kenderstest

...and complain a little bit.

First the intro. Even though I consider myself a centrist, I have come to realize that what I call centrist is being called "conservative". I am firmly against almost everything todays left stands for and have been given the obligatory label of "Right-Wing-Wacko" for my insistence that the left is full of socialist idiots that have become enamored of europe and see nothing but evil in the republican party.

Let me tell you something. The "Progressive" left is so close to creating their version of europes socialist utopia that to stand by and not fight against it is almost an act of treason. They rail against the religious right, and well they should, for the religious right, as they define it, is an extremely small minority, and that group is so far away from creating the Christian Theocracy that the left fears so much as to be considered a pipe dream. A theocracy cannot exist in America. No matter what the left tells you.

Let me break it down as I see it. This is how the conservatives see the left:

"Progressive"=socialists. That group of folks that want to lead us down the path europe is on. Filled with people whose only moral concern is what is good for the state, and whose ethics seem to be centered around whether people are "useful" and are leading a "quality" life, the "progressive" left is full of amoral people whose insistence that religion be hidden from public view and outright cowardice and demands for "peaceful" solutions are becoming almost traitorous in their actions.

Conversely, I believe this is how the liberals see the right:
"Conservative"=religious fanatics. That group of folks that want to see crosses on every lawn and have religion taught in school. This group of people fear homosexuals, want to destroy the environment to make more money, could care less if homeless people starve and want to take over the world through military power. Since Bush the Younger was brought into power after stealing the election America has lost many civil liberties and is resembling the early days of the Third Reich. Full of Holier than Thou bible thumpers, the right wingers are on a quest to bring about their "end times" and usher in the return of their savior Jesus.

To steal a famous quote, What we have here is a failure to communicate.

Neither one of these definitions fit the majority of Americans on the left or the right. In fact, I am certain that as a group we are much more tolerant of each other than the blogosphere would lead you to believe.

But we do have some serious issues that need clarification. And I will be clarifying things as we go along in the next few months, weeks, and if I am not assassinated by some leftist troll that hunts me down for spanking him with the Big Spiked Paddle of Truth, even years.


On to todays Top Story.


Most everyone of you are aware by now of the story of the Evil Granddaughter that is trying, and apparently succeeding, in starving poor grandmama to death down in GA.

There are several points to bring up here, and a few questions that need to be asked.

But before I get into that I want to know why we will let a man that went on a bombing spree and caused deaths plead out of a death penalty while we let innocent people starve to death?

I mean really people....WTF???


Point One:
"In her living will, Magouirk stated that fluids and nourishment were to be withheld only if she were either comatose or "vegetative," and she is neither. Nor is she terminally ill, which is generally a requirement for admission to a hospice."

The people that were FOR Terri being starved to death constantly brought up Terris "rights" to decide for herself if she wanted to die. You all know the story and the storm surrounding it so I won't rehash that sordid bit, but what I want to know is WHERE are those people now? Where are the people that are concerned about Grandmas rights? And why is she in a hospice? The entire hospice system is corrupt, I believe,a nd needs a thorough overhaul. The government needs to go after these places and shut down the ones that admit people that are NOT terminal and bring CRIMINAL charges for FRAUD against the people that are admitting patients against the rules.

Point Two:
"Grandmama is old and I think it is time she went home to Jesus," Gaddy told Magouirk's brother and nephew, McLeod and Ken Mullinax. "She has glaucoma and now this heart problem, and who would want to live with disabilities like these?"

Where the hell are the Christians at on this one? I not heard one person outside the lofty air of the blogosphere telling the world not to listen to this woman, that Christians would not starve their family members, or anyone else for that matter, to death. Why is that? Is it just me or does this woman sound like one of those nutjobs in a horror flick that peacefully says "Jesus told me he wants you to be at peace" just before she plants an ax in the skull of one the second rate characters?

Point Three:
The in-house counsel for the hospice, Carol Todd, is said to have claimed that granny is in the hospice because of the hospitals failure to exercise due diligence in regards to grannys living will and Evil Granddaughters power of attorney, which is financial, not medical. Now what I want to know is whose ass will be in the sling over that?

Also, the way I read the article, if grandma is allowed to have the feeding tube re-inserted she cannot stay at the hospice any longer.

Now I called the hospice, and after a short time was given the cell number for the hospices PR gal. I reached her at dinner, and she said she would call back, which she did. I had one simple question for her. I asked her of the story were true. She referred me to the policy statement that claims it is against hospice policy to with hold "nutrition and hydration" (her words) from patients, and would neither confirm nor deny the veracity of the story.

So let me sum up here the way I see things. If the story were not true, one would think that the hospice would be holding press conferences saying, "we are not starving a reasonably healthy 81 year old grandmother to death".

But they aren't doing that.

A hospice is where a lot of terminally ill people go when they are diagnosed with six months or less to live.

If you are starving a person to death while keeping them sedated it stands to reason that they are now terminal and won't last six months, so you are fulfilling your duty as a hospice.

If you provide someone with "nutrition and hydration" and have to ask them to leave the hospice because they are breaking the rules by not being terminal then you are not fulfilling your duty as a hospice when you with hold their nutrition and hydration....you are committing murder.


Crossposted@The Wide Awakes