Helen Weir
Of haircuts and henchmen
By Helen Weir
As the old song puts it, "Don't know much about . . ." well, in this case, Marco Rubio. Like most other interested non-Floridians, I am following his Senate primary bid against Gov. Charlie Crist because of its ideological implications for the rest of the nation. Young, outspoken, and staunchly conservative, Rubio ostensibly represents the face of the post-1994 Republican Party — a party that has learned at long last (or so it is hoped) the enduring lesson: Know McCain, Know Pain. Departure from Declarationist principle has left us not only with an Obama administration and the constitutional violations it daily commits, but also with a gutted GOP incapable of doing anything for itself, let alone for the rest of the country. Beyond that, I can't say anything for certain about Crist's appealing challenger — like, for example, whether or not he pays a lot for his haircuts, as the Governor alleges.
I do know something, however, about Charlie Crist. We all know it, though I have yet to hear it raised as an issue in this race. We know — as the Fox News ticker reminded us during Sunday's thrice-televised debate — that, five years ago this week, he was serving as Florida's Attorney General.
This Wednesday, March 31, is the fifth anniversary of the death of Terri Schindler Schiavo. Not even a sliver of soothing ice would ever reach the lips of the innocent woman who lay dying an Auschwitz-style death within the borders of the United States itself — a country founded, whether the Obama administration likes it or not, on an irrevocable insistence that our basic rights come from God, not governments, and that governments therefore have no right to revoke them.
As I have reported elsewhere, I mentioned this fact to a CNN interviewer who was on scene at the hospice at the time. He switched off the mic, regarded me with wonder, and said something to the effect of, "That's a really good point. I never thought about it that way before."
Civilization has had occasion to think about it that way before. One notable occasion was the Nuremberg Trials, when Hitler's henchmen were confronted with photos and other evidence of their crimes against humanity, and the world had to begin to morally process what they had done. There was little use in hiding behind the now-discredited "duty" defense. Nobody bought the idea that turning on the gas jets was tantamount to writing a traffic citation. A cop has no right to decide for himself, in other words, what the speed limit is. But when the human law contradicts higher law, both natural and divine, it is the human law which must give way. Because we are the servants of God and not His masters, no one — public official or otherwise — has the right to decide for himself either to issue or to follow an order that innocent human life, which is God's own private property, be destroyed.
The news outlets these days are fond of trumpeting the fact that Obamacare now constitutes "the law of the land." Funny, isn't it, how only Roe-related statutes seem to merit this particular moniker? Stopping at a red light is the law of the land, too, but you don't hear Democrats going around rubbing people's noses in it. Have American "laws" become a way of asserting the power of one group (the "valuable," the mainstream, the leftist, the Nietzschean) over another (the "useless eaters," the marginalized, and those who would champion the concept of unalienable rights according to the Judeo-Christian tradition)? Don't real laws exist precisely to avert intrasocietal predation of this very description? Where things like abortion, infanticide, the devaluation of the handicapped, their starvation and dehydration, and the establishment of government agencies to make such supposedly "medical" determinations for the rest of us, are concerned, does corrupt manipulation of the political process actually confer upon 2,000 pages of unintelligible and unexamined jargon the moral force of law?
Around the neck of Senate candidate Crist, challenger Rubio has successfully hung the Obama/stimulus money albatross already. But what about this question — when Terri lay dying, where was Attorney General Crist, who wears his white hair as if it were a white cowboy hat? Even the feckless Jeb Bush was all over TV that critical fortnight, pleading for Terri's life if not taking effective executive action. It ought to have sent an ice cube down our collective American back to hear Crist declaring, during Sunday's debate, that his electoral victory would help ensure an enhanced "quality of life" for all Floridians.
So what are we to make of the prospect of a Senator Crist — or even a President Crist, as some allege is his real ambition? What would such a man do in federal office, now that healthcare has been fundamentally socialized? Why would we expect him to stand up to a bigger, stronger, more voracious, and in fact nationwide death panel, having in effect presided over a Terri-sized one already? Crist's acceptance of stimulus funding for the Sunshine State constitutes, in other words, one of the least troubling ways in which he demonstrates an ideological affinity for the most anti-life Chief Executive in the history of the United States.
On Monday morning, I put in a call to Marco Rubio's campaign headquarters. A staffer who identified himself as "Louis" gave me a prompt and polite reply: Rubio believes that Terri's feeding tube should not have been removed, and that she should have been allowed to live in the care of the loving Schindler family who fought so hard on her behalf.
Last Sunday, Charlie Crist kept insisting that a public official's job is to secure "benefits" for his constituency. He shows no comprehension of the reality that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" constitute "benefits," so to speak, of the very first order. This race will be a most interesting one to watch, with ramifications extending far beyond the state line of Florida itself. All I can say is that, at this point, if Charlie Crist's new challenger ever wants another fancy coiffure, I'd be proud and happy to pony up the funds for it myself.
© Helen Weir
March 30, 2010
As the old song puts it, "Don't know much about . . ." well, in this case, Marco Rubio. Like most other interested non-Floridians, I am following his Senate primary bid against Gov. Charlie Crist because of its ideological implications for the rest of the nation. Young, outspoken, and staunchly conservative, Rubio ostensibly represents the face of the post-1994 Republican Party — a party that has learned at long last (or so it is hoped) the enduring lesson: Know McCain, Know Pain. Departure from Declarationist principle has left us not only with an Obama administration and the constitutional violations it daily commits, but also with a gutted GOP incapable of doing anything for itself, let alone for the rest of the country. Beyond that, I can't say anything for certain about Crist's appealing challenger — like, for example, whether or not he pays a lot for his haircuts, as the Governor alleges.
I do know something, however, about Charlie Crist. We all know it, though I have yet to hear it raised as an issue in this race. We know — as the Fox News ticker reminded us during Sunday's thrice-televised debate — that, five years ago this week, he was serving as Florida's Attorney General.
This Wednesday, March 31, is the fifth anniversary of the death of Terri Schindler Schiavo. Not even a sliver of soothing ice would ever reach the lips of the innocent woman who lay dying an Auschwitz-style death within the borders of the United States itself — a country founded, whether the Obama administration likes it or not, on an irrevocable insistence that our basic rights come from God, not governments, and that governments therefore have no right to revoke them.
As I have reported elsewhere, I mentioned this fact to a CNN interviewer who was on scene at the hospice at the time. He switched off the mic, regarded me with wonder, and said something to the effect of, "That's a really good point. I never thought about it that way before."
Civilization has had occasion to think about it that way before. One notable occasion was the Nuremberg Trials, when Hitler's henchmen were confronted with photos and other evidence of their crimes against humanity, and the world had to begin to morally process what they had done. There was little use in hiding behind the now-discredited "duty" defense. Nobody bought the idea that turning on the gas jets was tantamount to writing a traffic citation. A cop has no right to decide for himself, in other words, what the speed limit is. But when the human law contradicts higher law, both natural and divine, it is the human law which must give way. Because we are the servants of God and not His masters, no one — public official or otherwise — has the right to decide for himself either to issue or to follow an order that innocent human life, which is God's own private property, be destroyed.
The news outlets these days are fond of trumpeting the fact that Obamacare now constitutes "the law of the land." Funny, isn't it, how only Roe-related statutes seem to merit this particular moniker? Stopping at a red light is the law of the land, too, but you don't hear Democrats going around rubbing people's noses in it. Have American "laws" become a way of asserting the power of one group (the "valuable," the mainstream, the leftist, the Nietzschean) over another (the "useless eaters," the marginalized, and those who would champion the concept of unalienable rights according to the Judeo-Christian tradition)? Don't real laws exist precisely to avert intrasocietal predation of this very description? Where things like abortion, infanticide, the devaluation of the handicapped, their starvation and dehydration, and the establishment of government agencies to make such supposedly "medical" determinations for the rest of us, are concerned, does corrupt manipulation of the political process actually confer upon 2,000 pages of unintelligible and unexamined jargon the moral force of law?
Around the neck of Senate candidate Crist, challenger Rubio has successfully hung the Obama/stimulus money albatross already. But what about this question — when Terri lay dying, where was Attorney General Crist, who wears his white hair as if it were a white cowboy hat? Even the feckless Jeb Bush was all over TV that critical fortnight, pleading for Terri's life if not taking effective executive action. It ought to have sent an ice cube down our collective American back to hear Crist declaring, during Sunday's debate, that his electoral victory would help ensure an enhanced "quality of life" for all Floridians.
So what are we to make of the prospect of a Senator Crist — or even a President Crist, as some allege is his real ambition? What would such a man do in federal office, now that healthcare has been fundamentally socialized? Why would we expect him to stand up to a bigger, stronger, more voracious, and in fact nationwide death panel, having in effect presided over a Terri-sized one already? Crist's acceptance of stimulus funding for the Sunshine State constitutes, in other words, one of the least troubling ways in which he demonstrates an ideological affinity for the most anti-life Chief Executive in the history of the United States.
On Monday morning, I put in a call to Marco Rubio's campaign headquarters. A staffer who identified himself as "Louis" gave me a prompt and polite reply: Rubio believes that Terri's feeding tube should not have been removed, and that she should have been allowed to live in the care of the loving Schindler family who fought so hard on her behalf.
Last Sunday, Charlie Crist kept insisting that a public official's job is to secure "benefits" for his constituency. He shows no comprehension of the reality that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" constitute "benefits," so to speak, of the very first order. This race will be a most interesting one to watch, with ramifications extending far beyond the state line of Florida itself. All I can say is that, at this point, if Charlie Crist's new challenger ever wants another fancy coiffure, I'd be proud and happy to pony up the funds for it myself.
© Helen Weir
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
