberty, though even he never imagined they would be a danger to life itself. "To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one that would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy," he wrote in 1820. Time and again we have seen laws written by the elected representatives of the people simply thrown out because they don't suit a particular judge's agenda. Many times judges have dictated to the legislature what laws they should write, as in the case of the Massachusetts Supreme Court ordering the legislature to write a law allowing gay marriage within six months.

Judges tend to support each other to preserve their collective power, as was shown by all the courts involved in the Schiavo case simply ruling that proper procedures were followed without actually looking at the facts and testimony, or calling for up-to-date tests. Even when the Congress of the United States, in a vain attempt to prevent Terri Schiavo's constitutional rights to due process from being violated by the Florida judiciary, passed a law requiring a de novo review of the case, Judge Whittemore of the US District court simply reviewed the procedures again, as had all the judges before him.

Jefferson cautioned that judges would be "constantly working underground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric." The respect our legal system once held for life, the mercy and protection our laws afforded the innocent and helpless were integral to that fabric, now picked apart by judicial activism. We may be a nation of laws, but we are no longer a nation of justice.

By the time you read this, Terri Schindler Schiavo will most likely be dead. Pro-death Liberals and Deathocrats will be dancing in the streets (figuratively speaking), celebrating their great victory over the religious right (and President Bush) in the judicially-sanctioned killing of a brain-damaged woman. The only thing missing will be the AK-47s, since most of the same Liberals are anti-gun. I wonder, though, about the implications of this event, and where it will take us next.

One result of Terri Schiavo's ordeal has been to prove the unassailable supremacy of the judiciary over the other two branches of government, at both the state and federal level. The legislative and executive branches are each, in theory, equal to the judiciary. On paper, each branch has checks and balances to prevent the other two from becoming too powerful. Many of those on the Right have had their warnings about the increasing power of judicial activists ignored for years. This case has proven beyond a reasonable doubt (to borrow a phrase) that the executive and legislative branches of government combined are powerless to affect decisions made by the judiciary.

Congress even passed a law requiring that the Schiavo case receive a fresh look at the federal level, since there were questions about violations of Terri's Constitutional rights. The Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution states, "No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The Fourteenth Amendment reinforces this at the state level, adding that no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." When the State takes a life, it is obligated to be as certain as possible of its findings -- and there are too many questions concerning the Schiavo case to simply ignore.

This law might have become a precedent for bringing other disputed cases to the federal courts. But the action of the federal court mirrored those of the Florida court system. Instead of actually reviewing the evidence and testimony, perhaps calling for new tests to determine Terri's true condition, US District Judge James Whittmore simply checked the original court records to see whether proper procedures had been followed. He adhered to the letter but not the intent of the law. In other words, the merits of the original case have never been reviewed, nor have the original medical findings... only the legal procedures. This despite the fact that Terri has never had a PET scan or MRI, nor a lawyer representing her. There is no way to regulate the power of the courts when no one has jurisdiction over them.

The Liberal advocacy of death for the unwanted and unfit has reached a new low with the Schiavo case. It's hard to understand their mania for death, until we consider the fact that they also believe the government should pay for all health care. Liberals have always advocated national health care (or socialised medicine) as the acme of medical guardianship, despite complaints of long waits and endless bureaucracy from countries that have it. It's not too hard to imagine a future in which national health care is a reality, and Liberals justify the deaths of unwanted children and adults who are disabled, deformed, mentally deficient or terminally ill on the grounds that they cost the government too much money to take care of.

In fact, we don't have to imagine it at all. The T-4 Euthanasia program ran along those very same lines in Nazi Germany. Under Phillipp Bouhler (head of the Fuehrer Chancellery) and Dr. Viktor Brack, Hitler's euthanasia program killed approximately 270,000 people. The original order, signed in 1939, gave them the power to "decide whether those who have -- as far as can be humanly determined -- incurable illnesses can, after the most careful evaluation, be granted a mercy death." Handicapped children were given lethal injections or starved to death. Other victims were gassed to death or simply shot.

How did the Nazis justify their wholesale murder of those they considered "unfit" to live? One propaganda poster showing a mental patient had a caption saying, "This person suffering from hereditary defects costs the people 60,000 Reichmarks during his lifetime. People, that is your money." Under the national health system of Nazi Germany, it was easy to justify killing the imperfect on the grounds that they cost the State money in the form of medical care -- money that could be better used for education, to alleviate poverty or to create jobs, some would argue.

That sort of thing could never happen today, could it? Consider the British case in which two doctors performed a late-term abortion on a baby whose only defect was that it had a cleft palate -- a condition that can be corrected by surgery. The CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) decided not to prosecute the case because the abortion was performed "in good faith" by doctors who believed the child would be handicapped for life. A handicapped child would have required government medical care to live or to have the condition corrected. When you've absorbed that, consider the Liberal support for abortion, euthanasia for the disabled and handicapped, the "right to die" movement, and now their celebration of the state-sanctioned starvation of a woman who had a below-standard "quality of life."

That's the direction in which we're headed, if something is not done to prevent it. The default position of the courts as well as doctors should always be to preserve innocent life without a good reason to end it. Hearsay evidence from a "husband" who violated his marriage vows and suddenly remembered the patient's wishes years after the fact should never be a good enough reason to take a life. Yet in this case, it was. What will come next?

Hat tip to HundredPercenter for the collection of DU posts about Terri.

Well, good for UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan! He wants to reform the UN, and it's about time. Some might argue that he's only doing it to distract attention from his role (and that of his son) in the massive Oil for Food scandal. For those who missed it, that's the one in which Saddam Hussein pocketed over $20 billion while his people starved and went without decent medical care, while Saddam used Iraq's oil to bribe France, China and Russia into opposing any action on the 17 resolutions demanding he turn over all his illegal weapons and materials. Some might say that Kofi's trying to distract from all the other scandals the UN has been involved in under his management, from 800,000 dead in Rwandan genocide to forced prostitution run by UN troops in Bosnia to child rape in the Congo and sex crimes all throughout Africa to... well, the list goes on and on.

There are even some who say that Kofi Annan genuinely wants to reform the UN for the right reasons, to make it relevant and important in today's world. Sure, that could happen. One step he intends to take is to adopt "a tough anti-terrorism treaty that would punish suicide bombers." Well, as head of an organisation that normally excuses suicide bombers and condemns their victims (since a majority of its membership is made up of countries that support terrorism), Kofi might have some trouble figuring out how to do that. As always, I am here to help. Here are some suggestions for how the UN might "get tough" on suicide bombers. Ready to take notes, Kofi?

1. Put them in jail. Only you'd better make sure it's a good jail, with very small bars like a window screen. Otherwise, the bits and pieces of your prisoners just might escape.

2. Also, you'd better be sure that the floors in your jail cells are watertight. In fact, maybe you should just put the suicide bombers in Tupperware containers.

3. Stop giving their leaders Nobel Peace Prizes and treating them like rock stars. Terrorists, it seems, don't usually speak English very well, so maybe they don't realise that blowing stuff up isn't peaceful.

4. Always close UN offices and leave the country when suicide bombers attack. It makes them feel ashamed... and that's worse than death.

5. Make them purchase round-trip tickets on buses and planes, even though they intend to blow them up somewhere en route. The companies can use the extra cash to replace the blown-up vehicles, giving another suicide bomber his or her chance at Paradise.

6. Give countries that support and sponsor terrorism seats on the UN Security Council, just like Syria. That shows the suicide bombers that you respect them... which is all they really want (besides the death of every American and Israeli, of course).

7. Condemn the United States for not doing enough on its own. Although this won't actually punish any suicide bombers, it will make them feel better. Also, this is more or less standard operating procedure for UN resolutions, so what the heck.

8. Condemn the United States for acting on its own, too. This will also have no effect other than to make the terrorists and the countries that support them feel better, but it's also de rigueur for UN resolutions these days. Besides, France won't like it if these two condemnations aren't included.

9. Oh, while you're condemning things, condemn Israel for continuing to exist in defiance of world opinion. Everybody would like that, except the United States (the spoilsports). After all, there probably wouldn't be any suicide bombers if it weren't for Israel, right? Who created that country, anyway?

10. Oh, right, this is about getting tough on suicide bombers. Well, maybe you can get the mainstream media to call them "terrorists" once in a while, instead of militants, insurgents, revolutionaries, rebels, kidnappers or freedom fighters. That'll teach them a lesson they'll never forget as long as they live.

Hope this helps, Kofi! Let me know if you need any more suggestions.

A Florida court has sentenced a woman to death by starvation. She didn't get a trial. She didn't get a lawyer. No one knows what crime she has committed. Yet Terri Schiavo has been condemned to a cruel death by slow starvation, for no good reason that I can discern. Although those who argue for her death repeatedly refer to "extraordinary measures" and "extensive medical procedures" meant to keep her alive, it's difficult to see how a simple nutrient tube qualifies as either of these two things. The inability to swallow solid food is not a reason for a death sentence in any civilised country of which I'm aware, nor is being mentally disabled.

Convicted mass-murderers get seemingly endless appeals on the public dime. When the sentence is finally carried out, the justice system goes to great lengths to ensure that the death is as quick and painless as possible. If convicted murderers aren't sentenced to starve to death, why has that sentence been passed on a woman whose only crime was to get sick?

In 1990, Terri Schiavo collapsed of heart failure, probably caused by a potassium imbalance. She suffered brain damage as a result of lack of oxygen. Unable to eat, she receives nutrients through a feeding tube. Michael Schiavo, her husband and legal guardian, first petitioned to have the tube removed in 1998. Two years later, Judge Greer of Florida's Sixth Judicial Circuit Court decided that Terri would have chosen to have the tube removed, because Michael claimed that she once told him so. Why it took him so long to remember this has yet to be explained.

A friend of Terri's testified that she once told Terri a cruel joke about a woman who fell into a coma after mixing drugs and alcohol. "What is the state vegetable of New Jersey?" the friend asked Terri. The punchline was, "Karen Ann Quinlan." Terri didn't find the joke about the fight to take Quinlan off life support funny. "How did they know she would want this?" she asked. This testimony was seemingly ignored, while her husband's insistence that Terri, a Roman Catholic like her parents, would not want to be kept alive using any artificial means was taken as fact. Judge Greer referred to Michael Schiavo's hearsay -- and that's what it amounts to -- as "clear and convincing evidence" that Terri would rather die than take food through a tube.

Terri Schiavo's condition is nothing like Karen Ann Quinlan's. Despite the picture painted by advocates for her death, Terri is not a vegetable, nor is she in a coma. She's not dying -- or wouldn't be, if she was being fed. She's merely brain-damaged in a way no one yet understands, yet she is responsive to various stimuli. Her eyes track motion, she responds to the sight of her family members, and she even laughs. How can you say that someone who can laugh at a joke is no longer deserving of the right to live? And how can you sentence someone to die of starvation because she can't eat properly?

This is not a "right to die" case, as Terri's husband and his lawyers portray it. It's a "right to kill your wife when that whole 'in sickness and in health' thing becomes inconvenient" case. As far as I'm concerned, Michael Schiavo stopped being Terri's husband in all but name when he broke his marriage vows by moving in with Jodie Centonze in 1995. He should have been removed as Terri's legal guardian at that time, and on those grounds. Since then, he's repeatedly tried to accomplish his wife's death, even refusing to allow therapy or tests that could determine whether improvement is even possible. A CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) who worked at the Palm Gardens Nursing Home testified in 2003 that she "was personally aware of orders for rehabilitation that were not being carried out. Even though they were ordered, Michael would stop them." Michael Schiavo is an unfit guardian who is not looking out for Terri's best interests, and ought to lose that power.

Congress has convened an emergency Sunday session concerning this case. They intend to pass legislation that might prevent Terri's life from being ended before the full extent of her present condition can be determined, by the very tests Michael Schiavo refuses to allow. This makes logical as well as moral sense. How can a person be sentenced to die -- the ultimate deprivation of civil rights -- when their condition isn't actually known?

Many of those on the Left are outraged by the involvement of Congress in this decision. They ask, "Do you want Congress to decide medical questions?" I don't see how allowing an unelected judge to decide medical questions is any worse. Their real concern, as evidenced by their speeches about "rule of law" and "judicial independence," is that the godlike power of activist judges will be curtailed.

Hat tip to Hyscience for the videos of Terri Schiavo reacting to stimuli.

March 20, 2005 will mark the second anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. The war lasted only three weeks before Saddam dropped out of sight and into a spider-hole... but for some hopefuls, it will never end. I'm not talking about the Ba'athist thugs who plot and struggle to regain the power -- built on fear and murder -- that they held over the Iraqi people for so long. I'm talking about the looney anti-war Left, who will spend the next few weeks continuing to protest a war that toppled a dictator, ended decades of evil tyranny and brutality, freed and gave hope to tens of millions, began the spread of democracy throughout the Middle East... and ended almost as quickly as it began. Yes, they're protesting a war that's already over.

When you think about it, it's almost laughable -- when it's not pitiful, that is. Caught in the grip of rabid Bush-hatred, these so-called "progressives" ignore all signs of long hoped-for progress in the Middle East to excoriate its author for bringing it about! Elections and free speech in countries that (in many cases) have never known such things fail to impress the "Not In Our Name" crowd. Where will these "anti-war" folks be in a few decades? It's as if there were still people actively protesting US involvement in WWII, even in light of the fact that Hitler is gone, the world is safe from the threat of Nazi domination and Germany has become a peaceful democracy. Imagine how ridiculous they would sound.

CARTHAGE, TUNISIA -- Carrying signs saying, "End The US Occupation of Germany" and, "War Is Not The Answer," the seven remaining members of Peace For Our Time, a group that once numbered in the dozens, have gathered once again. The group continues its protest against US involvement in World War II, at the spot on which it began 63 years ago in 1942.

"There was never any reason to invade Tunisia," said 82-year-old PFOT founder Scott Whiteflag, weakly shaking a fist in the air. "No Tunisians ever attacked America! We should have stayed at home and taken care of our own problems! The only people who attacked us were the Japanese, and Roosevelt didn't do nearly enough to find out why they hated us and offer them our apologies. Instead of trying to find a means of peaceful coexistence with Nazi Germany, a country that had never attacked us, he rashly led the country into an elective war based on lies about a German invasion of America. Roosevelt lied, and people died!"

The group Peace For Our Time takes its name from the statement made by Neville Chamberlain in 1938, after negotiating with Adolf Hitler. "My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time. Go home and get a nice quiet sleep." The group contends that Hitler was open to diplomacy and was "contained."

"We had no right to interfere with their culture," an unidentified member of the group insisted. "All those martial displays and Jew-killing was part of their heritage, and our unwanted interference just wasn't right. Just because we didn't agree with their laws against Jews, Slavs and Gypsies doesn't mean we had the right to go over there and invade a sovereign nation like that. Who died and made America the boss?"

"Of course Hitler was a bad person," said a grandmotherly woman named Ruth, "and it's a good thing he was removed from power -- don't get us wrong there! However, we protest the manner in which we were misled into the war, and the hundreds of thousands of American dead!" Ruth also accused General Patton of committing war crimes against the German people, and demanded that he be posthumously stripped of his rank as well as his decorations and awards.

Another member of the group whose walker bore a taped-on sign reading, "Containment Was Working!" collapsed at that moment.

"Poor Charlie!" exclaimed Ruth. "Now only the six of us are left to protest the way Mr. Roosevelt pushed us into war with his filthy Lend-Lease Act."

For the last sixty years, Whiteflag and his group have been funded by a cartel of Swiss bankers living in Argentina.

When Brian Nichols was brought into an Atlanta court on 11 March for a retrial on a rape case, a single guard -- a five-foot-two 51-year-old grandmother -- escorted him. Although Deputy Cynthia Ann Hall was a veteran with plenty of training, Nichols overpowered and beat her by sheer size and weight. He then took her gun and escaped. Nichols killed court reporter Julie Ann Brandau and Judge Rowland Barnes as well as Sheriff's Deputy Sgt. Hoyt Teasley on his way out of the courthouse. After carjacking several vehicles, Nichols pistol-whipped a reporter and stole his jacket. He then killed US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent David Wilhelm and took his gun, badge and truck. Nichols finally surrendered after terrorising a woman named Ashley Smith in her apartment, while she talked him into giving up.

Why was Nichols left wearing no restraints, alone with only one guard whom he could obviously overpower? It is thought that the sight of a defendant in handcuffs, surrounded by guards, might unduly influence juries. In most cases when a juror spots a defendant in cuffs and escorted by police, the defense usually moves for a mistrial on the spot. Aren't the jurors supposed to know he's the defendant in the case? Is the fact that he probably just came from a holding cell -- as Nichols had -- supposed to be a secret? Would it have been too politically incorrect to suggest that Deputy Hall might want a partner just this one time -- maybe a six-foot weightlifter with a black belt in Judo and a toothache to put him in the proper mood?

Nichols was not going before the court for running over a traffic cone or tearing the tag off his mattress (you know, the one that says DO NOT REMOVE UNDER PENALTY OF LAW). He was charged with rape, aggravated sodomy, false imprisonment, aggravated assault with intent to rape, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony and burglary. He assaulted his former girlfriend, tying her up in her own home and repeatedly violating her over the course of several days. Two days before his escape, two shivs (makeshift weapons) were removed from his shoes upon his arrival at court -- hinges sharpened into rudimentary knives. What were they there for, balance? Common sense should have told the court personnel that a single guard, older and shorter, would not be enough to guard a potentially violent prisoner without handcuffs or a ready weapon. Political correctness gone amuck allowed Nichols to beat up Deputy Hall and the reporter. Political correctness allowed him to kill Brandau, Judge Barnes and Deputy Sgt. Teasley.

When we allow political correctness to overrule our common sense, we throw away millions of years of instinct that kept our ancestors alive and kicking. Every person who looked up at Nichols, then down at Hall, and shrugged off that little voice asking, "isn't this a bad idea?" allowed Liberal indoctrination to win over his or her own better judgment, with tragic results. The problem is not that common sense is uncommon, but that we so rarely listen to it.

Imagine the huge Liberal outcry that would have gone up had Judge Barnes, who clearly saw that Nichols might pose a threat, ordered extra escorts or restraints. (He did request extra officers in the courtroom, but not the holding area.) The media would have portrayed him as a stereotypical "redneck" judge, antithetical to both blacks and women. Barnes would have been excoriated as being "afraid" of Nichols (whom the media would have transformed into a gentle, misunderstood giant, like Michael Clarke Duncan playing John Coffey in The Green Mile), or at least trying to influence the jury by making him look dangerous. "Barnes Says Women Guards Can't Cut It," the headlines would have screamed. NOW would have joined forces with exploitive agitators like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to stage protests in the street outside the courthouse. Barnes's career would probably have been over.

But at least he'd be alive to enjoy his retirement, as would Julie Ann Brandau, Hoyt Teasley and David Wilhelm.

Sometimes it's hard to make sense of the decisions the Supreme Court makes. When they cherry-pick foreign legal decisions to cite as the basis for some of their more Left-leaning rulings, for instance, it can make anyone's head spin. Why, I often wonder, do they speak of the "values we share with a wider civilization" when they cite European court rulings, but ignore foreign laws that disagree with the Liberal agenda? For every decision they make citing the European Court of Human Rights, shouldn't there be a ruling based on Shari'a law or Chinese law?

In one instance, the Supreme Court effectively overturned the Tenth Amendment in the Lawrence v. Texas decision when they removed the right of Texas to make its own laws regarding sodomy. The Tenth Amendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Justice Anthony Kennedy noted in the decision that the European Court of Human Rights and other foreign courts had affirmed the "rights of homosexual adults to engage in intimate, consensual conduct." He also mentioned that privacy for gay men and women "has been accepted as an integral part of human freedom in many other countries." Yet the Supreme Court didn't balance this blatant Eurocentrism by ruling that women should be stoned for exposing the upper part of their feet, or that anyone who didn't bow to President Bush's portrait should be sent to a concentration camp to mine coal and make soccer balls for cheap export. If they were taking foreign laws and attitudes regarding homosexuality into account when making their decision, why didn't they rule that, as Shari'a law states, the Texas legal system should "Kill the one who does it and the one to whom it is done?" It's obvious that the Supreme Court made a decision not based on the Constitution, but their own prejudices and attitudes, then sought precedents by which to explain it.

In the great tradition of Roe v. Wade and Justice Hugo Black's "separation of Church and State," the Supreme Court recently found yet another part of the Constitution that no one had ever seen before (no doubt written on the back of the third page of the original, in lemon juice). This one said that juveniles cannot be sentenced to death, no matter how heinous the crime. States have now lost the right to mete out justice as they see fit. Justice Kennedy (again) joined Liberal Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Kennedy stated that those under 18 should not be subject to the death penalty because the "instability and emotional imbalance of young people may often be a factor in the crime." Kennedy further blamed "a lack of maturity and an underdeveloped sense of responsibility" and the "diminished culpability of juveniles" for their crimes.

Arizona youth Kenneth Laird, for instance, was only 17 when he broke into Wanda Starnes’ home while she was at work. He tied, gagged and locked her in a bathroom when she returned, then choked her with a rope and bashed her skull in. Laird then spent the next few days driving her truck and forging checks from her account. Mere youthful high spirits, no doubt. Nathan Ramirez was 17 when he and a friend broke into the Florida home of 71-year-old Mildred Boroski, tied her to her bed, killed her dog with a crowbar and looted the house. After the friend raped Boroski, Ramirez shot her twice in the head. He was obviously suffering from an underdeveloped sense of responsibility.

Dale Dwayne Craig was 17 when he fired three bullets into the head of Kipp Gullet as Gullet cried and begged for mercy after Craig abducted him. Stephen Virgil McGilberry killed four members of his Mississippi family with a baseball bat when he was 16. Tilmon Golphin and his older brother killed two police officers after committing robbery and grand theft auto, shooting the already-wounded men at point-blank range. Efrain Perez and Raul Villarreal were both 17 when they and three others gang-raped two girls, 16 and 14, before strangling and stomping them to death. One of the girls was strangled with her own shoelaces. Kevin Hughes sexually assaulted and strangled a nine-year-old Pennsylvania girl before setting her body on fire when he was 17. I suppose we should just be thankful he killed her first.

All these animals and more are now free of the death penalty, thanks to the Supreme Court and their reliance on foreign laws. "In sum, it is fair to say that the United States now stands alone in a world that has turned its face against the juvenile death penalty," Justice Kennedy wrote in the decision, also noting that the practice was banned by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The part that confuses me the most is how the same "children" who are deemed unstable, emotionally unbalanced, immature and lacking a sense of responsibility by this ruling are still somehow responsible and mature enough to get birth control or abortions without parental consent in states like California and Florida.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor warned us that "over time we will rely increasingly, or take notice at least increasingly, of international and foreign courts in examining domestic issues." Well, what do European court decisions matter to me? I don't live there, nor do I want European judges deciding my laws for me. Any judge who bases his or her decisions on any document other than the US Constitution or on any legal ruling made beyond our borders ought to be impeached. As an American, I insist that my laws be written only by my fellow Americans, and comply with my Constitution. If I want to live under the laws of another country, I know how to buy a ticket for the next plane or boat, believe me -- I don't need the illegal immigration of their judicial rulings.

In a 35-minute speech Monday, Scalia said unelected judges have no place deciding issues such as abortion and the death penalty. The court's 5-4 ruling March 1 to outlaw the juvenile death penalty based on "evolving notions of decency" was simply a mask for the personal policy preferences of the five-member majority, he said. ... Citing the example of abortion, he said unelected justices too often choose to read new rights into the Constitution, at the expense of the democratic process.

Take the following simple test to see whether you're a Liberal.  Keep track of your answers.

21. The recent elections in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and Saudi Arabia...
a. are indicative of a sweeping change in the Middle East, catalysed by US foreign policy.
b. will probably lead to civil wars in all those countries, as the people cannot handle democracy.
c. would have taken place eventually despite Bush's cowboy wars, which probably delayed democratic reforms somehow.

22. Iran's pursuit of nuclear power...
a. must not be allowed to reach fruition, even if another nation supplies the nuclear fuel; the mullahs will find a way to cheat just as the North Koreans did.
b. is their own business; why shouldn't they have nuclear weapons if they want them?
c. is just another excuse for Bush to swagger around the Middle East like the new sheriff in town!

23. Social Security...
a. will reach crisis point in the next few decades; the sooner we act to fix it the easier and cheaper it will be to do so... just as prominent Democrats, including Bill Clinton, were saying in the late 1990's.
b. is nothing I need to worry about just yet.
c. is fine! Just fine!! Bush just wants to destroy it to screw the poor and pocket the profits... somehow!

24. Professor Ward Churchill of the University of Colorado...
a. should be dismissed for lying about being a Native American to get hired, lying about his military service and selling plagiarised artwork. Do we want the sort of person who proudly demonised the victims of 9/11 and falsely accuses the US Army committing genocide teaching impressionable kids in public schools?
b. is only being targeted because of what he said about 9/11 "victims."
c. is a fine, upstanding professor whose freedom of speech is being unfairly attacked! A professor should be allowed to say anything he wants, since his purpose is to ask questions and make people think.

25. Harvard president Lawrence Summers...
a. merely asked why there are fewer women than men in science and engineering, then offered several traditionalist explanations for possible consideration and debate, citing research results... which was appropriate, considering that the topic of the conference was "Diversifying the Science & Engineering Workforce."
b. must really hate women, to say that they're not as good at math as men.
c. must be personally and professionally destroyed for saying that women aren't perfectly equal in every way to men! Such blatant political incorrectness cannot be tolerated in the name of "free speech." A college president should know better.

26. Syrian President Bashar Assad...
a. is in serious violation of UN resolution 1559, as well as the Syria Accountability Act. His support of terrorists and Saddam loyalists, manufacture of WMDs and occupation of Lebanon is going to cost him dearly, if he doesn't give them all up.
b. is doing what he must to protect his country from his neighbors.
c. is merely the next victim of the Bush Imperial Hegemony.

27. Nazis...
a. were supporters of an evil ideology which deserved to be wiped out.
b. had some good points, like their support for profit redistribution and welfare.
c. were just like Republicans, as Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va) said, despite their support for profit redistribution and welfare.

28. Howard Dean's election to head of the DNC...
a. is the best thing to happen to the Republican party.
b. was mostly due to his fundraising abilities and his campaign's use of the Internet. He'll be happy working quietly behind the scenes, really.
c. is the best thing to happen to the Democratic party, who were drifting too far to the Right.

29. Iran and North Korea...
a. are the two remaining members of the "Axis of Evil," and pose a threat to us and the rest of the world.
b. are no better and no worse than anyone else. There's no reason to cause trouble with them, as they haven't attacked us.
c. are our last hope for a Bush/Republican failure. As Susan Soderburg (former Clinton foreign policy advisor) said on The Daily Show when discussing the spread of democracy, "Well, there's still Iran and North Korea, don't forget. There's hope for the rest of us."

30. The possibility that President Bush was right in saying that people in the Middle East want freedom and democracy...
a. looks increasingly likely every day.
b. is an example of how anyone can "get lucky."
c. cannot be considered! What are you, his lackey? Besides, he looks like a chimp!!

Take Part 1 and Part 2 of this test for the full effect.

Hat tip to Les Jones for the quotes from Democrats regarding Social Security.
Another hat tip to James Taranto for the Daily Show partial transcript.

For more than three years, the Left has characterised the War on Terror, and especially the liberation of Iraq, as "Bush's War." They've also referred to Iraq as "Bush's Adventure," "Bush's Crusade" and "Bush's Folly." They were calling it "Bush's Hastily Planned, Poorly Realised and Badly Executed Diversion From the 'Real' War," but pretty much stopped when they realised that it wouldn't all fit on a Volvo-sized bumper sticker. Liberals don't understand the strategy of defeating terrorism by changing the totalitarian governments that support it. They don't get the concept that freedom reduces frustration, which in turn reduces the ability of terrorist groups to recruit. They refuse to acknowledge that Congress voted the Authorisation for Use of Military Force Against Iraq into law. They insist that the war was all Bush's idea (when they don't consider him a puppet, that is), and that every setback and problem is all Bush's fault.

Well, that's just fine with me. Let's establish that in plain English: President Bush is solely responsible for sending troops to Afghanistan and Iraq, the latter decision made in spite of a corrupt United Nations and a compromised France, Russia and China. Therefore, he should be considered responsible for all the results of his decision -- the positive as well as the negative. So far, it's all been about the negative.

How many countries have been changed for the better by the War on Terror? Afghanistan has become a democracy in which women vote and hold positions of power, and has even sent female athletes to the Olympics for the first time in history. In Pakistan, Pevez Musharraf has handed the government over to civil rule but maintains his permanent position as president. However, Pakistan has been a staunch ally, and provided us with critical information by exposing the activities of Abdul Qadeer Khan. Khan supplied nuclear weapons related technologies, equipment, and know-how to Iran, North Korea, and Libya, and attempted to do the same with Syria and Iraq. Freeing Afghanistan (especially Afghan women), revealing the corruption in the UN and discovering Khan's activities, none of which would have happened without the War on Terror, must therefore be all Bush's fault.

In the Middle East, the central cesspool of terrorism, things have also changed dramatically. While the death of terrorist leader Yasser Arafat was not part of the War on Terror, forcing him to give up some power to a Prime Minister was... and this led to free Palestinian elections upon his death. The liberation of Iraq led to the first truly free democratic elections in that country, which the naysaying Left swore would never, could never happen. Eight million Iraqis defied the death threats of terrorists (and the dour predictions of Liberals) to cast their votes as the rest of the region watched. Elections in Iraq, elections in Palestine... and suddenly, the Lebanese people took to the streets in protest. After the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, they demanded the end of Syrian occupation of Lebanon. The Syria-backed government spontaneously resigned, paving the way for elections. The fact that it happened without direct action on our part shows that democracy is developing its own momentum in the Middle East. And since Iraqi elections were the catalyst, that's all Bush's fault, too.

Now, inspired by the Lebanese protests, the Syrian people are beginning to demand a greater voice in their government. Hosni Mubarak, president of Egypt, has announced that the next election will include opposition candidates for the first time, although candidates must be approved by Parliament. Saudi Arabia, which just had its first elections at the municipal level, has announced that women will be allowed to vote in the next local elections. Women will also be allowed to work in the Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Baby steps, to be sure... but steps in the right direction.

Whose "interference" in the Middle East is responsible for these changes? The Left certainly didn't want the liberation of Iraq to take place. Senator John Kerry, representing the Democratic party in the 2004 election, repeatedly called Iraq "the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time." President Bush has been labeled a warmongering cowboy for sending troops to Iraq. If the blame for Iraq is laid at his feet, then the credit must go with it... and if he has earned the label "cowboy," then also "liberator."