My Political Wish List
December 20th, 2007 at 01:35am Mark Noonan
As readers know, I’m still undecided in the GOP primary - I wish Giuliani were more in tune with Catholic morals; I wish McCain would drop CFR; I wish Huckabee would call for some advice on foreign policy. I’m not going to get all that I want, of course. But I do have some desires:
1. Again and again submit a Human Life Amendment - time to end the barbarism of abortion, and the best means to do this is to debate it hotly in the public square; my view is that the more people know about abortion, the less they’ll support it. Also, would it really hurt a GOP President to actually attend a pro-life march from time to time?
2. Replace free trade with freedom trade. I once was a staunch free-trader, but no more - oh, I want there to be lots and lots of foreign trade, but I want to be a bit selective in whom we invite to participate in the world’s largest and most dynamic economy. Bottom line, I’d embargo trade with any nation not clearly under democratic governance - if we’re going to buy cheap manufactured goods on the world market, why not buy them from our fellow free men, rather than from de-facto slaves who only work to add power and wealth to their masters?
3. Going along with point 2, I’d like to have the UN put on notice - remove all non-democratic States from any position of authority in the UN, or the United States pulls out. We can’t have a concern for human rights if we allow violators of human rights to participate in our monitoring of human rights.
4. Go flat out on bringing on the new ship designs for the US Navy. And then build a lot of them - lets get that 600 ship navy. Why? because when you control the oceans, you fundamentally control the world. If we have overwhelming seapower available simultaneously for all the world’s major ocean trade routes, then we’d be in an unassailable diplomatic position to get our way, if push comes to shove.
Just a few ideas - things I’d like to see happen. My biggest fret for 2008 is that none of the candidates has articulated a clear vision of what they want for America. This nation of ours is so incredibly powerful, so incredibly wealthy; we have the power in our hands to reshape the world - what would the candidates do with this power? Small beans stuff like Bill Clinton did, or the grand challenge, such as President Bush has mustered?
This nation of ours, also, suffers from some deep social pathologies - what are the plans to deal with them? More welfare state mush? Indifference? Or is there someone out there who will cut through the utter nonsense on issues such as abortion, pornography, drug abuse, depraved popular culture, etc and actually make a move to improve things? In the grand scheme of things, we need a grand scheme - a President who will see the whole picture and chart a course for great deeds.
I’m still waiting for a candidate to come along with that sort of fire.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008
81 Comments
1. LewWaters | December 20th, 2007 at 3:30 am
I’m still waiting for a candidate to come along with that sort of fire.
Then I invite you to look seriously at long shot, Duncan Hunter. He remains virtually ignored by the media and conservatives, even though many admit he has the most conservative message and provides excellent off he cuff answers.
However, since his support is low, others don’t want to support him either. Of course, missed by many, popularity, which gains support and polling numbers, is set by the media, the same media we complain about not being fair and balanced or providing fair coverage of the war on terror.
It is time we tell the media who we want instead of the media and their polls telling us who we will get.
2. Eric T | December 20th, 2007 at 7:28 am
Lew Waters
Duncans message is shut out by the media. It is too hard for the Wall St. guys to hear. Duncan is going to put America first. Every Industrial Union worker in our country would be reborn the minute they heard his message. Being on the Armed Services Committe, Duncan knows more about the Wars in Iraq or Afghanistan than probably any one else running.
2. The idea that a company wants to open, lets say XYZ manufacturing plant, in some far away land, that is good. They spread their products around the world, help foreign economies grow. But when they are exploiting cheap labor and shipping the product back here to sell in the U.S. They are undercutting the American workers and this stuff is why people are up to there neck in credit card debt, bout ready to lose the home. Not able to buy healthy food, When the good paying jobs are replaced with a something that is not a fraction of what old job pays we as workers lose. If country X has a currency rate that is 70% cheaper than what we have, a big company is going to want to capitalize off that difference, BUt by doing that they destroy our economy and our workers lifes when it is large scale and encouraged by our government. The large companies need corporate taxes dropped quite a bit and other measures to encourage manufacturing be brought back to the U.S.A.
1. victims of rape or incest need to be offered the choice. In the 2006 governors race in Michigan the Republican was doing great up until a debate where he said that regardless of circumstances even rape or incest, no abortion, After that his polls tanked. Because the Republicans don’t have a female candidate like Hill out there that is making womens issues known, we must still show we care about them and what is important to them.
If my wife was raped, I would not want her to have to keep the child and be reminded of the crime for the rest of my life. But when we look at abortion economics it is clear that there is holocaust going on right here in America. Abortions should not be encouraged and definatly not funded with tax dollars.
3. The UN needs to be rebuilt and reworked, countries must be able keep sovereignty and freedoms. UN should be a place to sit an talk with countries to prevent wars, but that is it. They have no right to be passing world laws, their blue helmet forces are weak and have no way to enforce such laws anyway.
4. Strong Navy is what made the British so powerful back in the days. I think the Navy should have dual purpose ships that can transport crude oil, from hostile regions. They could stop a torpedo with depth chargers, preventing enviromental damage by terrorists or enemy military.
3. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, DSVJ | December 20th, 2007 at 8:31 am
1. Guarantee every child that is born after abortion is made illegal gets either the cost of an in state college education at 18 or the cash equivalent paid out quarterly for housing, food, transportation, whatever so they can strike out on their own and repeal the death penalty nationally and you have a deal.
2. I’m sorry but that’s not just a well informed idea. Wall Street would collectively laugh in your face because this is isolationism. That’s like saying we will start to manufacture things that are now made cheaper in China in the US and the price will be higher but oh wel Go USA#1!!!! that is just ludicrous. The business of America is business not patriotism.
3. Go leave now leave the UN please so it can levy some of the sanctions on the US that it deserved in the 1970s and 80s and that maybe a real peace process can come out of Geneva to save the Middle east form the American version of Soviet ideology spreading.
4. Ah yes Empire building. Look Noonan you are ill equipped like most of your brethren to be citizens of a representative democracy where very little is asked of you. None of you are prepared to be Imperial Citizens who have rights and responsibilities that you cannot fathom.
Going back to #2 what are those ships supposed to do when they are not allowed to come to port in the nations you refuse to do trade with? Or #3 when all those foreign lands decide they do not wish to have US bases anymore? Now do you understand why Russia is not so upset it lost the Cold War?
4. mitche | December 20th, 2007 at 9:01 am
So now Mark wants to control the world! (#4)
Where do you take these delusional megalomanic lessons? Conquerer’s Are Us?
For some one who claims to be a student of history you haven’t learned very much, have you? And besides, naval power is sooooo 18th century.
I also want to point out another comment made by proffessor Noonan on a previous thread wherein he claimed that there was no separation between church and state. Jefferson merely chose his words poorly!
How do you know this Mark? Does Jefferson come to you in your dreams to explain himself? And if so, why would he choose you to communicate with from the great beyond? According to the logic of this hallucinatory explaination, the entire constitution is flawed because what was written was not what was meant. Maybe we should trash the entire document. We aren’t using it much anyway.
Perhaps you should get together with your sister the Marxist. Between the two of you, the the extremism might be mollified a bit and turn into something more productive; like reasonable moderation. You know, something the rest of us can appreciate this holiday season.
5. Eric T | December 20th, 2007 at 9:07 am
Cavalor,
China needs to bring up the value of their currency. Why should the American workers lose their homes and jobs. So the Chinese can provide work and jobs for their people that Americans can not compete with. Are we as Americans suppose to work for 2 dollars a day? because that is what they work for over their.
What is the grand scheme of things? Build up the Chinese economy to be the most powerful economy in the world?, let the American workers lose their jobs, then allow 25 million ILLEGAL immigrants come over a help drive wages lower and get preferiantial treatment on small business loans, college grants and scholarships, 1st pick at good jobs because of affirmative action type programs. Wall St. can make money on stocks moving a few cents either direction with their large volume buys and sells. Is it right to let companies charge 30% interest on credit cards to impress Wall St. Wall St. would sell their mother, our military, outsource our government, anything to make a market rally. The government is here to make sure that these big corporations are not breaking it off in the peoples rear ends. Wall St does not run the country, our government does. Wall St. doesn’t look out or care for the people that lose their jobs. The government does with Unemployment, Welfare, co-op housing and al kinds of other programs to step in when the free market fails to meet the needs of the people and when these companies can provide American with the means to live. I want to outsource corporate owned politicians who will make every excuse for the CEO’s who make bad trade deals that Destroy the lifes of the American workers. All you high rollers making 6 figures don’t know what its like to not have enough food to eat, because your paying 20 dollars a day in gas to drive to work. And everything you make going to bank interest that grows like wildfire.
6. OhioOrrin | December 20th, 2007 at 10:09 am
re # 2:
My fellow citizens & veterans -
Please concentrate on THE macro issue, NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY, rather than being distracted by roviarn wedge issues like guns, God, & gays.
ALL the candidates except Paul & Kuchnich secretly are SELLING-OUT the US Constitution, & our nation in favor of the NORTH AMERICAN UNION.
None of them are being held to account.
Educate thyself - search TRILATERIAL COMMISSION, NORTH AMERICAN UNION, AMERO, NAFTA SUPERHIGHWAY, etc
these multi-millionare, sell-out candidates, from BOTH PARTIES must be publicly exposed.
7. Joe | December 20th, 2007 at 10:28 am
1. Mark, in a previous post, you said to me how outraged you were about “tax payer funded abortions”. So if they were paid for by the individual having one, would you be ok with abortions?? Is it the act of the abortion or the act that you feel you are paying for it? That is a big difference.
2. Replace free trade with freedom trade? So are you going to stop trading with the Saudis? At last check, that really isn’t really under democratic governance. And let’s see… let’s tell China we aren’t going to trade with them any more. We get SO much from them. From the smallest things to the biggest. Are you crazy? How about China says… “ok, don’t trade with us any more. We don’t care. By the way, we are calling in all the Debt that you owe us.”
3. I agree that violators of human rights shouldn’t be monitoring that. It is the first part of the comment that is of concern – “remove all non-democratic States from any position of authority in the UN”. Like it or not, not every country in the world is a democratic state. And not every non-democratic state is bad. Why do you people always need to see things in black and white and have a definitive enemy?
4. WOW… why not take over the world? Then we can have all the oil and everything else. We can force people from other countries to love us!
I’m rather surprised that in your wish list, you didn’t include anything about wishing that the war comes to a conclusion without another loss of a U.S. Soldiers life. The way people stretch things around here I can only conclude that you really don’t like the troops if you don’t wish them all to be safe.
8. Jonathan | December 20th, 2007 at 11:22 am
It’s nothing but a pipe dream Noonan. Outlawing abortion is the equivalent of the Republican Party taking a pistol and blowing their brains out. For all the political grandstanding the Republican lawmakers trot out on how human life is sacred, when it comes to the showdown on outlawing a woman’s right to abort life, they’ll think about what this vote will do to them and the party, and vote against it. They’ll care more about maintaining power than they’re supposed ‘moral values’.
Mark, here you might as well said, ‘I’m a power-hungry megalomaniac that gets a hard-on every time when world domination is mentioned.’ It means the same thing as what you said for #4.
I pray to God in Heaven that your world vision shall never come to pass.
9. SteaM | December 20th, 2007 at 11:41 am
Ah yes, take over the world!
Mark,
Do you support a draft? Because that is what you will get.
If you are so concerned about trading with “evil” countries then why do did you presumably buy most of you christmas gifts from China? Do you know that some of the gas you put in your car might be ffrom middle east oil? Or from Venezuala?
Why not invest in renewable energy here at home? The recent energy bill was attempting to do JUST that and when it was finally passed those things were stripped out because of direct influence of OIL companies who would have had handouts removed so that money could go to renewable energy research.
I’m tired of obstruction of justice. Obstruction of progress. Removal of freedoms. And the move towards a government for the corporation and by the corporation.
10. Rana Quijotesca | December 20th, 2007 at 11:52 am
Just a thought…
If you think that abortion is equivalent to murder, then should miscarriages due to negligence be equivalent to negligent homicide? Should preventable miscarriages be equivalent to manslaughter? If not, why not?
11. SteaM | December 20th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
“Roe v. Wade was decided primarily on the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution, a part of the Bill of Rights. The Court’s decision in this case was that the Ninth Amendment, in stating that “the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,” protected a person’s right to privacy.”
12. NeoClown | December 20th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Mark’s Political Wish – Plain English Version
1. All of the GOP candidates are buffoons; I sure hope we get some type of anti-abortion legislation on the ballot in states where the GOP is in trouble. There is nothing like the word ABORTION to fire-up the base. The only word that fires up the base better than ABORTION is GAY MARRIAGE. (See closing thoughts.)
2 Preaching “Protectionism” could buy the GOP a lot of votes. A lot of folks have lost their jobs to China under the Bush administration. We don’t want to step on the toes of big-business Mark’s Political Wish – Plain English Version
though. Wal-Mart loves the slave wages China pays its workers.
3 Talking trash to the UN makes us sound tough to the voters, and tough talk makes the voters feel safe. If a voter feels unsafe they are easy to control. Sure the GOP’s been playing the dickens out of the “Fear Card” since 9/11, and the voters have pretty much caught on to what we’re doing - but the “Fear Card does work quite well on the elderly, and the elderly get out and vote. (Cautionary Note on Spreading Democracy ;) Spreading democracy in Iraq has been a nightmare, and we all know that if enough democracy spreads in the Middle East, Israel will be history. But I say again, we’re not actually spreading democracy, we’re just talking about spreading democracy to win some votes.
4 Tough talk makes the voters feel safe. Sure we all know that we have more than enough Aircraft Carrier battle groups to “control the seas”. We actually have more than enough thanks to “republican pork” that gave the Navy the “George H W Bush” against the objections of the Navy. The Navy said they had enough Aircraft Carriers.
“Just a few ideas” - My biggest fret for 2008 is that I don’t like any of the GOP candidates, and if I keep saying George Bush did a wonderful job maybe someone somewhere will believe it, and maybe if I keep putting down Bill Clinton maybe Hillary won’t be elected.
This nation of ours, also, suffers from some deep social pathology – ABORTION, GAY MARRIAGE, PORNOGRAPHY, PROSTITUTION, DAVID VITTER, HOMOSEXUALITY, LARRY CRAIG, LYING UNDER OATH, and SCOOTER LIBBY.
I’m still waiting for a candidate to come along with that sort of fire. Not the kind of fire Dick Cheney started yesterday, but a fire in the belly kind of fire.
13. Ricorun | December 20th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Jonathan: Outlawing abortion is the equivalent of the Republican Party taking a pistol and blowing their brains out.
This is another one-liner I nominate for the best of the season. It’s not that I’m pro-choice — I’m not. But I do think the issue has been very poorly considered on any sort of comprehensive level. In fact, the abortion issue rates right up there among those that have the strongest connotations with regard to unintended consequences.
14. Diana Powe | December 20th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
Mark,
One thing that I do appreciate about your pro-life position is that you are consistent in extending it to the death penalty. I must admit, though, that your phrase about debating abortion “hotly in the public square” seems odd. Hasn’t that been going on ever since Roe? What are all those people outside the Capitol and the Supreme Court shouting and waving signs about? Personally, I am in favor of reducing the abortion rate to as close to zero as is practicable.
I would also be curious as to which version of a Human Life Amendment (HLA) that you support. Regardless, I believe it would be safe to say that the primary intent of any HLA would be to place into law two principles:
1) A human being is created at the moment of conception.
2) That human being, prior to birth, has the same right to life as a human being after birth.
Assuming that an HLA was added to the Constitution, here is the way it should affect the criminal law in Texas. To begin, Section 19.03 of the Texas Penal Code (TPC) defines Capital Murder in two ways that would be relevant to an unborn child being designated a person:
and
Therefore, being morally consistent means that the proper offense is Capital Murder.
Elsewhere, in Section 7.02 (Criminal Responsibility for Conduct of Another) we find the following:
Therefore, abortion in Texas would be Capital Murder with both a person performing the abortion and the mother being equally criminally responsible.
Now, it might be argued that making abortion illegal would make it uncommon. That is generally unknowable. However, it seems quite safe to say that unintended pregnancies (either by consensual intercourse or sexual assault) will continue with a demand for abortions being met with persons operating in the black market. Any other belief is not supported by any knowledge of human history.
Now, once a Texas police agency makes the arrests in the case of a Capital Murder committed by abortion, the felony cases would be sent to the local grand jury. Here it is possible that some grand jurors may attempt to use some form of moral relativism and vote to indict the person performing the abortion and “no-billing” the mother. Their rationale may be to somehow infer that being pregnant affects a woman’s ability to make moral choices like insanity or that the crime is committed in a moment of emotional distress such as a “heat of passion” defense.
However, the pregnancy is insanity defense, besides being a huge denigration of women generally, has never been successful in murder prosecutions where the victim was already born so it shouldn’t have any credence here. As to the “heat of passion”, given the fact that it would require some time and effort to locate the person to perform the abortion in a black market environment, the mother would be engaging in an extended period of calculation leading up to the murder which, by any reasonable measure, would make her more culpable rather than less. It’s also possible that a grand juror might attempt to think of the victim as less than a child, but such conduct might actually serve as grounds for removing them from grand jury service given their inability to follow the law.
Assuming a successful prosecution with a return of guilty verdicts, the jury would then begin the penalty phase of the trial. Here, the mother might introduce evidence that might mitigate the offense in the jury’s eyes and persuade them not to sentence her to death by lethal injection. Given that many people may illogically want to blame the mother less than the person she sought out to commit the murder for her, it may be reasonable to suppose that a jury might reduce the punishment to something like 30 years with a year in the penitentiary followed by 29 years of felony probation to cover the bulk of her child-bearing years. As a convicted felon, she would be ineligible to vote in Texas and would suffer all the normal forms of employment discrimination.
Now, in theory, the Texas Legislature might try to create a separate abortion offense and classify it as a 3rd Degree Felony with a maximum sentence of ten years in prison. However, this should be subject to a ready challenge of its constitutionality, as it would attempt to draw a distinction between unborn children as victims and born children as victims.
Now, having said all this, how do you propose to sell this politically to the roughly 8.5 million Texas women over the age of 18?
15. Concerned Citizen | December 20th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
I will first comment on his points then add some of my own.
1. The Federal government has no business banning or condoning abortions. It is simply not a federal issue. It is a states rights issue and should be defined by the voters or law maker in each state. Period. The federal government holds no constitutional power to govern many issue such as this.
2. I agree in principal, but due to the serious infection of unions and excuses in this country, this will probably never happen. The more we see wage controls (minimum wage increases) and the more power unions hold, the more companies will seek cheap labor and products where they can find it. That is what you get when you screw with the free market.
3. The UN is an inept cancer who cannot enforce even the simplest sanctions and is a disgrace on matter of human rights. Evict the entire lot of them or wipe it out, restructure it and start over. For all you whiny America hating morons who think this country is the greatest evil on the planet and worthy of UN sanctions, why are you still here. Pick you ass up an move to one of these great socialist states you so admire and see how well things go for you there.
4. As for a large Navy, why stop there? Increase the size of all our armed forces to better be able to project force where needed. You moron who accuse Mark of wanting to ‘take over the world’ seem to forget that it is American military force that has maintained a free world for the last century. We have stood against fascist aggresstion, communist expansion, totaltarianism, genocide and ethnic cleansing. We have won freedom for millions with our own precious blood. We stand as the vanguard against oppression and to pretend otherwise is ignorant and delusional. Therfore, double or triple the size of our current millitary so that we may face these threats now and in the future with overwhelming force and superiority.
(Start My Own)
5. Abolish the IRS and move to a fair tax system. Wholly abandon the income based tax system and move to a spending based tax system. This can be implemented fairly across the board, will eliminate most tax evasion and fraud and will include any who participate in our economy.
6. End the practice of judicial opinions formenting law and adhere to the charges that the constitution has put forth to each branch of government. The federal government should only act in areas where it has clear constitutional authority to do so, not where it has assumed the right and each branch should act accroding to its constitutional charges and not attempt to usurp the authority of the others.
7. End manipulation of the free market by the federal government. Capitalism and the free market have brought more innovation, progress, development and discovery to the world than any other system that has ever been tried. Manipulation and artificial control of this system has resulted in disaster every time it has been tried.
8. Enforce the law. This seems such a silly statement, yet if we would enforce existing laws that we have in many areas, such as immigration, so many of our problems would go away.
There are four. I have many more but that is a start.
16. Mark Noonan | December 20th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
A lot of good comments - and some not so good. I’m at work, so I can’t go into a lengthy response at this time…but I will note in passing that a large navy does not help you conquer the world…it just places you in control of it. Who would you rather have in control - us, or some international body? The Chinese? The Russians? Someone will predominate on the seas - I want it to be us, and I want it to be so overwhelming that there’s no question of another naval challenge such as that from Japan in the 1930’s.
17. looking4laughs | December 20th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
So in Marks world “America will take over the sea’s.”
(gee, I never new we lost them)
In the real world China is taking over space.
We’ll all see which will be more important in the future. Way to stay current Mark, LOL!
18. Jeremiah | December 20th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
I hope, pray, and wish that Mike Huckabee will be our 44th President of the United States of America in the year 2008.
Mike’s a good man, a Christian man. God has blessed Mike with the knowledge and wisdom to get our schools headed back in the right direction. Affording students the opportunity to hear the message of God’s Word would help to save many souls from the grips of Satan’s snare.
Out of all the other problems we have in this country, War policy, Financial policy, Foreign trade policy … there all insignificant.
I know most of you will disagree, but what’s wrong with this country, is their unwillingness to acknowledge the source of their problem…..They fail to live by moral standards, and they fail over and over to elect the candidate who will govern by moral principles.
You can be a war man, you can be a financial scientist, but unless Biblical and Godly values aren’t acknowledged first, the rest is in vain.
Elect Mike Huckabee as your next President.
~ Jeremiah
19. mitche | December 20th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Nice back pedal Mark. Your exact words were “..when you control the oceans you fundementally control the world”. Now you say conquering is not associated with control?? The United States doesn’t own the oceans and I find your presumptiouness nausiating.
You have the personality of a cult leader. A combination of Jim Jones and Joan of Arc.
And Jerimiah; look in your barn and under your bed. I heard Satan was lurking there.
BTW, Huckevangeical doesn’t have a chance. Sorry.
Our country needs a sober minded reality based leader. Not a Jesus Freak who is completely batshit crazy. He does have a corn ball sense of humor though, which is endearing and I as a fellow bass player respect his musical skills.
20. looking4laughs | December 20th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Jeremiah said “God has blessed Mike with the knowledge and wisdom to get our schools headed back in the right direction.”
You imply that the schools in America were once something to be proud of and that Mike will get us back there.
When was this in US history that our schools were doing “God’s work?”
When my Great-Grandfather was young, blacks were slaves. And women could not attend school.
When my Grandfather was young no one that he knew went to school past 6th or 7th grade. Too much work at the farm to worry about God I guess. “Greatest Generation” indeed!
When my Father was young he was a minority in his small farming town, he is white so he went to a good school and learned all about God. He was always jealous of the black kids getting to stay in the orange groves all day.
When my Mom was young she went to a Catholic school were she drank from a different water fountain then the black kids were allowed to drink from. “Not very Christian,” she would think.
When I was young I went to the same school as my mother, the two different water fountains were still there, but everybody used them now. Things had changed. We had to worry about that touchy feely teacher or priest. In my school there were two to worry about. Now years later we have learned that our young fears were correct and we feel sorry for the kids that were not as strong or lucky.
“Bringing back God” is not the answer Jeremiah, I wish it were. And Satan is not out there somewhere to find and fight, evil is in you and me and everyone and it is in internal struggle.
21. Web Smith | December 20th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
The Framers formed a Constitutional Republic. They wanted to protect the rights of the minority and did not like or want a democracy where 51% of the people could control the other 49%. Democracy is not mentioned in the Bill of Rights or Constitution. In framing the Constitution, they attempted to guarantee the free will that people are born with as long as it was exercised with respect for the free will of others. The Framers never attempted to control personal behavior.
Freedom does not imply the absence of consequences. Women who have control of their bodies and get pregnant must then choose to suffer the pains of or enjoy the joy of motherhood. The child has a right to enjoy or not enjoy its life. When it becomes apparent, through testing, that a child’s life will become one of torture as a result of deformities, we should not force the child to live. Women who do not have control of their bodies when they get pregnant should have the right to choose motherhood or not.
While we have been worried about who is screwing who, who is tapping who’s foot in bathrooms, who is winning a war that was meant to be sustained and not won, who is a liberal or conservative and who’s fault everything is, and whether to vote democratic or republican when it makes no difference, your government has been quietly and systematically eliminating your freedom, your means to make a living, and your country. You now have a thought control bill, you can be labeled a terrorist and arrested and held at any time for no reason, your home can be searched without a court order and without telling you, the National Guard can now be mobilized and martial law can be declared in your state without justification by the Federal Government, your private records and information can be seized at any time. Starting next year, you will be required to carry a bar coded Federal ID Card. The card will soon be implanted with a FIDC chip. Your new drivers licenses will have FIDC chips implanted in them. New passports already have FIDC chips.
Sometimes, in order to get things right, you have to go back and start all over. The government has become a class of rulers and profiteers as opposed to the public servants they are supposed to be. The primary things that have allowed this to happen are the 16th Amendment and the Federal Reserve Act. I am for who ever will get rid of these things and give us a chance to get our country back.
22. mitche | December 20th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
You are very correct Web, but people like Noonan don’t see it that way. They think that slavery to an ideology is freedom and that any critique or exposure of its flaws is treason. This aboration of conservativism blended with a christianist world view is the root cause of so many of the problems and issues our country faces. Both in our interaction in the world and as we as a people.
The current administration is the most lawless, secrective and incompetent one we have ever had to endure. Addigton has asssured Cheney that the VP is not a member of any branch of government. Bush will not discuss or take responsiblity for the myrid of scandels that have beset him. The Patriot Act has turned citizens into suspects. Torture is now an accepted practice. We borrow and spend to live beyond our means instead of taxing to pay for what is truly important. We are dispised around the world and yet some people want to continue on with this charade of a crusade all in the name of a religious figure.
The Republican party might as well be called the party of the body snatchers because what we have now and the folks who are running are light years removed from what a traditional Republican used to stand for just a decade or so ago.
John Dean says it best in Conservatives Without Conscious.
23. Jeremiah | December 20th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
Our country needs a sober minded reality based leader.
Jack-in-the-Box (looking4laughs),
Without the guidance of the Creator, just look what our country has gone to…
Just other day, a little girl was injured and killed because her friend was imitating the violence on a video game. Did the game producers ever think about the consequences their game had on the children mentally? I’m afraid not. Do any of the game producers think about what they are inflicting upon the minds of the youth through their destructive imitations? Do the parents think about the impact the games have on their children before they purchase them for their children?
No! Why? Because they are under the influence of the destructive mindset of Liberalism.
Look at the numerous church, Mall and school shootings over the past year, VTech being the most major.
Look at the little children still in the womb over the past 43 years that have been brutally Murdered by so called “doctors”. They’re not doctors, they Murderers. One for example out in Kansas, a Mr. Tillerman, a blood-thirsty, self-hating coward.
Shame on them…they should all be put on Death Row.
What’s more? Look at the decisions made by some of our legislators to silence Christianity…
Removing God’s name from the Pledge of Allegiance, Creation is no longer taught in school, so that the children may know where their Truth of their origination.
Students are no longer allowed to pray with a fellow classmate, and ask God for strength.
Where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am in the midst
And Judges and Court Leaders want to take that away. The ACLU especially.
Look at our Military Memorial customs, a Liberal Atheist has stopped the recital of the flag folding in reference to the Bible, and honoring Almighty God all across America.
We’ve even sunk to an all time new low–Women and Sodomites are welcomed in the Military now.
It’s no wonder our country is in such disarray, with the Leaders we have.
I really feel sorrowful for my fellow Christians who have school going children, and the evil that will be imposed upon their sensitive minds, and the consequences that soon will follow.
It hasn’t happened yet, but I don’t see how this country can avoid a disaster with the Liberal mindset that is in place…However, I don’t think I’m speaking too soon, because it could be tomorrow, who knows? But this country can’t last with shape that it’s in.
As long as people continue to reject that which is their hope and survival, there will be little hope.
Where the wicked rule, the people groan.
~ Jeremiah
24. Mark Noonan | December 20th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Web,
Paranoid, conspiracy theories are widely available on the ‘net…I suggest you spend time with your tinfoil-hatted cohorts elsewhere.
25. Jonathan | December 20th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
mitche said:
Sadly enough, these Jesus freaks believe that this is what God commands his followers to do (In reality, its what the Pat Robertson’s and the Jerry Falwell’s of the world command their brainwashed followers to do). Correct me if I’m wrong but doesn’t God weep for his children who are suffering?
26. Mark Noonan | December 20th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
mitche,
The problem you have is enclosed in your word “lawless” to describe President Bush’s Administration - to think that, you have to be entirely divorced from reality on the subject. You have so filled your mind with the paranoid rantings of deranged minds that you can no longer discern the truth.
I suggest that your best course of action is to withdraw for a few months from the debate - just sit quietly and think, and determine to not express any hatred for anyone. After a few months of that, the poison should start to work its way out of your mental system, and you can start to view things rationally again.
27. Jeremiah | December 20th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Sadly enough, these Jesus freaks believe that this is what God
It’s people who say stuff like this that is wrong with America–
~ Jeremiah
28. Jeremiah | December 20th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
The ol Devil’s trying his best to mess me up, let’s try that again…
It’s people who say stuff like this that is wrong with America–
~ Jeremiah
29. Jonathan | December 20th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
People like me?
Well let me be the first to apologize for not buying into your perverted version of Christ.
I wasn’t aware that most Americans believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.
Or that God somehow favors the Republican Party.
Or that being gay is an abomination to God and all of mankind.
Or that Creationism is correct and the Theory of Evolution is mere BS.
Or that women and gays being let into the military was the tipping point that sent America backwards.
Or that any idea, viewpoint, or belief that challenges the Bible or the Church, is an evil liberal scheme to turn the converted over to Satan.
Forgive me, Jeremiah, I wasn’t aware that most Americans were Bible-thumping, gay hatin’, Creationist learnin’ bigots and misogynists.
Oh, wait a tick…I just realized something…the majority of Americans who worship the teachings of Christ, don’t believe all that bollocks…its just people like you and your ilk who believe all that crap.
But really, let me apologize, but this time, on behalf of the moderate Americans who worship Christ: We’re sorry that we’re not as batshit crazy as you appear to be.
30. Jeremiah | December 20th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
Well let me be the first to apologize for not buying into your perverted version of Christ.
Now what is perverted, Jonathan?
Any man who lies with another man as with a woman, and any woman who would lie with another woman as with a man.
They’re distorted, perverted and sick.
I’m sorry that you won’t buy into the Truth, but on behalf of the truth, that means you’ve got a serious obstacle in your way. As most non-believers do, and way more powerful than you or any of the other followers of the Prince of this World.
But really, let me apologize, but this time, on behalf of the moderate Americans who worship Christ
Correction: You mean for your Secular Liberal buddies who’s very thoughts and actions have shown as through you, in your filthy rants.
not as batshit crazy as you appear to be.
Your mother should have slapped you silly, and out the door long ago for that vulgar tongue of yours.
I guess she just didn’t care then, did she?
That’s the problem though, you get parents who don’t care, and then you wind up with a society of degenerate and rebellious children, who turn a society in the direction of Hell.
When the wicked rule, the people groan.
~ Jeremiah
31. Eric T | December 20th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
They’re distorted, perverted and sick.
Jeremiah- These folks don’t know right from wrong, they will try to legalize beastiality, poligamy, pedophila, necrophila. They want all religion out of our country, they hate God. One day, When they are laying on the hospital bed dying, hopefully they will accept Our Lord Jesus Christ into their hearts.
32. Max Power | December 20th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Thanks Mark!
It was a long day at work and I really needed a laugh.
I can always alway count on you and Jeremiah to deliver the goods….
:)
33. Faceplant | December 20th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
“The problem you have is enclosed in your word “lawless” to describe President Bush’s Administration - to think that, you have to be entirely divorced from reality on the subject.”
This coming from the man who’s President has openly admitted that he spied on American Citizens without a warrant, and is continuing to do so. A man who’s President has claimed the authority to violate any law he wants. This from the man who’s vice President completely invented a new branch of Gov’t for himself.
Lawless describes this administration to a T. Most rational people already know that.
34. Jonathan | December 20th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
So says you. I don’t see what the big deal is. The gay community aren’t threating you lifestyle or your beliefs, so why trash their lifestyle?
I don’t buy your hateful version of the teaching of Christ.
My mother has a way of being blunt, so I picked that up from her. What I also gained through her is to be wary of people like you who hide behind the Cross and Christ’s teachings to advance your own hateful agenda.
I guess guess you don’t know my mother that well because if you did, you’d know that she’s a fine, spiritual woman, who has always done right by me.
Your rants fall of deaf ears, preacher. To be young, rebellious, and to question everything is to be human, IMO.
I don’t have to answer myself to you, or to your screwed-up version of Christianity, so take your condescending preaching to someone who gives a damn.
35. Almiranta | December 20th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
Wow, you just never know which thread will bring out the tinfoil-hat brigade, or unleash the trolls, do you?
mitche, you are such a lemming, so totally suckered in by the radical America-hating Left, I have yet to see you make a lick of sense. You don’t seem to even try—you just seem to get off on ranting and raving about whatever you heard lately from some Loony Lefty, wallowing in your irrational hatreds. Your laundry list of claims, which of course are completely false but which evidently fulfill your pathological need to hate, is so stereotypically Looniest of the Loony Left, it is a joke.
I love it when you say “We are dispised around the world…” (Think it might be because we can’t spell?) But NO, mitch, we are NOT despised around the world. Sure, there are some people everywhere who despise us, just as there are people who despise any of a certain class—the Rich, the Religious, Jews, Blacks, grocery store clerks, policemen, soldiers, politicians, whatever.
I used to buy into that crap, too. When I started to travel abroad I was paranoid, almost apologetic about being an American, too steeped in the Ugly American stereotype. And you know what I found? I found that people LOVE Americans, and America.
Sure, the elite media types don’t love us, and the elite Ivory Tower types don’t love us, and the power-hungry Lefties don’t love us, and the fundamentalist Islamic radicals don’t love us. But people who celebrate freedom, who admire innovation and strength and fortitude, who appreciate having their behinds saved from everything from Communism to earthquakes—they love us.
If you would get out of yourself, mitch, and get out from under your Lefty propagandists, and get out of the country and look around, you might learn something.
Concerned Citizen, you make sense.
We need to stop putting band aids on top of patches on top of of stopgap measures. I know it can/will never happen, but I think the real key to renewing the spirit and energy and dynamic nature of this great country would be to somehow just ditch the mess created by ever-expanding Federalism and get back to the intent and nature of the Constitution.
The federal government should be able to collect taxes for national defense and to support its participation in international and interstate commerce—and that’s almost it.
It has no business in education, health care, or any of the myriad of other areas in which it has stuck its long and pointed nose.
The courts, especially the Supreme Court of the United States, should stick solely to determining what is and what is not constitutional and not involve itself in overturning legislation or in de facto legislation from the bench.
Look at poor confused steamy, still regurgitating the same old same old regarding Roe v Wade. It is gobbledygook, steamer. It is based on a perception of an emanation of a penumbra which is to say that the court FELT that there was some vague aura surrounding the Constitution which put out a kind of FEELING that they could kind of tell might mean a protection of something that really was never articulated….but which met their personal agendas, the Constitution be damned.
To hell with what it actually SAYS, once we start to allow emanations of penumbras about nonexistent (but possibly hinted-at and politically motivated) “rights”.
Even people who think women should be able to kill off as many of their babies as they want to, as long as they do it before those babies draw breath, agreed that Roe was bad law.
Did you ever actually READ the Constitution, Steamy? Because you seem pretty comforatble with ignoring the 10th Amendment, which says “”The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.”
Got that? If a power is not specifically delegated to the national government via the written Constitution, it is reserved for the States, unless there is a specific prohibition against the States having the authority.
Madison wrote, to people concerned about the possibility that the federal government might get too strong:
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce… The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvements, and prosperity of the State.”
FEW AND DEFINED. DEFINED!!!!!!!!! Nor hinted at, not guessed at, not emanating from a hazy aura of wishful thinking. DEFINED!!!!!!
Therefore, the issue of abortion, not being specifically given to the authority of the national government, and not being probited in any manner from being the authority of the State “or the People” and clearly being a matter “concern(ing) the lives, liberties, and properties of the people…” MUST be one of states’ rights.
Which means it must be given to the people of any given state to decide—without the intervention of the judiciary.
A very liberal brother, when I espoused my 10th Amendment leanings, and my desire to severely limit the scope of the national government and put day to day matters of life in the states, said “But then the states’ taxes would really have to go up”. And I said “Yes—and the federal income tax would almost disappear”. And you know what? He liked it, once he thought about it.
As far as the whining about being strong, militarily, I just come back to the old redneck truism—”Some days you’re the windshield, some days you’re the bug.” I vote for being the windshield, any day, any time.
When the Utopian Nirvana (can you have Utopia and Nirvana in the same place at the same time? ) of the Left comes to pass, and there is no war and there is no threat to the peaceful and all we have to do is “just get along” then we can beat our swords into plowshares and have a big group hug.
Till then, I like ships. And planes. And guns. And the brilliant, dedicated, highly trained and committed warrior class which has kept us safe, and so much of the world safe, for so long.
36. Jonathan | December 20th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
LOL! Now that’s funny!
Eric T, gays are not - I repeat, are not - trying to legalize bestiality, polygamy, and all that other nonsense you spewed; they’re sure as hell not trying to overthrow Christianity; and most of them don’t hate God. Its the homophobia they want to overthrow and the acceptance from its fellow citizens they ask for. But don’t let your blatant homophobia get in the way from displaying your hate - something Jesus never preached to his followers.
37. Almiranta | December 20th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
Jonathan, if being God-fearing was enough, Jimmah Cahtah would have been a decent president.
I liked Huckabee. I find myself less and less impressed with him. I think he is probably a very nice man, smart and kind and funny and competent in a small arena. But the more he talks, and the more I learn of his positions, the less I think he is qualified to lead the country.
I think Rudy, Mitt, and Fred all have the chops to lead the country. No, none of them fits my template of the Ideal Presidential Candidate. But I see certain characteristics they all have in common.
First is a true and deep and sincere love for this country.
Second is a deep and sincere desire to do what they can to correct some of the mistakes this country has made in the past 20 years or so–politically, economically, morally, and in the world arena.
Third is the courage to do what they think is right.
Fourth is the ability to speak with foreign leaders and be taken seriously, the personas and gravitas and charisma to communicate effectively.
Fifth is the economic literacy needed to see how certain decisions and philosophies will cripple this country’s economy, and how others can continue to help it grow in a stable and restrained manner which is based on strong economic principles.
Sixth is the experience of business and politics combined, the intangible but essential quality of having had to make decisions and stand by them and take responsibility for them, and of usually making the right ones.
As I said, none of them is my Ideal Candidate—but each of them stands head and shoulders above anyone the Dems are likely to nominate.
I simply cannot see Hillary or Barack or Johnny E seriously negotiating international disputes. They are all such lightweights. They do great when they are surrounded by adoring liberals, but I just don’t see any of them handling the pressures of international diplomacy or the demands of international sword-waving when it is necessary. I can’t forget Osama’s comments that he was emboldened to attack us after years of our accepting his attacks and not fighting back. I’m not willing to risk that again.
Barack has charm, which Hillary and John do not, but he is an empty suit, a really nice and charming man with a bad attitude toward this country and nothing to back up his efforts to lead it.
And I don’t want a Socialist president, which is all the Dems have to offer us at this point. Weak on defense, economically crippling, apologist/appeasement , open borders, socialist agendas—not appealing.
I think Huckabee is just in over his head, as Tancredo was—but Tom knew it, knew it from day one, and stayed in the race for other reasons.
38. Diana Powe | December 20th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
I forgot to mention in my earlier post # 14 that the charge of Capital Murder would also be appropriately extended in Texas to anyone who assisted in the offense such as intermediaries who helped locate the person who performed the abortion and anyone who paid for or helped pay for it, such as the child’s father.
39. Faceplant | December 20th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
“I love it when you say “We are dispised around the world…” (Think it might be because we can’t spell?) But NO, mitch, we are NOT despised around the world.”
http://www.comw.org/pda/0609bm37.html
“Polls conducted by the Pew Research Center show a precipitous decline in positive attitudes about the United States since the year 2000 in eight of 12 countries for which multi-year comparisons can be made.4 According to the Pew polls, the proportion of the population feeling positively toward the United States has plummeted in Great Britain from 83 percent to 56, in France from 62 percent to 39, in Germany from 78 percent to 37, and in Spain from 50 percent to 23. Japan, too, has seen a decline.
Similarly, polls by the German Marshall Fund and The Chicago Council on Global Affairs have found a significant and uniform decline in positive feelings toward the United States between 2002 and 2006 in the European countries they surveyed.5 Today, in France, Germany, Italy, Great Britain, the Netherlands, and Poland — all of them NATO allies — negative feelings about the United States are almost as frequent as positive ones. In Spain, negative sentiments predominate.”
The US has taken a dramatic hit in public opinion since Bush took over the Presidency. Spin that any way you want. It’s just the facts of the matter.
“But people who celebrate freedom, who admire innovation and strength and fortitude, who appreciate having their behinds saved from everything from Communism to earthquakes—they love us.”
I guess the majority of French, Germans, and Spanish all hate freedom? Becuase the United States scores a net negetive rating in those three DEMOCRATIC countries.
Not to mention, most Iraqi’s have also turned against us. Using your logic, Americans are dying in Iraq in order to bring freedom to a people that hates freedom.
“who appreciate having their behinds saved”
They must appreciate American arrogance as well, if this line is any indication. You realize that we would have lost WWI AND WWII if we were fighting it alone. Churchill actually didn’t even want us to get involved in WWI.
“The courts, especially the Supreme Court of the United States, should stick solely to determining what is and what is not constitutional and not involve itself in overturning legislation”
What exactly do you think happens when the Supreme court finds a law unconstitutional? Here’s a hint. Legislation is overturned. In fact it is the courts job to overturn unconstitutional laws.
“Even people who think women should be able to kill off as many of their babies as they want to, as long as they do it before those babies draw breath,”
But of course if those poor innocent babies are born to a poor mother who can’t afford insurance, well they too effing bad right? It’s funny how Republicans only respect the life of the baby before it’s born. After it’s born it’s on it’s own.
“It has no business in education, health care, or any of the myriad of other areas in which it has stuck its long and pointed nose.”
So education is only allowed for the people that can afford it? God I’m glad the vast majority of Americans don’t think like you do.
40. Eric T | December 20th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
Johnathan-
I don’t hate anybody. If your gay don’t take it as hate.
There is right and wrong.
If your gay you have the right to be gay, and no one is trying to take that right from you. If your promoting Gay issues and trying to spread homosexuality across the land, alot people will take a stand and tell you keep what your doing in your bedroom we don’t need to hear stories of guy’s packin each others rears.
41. Jeremiah | December 20th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
mitche,
I see you’ve concluded a careful consideration of your blatant thoughts of inconsideration and you know I’m here to say that Jesus doesn’t give a pass (for excuses of anykind) to anybody but He does Make a Way of Escape and I would make this an adamant call to you this evening to carefully consider his Invitation to”Come as a little child” because that’s what we must do to enter his Kingdom. Regardless of how little you understand about this “Way, this Truth and this Light” that Jesus Offers, He transcendes all other gods and He is the God of All Gods and King of Kings and to Him I offer my complete Self to Worship and Make as My Lord and could only wish that you could consider this yourself, because Then you would find that His way makes a complete person in us to forgive others and to come into a right relationship with not only God, but with one another and in this area I see you have a great lacking.
As far as antideluvian nonsense, that’s why thousands if not millions perished because they saw the Word (the warning from the Prophet Noah), as foolishness and a wayward nonsense, and they perished in this same ideology that is so prevalent in todays society. My friend I understand this way, and also understand and know that so many today fail to realize and acknowledge this truth, and therefore perish in their darkness and foolish thinking.
I do understand the nature of mankind that it is sinful, darkened and lostness, but I also understand what He done for me and of this, no man can detest or make void. He has brought happiness, joy, peace which Truthfully transcendes and makes such a profound statment in the lives of those who truly know it and see it for themselves.,, of this my friend I hope you will find., otherwise you’ll be so miserable negotiating your way through life with its snares and its web of deceit that comes from the evil one.
Give me a pass?.., ok… thanks for that, we all need passes from one another, I just hope you pass the test of life that you confront each and every day and that you will look at your fellow man and say, “hmmm, maybe he’s right and I”m wrong, because in your thoughts and your ideology as I see it, my friend you are so in need of this way, this truth, this life and then you can see your fellowman as a human and humans need this truth that comes from above and of this no man can erase from me, its my witness and my testimony and hope the same for you.
~ Jeremiah
42. Jeremiah | December 20th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
My mother has a way of being blunt, so I picked that up from her. What I also gained through her is to be wary of people like you who hide behind the Cross and Christ’s teachings to advance your own hateful agenda.
Oooh, but Jonathan, how thankful can you be to your mother when your mouth gets you in trouble?
Learn to be a gentleman, my friend. It’ll get you a lot further ahead in life.
~ Jeremiah
43. Jonathan | December 20th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
Shhh! You’ll send Jeremiah into a religious fit!
Telling this religious kook that his religion doesn’t have the final word on absolute truth is like telling a six year-old that there is no such thing as the Easter Bunny.
44. mitche | December 20th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
(Ed. Note: Mitche’s comments won’t be appearing on Blogs for Victory anymore)
45. USA | December 20th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
“You have so filled your mind with the paranoid rantings of deranged minds that you can no longer discern the truth. ”
Take note that Mark is simply descibing himself and conservatives. It is a defense mechanism his ego does, it is called psychopathic projection, you can look it up.
46. Mark Noonan | December 20th, 2007 at 11:44 pm
Lew,
Duncan Hunter is a good man - though he does slide too far towards protectionism, which is not what “Freedom Trade” is all about. I wish he risen more in the polls, but it looks like his campaign is a fizzle - partially, no doubt, because the media didn’t pay much attention to him; but, then again, with people like Romney, Giuliani, Thompson and McCain in the room, it was going to be hard for someone like Hunter to get noticed…the MSM, of course, liked tp play up Tancredo and Paul, because they see those two men as harmful to GOP unity and appeal…someone like Hunter doesn’t fit the bill, as a lot of his ideas would resonate greatly with the American people.
47. Mark Noonan | December 20th, 2007 at 11:58 pm
Diana,
A Human Life Amendment which would have my support would say the following:
“No part of the constitution of the United States of America, or of the several States, shall be construed to secure a right to an elective abortion.”
This undoes Roe, while at the same time constitutionally prohibiting anyone from attempting the absurdity of enshrining elective abortion as a basic human right - because, outside of the murder of a child, you can’t have a basic human right which accrues to only 50% of the population, nor can something be a right if it reqiures the participation of more than one person.
You’re over-complicating the issue because you don’t want to confront the basic fact - a child is murdered every time an elective abortion is performed. The so-called “pro-choice” side of the argument has spent decades dancing around that basic fact and coming up with all manner of Orwellian phrasology to disguise what is happening. Confront it, Diana - a child dies a horrible death in abortion. Once you’ve done that, you’ll have taken your first, small step (as I did 20 or so years ago) towards become a pro-life absolutist as I am.
48. Diana Powe | December 21st, 2007 at 12:39 am
Mark,
What you’ve ignored is my fundamental question. I am in favor of pushing abortions to as close to zero as we can get, but how do you propose to get the law you want when you cannot be morally consistent and not prosecute every party to the abortion and not just the politically easy target of the person performing the abortion itself? If you’re going to exercise moral clarity and be an absolutist, you’ve got to ride that train to the end of the track or you’re just as much a compromiser as anyone who voted for the current situation in Roe. I’m sorry it’s a tough wiggle for you, but the facts are the facts. If it’s to be a crime, then the mother is a criminal, too. Anything else is a moral contortionist’s act.
49. Mark Noonan | December 21st, 2007 at 1:05 am
Diana,
Do I? I think not. You see, we on the pro-life side are not fanatics. Abortion should never have been legalised - but, legalised it was. Now it becomes a matter of the best, practical way to bring about the end of the barbarism. The first step is to undo Roe - preferrably by constitutional amendment, but by judicial overturn or Congressional regulation, if that is feasible.
In my wish list, its a matter of continually bringing it directly before the American people - and I think a pro-life President can do a lot more, if he’s willing to expend the political capital to do so. I think the reticence on the matter from GOP Presidents stems from a false understanding - that abortion is not that important an issue. Actually, as regards domestic policy, it is the lynchpin - the central fact of modern American life as slavery was the central fact of American life in the 1840’s and 1850’s. Everything turns on abortion, when you get down to it.
While I try - in a small way - to help those unfortunate women who find themselves alone and pregnant, my primary focus here is on a concept rather than an act - we must end the abomination of a supposed “right” to an abortion. Get rid of that falsehood, and we’ll set abortion on a path to eventual extinction - don’t get rid of it, and all the effort in the world will avail nothing in the fight against abortion.
50. Diana Powe | December 21st, 2007 at 1:25 am
“Confront it, Diana - a child dies a horrible death in abortion.”
Okay, Mark. I’m accepting your premise. Now tell me how the mother isn’t criminally culpable. In fact, given the amount of premeditation involved and the likelihood that she’s paying for this death to be inflicted, it’s an easy argument that she’s more culpable.
If it’s going to be murder, it’s murder. If it isn’t murder then you’ve relegated the unborn child to second-class citizenry. You don’t get to deny that the unborn child is less a child than the born child. That’s central to your belief. So, tell me how you get the mother and any other accomplices to the crime off the hook?
It’s a tough spot for you and you’re trying to wiggle away with some exceedingly soft soap about getting rid of the “concept” of abortion and somehow it will all magically go away. That’s the very same kind of happy-talk that you routinely castigate liberals for. However, if you’re going to be an absolutist, as you said you are, and say babies are being murdered and you want to enforce that absolutism with the force of criminal law then there aren’t any easy outs for you.
If you just want to hold hands and sing Kumbayah and hope you don’t have to confront this issue, that’s fine but let’s belly up to the bar and be honest about the fact that you’re perfectly willing to tolerate abortions as long as you don’t have to deal with the implications of making difficult moral choices for other people. You just hope that people will “see the light” and abortion will just end on it’s own so you get off the moral hook.
You may call that absolutism, but it looks and sounds like relativism to me.
51. extramedium | December 21st, 2007 at 7:51 am
Diane - you raise some great points in you post about abortion that I had not considered before. In spite of all of the white hot rhetoric used to describe abortion (like “murder”, “barbarism”, the “abortion holocaust”), I don’t think pro-lifers dare advocate that abortion be treated as murder for the mother.
This issue should be especially relevant, considering the advances in abortive methods made available since the last time abortion was illegal. I’m fairly certain that the so called back-alley coat hanger would today be replaced by self-administered drugs like RU-486 or methotrexate. If I’m right, the murderer would likely be the mother, with the partner possibly charged as an accessory if he assisted in some way.
From that standpoint, I don’t see abortion being legally defined as the murder of an unborn child any time in my lifetime. Abortions may be made somewhat more difficult to obtain from a third party, but that would be the extent of it.
52. Jeremiah | December 21st, 2007 at 10:51 am
Diana,
To make abortion illegal would solve 99.9% of the problem as far as Murder of the unborn goes, that saves at least 900,000 per year, precious little babies in the womb, that will be given a chance at life ordained by Almighty God…
And as far as those who will decide to go against the law, and deliberately murder their baby, yes, we will treat it as murder. You have to remember, there are always going to be those who want to break the law, but again, the %s are minor enough that the few women who do commit the murder, won’t pose a problem in prison for life, or institutionalized in a nut-house, for the rest of their lives. The number of women who would have to go to prison for that? Not nearly as many as would go at the present rate with as a million per year, cut that number down to oooh, say a couple thousand. There are enough prisons to hold that many convicts and more.
A woman who would pre-meditatedly murder her child isn’t thinking sanelyy to begin with, so she’s better off in an institution.
In the end, you are saving lives, and the Lord looks down on the Nation, and likes what He sees.
~ Jeremiah
53. Jonathan | December 21st, 2007 at 11:15 am
Jeremiah, making abortion illegal wouldn’t solve a goddamn thing; in fact, it would make the problem worse. Like it or not, women will still be able to receive an abortion, but it will be done by people who are not trained to do the procedure, and it won’t be conducted in a sanitary environment or with sterilized utensils, rather it will be done in an unsanitary environment with utensils that probable have not been fully cleansed, making the the risk of infection greater and damage to the female reproductive system more likely.
54. SteaM | December 21st, 2007 at 11:18 am
Jeremiah,
I think I know who really needs to be institutionalized. Do you really believe what you are writing or is this satire?
55. Diana Powe | December 21st, 2007 at 11:36 am
Jeremiah,
You have demonstrated the courage of your convictions in being pro-life. I will therefore assume that you would also want to prosecute all accessories to the murder (Capital Murder in Texas) including any intermediaries who helped pay for or facilitate the offense including the child’s father?
Quite frankly, any position short of that, is what might be termed pro-life pro-choice where someone doesn’t want any woman to have an abortion but is unwilling to declare that an unborn child is the full moral equivalent of a child after birth. They’re unwilling because to do so means that the full power of the State is to be brought to bear to prosecute all parties to the offense. In Mark’s case, I suspect he’s trying to avoid that completely logical and consistent position because he knows that such an extremist position would never be politically viable. Polling data shows the American public to be fairly stable at equal numbers for a pro-choice and pro-life position. However, if those who are in the pro-life position answering a poll were truly aware of the logical implications of criminalizing abortion again, many would abandon it.
So, the picture becomes more complicated. There’s the genuine pro-life position which follows the “abortion is murder” position to its completely consistent ends with mothers and potentially fathers doing prison time. Then there’s the pro-choice position in which people have varying degrees of desire to prevent as many abortions as possible, but acknowledge that they are either unwilling or simply oppose the idea of using the power of the State to declare abortion to be murder and prosecute everyone who is a party to all murders and not just the morally unambiguous ones where the victim has already been born.
If one wants to be genuinely pro-life then there’s a position you have to take. Mark wants to call that “over-complicating” the question but it’s not complicated at all. If abortion is murder, then the law and the prosecutorial mechanisms are already in place. Prosecute not only the person committing the murder, but also the mother and any other accessories, just like any other murder where the victim is already born.
56. SteaM | December 21st, 2007 at 11:52 am
If the father were to also want the abortion does that make him an accessory to murder as well? Hypothetically speaking.
57. Jeremiah | December 21st, 2007 at 11:59 am
Diana,
The whole purpose behind criminalizing abortion is for the benefit of the child who hasn’t a choice.
It’s a simple matter, if a man and woman engage in sexual intercourse, then they have both taken upon themselves the responisbility of parenthood.
However, if a woman is raped by a man, then he is responsible to the authorities, in which they carry out the death penalty for the crime of rape. And STILL the mother has no right murder her child, there are morally sound options that can be carried out in this instance, by delivering the child up for adoption.
Now, you can go ahead and support Genocide, but I’ll tell you, in that regard, you have no soul, for the Lord has given you over. You as the 1st chapter of Romans states. Read it, Diana.
Get a personal relationship with Christ M’am, and you won’t lead other along with you down the road hopelessness that you so blindly walk.
Diana, I have to tell you, I am really impressed, you have a brilliant mind. I only wish you would use your gift to uplift the Lord’s work. At the same token, I am really sad that you take God’s gift to you, for worldly pleasures.
Please the Lord, and stand strong for Him, and you would be a tremendous inspiration to folks who are in need of Christ. Everything else is hoplessness.
~ Jeremiah
58. DM | December 21st, 2007 at 12:22 pm
“I don’t think pro-lifers dare advocate that abortion be treated as murder for the mother.” – extra
You are absolutely WRONG. If the mother willingly accepted to have an abortion then she is at least an accessory to murder.
Are you suggesting we have different rules for prosecuting murder depending on if its abortion or another type or that Conservatives wouldn’t dare step up and make that assessment? Is that because you see it as some sort of political suicide? MURDER is what it is and should be dealt with accordingly.
Elective abortion is one of the most grotesque and immoral actions any civilized society could ever take part in. Those who do will be forever burdened with their actions. Those of us who can help prevent this should.
59. SteaM | December 21st, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Jeremiah,
You assume that having sex automatically means the stork is going to visit. This is why safe sex education is important along with options like abstinance being put out there.
If all you ever do is tell young people DONT HAVE SEX! Then rebelion naturally comes into play. Elaborating on why abstinence or usage of a condom is important is valuable education. That’s why support making condoms available for free to high school students.
60. DM | December 21st, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Let’s take it a step further. Do you think that a mother who drowns her 1 week old or 1 month old or 1 year old should be “treated as a murder”? Is the age of the child a determining factor on whether the “mother” should be treated as a murderer? Seems like this is what you’re suggesting.
61. Diana Powe | December 21st, 2007 at 12:39 pm
DM, I would argue to you that the mother is more culpable because of the premeditation and the high probability that she was having the offense done as a murder-for-hire. As such, a Texas jury would be entirely within its rights under existing Texas law in sentencing her to death by lethal injection.
Okay, so Jeremiah and DM are for prosecuting all parties (including fathers, friends or relatives if they help facilitate the abortion) for murder (Capital Murder in Texas). They are not pro-life pro-choice, but are pro-life. I’m impressed with the moral courage of their convictions. However, I’d be curious if either or both of you believe you can sell this position to voters since Mark took a pass on the question. It’s not just enough to say you want the law to be that way, there’s the practical matter of getting the political will to make the change happen.
62. SteaM | December 21st, 2007 at 12:44 pm
I didn’t know until this discussion that the Supreme Court decided that abortion’s being illigal was unconstitutional because it effected one’s right to privacy and the doctor/patient confidentiality.
And the opinion of the court was that they knew it was a controversial issue but that they looked at it without feelings but in a Constitutional and legal light. Nation of laws.
63. Jeremiah | December 21st, 2007 at 12:56 pm
there’s the practical matter of getting the political will to make the change happen.
Diana,
In this instance, you are referring to popular demand or opinion, and for the most part, is what is wrong with this world, if popular opinion would be in favor of life, and God-fearing principles, then we wouldn’t have the moral degeneration we see today.
This is where you have to override what popular opinion says.
Follow the majority and will you see change in the moral degeneration? We’ve been following the majority now for that past 45 years, and look where it has gotten us, nearly 50,000,000 babies. And two Murders every 24 seconds, just figure the numbers.
So who’s willing to step above the popular demand for Genocide and stand for what is right?
That’s the question that needs to be asked.
~ Jeremiah
64. Diana Powe | December 21st, 2007 at 1:12 pm
So, Jeremiah, are you a supporter of Eric Rudolph, James Kopp, Paul Hill and Rachelle “Shelley” Shannon in saying that homicidal violence, including bombings, are a proper response? Are you advancing the position that the United States should not be a representative republic but a theocracy?
65. extramedium | December 21st, 2007 at 1:19 pm
DM-
Sorry. I’m afraid I haven’t made myself clear. You’re right - I have no doubt that pro-lifers would like to equate abortion with murder.
I was merely acknowledging and agreeing with Diane’s point. From a practical standpoint, there’s little hope of outlawing abortion if the aborting mother is to be considered a murderer under the law. Such a goal is politically unviable. It could potentially be made illegal as a service or lesser still, as Mark wishes, we could amend the constitution to specifically declare that there is no inherit “right” to an abortion, but that’s as far as it would go.
Practical pro-lifers would set their sights lower, as Mark has done. We’ll not see mothers executed for aborting their unborn children anytime soon.
66. Diana Powe | December 21st, 2007 at 1:28 pm
extramedium,
Then being a “practical pro-lifer” is what I have termed a pro-life pro-choice position. Someone who would actively discourage women from having abortions and (if they are a woman themselves) would never have an abortion. However, they are willing to allow abortions to continue because the legal implications of equating abortion to murder imposes politically unpalatable choices on what could be termed a fully-genuine pro-life position.
67. Jeremiah | December 21st, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Such a goal is politically unviable
That’s the problem, extramedium, you on the left want to play politics with life, and could care less. God is being patient my friend, he wants to give you everry opportunity to change from your wicked ways. Life is no game, my friend.
Diana,
No, I’m just a strong defender of innocent life. I hope you will come out of your box and consider the same.
~ Jeremiah
68. DM | December 21st, 2007 at 1:51 pm
“However, I’d be curious if either or both of you believe you can sell this position to voters since Mark took a pass on the question.” – Diana
An excellent question. Given that the current mindset is at a very different cross road than when Roe vs. Wade was first argued some 35 years ago it would likely have to be a stepping stone approach.
For example, partial birth abortion grew from a relatively non-existent being to its current state. Through attention to its existence, education and other means I believe the general population finds this practice repugnant, barbaric and evil. Ending this practice is a step in the right direction and certainly an easy to sell point for most.
Also, as Mark often points out all too often there are many in the abortion industry that wants no part in showing or telling the mother what is really entailed in an abortion. The fact that, what is inside her has a beating heart and can be seen sucking a thumb at a very early stage in development. The fact that, aborting a baby could have detrimental effects later on in her life should she decide to have another baby? The fact that, many many women are depressed or even traumatized after an abortion? Why do we allow those things to be hidden from the mother? Even if you were pro choice wouldn’t you want the mother to be fully informed, to know how this abortion will affect her “before” making this decision?
Further, there are already a number of options to abortion that pregnant mothers are not always aware of and the abortion industry doesn’t want them to know about. What a tragedy. Plus, if they are aware there may be options, they are often rushed to make a quick decision and led to believe “we know what’s best, just do it”.
I believe through education and too sadly the harsh after-the-fact reality many face, people will see abortion for what it is. There will little left to sell; only an industry exposed and the realization that we are responsible for our actions. How can any sane person be for the murder of an innocent child is beyond me.
69. Diana Powe | December 21st, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Jeremiah,
It may seem like I’m upbraiding you, but I’m not. I would love to reduce the abortion rate to zero. I’ve never had an abortion and I’ve never facilitated an abortion for someone else.
If God is going to eternally punish anyone who has an abortion or performs or facilitates an abortion, then that is what God is going to do and those people will be punished far more than any punishment available to the State. However, if someone is going to say they’re pro-life and rejects violence or theocracy as you say you do, then you have to stand ready to advocate the prosecution for murder of all parties to the crime.
That’s the only genuinely pure position. Anything short of that is compromise and is a de facto pro-choice position because it allows women to choose abortion or not. However, I can say with a high degree of confidence that you’ll never get more than a small minority of Americans who are willing to follow you all the way down the genuine pro-life road. They’ll consider the logical consequences of that position far too extreme.
P.S. I don’t know about where you live, but in Texas, rape, known in the Penal Code as Sexual Assault or Aggravated Sexual Assault is not a capital crime.
70. Jeremiah | December 21st, 2007 at 2:19 pm
The facts!
71. extramedium | December 21st, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Jeremiah,
I respect your right to believe whatever you like, but you of course must realize that you do not know enough about me to determine whether my ways are wicked or even if I’m on the left as you say.
I’m in fact a moderate and it might surprise you to know that of all the GOP candidates, I like your man Huckabee. Imagine that - Huckabee appeals to moderates!
72. Diana Powe | December 21st, 2007 at 2:26 pm
extramedium,
I understand where you’re going with the idea of making abortion “illegal as a service” but, if it’s not illegal because it’s murder then what possible legal basis is there for simply outlawing one particular medical procedure? It would be like outlawing root canals because you thought people should have an infected tooth extracted as a punishment for their poor oral hygiene rather than performing a medical procedure that allowed them to avoid the real-world consequences of not properly caring for their teeth. Sorry, that will never pass Constitutional muster.
People who say they’re pro-life say abortion is murder, not that it’s a deplorable fact of life, but that it is murder, the unlawful killing of a human being. If you can’t say that, then you’re some shade of pro-choice. You may be really, really, really in favor of encouraging women to not choose abortion, but you’re not willing to actually impose on them the logical legal consequence of being a party to murder.
73. Jeremiah | December 21st, 2007 at 2:39 pm
then you have to stand ready to advocate the prosecution for murder of all parties to the crime.
Diana,
Who is blessed with the ability to bear children? Only the woman.
So, it is her decision, and she needs to think before she gets into a relationship.
Like I said, Life is no game, people need to excerise a little constraint, if the two of them aren’t yet prepared to accept that responsibility. Thus, they use their God-given brains not for their own pleasure, but for His.
Now, I appreciate your advice, but no thanks, you can keep it.
~ Jeremiah
74. extramedium | December 21st, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Diane,
Good point. I should, however, perhaps backpedal a bit and leave room for the possibility that abortion as murder might someday be politically viable. From my observation, America seems to be becoming more fervently Christian over time, especially the Evangelical segment…and I’ve been around long enough to know I should never say never. But I agree it would be over reaching right now for absolutists to think they could outlaw abortion.
75. Diana Powe | December 21st, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Jeremiah,
Thanks for your expression of appreciation. Again, I’m not attacking you, but you have to know in your heart that if you won’t advocate for what’s right (from the pure pro-choice position) then you are de facto accepting abortion as a fact of human life and that makes you a form of “pro-life/pro-choice”. You argue, quite rightly, that people should exercise restraint and think about the implications of what they do (hear! hear!), but you’re not willing to recriminalize abortion because you aren’t willing to send the mothers and their facilitators to prison or death row.
extramedium,
You’re quite right. Never say never. However, I cannot see abortion being recriminalized ever. The recent experience of South Dakota along that line is quite instructive.
76. DM | December 21st, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Diana, you seem quite knowledgeable of law and definitions as related to abortion. May I ask what your profession is? Also, through the debate on this topic, I’m not quite sure where you stand. It seems that you personally are against abortion and would love to send the abortion rate to zero but at the same time you seem to argue that it is politically impossible or political suicide which may be the same thing. Does that mean that you think we should do nothing to end abortion or move in that direction?
It appears you are trying to pin the pro lifers to an absolutist position and that anything else is not truly pro life. I would concur. It also appears you believe that position is not viable in the political world, I guess due to the supposed lack of ability to be elected. If your position is such that you’d like to see elective abortion eliminated, how would you approach that desire from a political standpoint?
77. Jeremiah | December 21st, 2007 at 3:25 pm
but you have to know in your heart that if you won’t advocate for what’s right
Diana,
Deep down in my heart I know that if I don’t advocate for what is right, then I’ll never see an end to this barbarism and cruelty.
Children are dying, what will you?
~ Jeremiah
P.S. And yes, those “doctors” will answer for the injustice they’ve committed, when they stand before the Almighty Judge.
78. Diana Powe | December 21st, 2007 at 4:04 pm
DM,
I spent 30 years as a police officer (all but 2 of those in uniformed patrol) in Texas (4 years as a reserve officer with the Dallas Police Department and 26 years and a few months with the Richardson Police Department). I took service retirement earlier this year and am considering my options, including going to law school or medical school.
Personally, I am very happy that I’ve never had to confront the issue of abortion personally or with any of my friends or family. Because of the reality of abortion, I would prefer that they be avoided except in cases of sexual assault and protecting the mother from a risk of serious bodily injury or death. However, I cannot follow the pure pro-life position to its logical end and prosecute all those who should be prosecuted if we say that abortion is morally the same as murder.
Therefore, I believe it is incumbent that as a society that we acknowledge some realities:
1) Whether we like it or not, sex and sexuality, especially the sexual objectification of women, is rampant in the culture. In fact, the Fox News Channel is one of the worst offenders in this regard.
2) Couples who arguably should not have sexual intercourse are and will continue to have sexual intercourse. Some of those acts will result in unintended pregnancies. At least some of the time, these pregnancies could be avoided if even one of the partners had been sufficiently aware of and had ready access to the means of contraception - condoms, intrauterine devices, spermicides and birth control pills.
3) Telling young adults to be abstinent and nothing else doesn’t work. People want it to work, but it doesn’t.
What to do?
1) Young adults need to be given age-appropriate education in school about the potential realities (good and bad) of sexual activity that can lead to pregnancy and, if they subsequently choose to be sexually active, they need to have ready access to contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancies. This would include strong regulations that prevent pharmacists from vetoing access to contraception based on personal conviction.
2) To the extent that government is not doing enough to protect children and facilitate adoptions, then policies need to be in place to encourage women who have unwanted pregnancies to carry the child to term and have it placed through adoption.
3) Encourage government to provide (free of charge, if necessary) excellent well-baby care to mothers who agree to carry their child to term and who cannot afford it.
The Scarlet Letter approach doesn’t work. The fact is that there will always be women seeking abortions. As a result, if we really care about children, then we need to give people the knowledge and tools to prevent the necessity of even considering abortion and providing real assistance, rather than the simple pleasure of condemnation, when a woman faces a difficult moral choice.
I believe such policies would be politically viable and would reduce the number of abortions in the United States and that would be a good thing for everyone.
79. Jeremiah | December 21st, 2007 at 5:34 pm
Listen to the message of Christmas!
~ Jeremiah
80. DM | December 22nd, 2007 at 10:11 am
Diana,
1.) Let me commend you on your many years of public service.
2.) I would like to thank you for your responses and comments. In my opinion you offer thoughts, suggestions and questions, intertwined with your understanding of the law, people’s emotions and the political system, then attempt to follow it to a logical conclusion. All too often posters here will scream and rant to get “their” point across without adding anything of substance. It seems to me that your approach is one where 2 opposing side to any subject can move to close the gap and gain common ground. The alternate approach appears to only widen the chasm.
3.) Even though I see elective abortion as murder and those who aid in that murder should be punished, I’m not so naïve to believe that we can end this all in one fast swoop. It seems to be the assertion of some posters that a potential presidential nominee will be unelectable if they put forth a platform stating that they will attempt to change laws where all directly involved with committing an abortion will suffer the full wrath of the law. I’m not aware of any nominee who is foolish to suggest such a thing.
In fact, I don’t see any one person with the direct ability to make this happen. Instead the president’s part will simply be to put forth a stepping stone agenda, together with judicial appointments where we can reach our goal. We didn’t get to where we are by the decree of any president and we won’t get to where I think we need to be by any single presidential decree.
4.) Abortion is not one single issue, but rather a group of issues. Each related issue swings on its own pendulum. Some are swinging hard left, some hard right, some gaining momentum, some slowing down or reversing direction. I think if we have people like yourself who are willing to discuss each issue to where we can agree to even some parts of some of the solutions then we will make true progress. What I see instead is an abortion industry that will fight tooth and nail to prevent any restriction (and discussion) to any issue related to abortion. This sure seems like a recipe for a harsh confrontation and an attack on a wider scope of personal life such as all religious values. In fact, we are already there.
5.) One aspect that I think we can agree on is an abortion to save the mother’s life. I don’t think this goes against a true pro life stance. Killing someone in the act of self defense is never murder.
81. Consul-At-Arms | December 23rd, 2007 at 9:54 pm
I’ve quoted you and linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2007/12/re-my-political-wish-list.html