How About Creating a Shitstorm?

It’s so much fun, after all. Or not, really. I really wasn’t going to say word one about the Tiller murder, but I realize full well that whether I write about it or not, somebody, somewhere is going to make assumptions about my opinions on the matter, so I might as well have a post pointing to what I actually DO believe in this matter.

The problem with a case like this one is that it’s really several different questions and issues getting rolled up, inappropriately and illogically, into one, so let’s take them one at a time:

1) How do I feel about Tiller no longer being on this planet? Pretty damn good. I am NOT going to pretend, even for one fleeting moment, that I feel in the least bit saddened by the fact that an infanticidal maggot no longer wastes precious oxygen. Remember, we’re talking about “late term abortion” infanticide here, a procedure so barbarian and savage that only a pisslamic fundamentalist could fail to be revolted by it. We’re talking about pulling an almost or entirely to term baby halfway out, jamming scissors into its skull and sucking out its brains, then throwing the mangled corpse away like a used paper towel. If you don’t consider that one of the most singularly disgusting, barbarian and inexcusable acts known to man, then you’re probably reading the wrong website and if you expect me to feel the least bit bad that one of its practitioners is roasting in Hell as we speak, then you don’t know me very well. You don’t know me at all.

That’s ONE issue. Here’s another one:

2) Do I think that whatsisface who did it is a pretty cool cat? Nope. When I say Tiller murder, I bloody well mean it. When you take a life and it’s not because of immediate danger to self or others, or to stop a grievous crime in progress, it’s murder. Plain and simple. I’m not saying that I can’t see situations in which even I myself might find myself doing just that, somebody hurting/killing a member of my family comes to mind, I’d track that piece of shit to the ends of the Earth and put a bullet in his brain without a second’s remorse, but it’s still murder and I’d be prepared to pay the price for it, not expecting preferential treatment because “he deserved it.” I might get preferential treatment by a jury of my peers, but I sure as Hell wouldn’t consider it something I was entitled to.

And we’re talking about me reacting to somebody who’d committed a crime. Tiller, no matter how much what he did for a living should be a crime as far as I’m concerned, a capital offense with no possibility of parole, commutation or appeal, didn’t break any laws. Not any laws of man, that is. Which is the fault of all of us, when you think about it. For all of our shouting, beating our chests and proclaiming our support for what’s good and right, We The People have never mustered the courage, perseverance and sheer stubbornness to make late term abortion illegal, everywhere. Thinking about that, I realize that maybe I do know a thing or two about how the Good Germans in the minority felt when they never managed to convince the majority of their peers that gassing the Jews was a really bad thing to do.

Bottom line: Tiller’s murderer violated the laws of man, and he must be judged by them if apprehended. Whether he is redeemed in the eyes of G-d is up to G-d, not me.

3) The religious aspect. This is important, because it’s something that the loony left doesn’t understand (along with almost everything else). “How can you not feel bad about this man being murdered while at the same time insisting that his murderer is a murderer?” Simple, really. Tiller’s murderer violated a law of man, and by that he must be judged here on Earth, as I hope and expect that he will be. But Tiller also violated the Laws of G-d, and therefore I cannot feel bad about him being a recipient of “what goes around, comes around.” It is improper, however, for man to take it upon himself to enforce the Laws of G-d, only G-d has that prerogative, and Tiller’s murderer, no matter how much I feel that this world is a cleaner place because Tiller has been removed from it, did just that. For that he will answer, just as Tiller will answer for his sins.

Think about it, fellow Christians: If we accept that punishment meted out by us for transgressions against G-d’s Laws are acceptable, even commendable, then we’re really not that far removed from the pisslamic apes who will happily shoot a woman in the back of the head for showing a bit of ankle. Isn’t there a difference between infanticide and showing ankles? Of COURSE there is, but according to the medieval savages that we’re at war with, according to their misguided and Satanic beliefs, there isn’t.

THEY are the ones getting confused, thinking that it’s THEIR job enforcing THEIR god’s laws, obviously admitting that their god isn’t capable of doing so himself. According to THEM, any transgression against the laws of their “holy” book is worthy of capital punishment, no matter what our Earthly laws say. THEY can’t separate the two, being primitive, backwards worshippers of a rock.

I like to think that we’re better.

No, make that insist on thinking that we’re better, because if we aren’t, then I’ve misunderstood everything the Bible says.

It’s not hard to say “who cares what man-made laws say about late term abortions, the Bible clearly states that it’s murder so let’s just take it upon ourselves to kill the murderers”, because it ought to be bloody well impossible to muster even one scintilla of sympathy for the likes of Tiller. But then we have to apply the same standard to the rest of the Bible. “If the Bible says it’s wrong, then we must kill the offenders.” You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say that some violations of Scripture should be punished with death and, at the same time, say that others “aren’t really all that bad.” If you disregard “vengeance is Mine” in one aspect, then you must disregard it in all aspects, logic and consistency dictates it.

And then you have to start killing the sodomites, adulterers, thieves and people who eat shellfish as well.

If that’s how you feel, then count me out.

“Render unto Caesar…”

I’d rather spend my energy getting a law prohibiting late term abortion because it IS murder passed.

Thatisall.

209 comments

  1. 201
    AyUaxe says:

    Gonzman and Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere sez:

    Ok. So the federal government has no business making laws prohibiting kidnapping, or child porn, or female genital mutilation, or art theft, or human trafficking, or partial birth abortions? Because none of those activities are specifically enumerated as areas of federal jurisdiction in the Constitution.
    That is correct.
    And I’m being painted as the radical here. Wow. Your interpretation just tossed out a whole bunch of Title 18, not to mention the phrases and clauses in the Constitution that you just rendered meaningless. Let me know how that jurisdictional fight between states goes the next time a kid is kidnapped in Cali and found with his or her captor in Missouri, or Ohio…if they’re found at all.

    Ah, the cross-examiner at work–a thing of beauty, when used in the service of truth and/or the client who pays your kids’ tuition. If Gonzman’s strict constructionist view of the Constitution throws out much of Title 18, then much of Title 18 should be thrown out. Of course, I think most of the imperial federal gummint, its laws and regulations should not merely be thrown out, but run out.

    Of course the qualifier not mentioned in BiW’s listing of “federal” crimes is that they involve interstate trafficking or conspiracy, a properly federal concern. Not an entirely fair approach to the debate. Absent any interstate or international involvement, I suspect, though I haven’t researched it, female genital mutilation, kidnapping, thefts of any kind, murders, rapes, and just about everything else you can think of as a “real crime” (i.e., excluding drug offenses, which are another area of unjustified federal intrusion on states’ rights) that occur within one state’s borders are only prosecutable under that states’ laws. Extradition is the way the “jurisdictional fight” is handled when, for instance, a murderer is apprehended in another state, after fleeing the scene of the crime. States (actually counties and parishes) handle this stuff between themselves all the time. Often, the beauty of several states having jurisdiction over aspects of a crime spree is that a scum bucket that gets off or won’t get a sufficiently severe sentence in one state can still be prosecuted in another.

    It is precisely the expansion of imperial federal power through unreasonably expansionist reading, primarily, of the commerce clause, that I object to and consider a fundamental cause of the extreme friction that has developed between the people and the existing imperial federal legal regime. I repeat my earlier statement that I consider this intrusion of ham-fisted, non-representative imperial federal power, that made Dr. Tiller’s “work” legal, a substantial cause of his murder.

    Had the will of the Kansas community where he “worked” been reflected in its laws on the subject, Dr. Tiller would’ve been behind bars or long ago moved to a jurisdiction in which his “work” was accepted as lawful–not only by far off legislators, but also by his community. All indications are that such was not the case in Kansas. Tiller was actually prosecuted and reportedly had to spend huge and borderline illegal amounts of money to get people favorable to him elected to the key prosecutorial offices before he was brought to trial. Many local commenters in other fora have suggested that an abortive (pun intended) prosecution was thereby bought and paid for. Of course, that, too happened and can happen at the local level anywhere. However, without the ambiguity and apparent authorization of Tiller’s work by the feds, even a crooked prosecutor and judge would have a difficult time preventing a jury of citizens from doing its job.

  2. 202

    I cannot yet, in good conscience, throw out the two + centuries of precedent that that would be necessary for me accept Gonz’s point of view. The very nature of my profession would not permit me to do so and continue doing what I do for a living.

    The subject of abortion is a topic of tourtured reasoning and legalistic contortionism unlike any other I can immediately call to mind. It is rife with distinctions and definitions that are more concerned with “trimesters”, and “viability”, which cause the state of legality of the act to undergo frequent transformation as medical science progresses. These advances allow an ongoing and meaningless distraction from the very core of the activity, when in truth, the answer points to itself, and is as blessedly simple as Gonz’s interpretation of the Constitution.

    When women start becoming pregnant with anything other than human beings, then I am willing to concede that abortion on demand might be a reasonable policy that is not repugnant to one of the core freedoms that birthed this country. I have yet to hear a joyous announcement from a glowing couple “We’re having a fish!”

    Until that day comes, it is a violation of the child’s 14th Amendment Right of Due Process, and I leave it to the Amendment process to determine who’s right to life prevails in the case of the unborn person vs. the health of the mother.

  3. 203
    Cricket says:

    Usually when we pray for sinners we pray for them to have a change of heart.
    I can only pray for Dr. Tiller. I didn’t know his heart, but I did know his deeds. Doesn’t scripture also tell us that ‘by their fruits shall ye know them?’

  4. 204
    LC Gonzman says:

    It’s tortured because it is unprincipled; one never has to rely on mental or semantic contortionism and hairsplitting to justify anything that isn’t.

    Cricket sez:

    I can only pray for Dr. Tiller. I didn’t know his heart, but I did know his deeds. Doesn’t scripture also tell us that ‘by their fruits shall ye know them?’

    If Tiller isn’t damned he doesn’t NEED my prayers. If he is, they are fruitless.

  5. 205
    LC Getalis, Imperial Czar of Pharmacology says:

    Prophet sez:

    Isn’t there a piece of Scripture that says something like, “Judge not lest ye be judged”?

    Judge away. Personally, I don’t trust people who fear judgment.

  6. 206
    Cricket says:

    That’s what I meant by praying for him. A change of heart. I didn’t say we shouldn’t call his actions evil, but judge by his fruits. What we find horrific about what he did was because it murdered the innocent. How can one do that and still attend church and believe in salvation…I am also tired, so I may not be making any sense. I think it is better to leave his judgment to the Almighty.

    ‘night.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.