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. 151
    Travis says:

    LC TerribleTroy, Imperial Centurion @:

    I’m thrilled to amuse you, Troy.

    I don’t care if anyone calls it the Civil War, or the War of the Smurfs.

    What I take exception to is if someone seriously claims that the war was begun, and waged for the purpose of freeing the slaves.

    It wasn’t, and I’m sure the majority of people here are fully aware of that.

    Still, the myth persists in many people minds, that it affects their thinking as in the assertion that if Lincoln had not waged the war, that the CSA would yet be engaging in slavery. Unlike every other nation in the civilized world, those EVIL Southerners would be owning slaves. Really now. That is sloppy talk, and sloppy thinking.

    The Confederates were not a nation of wicked plantation owners who beat their slaves every Friday. The Yankees were not universally altruistic do-gooders.

    However, (to return to the overall topic of this thread) the moral issue of abortion is similar to the institution of slavery as we have factions whose feelings are so strong on the matter that some seem perfectly willing to go to war to change (or maintain) the practice. To some it is murder, and to others it is a legal right.

    I think it is fair to ask those who see abortion as an unforgivable evil, what it will take to enforce it? How many other conservative principles have to be ignored, or abandoned for that one particular issue?

  2. 152

    I think it is fair to ask those who see abortion as an unforgivable evil, what it will take to enforce it? How many other conservative principles have to be ignored, or abandoned for that one particular issue?

    Ok, now that you want to have a discussion, I’ll bite. Which principals are you referring to?

  3. 153
    LC Gonzman says:

    LC SkyeChild G.L.O.R., Imperial Grammar Hun sez:

    My comment to Gonzo was in regards to HIS comment about a strawman argument. And he comes across as very condescending, even if he doesn’t mean to.

    When you take part of an argument, omit half of it, and then attack the part you cherry-picked out of it as the whole of the argument, what is the correct form of that bad logic, then?

    You can be as hateful to me as you want, but if you’re going to try to give me a public spanking, don’t whine for three pages when I yank the paddle from your hands and turn it around. And if you don’t want the snark-meter set at 10, don’t turn it up in the first place.

    And if you think I’m bad, go over to some lefty joint like Pandagon and try that kind of argumentation.

  4. 154
    LC Gonzman says:

    Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere sez:

    Ok, now that you want to have a discussion, I’ll bite. Which principals are you referring to?

    Amendment X

    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.

    Please identify to me – in the Constitution – where the Federal Government gets to dictate to each state what their criminal code should be.

    (And arguments in the form of “They do it here” will be met with the same raised eyebrow my children got when I heard “He’s doing it too!” or “She did it first!”)

    Much as I or you may not like it, once I make an exception for the principle articulated in Amendment X, it no longer becomes a question of whether they can stick their nose in State business or not, but which parts of state business they may stick their nose into.

  5. 155
    Eyas says:

    Shitstorm accomplished! :em04:

  6. 156
    LC Anniee451 says:

    Pandagon instituted the registration to comment because of me LOL – I knew Amanda way back in the NOW days and apparently she still thinks she’s 22, because she’s STILL going on about those icky middle-aged people over 30 or gasp! 40 even though she’s over 30 herself. What a complete bitch, and her lackeys are even worse.

    Skye I think it’s apparent that ten ten IS one of the nevernevernever crowd, and you seem mighty close yourself, if you can’t distinguish between a child who physically CAN NOT bring a child to term and birth it because it will kill her, same as an ectopic pregnancy, which CAN NOT be brought to term because it will kill the mother and the baby, and an elective procedure done for convenience. In all cases the baby will die; the difference is whether an innocent girl or woman dies too, when it’s so easily prevented. I’ve already acknowledged that MOST abortions are for birth control and for convenience, and I already know it’s murder. Though in the case of medically necessary I do not think it’s murder; I think it is completely justifiable, if sad.

    My question is the same as Travis’. It’s for the people who are willing to sacrifice EVERYTHING at the altar of “nevernevernever” and vote for ANYONE who talks pro-life (despite the fact that there’s almost nothing the president can do about it) at the expense of everything else. That’s why we end up with lamefucks like McCain and it’s REALLY maddening.

  7. 157
    LC Anniee451 says:

    Too many people will vote for a socialist/communist/anarchist/fascist so long as he toes the pro-life line, is what I mean. I don’t generally count the company here among those because this is where I find the best and the brightest. But it IS a problem and it IS hurting conservatism. People who know nothing about economics or civics and only know “No abortion!”

    Doesn’t it make more sense to start getting rid of the late terms and working our way towards limiting them to only the most necessary, only the rapes and incests (which account for what, 2% of all abortions, maybe?) and reducing it by as much as we can to start? We aren’t going to get it all at once. And maybe, just maybe we can end up with a federalist who knows it’s a state issue and we can give it back to states to vote on.

  8. 158
    Travis says:

    Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere sez:

    I think it is fair to ask those who see abortion as an unforgivable evil, what it will take to enforce it? How many other conservative principles have to be ignored, or abandoned for that one particular issue?
    Ok, now that you want to have a discussion, I’ll bite. Which principals are you referring to?

    How about rolling back socialism? Privatizing social security? Strengthening free-trade? reducing taxes, and shrinking the size of government? Enforcing our borders and immigration laws? Fighting Islamic extremists like we are actually SERIOUS about it? How about eliminating the Department of Education? How about permitting exploitation of known oil deposits where it is presently taboo? How about rolling back federal drug and gun laws to what they were in 1895? How about we leave the UN and convert the UN building to condos?
    Whatever happened to those term limits that Republicans promissed in 1994?
    How about enforcing the Bill of Rights, with prosecution, and prison terms for politicians, and other government employees who violate it?

    Just off the top of my head.

    The conversation right now just underscores my suspicion that absolutely NOTHING else matters to the pro-life faction.

    It’s not the only fight in town.

  9. 159

    Skye I think it’s apparent that ten ten IS one of the nevernevernever crowd, and you seem mighty close yourself, if you can’t distinguish between a child who physically CAN NOT bring a child to term and birth it because it will kill her,

    As I see it, Annie, you are making several assumptions here, which don’t necessarily hold true. First, you seem to be making the claim that all nine year old girls are incapable of carrying a child to term…which may or may not be true. I’m five foot nothin’, and I’ve seen some girls that age who are bigger and stockier than I am, and weigh more. Technically, *I* should not have been able to pop out 8+-pounders, but I was, and did.

    Second, you seem to be limiting God in this equation. I believe, as 10-10 does, that God allows everything for a reason. If WE make the decision to play God, we prevent Him from perhaps working miracles. Who’s to say that God wouldn’t cause her to miscarry?

    Third, you proceed from the assumption that I would never condone one. That’s false. There is no way that an ectopic pregnancy could EVER be viable…if the tube ruptured, both mother and baby could/very likely would die. As for birth defects (you mentioned anancephely in an earlier post), ask Steve what his life would be like without his beloved Sara.

    It’s ironic to me that you are concerned about a young girl having to deal with the trauma of both a rape and a resultant pregnancy, but don’t seem bothered by the psychological after-effects that an abortion would have on her.

  10. 160
    LC Anniee451 says:

    We can not impose Christian standards on the world, Skye. If you would tell your daughter (and while the 9 year old is pretty rare, I have friends who worked in clinics and 11 was not especially rare, little girls clinging to teddy bears who had been raped or molested and were now pregnant) that she should just pray that God gives her a miracle and makes her either miscarry or survive the birth, then more power to you. I wouldn’t, but that would be a choice. But if you think it even approaches sane to tell the rest of the world “Well just wait, maybe the little girl will miscarry, or maybe you, the rape victim will miscarry, or maybe there’ll be some kind of other miracle come along for you and your baby will miraculously grow a brain even though we show there is none on the sonogram” then I think you’ve got a screw loose. I wasn’t counting all birth defects, either, just those that are inconsistent with life, such as not having a brain, etc. You are trying to preach a Christian message to me when I already get it but if you’re trying to preach it to the world and make them heed it, what do you think you’re going to accomplish?

    Anyway, we’ve got a fuck of a lot more to worry about in this country than abortion – we keep handing over full power and control to the government it won’t matter a flying fuck if we’re for or against abortion – there won’t be any choice left in anything. We’re well on the way to slavery already, we’re already in a soft tyranny at the very best; maybe it’s time to prioritize.

  11. 161
    LC Anniee451 says:

    Eyas sez:

    Shitstorm accomplished!

    Indeed

  12. 162

    The conversation right now just underscores my suspicion that absolutely NOTHING else matters to the pro-life faction.

    If you’d get off of your high horse long enough, you’d realize that a good many of us are part of that pro-life faction, and are just as concerned as you are about those things you mentioned.

    Considering that this thread started out about the murder of a baby-killer, it makes sense that it would go that direction.

  13. 163
    LC Gonzman says:

    Pandagon instituted the registration to comment because of me LOL – I knew Amanda way back in the NOW days and apparently she still thinks she’s 22, because she’s STILL going on about those icky middle-aged people over 30 or gasp! 40 even though she’s over 30 herself. What a complete bitch, and her lackeys are even worse.

    Hehehe – yeah, the ol’ self-proclaimed cum-guzzler runs from any place without a sympathetic moderator when I come around.

    She sent a couple of her lackeys over to my corner of the internet a couple years ago. After I took the hide off them, they ran like bitches too.

  14. 164
    St3nch says:

    I vehemently despise the pro-life/pro-choice war. Too much propaganda and misdirection on either side. To me it is very simple…

    1.Medically necessary abortions – ectopic/fetus not viable/mother endangered

    2.Psychological based abortions – rape/mental illness – these are rare but are rightfully contentious

    3.Birth Control – majority of abortions

    When every knee is bowed, I will be at peace with supporting #1, knowing that I prayed about #2 and asked for His guidance, and knowing that I totally oppose #3. Is that pro-life or pro-choice? I guess I’m more Pro-Christ.

    Tiller chose his side in this conflict and is now a casualty of this war. I pray for his family, but the Almighty will judge the man. Murder is wrong, but is dying in a battle you chose to go to the front line the same?

    Before the NeverNeverNever crowd comes down on me, you do realize that most modern birth control pills are not “true” contraceptives. They don’t stop conception of the sperm and egg….they stop implantation of the fertilized egg – arguably a form of abortion. Unless your birth control actually stops ovulation or you are using a barrier (condom), be careful about what you preach!

    Pro-choice crowd – there is a reason that pedophiles/child murders often have to be sequestered in prison. Even those with the blackest souls recognize the evil of killing/taking innocence for the pleasure or convience of another.

  15. 165

    then I think you’ve got a screw loose

    Think what you wish. I’ve been accused of worse. :em93: How about we just agree to disagree?

  16. 166
    Ten-Ten says:

    Anniee

    I believe every word in the bible. It’s not likely that scripture is going to piss me off; though someone twisting or misusing it usually will.

    Quoting Romans here is not twisting or misusing.

    It goes to Christian obedience.

    We are commanded to obey God. Nowhere in scripture does it say that we can disobey if the result of obedience is just too painful to accept. As to the case of the nine year old, it would be devastating. I can’t possibly fathom anything good coming from that horrible situation. But I’m not God.

    Consider Job. God was pleased with Job. He was faithful and obedient. Yet God allowed Satan to attack Job. He killed his children, destroyed his flocks and wealth. He afflicted him with disease and boils. It went so badly for Job that his wife suggested that he curse God and die.

    But Job remained faithful and obedient. And God rewarded him for it.

    I’m not callous or unfeeling, but as a Christian, I must obey God. “Thou shalt not kill” is not a suggestion.

    If a grown woman is told she’ll die if she has a baby and takes the chance in God’s name, that’s great.

    If that grown woman is a Christian, she’s not taking a chance. She’s obeying God.

    If we tell the whole world they have to do the same or that their 9 year old daughter has to do the same after being raped (and I only use that because it’s happened more than once in the past couple years; it’s so horrifying) then we’re gonna find ourselves in a hell of a fight.

    No one said Christianity was gonna be easy. Do you want to appease the world or serve your King?

    So there you go, Skye Child, there is your example right here of the NEVERNEVERNEVERNEVER! crowd. Does gonzo still seem full of himself when he was actually correct?

    If you mean NEVERNEVERNEVER! twist God’s commands to my liking, I’ll accept that label gladly.

  17. 167
    LC Anniee451 says:

    Ten – I didn’t say you WERE twisting the word; I said quoting scripture is not going to piss me off (as you seemed to think it would for some bizarre reason) unless it’s being twisted. And you’re either deliberately obfuscating and blurring separate issues or you’re fucking with me, or you’re just not even comprehending what I’m saying, deliberately or otherwise. So how about we quit while we’re behind, because this is getting us nowhere and we’re talking about completely different things.

    Skye – I can do that then.

  18. 168
    LC TerribleTroy, Imperial Centurion says:

    Well I agree with Annie re: First, the late term abortion should be addressed, but I also agree it is a States issue (not the late term, the issue in general).

    And I share with Travis his frustration of one issue ponies, after all societal problems are complex and therefore must be addressed from a multi-facet approach.

    As far as Tiller I neither admire or condemn the man. I hear the undercurrent that says he hurt “the cause”, but I dont condemn him for that either. You see its obvious that he didnt give a fuck about the “cause” on the same level as others. He obviously had his belief system and acted on it knowing he was forfeiting his freedom. I’m left thinking about the process from its formation in the 60’s and the legal position of today.

    I recall the justification being “They were doing it back alley anyway” “It was a womens right” And conversley there was a burgeoning “Its ok to be a single parent” movement. Kinda contradictory in my mind…anyway …. I drift..

    My questions are…. Have we exhausted all the legal avenues available on this issue? If not, Does there stand a chance in hell for anything to change in the near future?

    How many doctors abortionists perform late term abortions?

  19. 169
    Ten-Ten says:

    Not at all. You’re saying that there are times abortion is acceptable, I’m saying no.

    I’m done….for now. :em93:

  20. 170
    LC Anniee451 says:

    Not acceptable, **necessary**. Don’t put words in my mouth. And trust me, the wires are crossed because we’re discussing different things.

  21. 171
    Ten-Ten says:

    Somebody’s wires are crossed.

  22. 172
    LC Anniee451 says:

    Last word freak, huh? So am I. Do we drop it amicably or not?

  23. 173
    LC TerribleTroy, Imperial Centurion says:

    Announcer voice: I interupt this “spat” with a word from our sponsers…

    Do You cling to your bible?

    Do you cling to your guns”

    Are you bitter?

    Do you beleive socialism is evil?

    Studies have proven that these are symtoms of “right wing extremism”

    But DONT worry we have developed a cure!

    Its “Teh KOOL Aide”

    Taken daily while watching MSNBC will cure your disease.

    In no time at all we’ll have you trading in the evil carbon footprint gas guzling SUV for a Prius.

    Your neighbors will envy you for recieveing the New York times at your door each morning.

    Yes it “Teh KOOL Aide” Finally a cure for all those “non-progressive” tendencies.

    and now back to your regularly scheduled spat…….

    DOG says Woof!

  24. 174

    Amendment X
    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.
    Please identify to me – in the Constitution – where the Federal Government gets to dictate to each state what their criminal code should be.

    Gonz,
    I want to be clear about what I am answering here, so forgive my question if you think it is simplistic. Are you insinuating that if a crime is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution as one the federal government explicitly has jurisdiction over, then the Feds may not proscribe that activity as a criminal act within the national jurisdiction?

    ————————————————————————–

    How about rolling back socialism? Privatizing social security? Strengthening free-trade? reducing taxes, and shrinking the size of government? Enforcing our borders and immigration laws? Fighting Islamic extremists like we are actually SERIOUS about it? How about eliminating the Department of Education? How about permitting exploitation of known oil deposits where it is presently taboo? How about rolling back federal drug and gun laws to what they were in 1895? How about we leave the UN and convert the UN building to condos?
    Whatever happened to those term limits that Republicans promissed in 1994?
    How about enforcing the Bill of Rights, with prosecution, and prison terms for politicians, and other government employees who violate it?

    How about finding a comment where I expressed an opinion contrary to any of these? Not just in this thread, but in any comment I’ve made here in the last 4 years.

    Just off the top of my head.

    The conversation right now just underscores my suspicion that absolutely NOTHING else matters to the pro-life faction.

    Again, I fail to see where any member of “the pro-life faction” has stated here that this is the only issue that matters. Perhaps you can point out to me where someone has said “Fuck national security, national sovereignty, economics free of onerous regulations that succeed mainly in keeping kleptocrats employed, careful weighing of proposed legislation against the Constitution and the Bill of Rights! Abortion is the ONLY issue that matters!” ?

    What is apparent to me is your sterling application of the ASSUME principal…”you’re a self-appointed guardian of morals who must be stopped at all costs before you engage in a bloody war ”…”you pro-life faction members don’t give a damn about anything other than abortion, and have no concerns about the bullshit that the Fist-Bumper-In-Chief is currently blowing by the fiiy-tooers and the complicit media.” Blahblahblah.

    You seem quite happy to be making wild-assed guesses about me because I have an opinion about the moral implications of some of the other opinions expressed, and a philosophical curiosity about some of the other opinions expressed. Fine, I get that.

    But if you can despise the left for its agenda and in the same breath consider me to be a threat worthy of your highest opposition, then I respectfully suggest that you should reprioritize your targets. You seem to be missing where the real threat lies.

  25. 175
    seagoon says:

    OK, I’ve read through this, seen the various arguments, and for me it seems that the core issue is whether you believe in democracy and rule of law or not.

    The question of whether or not abortion is acceptable to you is subordinate to whether you believe in rule by the people.

    You each have strong beliefs, and I respect that- but said beliefs, even if backed by Scripture, are not law unless you can get the law changed. I think that that is the gist of ‘render unto Caesar’ – except you have the ability to change Caesar’s will, if you band together.

    Just a thought, written in the PRC on the 20th anniversary of Tiananmen Square.

  26. 176
    Ten-Ten says:

    Travis,

    How about rolling back socialism? Privatizing social security? Strengthening free-trade? reducing taxes, and shrinking the size of government? Enforcing our borders and immigration laws? Fighting Islamic extremists like we are actually SERIOUS about it? How about eliminating the Department of Education? How about permitting exploitation of known oil deposits where it is presently taboo? How about rolling back federal drug and gun laws to what they were in 1895? How about we leave the UN and convert the UN building to condos?
    Whatever happened to those term limits that Republicans promissed in 1994?
    How about enforcing the Bill of Rights, with prosecution, and prison terms for politicians, and other government employees who violate it?

    Preach it Brother! (Although I’d like to see the UN Building pushed into the East River)

    The conversation right now just underscores my suspicion that absolutely NOTHING else matters to the pro-life faction.

    I’m as Pro-Life as I can possibly be and I agree with everything you just listed. Strongly.

    It’s not the only fight in town.

    No it isn’t. But from a faith based perspective, I think it’s the most important.

  27. 177

    Seagoon,

    When said “rule of law” goes against God’s laws, Christians must obey God’s laws. You are taking “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s” out of context.

  28. 178
    seagoon says:

    Skye, my point is that you can always choose to obey God’s laws for yourself- but in a situation where secular and divine laws are in conflict, but do not bear directly upon your person, which do you obey?

    If you believe in democracy and rule of law, then you must act with your conscience, do whatever you can within the law to change it, and leave judgment of that which you cannot change to God.

    At least you have the power to change your government.

    As to ‘render unto Caesar’, it was not my intent to quote scripture, rather I was quoting Misha quoting scripture. I’m not a Christian, and wouldn’t think to argue Bible scholarship with you or anyone else on this site. The expression is a common idiom, and it made me think about when, and how we as people can set aside minor conflicts to tackle big ones, and what can happen if we do not.

    I don’t have much of a dog in this fight- I was just moved to comment by the day, the place, and the renewing of the realization that the rule of law is a precious thing.

  29. 179
    BigDogg says:

    Well … at least Misha titled this post appropriately! :em95:

  30. 180

    At first, operation rescue renounced any knowledge of the shooter, then, an alert camera guy noticed a note on his dash, shot it through the windshield,, a,, phone,,number,,,

    NOW I’m thinkin’ he’s a hired gun.

  31. 181
    LC Gonzman says:

    Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere sez:

    Are you insinuating that if a crime is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution as one the federal government explicitly has jurisdiction over, then the Feds may not proscribe that activity as a criminal act within the national jurisdiction?

    No.

    I am saying that if a thing is not specifically enumerated in the constitution as the purview of the federal government that the federal government has no business making any laws or regulations either permitting, restricting, regulating, or prohibiting them.

  32. 182

    No.

    I am saying that if a thing is not specifically enumerated in the constitution as the purview of the federal government that the federal government has no business making any laws or regulations either permitting, restricting, regulating, or prohibiting them.

    Ok. So the federal government has no buisiness making laws prohibiting kiddnapping, or child porn, or female genital mutilation, or art theft, or human trafficking, or partial birth abortions? Because none of those activities are specifically ennumerated as areas of federal jurisdiction in the Constitution.

  33. 183

    In my humble laymanship, I understand the constitution as limiting the areas that the government can and can’t go.

    Kidnapping, theft, slavery are most certainly in the scope of legislative address.
    Abortions?,, There’s an amazing array of factors to consider, some evidence can’t be considered if it arises from emotional testimony, rather than tested, reproducable evidence.

    I tend to think that the one’s with the least consideration of ALL of those factors, and the loudest spiel, simply muddy the water.
    ‘Creates battle lines between families and friends.
    ‘Gives the devil lot’sa room to maneuver.

    Advances in technology will always blow by the general population’s attention span/scope of interest, leaving areas that should be precisely defined stewing in a wide array of unsupportable interpretations.

    This is how we divide ourselves, not our fault, just our problem.

  34. 184
    LC Gonzman says:

    Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere sez:

    No.
    Ok. So the federal government has no buisiness making laws prohibiting kiddnapping, or child porn, or female genital mutilation, or art theft, or human trafficking, or partial birth abortions? Because none of those activities are specifically ennumerated as areas of federal jurisdiction in the Constitution.

    That is correct.

  35. 185
    LC Gonzman says:

    And that is not because those things are not worthy of being made illegal, but for the same reason I did not, when I owned my own business, look to my receptionist to fix my customer’s computers, to wit; That was not her function.

  36. 186

    No.
    Ok. So the federal government has no buisiness making laws prohibiting kiddnapping, or child porn, or female genital mutilation, or art theft, or human trafficking, or partial birth abortions? Because none of those activities are specifically ennumerated 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.

  37. 187

    And Gonz, I’m not saying it solely to give you shit. 😉 This is something that believe it or not, I had to sit back, do some reading and reason through last night. The examples I pointed out were ones I read through last night, along with the Congressional findings that authority was derived from implied powers conferred by the Necessary and Proper Clause, the Commerce Clause, the treaty powers and the 14h Amendment.

  38. 188
    LC TerribleTroy, Imperial Centurion says:

    BisW….. I’se know’d dat you is jus trying to con fuuse us wit your big city haigh falutin lawyer talk…… all that “title 18” rigamorole, etc. etc. Well I’se fer one haint a fallin fer it! All you fancy pants schmancy college edumacation fellers better get to wisinin up! Der’s a reckonin comin……

    POWER TO DA PEOPLE! Amen!

    BTW…. DOG doesnt seem to have a problem with Killin late term abortionists…. he keeps asking “were dey be at”?

  39. 189

    BisW….. I’se know’d dat you is jus trying to con fuuse us wit your big city haigh falutin lawyer talk…… all that “title 18? rigamorole, etc. etc. Well I’se fer one haint a fallin fer it! All you fancy pants schmancy college edumacation fellers better get to wisinin up! Der’s a reckonin comin……

    POWER TO DA PEOPLE! Amen!

    BTW…. DOG doesnt seem to have a problem with Killin late term abortionists…. he keeps asking “were dey be at”?

    I know. Godamn fucking lawyers. Always making things wayyyyy too godamn complicated. If you only knew how much they mess up my life…

  40. 190
    LC TerribleTroy, Imperial Centurion says:

    I hear ya .. I hear ya…. nuthin but luv for ya on this end though. Its them OTHER damn lawyers that make my life miserable….. always with the same ole thing….. “Troy! you can not brandish a weapon and threaten the neighbor each time his domestic dispute that has spilled out in the street wakes you up in the middle night.” “Troy! You cannot shoot the neighbors dog for barking all night long. We know you’ve reported it many times….” Oh .. and my favorite….”Troy you cannot chase down speeders, stop sign blowers, or insanely high volume music drivers, driving down your block and ask them what the fuck is wrong with them?….

    But then again the asshole neighbor moved…..

    Dog dont bark anymore…..

    An the incidence of dumasses motorvating down my street has been reduced providing my child and about 12 others on this block a safe environment with which to play.

    So I got my cake….. now if those lawyers would just stop fuckin with me, I could have some icing with that.

  41. 191
    LC Gonzman says:

    Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere sez:

    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.

    Full faith and credit. If California makes it illegal to kidnap children, Ohio is obligated to recognize it, and to extradite them back. If Ohio chooses to make it legal by neglecting to make it illegal – what business is it of California? Ohio will be the one eventually a state full of childless people because nobody wants to lose their children.

    You apparently missed – or ignored – my very next post: And that is not because those things are not worthy of being made illegal, but for the same reason I did not, when I owned my own business, look to my receptionist to fix my customer’s computers, to wit; That was not her function.

    This is precisely why I still identify as a Libertarian, namely, because of all the Right-Wing, Nannystating liberals. While the left wing Nanny-staters have their own peculiar evils, such as insuring that I don’t eat too many french fries, or heaven forfend, have half a handful of peanuts on a plane flight, the Right winger nannys are just as convinced that without their benevolent hand to guide us poor ignorant rubes, that we won’t have the foresight to pass laws such as would prevent theft, or kidnapping of my children or grandchildren, or the recording of some pervert diddling them.

    And I’m not too damn far from Kentucky – so you can rest assured that, first time Das Dumbkopfs ein Indianapolis decide that maybe it would be cool to legalize child porn in Indiana to tax it, and legalize kidnapping to ensure their tax base, that I will find me a place over the border, install one of my full auto kits, and hide the wreckage of and bodies within any car with Hoosier plates that comes within a mile of my perimeter. And I am willing to bet that by the time I got my kitchen unpacked, at that point the Kentuckians would have legalized the hunting of Hoosiers with no bag limit within Kentucky borders.

    It is just not the job of the federal government to micromanage the states. Otherwise, why bother with state governments? That was the whole purpose of having such things, as to insure that – up to a bare minimum standard of basic rights and forms – the states would be allowed to run their own affairs, and be trusted to do so – a novel and truly radical concept. But somewhere the Puritans decided to put their hands to it, out of the gnawing fear that someone, somewhere, might not be living their lives according to the dictates of the Puritan conscience. And the even more hollow fear that they might be doing perfectly well, and be perfectly happy doing that.

    And just keep your mouth shut, Deej – ya’ll are no damn better, and even worse as a bunch of smug, self-righteous, sanctimonious and moralizing finger-wagging old hags.

    As long as I mind my own business, keep my hands to myself, and accept the consequences I should be allowed to live my life free of interference as I bloody well see fit, even if Republicans or Democrats don’t approve. And the only way I retain any moral authority to claim that right is by extending the same courtesy to people whose life and choices I don’t approve of or even wish to be a party to.

    G.K. Chesterson – someone I read a lot of – once opined words to the effect that a Free Man owned himself, and might ruin his life by a variety of vices or bad choices, and if he did he might very well be a damned fool, and might probably be a damned soul, but if he MAY NOT than he was no more a Free Man than a DOG. And the only addendum I have to that is I’m just as much a dog even if I’m not allowed to do things I wouldn’t be inclined to do anyway, because then I have still lost my free agency.

  42. 192

    Very well. Other things in the Constitution, such as the supremacy clause, the necessary and proper clause, the commerce clause…all simply useless surplusage in an otherwise elegant and ultiltarian document.

    I’ll happily concede that you are consistant and leave it at that.

  43. 193
    LC Gonzman says:

    Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere sez:

    Very well. Other things in the Constitution, such as the supremacy clause, the necessary and proper clause, the commerce clause…all simply useless surplusage in an otherwise elegant and ultiltarian document.
    I’ll happily concede that you are consistant and leave it at that.

    Supremacy Clause, Article the VI, 2nd paragraph:

    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

    Edgar v. Mite Corporation, 457 U.S. 624 (1982), the money quote:

    “A state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid federal statute.”

    The Meat of the ruling holds a two prong test when the supremacy clause applies, when (A) compliance with both federal and state law is impossible, and (B) when state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the (lawful) full purposes and objectives of Congress.

    Elastic Clause (Name I learned) Article I, Section 8, clause 18:

    The Congress shall have Power – To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

    This says simply what I have said – in order to carry out the functions necessary, Congress shall be able to make what laws it needs to do so. It gives Congress no power to make laws nor does it give jurisdiction over that which it WISHES it could do.

    Interstate Commerce Clause, Article I, section 8, clause 3:

    To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.

    Means what it says: If a state or states are engaging in foreign trade – it may be regulated, including taxed. Same with Indian tribes. Same within the US (But all taxes must be uniform!)

    If it is inside the state – no power given.

    I’ve stated these fully, and not out of context, and I really see no power there – nor anywhere withing Article I, Section 8 which enumerates the limited powers of the federal government – which says “FedGov, Inc shall have the power to tell the States what offenses must be listed as felonies and misdemeanors, and what punishments must be given. In fact, my reading of Article clause 17 specifically limits this to the District of Columbia.

    And no, I haven’t cited two hundred and umpteen years of blatantly unconstitutional power grabbing rationalizations precedent in here.

  44. 194

    And no, I haven’t cited two hundred and umpteen years of blatantly unconstitutional power grabbing rationalizations precedent in here.

    That makes me think of an exchange I once witnessed in a courtroom when I was a brand new baby lawyer. A young attorney was making an empassioned argument against the application of established caselaw regarding partnerships. Oblivious to the weakness of his arguments, or perhaps just deciding to double down, he finally blurted out “Besides, Your Honor, the case the Plaintiff cites is old. It was decided in 1898!” There was a moment of silence. The judge looked to my boss, who represented the Plaintiff. He spoke clearly, and with the slightest hint of amusement “Your Honor, where I went to law school, we called “old cases” that have never been overturned “Precedent”. ”

    However, your statement harkens me back to this:

    How about, then, as long as we are trying to make a go of the whole “Nation of Laws” thing, we actually give it an honest try?
    Like it or not, the law says George Tiller gets to murder babies. It sucks royally, but if Person A gets to decide that law should be ignored, the pervert down the road gets to decide that his dick and your kid’s ass need to make acquaintances, and the law you like be damned.

    Perhaps then, we are only a “Nation of Laws” that you recognize? Seems like picking and choosing.

    I’ve had to read my fair share of cases, laws, and the findings that support their authority, and I have just a little trouble with the concept that so many extraordinarily clever and intelligent individuals 120 years ago…or more( you cast the net, not me) would so blatantly violate the Constitution without intervention by a free and formerly well-educated populace. Still, I’ve had my bellyful of friendly fire for a few days. You answered my question, honestly, and in detail, which is more than we can expect in too many other places on the net today.

  45. 195
    LC Gonzman says:

    I cite the supremacy clause itself; if that doesn’t say that the plain words of the constitution take precedence over anything else – regulations, state laws, treaties, what have you – then it means nothing but what the latest crop of 9 black robes decides it means, and might as well have been written by Humptey Dumptey out of “Through the Looking Glass.”

    “Shall Make No Law…”

    “Shall Not Be Infringed..”

    “Shall Be Reserved…”

    They’re not that hard. And I have heard countless people tell me “But Gonzo, it’s not that simple….” No. It is that simple.

    It’s just not easy.

    We have a second Amendment, and it is very plain. And we have a nominee to the SCOTUS right now who has rationalized it away. Somehow, “The People” means something else in that one little amendment, and something else somewhere. And somehow, the 14th Amendment means something else there, and something else in the rest of the constitution. We can extrapolate an uneneumerated right to – say – abortion belongs to every woman in every state, but a specific right – to keep and bear arms – doesn’t?

    Do you wonder now why I place faith in the document, and not the interpreters thereof?

  46. 196
    LC Wil, S.C.E. says:

    You may have missed a small nuance, Gonz:

    Do you wonder now why I place faith in the document, and not the interpreters thereof?

    In a world where one novel theory is that one can confuse the meaning of the word “is”, you don’t have the only possible interpretation of the Constuition.

    As I understand it, Judges are the referees between conflicting interpretations of the same.

    Yes, I believe most of the Constitution is as plain as the difference between night and day. I also know that there has to be SOME referee.

  47. 197
    Ten-Ten says:

    200! Woo-Hoo!

  48. 198
    LC Gonzman says:

    Wil, once we had the concept of “A living document” that “has to evolve” or some other such nonsense – what can you say?

    I’ve read the Constitution. It’s not legalese, it’s not obscure or arcane – it is a very plain, and straightforward thing. And either it means what it says – in plain English – or it does not. It’s that simple. One. Or the other.

    You can point to what the authors themselves said about the second amendment – doesn’t matter to some people. The referees are playing the game. It’s no longer a rule of law. It’s a rule of men. As much as we need referees, the rulebook is by far more important. Once the referees throw away the rulebook, start ignoring some fouls, or start making up infractions – what use are they?

    A case in point is the Dredd Scott decision. As much as people may deplore its morality – it was decided rightly constitutionally. Moral. Legal. Two different things.

    Don’t like it? Change the Constitution.

    It’s the same with abortion. There is no authority for the Federal government to come in and tell a state what they shall legalize or no, unless it be specifically allocated to the federal government to do so. How do I know this? Because it says so in the constitution. 10th amendment.

    It’s not a question of liking abortion. I don’t. There is no authority granted to regulate it at the federal level. They can’t – under the constitution – mandate a universal yes. Roe V. Wade is bad, activist, law. We have howled about this for almost 40 years. The flip side – the bad with the good – is they can’t mandate a universal no. That has been the largest and most consistant position of the pro-life movement since Roe v. Wade, and to hold that they have no jurisdiction – it being bad law – but can forbid it is logically untenable. It is self contradictory.

    It’s why there is so much trouble getting the fucking thing overturned, because we have MORONS screeching “You never should have made that decision! You have no authority over it! Now BAN it!” It’s idiotic. Plain, fucking, dumb as a box of dicks. The Pro-aborts must sit around giggling like a bunch of monkeys the way they have distracted the pro-lifers into the morality argument, and focused their attention and resources there, away from the LEGAL arguments, where they could actually do some fucking good.

    And the moralizers fall for it. Every. Fucking. Time. Because they are single issue zealots who just won’t shut the fuck up, and are more concerned with preaching than converting; and just love to proclaim their own righteousness. And you can’t get it through their heads that their shrill and strident yammering is doing more harm than good, and to sit down, have a cup of STFU, and work on something practical and pragmatic that actually has a chance of success – or let someone else do it.

    37 years of moralizing. How’s that working out? What was that about doing the same thing over and over and over and expecting a different result every time?

    And it’s why I pretty much have given up with the pro-life movement, because it is populated and run by asswipes who are more concerned with BEING right than with DOING right.

  49. 199
    LC Wil, S.C.E. says:

    Gonz:

    Please don’t get the idea that I am an abortion supporter. Never gonna happen.

    And I’m not a “NEVEREVEREVER” either.

    I really believe we need referees. I wish it were easier to remove bad ones, but we need referees.

    I also believe the Abortion Debate (yes, it has evolved to the level of caps) could be simpler if the about 75 percent of America that can agree that about 98% of abortions are simple unexcused murder would stop arguing long enough to outlaw that 98%, rather than loudly argue scream at each other over the remaining 2%.

    But that’s just me.

    Meanwhile, I’m enjoying watching you and BisW kick this around. I just had a thought, as opposed to any real disagreement.

  50. 200
    LC Gonzman says:

    It’s not a question of supporting abortion. I swear to God, though, sometimes Republicans are ten times worse than Libertarians could ever hope to be when it comes to purity tests and immediate gratification.

    The notion of small government either means something or it doesn’t. And if all it means is “The government shouldn’t shove YOUR morality down MY throat – it should shove MY morality down YOURS” then all we have is a right-wing liberal. Like El Busho. Or McSame.

    That’s why I have to laugh when I hear people like Deej talk about the “failure of conservatism” or “the past eight years of conservative policies.” Horseshit. All it has been has been donkeys in elephant suits, just wanting big government for THEIR pet issues.

    Hell, Rudy was by far more consrvative – in any meaningful sense – then McCain ever was. Oooo! but he was Teh Icky on Aboooooooooooooooooooooortion! Better to nominate another liberal who paid the right lip service to The One and True Issue. Aiaiaiaiaiaiaiaiai! Inshah! There is no God but Abortion, and Randall Terry is its prophet!

    Jumping Jesus. Get the damn Federal nose out of it and the problem would half solve itself in months. Yeah, you’d probably have a couple states hold out, but once the libs and gays who fled there bred (or rather, failed to breed) themselves out of existence, that’d end it. It took us how long to get here? But mention “No, there is not going to be some grand, romantic, magical event that ends it all in the blink of an eye” and these freaks can’t be bothered.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.