QUICK LINKS
"Chickens More Important Than Our Daughters"
Recently, we have been pointing out the duplicity and hypocrisy of Washington State legislators pushing the Domestic Partnership (gay rights agenda) bill, wile refusing to support bills that would enable law enforcement to better control both sex offenders and repeat felons.
With that in mind, I read the following.
Democrats on the U.S. House Judiciary Committee approved a measure last week to stop animals particularly roosters, from being transported across state lines for fighting, but rejected Representative James Sensenbrenner's (R-Wis.) Amendment to stop young girls from being secretly taken across state lines for abortions.
With that, Representative Sensenbrenner rose and said, "I recognize we are meeting here today to consider a bill to protect chickens, but isn't protecting our nation's young women -- equally, of not more important, than our dinner entree?"
It is apparent that elected officials act out on their personal beliefs.
It is also apparent that people with a biblical worldview must become more active in both electing our representatives and holding them accountable after they are elected.
________________
Gary Randall
President
Faith & Freedom
Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.
72 Comments:
A genuine, Biblical marriage is "that which God has joined together" (Mk 10). Jesus teaching regarding a genuine, godly marriage excludes any reference to the state. Therefore, the effort by Evangelicals to make state sanctioned rights (call them what you will) as synonymous with marriage results in the degradation of true, Godly marriage to nothing but a mere artificial creation of the state with state (vs. God) provided rights/responsibilities.
I find this, at best, distasteful and uniquely disparaging to both the institution of God as well as the humanity involved in the arrangement. To degrade marriage in the manner that it appears that FNF and Evangelical/Roman Catholics have done is really a slap in the face to God and the arrangement He created.
Therefore, the real issue is whether disciples of Jesus Christ will work to maintain the high view of marriage as put forth by Jesus Christ or the degraded view of marriage as proposed by Evangelicals and Roman Catholics. Genuine disciples will reject the states involvement in their marriages since their "yes must be yes" and their "nos must be no". Our integrity and honesty before man and God will be the glue of that holds us together.
I welcome Biblically based comment on what I believe is the key issue rather than the on-going meddling in the affairs of the world (and the related dissimulation which is constantly manifest in doing so) which God has specifically relegated to Himself alone (ICor5:12,13; "my kingdom is NOT of this world" - Jesus Christ; "Our battle is NOT against flesh and blood but principalities and powers" - Paul).
Sincerely,
In Christ,
Human
Gary,
I know and you know that this is grotesquely distorted (and old Sense is hardly one I would take any reality from...).
Just for starters...
The girls are not being taken over state lines to fight to the death....
I know that if it came to your money, you would be much more accurate in your presentation.
Sincerely,
In Christ,
Human
{sigh}
Gary, he has tried to pass this bill on its own multiple times. It is contentious - trying to attach it to a bill that everyone actually supports and will pass easily is duplistic and basically dishonest as is whining about it not being allowed as an amendment.
Biblical worldview indeed.
Admittedly I have yet to encounter the most important J-C value other than Christ Himself - HONESTY! on FNF.
I look forward to doing so however and pray to that end.
Sincerely,
In Christ,
Human
Yes, we really do worry more about animal rights than human rights in our enlightened society. Right now, animal health clinics have more regulation than abortion clinics, and the leftists fight to maintain that.
Keep up the good work exposing the ridiculousness of leftist actions.
When we get rid of not only ridiculousness but the violence and oppression of the right, we will go to work on the silliness of some of the left,
Peace,
Human
Right now, animal health clinics have more regulation than abortion clinics
Really? You obviously have a cite for this rather bold statement, correct?
No gary, chickens are just more important than your desire to have control of women's uteruses.
"Duplicity and hypocrisy" are not characteristics that Gary should be pointing out in anyone else - this post is so full of both that one is nauseated by reading it.
In any event, it would be nice to have some facts added to Gary's post.
Sincerely,
In Christ,
Human
Then don't read it Human. You are only able to even express yourself on this website because Gary Randall is open and so given to letting you and a few others spew your hatred and ignorance toward him and every thing that so many of us believe in. For my part I wish he would not allow people like you and vishanti(who ever that is) to get a free ride fotr expressing your perverted and often incorrect views on our website. Why don't you take a hike and do something special like setting up your own site. I'm sure thousands would flock to hear your wisdom.
Human, the people I know read this site in spite of comments like yours.
Could you possibibly find somewhere else to spend your days?
I respect your right to your own twisted ideas, but if you want to preach that stuff I suggest you build your own soapbox. Kindly get off ours.
I agree. Completely
Of course you cite no 'incorrect views' you just whine. Typical - call people names and say they've done something wrong but give absolutely nothing to back up the claim. The Bible addressed people like you and not in a nice way.
Again, the comments aren't for people like you but those who might realize what Gary says is wrong but not immediately understand why. If Gary is capable of getting your dander up over a representative getting slapped down for trying to amend a totally unrelated bill inappropriately then you've drunken Gary's Kool-Aid™ of your own free will. That's your right but incriminations without substance won't do much to help his or your case.
Wow. I was beginning to wonder if I was the only one who felt that way. I read this site almost every day and have never posted on it, but have often wondered why Faith and Freedom even allows you on here.
Gary's credentials are pretty well established in the faith community. I don't know him personally but have heard him speak and have followed his ministry for many years, including the years he was on television and the years he served as a pastor.
Your world view is very different than his, or mine for that matter, but your continuing rant about trying to discredit what he says only serves to affirm your ignorance to people like me. There are millions who share his beliefs. Not because he says it but because he is on the mark with conservatives and Christians.
By the way, Vishanti and Human what are your credentials? And if your views are so profound why don't you start your own organization? Then you could camp out on your own site. I really think you and others like you have way to much time on your hands.
Gary's comments are not wrong. They are different than yours because he has a very different world view than you have. His beliefs are , as mine and others on this site are, Biblically based
Not allowing a representative to attach an inappropriate amendment to a bill about fighting roosters is not in anyway or in any form anyone saying that "Chickens More Important Than Our Daughters".
So you 'Gary fans' are supporting such callous denigration of others? That saying disparaging things about the supposed priorities and motives of others is 'Biblically based'?
Is it any wonder people don't really believe the people supporting F&FN are followers of Jesus' teachings?
The teachings of Jesus have always caused strife. In fact He said they would sometimes divide members of a family. Howevere, Jesus teachings when seen in the context of overall Biblical teaching are both consistant with the old and New Testment and it is from these teachings that Biblical Christianity comes. I find the blogs on this site consistent with that teaching in regard to social issues.
Obviously if you do not believe in the Divinity of Jesus Christ, the authority of God the Creator or the innerancy of the Bible, you will see things very different than Gary and many who visit this site daily.
Ammendments are attached to bills all the time by both parties.Vishanti, surely you know that.
Let's face it.The Dems are stumbling left at a pace that is unbelievable.
Your boy, John Edwards got caught paying two of the most extreme liberal bloggers in America and fired one of them immeaditeatly when it was exposed that they repersented him.
The one woman, Gramor I believe her name is, has written some of the most blastphemeous things about God that anyone has ever read on the internet. That extreme left wing has become a part of the Democrats game plan.
And yes young girls are being taken across state lines for secert abortions and much of it is driven by planned parenthood and similiar organizations. Get Real.
Vishanti
Why are the Democrats blocking important bills that are bi-partisan and would be very helpful to law enforcement in reducing crime, while going all out to pass domestic partnerships that are truly and merely a step toward gay marriage. Even your own Ed Murray has said that gay marriage is the goal.
I suppose Gary and Ken Schram, who have very different views on most issues, are both wrong on this one.
mmendments are attached to bills all the time by both parties.Vishanti, surely you know that.
And surely you know they are probably blocked for reasons other than they think 'chickens are more important than daughters'.
Let's face it.The Dems are stumbling left at a pace that is unbelievable.
See what you want to see but according to Gallup Polls the Democrats are more respected than the Republicans.
blastphemeous things about God that anyone has ever read on the internet
Which is her right as an American, right?
And yes young girls are being taken across state lines for secert abortions and much of it is driven by planned parenthood and similiar organizations. Get Real.
Even if they are, you would have to show that's a bad thing. The representative couldn't get this bill passed when the republicans controlled congress - this is just a ploy to motivate you as it was every time he presented the bill and you are once again jumping to his tune of more big government.
Why are the Democrats blocking important bills that are bi-partisan and would be very helpful to law enforcement in reducing crime
Every play telegraph as a kid? You got Ken's message wrong in a single step. He never said Democrats were blocking the bills (they aren't) he was just playing his roll as a gadfly and saying not enough were actively supporting them. And if you would bother to go to the legislature site you will find the bills are progressing through the steps as they should AND they are actually fairly minor changes to the existing statutes (which is probably why they weren't high on people's radar.) I'm sure they got all the push they needed from Ken's spotlight.
domestic partnerships that are truly and merely a step toward gay marriage
Of course they are but not due to anything sneaky, just the passage of time. 65% of people under 25 support marriage equality and studies of polling data show that opinions about sexual orientation issues change little with age. Eventually the old 'special rights for straights' crowd will be in the ground and the right thing will be passed then instead of the right thing being done now.
And again, marriage equality is nothing to be scared of, it should be desired. Always the same blank stares when you ask someone are they really saying they WANT gay people to be single? For them not to couple up and marry? You really can't have it both ways you know.
The bills are not progressing as they should. I work for an elected Repersentative and am here every day. Democrats have refused to co sponsor.
You better read Schrams peice again. You are spinning what he said.
You better read Schrams peice again. You are spinning what he said.
Lets quote the meat of it for clarity's sake:
They've proposed a series of bills to toughen things up and hold the DOC more accountable for keeping bad guys off the street.
The problem is, not only are the Democrats not signing on to those bills, they're not doing nearly enough to help them move forward.
Don't see the word 'blocking' or anything similar anywhere, do you? Seems more a complaint that they aren't advocating them enough. And even that doesn't seem to pan out.
In over 100 crime-related bills in both houses, about 75 pertain to actual criminal regulation. Looking through an eye blurring number of them I can't find any that are exclusively Republican sponsored though there are a number that are totally Democratic:
HB 1754 8 democrats 2 republicans
HB 1967 4 democrats 4 republicans
SB 5878 9 democrats 0 republicans
HB 2170 8 democrats 6 republicans
SB 5424 6 democrats 1 republican
SB 5266 6 democrats 1 republican
SB 5332 2 democrats 1 republican
HB 2084 1 democrat 14 republicans
HB 1669 5 democrats 4 republicans
HB 1133 7 democrats 3 republicans
HB 1221 9 democrats 1 republican
HB 1729 3 democrats 1 republican
HB 1853 7 democrats 0 republicans
HB 1874 23 democrats 1 republican
SB 5070 23 democrats 14 republicans
SB 5636 4 democrats 0 republicans
and many more of this nature...
Seems to me that most crime-related bills are being sponsored by Democrats, in fact the majority of sponsors are Democrats.
Maybe you could give us a list of bills you see 'not progressing as they should' Very confusing situation because it looks to me like most crime and offender-related bills are being sponsored primarily by Democrats. You'd think they'd be able to get through committee wouldn't you?
Most likely the spin was Schram's and Gary's, but then being a gadfly is their paid professions.
Anons above,
Jesus Christ is my Lord and my God. I don't hate Gary - I hate his sin of hypocrisy/spin, lies and deception as well as his advocacy of violence and oppression against peaceful human beings in contrast with a genuine Biblical world view of Peacemaking (Mt 5:9), living in peace (IPet2 -?)and not hurting ones neighbor (Rom 13:10), etc., etc. not even to speak of love others as oneself.
Likewise, in accordance with scripture, I pray for Gary and for Jon regularly.
I have continued to lay the Word of God before your feet - if I am in error in any respect, I submit to you - but so far, you are providing nothing but Religious Right Evangelical Rant with not a single statement of content.
I find it odd that the Religious Right accuses those outside of its confines of the very act that they have engaged in regularly in their attack against me. Perhaps it is fear because they know they are coming up against the Word of God and they have never been challenged by it. I know this very well because I have been a part of that camp for many years and even imbibed in its evil - I thank the Lord for pulling me out of a community that has been polluted by the politics of this world and the god of this world even Satan.
In any event, I laid out statements above - which is false???
BTW - I have lauded Gary and FNF many times for allowing ALL posts - I do so again. I am uncertain why he does that because most Relgious Right blogs are scared to death of hearing any views to the contrary and do even as some of you have suggested - immediately quash those views - too bad the first amendment doesn't mean anything to them or you - on the other hand, apparently Gary does recognize the importance of it and I give him credit. If I do set up a site, he will be welcome to come and speak on it at any time and say whatever he wants (with anticipation of a lively response from all comers!!).
Sincerely,
In Christ,
Human
Vishanti
Why would Schram spin against his own? He and Gary are not on the same page. Haven't you ever heard him on the Commentators with Schram and Carlson?
I know Faith and Freedom quite well. Gary does not earn his living from that. I have no idea how munch Schram makes from his work at KOMO.
Human
Since you like this site so well and appreciate Gary's integrity toward allowing dissenting comments, have you ever considered making a donation to Faith and Freedom?
Just a thought.
Why would Schram spin against his own? He and Gary are not on the same page. Haven't you ever heard him on the Commentators with Schram and Carlson?
Why wouldn't he when his job is being a gadfly? His forum on KOMO is uni-sided - he has taken pokes at liberals as well as the easy target conservatives on it before.
Oh and Gary is a gadfly outside of Faith & Freedom as well - haven't you ever heard him speak?
I do notice no one has made comment on my researched facts - exactly where is the outrage about Republicans not supporting crime bills?
Tyhe lefts obsession with abortion rights deserves AMA attention if you ask me . Bill Clinton for example would have been fired for his acts if he was a state worker or employed at most places I know of . But NOW , Planned Parenthood , etc never stopped supporting President Clinton because he supported abortion rights . Though he clearly on a personal level did not respect women , especially their privacy . The left has put abortion on a platform above all rights ,
The logic that says a school must have a note from a parent to allow a student to take an aspirin at school , but allows that school to be an avenue for an abortion for that student without eeven telling the parent to even allow the parent to make sure the student does not suffer any possible ill physical effects, not alone emotional , maybe the student might need an aspirin ,
But of course ,abortion comes first ..
Human and Vishanti are the same person. Human is faking being a Christian. His wool(as in wolf in sheeps clothing) has fallen off several times tripping him all up.
He also goes by Rev. D, anonymous and others.
Of course the other opinion is that the right needs AMA attention over their obsession with not allowing freedom of choice, or at least a civics class. People only react when people are trying to remove others rights to choose.
Please, presidents aren't in the same class as employees that have time off. Presidents have had affairs throughout their history - Eisenhower, George Bush, Kennedy, and who cares how many others. And where would you be fired for having an office romance? Please.
And no aspirin at schools is a right initiative, not blame anyone else. The 'no tolerance' policies are another example of expediency at the expense of personal rights that the right is known for: its easier to disallow all drugs rather than have to decide if something a kid has a legitimate usage or not.
And yes, a person's right to choose does come first - its the core principle this country was founded on, the rights of the individual to make their own choices even if others disagree. You make your choices, you let others make theirs, and the world would be a much less contentious place.
But then in such a world the F&FN wouldn't even exist.
Steve,
Thanks for the encouragement - I take it as sincere.
When Gary decides to begin to promulgate the genuine values of Jesus Christ, I will be happy to make a donation since those are the values I support.
BTW - any comments on the specific issues that I have raised?
Sincerely,
In Christ,
Human
Oshtur , you equate abortion rights with a civics class ?
"Of course the other opinion is that the right needs AMA attention over their obsession with not allowing freedom of choice, or at least a civics class. People only react when people are trying to remove others rights to choose."
Civics class would a be a great place to start , teaching the Constitution and how abortion became a Constitutional right . Many pro choice legal scholars see the flaw in Roe VS Wade , regardless of your views on abortion , its a clear example of activitism from the courts . The belief the Constitution has a living duty to make up stuff is the way I see you Al Gore and liberals see it , a LIVING Document , dictated by which political party has control of the choices , . Justice by political party and views .. . Should not matter if a person has a pro life view view or a pro choice view when handing out justice , that is why we are so divided , maybe just part of the reason . " You and I should be able to understand the Constitution , or close to on the same wave length , not through our political wants and nots , that is just exactly what the Founders DID NOT WANT .. read their writings read the Federalist and anti Federalist papers , if it is important to what the Founders thought , you call the important ones deists, then you see the important ones as not agreeing with you on this basis of our country ..
"Please, presidents aren't in the same class as employees that have time off. Presidents have had affairs throughout their history - Eisenhower, George Bush, Kennedy, and who cares how many others. And where would you be fired for having an office romance? Please."
" Presidents should not be above the law , did not Nixon teach you that ? Having sex in the office , most people I know would be fired on the spot . Having accusations of abusing your office , you do know those women got money in settlements , the big deal about Bill lying about sex was because he was being investigated for abusing Paula Jones , using his position to have sex without her wanting it , he lied about Monica , the prosecutor was trying to show a pattern of abuse of power , thats why he lied , .. The big deal was lying about sex , to me it was him lying to hide a crime that happened to involve sex .. The tabloid sex and people trying to make him look socially a jerk got in the way if you ask me .
Maybe so his wife would not know too , who knows .,., When I worked at a retail store the store Manager had an affair with Customer Service manager < not kidding > and he was history .. Not sure if it was because he was married or policy , just he was out of there , not re assigned . I did not know about it till he was fired ...Offered early retirement . Store managers are big shots in retail .
Using your position of authority for easy sex ... See , you are using your politics to defend the undefendable .. Tell me, where can you go to work and have sex at your work station , with someone who sees you as the boss , and your superior not fire you if they found out .. Unless you are working for a pimp , you really don't have too many places of business and lawsuits in this century you can work for .
"And no aspirin at schools is a right initiative, not blame anyone else. The 'no tolerance' policies are another "example of expediency at the expense of personal rights that the right is known for: its easier to disallow all drugs rather than have to decide if something a kid has a legitimate usage or not."
Wow , at least your consistent on this one .. A liberaterian at heart , your emotions get in the way Vishtur ,
I want to be a liberaterian when I grow up , I just don;t have the individualism yet to get there .
I like the policy of knowing if kids are using meds , because many kids will get a subscription and sell the stuff to their friends . Kids are resoursefull little buggers . But aspirin is extreme , its why I use it my point .
"And yes, a person's right to choose does come first - its the core principle this country was founded on, the rights of the individual to make their own choices even if others disagree. You make your choices, you let others make theirs, and the world would be a much less contentious place."
Woe , Abortion rights is what our country was founded on .... Wow ... Funding it through Federal Government the ability to take a life , thats my choice of viewing it , without the ability to vote on those tax dollars use . Thats exactly what our Founders fought against , England using money fromm the colonies to support their own little war with France .The colonies had no say in the matter .. We have no Kings , you think they wear robes and if 4 see something against the other 3 , it becomes something our country was founded on . Tsk Tsk
You know their are schools that provide free medical clinics , that will and do provide abortions . No choice for this tax payer ... And this refers to your other opinions , your idea of choice is someones elses idea of death .
That is not what this country was founded on , not the government supplying those choices would be a compromise , but you can't even go there ...
"But then in such a world the F&FN wouldn't even exist."
Then Move/Org / , Planned Parenthood , ACLU would be actually working for all people instead of for a few of them
I found this quite relevant , perhaps something to irk our liberal lurkers , but possibly allow for growth and understanding . In our state we have become a state of RCWs instead of a state with laws , and those RCWS are enforced by un elected< self serving sometimes> agencies.
REPUBLIC TO OLIGARCHY: A History of America
Elected officials--from local to state to federal--have willingly or unwillingly delegated their constitutional authority to unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats and regulatory commissions. At all levels of government, we are now ruled by an unelected oligarchy.
On freedom, Ronald Reagan (40th U.S. president) said: Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States when men [and women] were free. Amen, Mr. President...
REPUBLIC TO OLIGARCHY: A History of America
Written by Jonathan Emord
Friday, 09 February 2007
At the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Benjamin Franklin, then 81, had gained a reputation for shrewd realism. The handiwork of the Continental Congress impressed him, but he believed it imperfect; he knew it was better than any other plan for government on earth but he feared the plan might not survive.
As he left the Convention for the last time, a group of anxious citizens asked him what kind of government the delegates had created. The deliberations were secret and, so, the curiosity of Philadelphians had reached a fever pitch. Responding to the inquiry, Dr. Franklin replied, "a republic, if you can keep it."
Sadly, 220 years later, we have lost it.
Today our nation is largely run by the unelected heads of the federal independent regulatory commissions. Those heads are the most powerful political leaders in the United States, more powerful than the President, any member of Congress, and any federal judge.
Their will is very much the law. In their hands rest legislative, executive, and judicial powers which they wield daily without having to answer to anyone for the consequences. They rule as oligarchs.
Unelected, they are not responsive to the electorate or to the departments of government created by the Constitution. They create and enforce the law, and they try law transgressors, all outside the Constitutional departments (the Congress, the Executive, and the Judiciary).
Nine-tenths of all laws in the United States are not the product of actions by our elected representatives, they are promulgated by unelected Commissioners.
Truth be told, in the day to day affairs of the people, the unelected rule America.
We are no longer governed by the limited federal republic the Founding Fathers understood to be the only true safeguard of liberty, the last best hope for freedom on earth.
During the Revolutionary War, no words stirred the hearts of patriots more than those of Thomas Paine (1737-1809) in Common Sense. There, he defined the rule of the unelected as the antithesis of liberty.
Paine contrasted monarchy (the rule of a hereditary King who held legislative, executive, and judicial powers) with a republic where power was subject to constitutional limits and was dispersed in competing power centers.
"The nearer any government approaches to a republic," wrote Paine, "the lest business there is for a King."
The single point of distinction was that here in America we were subject to the rule of law, rather than of men: "But where says some is the King of America? . . . . [I]n America the law is king. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other."
The Constitution of 1787 gave us a limited federal republic because the Framers of our Constitution detested concentrations of power and understood them to pose a lethal threat to freedom. They understood the unification of legislative, executive, and judicial powers in single hands to be the very definition of tyranny.
Distrusting power, they favored a Constitution that expressly delegated specific powers to competing departments within a single government, giving each department authority to check the other and creating in the aggregate a limited and balanced system that would act out of necessity rather than out of the fancy of oligarchs.
The American republic was thus a "mixed constitution. " It was not a pure democracy. In its first three articles, our Constitution invests in the Legislative, the Executive, and the Judiciary specific defined powers and it makes each department dependent upon the consent of the others to ensure effectuation of any action.
Congress is constitutionally empowered to make law but a law passed by Congress may only have effect if signed by the President or, if vetoed by the President, if that veto is overridden by a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress.
Even then the law is subject to challenge in the courts, and if the federal courts determine the law to be unconstitutional, it may have no further force or effect. The foregoing illustrates how our system depends upon different powers centers to check and balance one another, designedly limiting power so as to prevent any single department from having unbridled discretion to act.
The concept of a separation of powers is inseparable from the notion of a "republic." The Framers of the Constitution were heavily influenced by the French philosopher Montesquieu (1689-1755), who explained in his 1748 treatise The Spirit of the Laws:
There is no liberty if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers. Were it joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control, for the judge would then be the legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with all the violence of an oppressor . . . . There would be an end of everything were the same man, or the same body . . . to exercise those three powers . . . of enacting laws . . . of execting [laws] . . . and . . .of judging the crimes or differences of individuals.
James Madison (1751-1836) echoed these sentiments when he wrote, "[t]he accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judicial, in the same hands, whether of one, few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elected, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
Alexander Hamilton (1755-1804) explained that the separation of powers was "itself, in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS." John Adams (1735-1826) likewise wrote in 1776 that "a single assembly, possessed of all the powers of government, would make arbitrary laws for their own interest, execute all laws arbitrarily for their own interest, and adjudge all controversies in their own favor."
Today, 220 years after the Framers created the grand design of our Constitution, the core concept of limited and separated powers, of checks and balances, has given way with the rise and full fruition of the regulatory state.
Contrary to the Framers' design, we are now principally governed by the unelected. If you venture to any law library, examine the shelf space dedicated to the acts of Congress and compare that to the shelf space dedicated to the code of federal regulations, you will find that roughly 10% of the space is for the laws enacted by Congress, the gross mountain remaining is for the laws promulgated by unelected officials in the independent regulatory commissions.
The independent regulatory commission possess delegated power to create laws (regulations) , prosecute those who violate the regulations, and adjudge those who have violated the regulations.
In short, they are that single assembly or body possessing all powers, legislative, executive, and judicial, that the Framers of our Constitution considered, to quote Madison, "the very definition of tyranny."
Indeed, with virtually unbridled discretion, they regulate every aspect of commerce in the United States and oftentimes run roughshod over the rights of individuals in the market. Through regulation, they choose winners and losers for the market. They distort free enterprise to promote their own private agendas.
Our present system of government is no longer a limited federal republic. The republic given us by the Framers of the Constitution has given way to a modern regulatory state ruled by oligarchs.
That state has rent the constitutional design, made it largely irrelevant in the day to day affairs of the people, and has brought about tyranny by circumventing the limits on power the Framers gave us and asked us to preserve, protect, and defend. Until we return to the original constitutional design, we will be victimized by the abuses of unelected bureaucrats.
We have experienced three quarters of a century of law by the unelected acting outside the constitutional system of checks and balances, and we have suffered a tremendous loss of economic liberty and individual rights all along the way, a trail of destroyed businesses, ruined lives, and manipulated outcomes (pre-determined winners and losers).
If we are to restore our country's great constitutional heritage, the work must begin with a return to the original constitutional design and a dismantlement of the unconstitutional substitute that rules us today. A simple measure could profoundly tip the scales back in the right direction.
Imagine if no rule could be adopted by a regulatory agency that caused an economic impact of $500,000 or more or caused a single person to be unemployed unless a majority in Congress approved the measure.
A law of that kind could return to Congress the duty of oversight and responsibility that Congress has so willingly given away to the regulatory agencies.
While it is politically expedient for a congressman or senator to avoid responsibility for bad government actions by delegating the authority to engage in those bad acts to regulatory commissions, laws of this kind are cowardly, dishonorable, and the bane of our country's existence.
Such laws are taking us down economically. They are destroying the precious fabric of freedom upon which we have long depended. They sacrifice the constitutional liberties of us all for the political aggrandizement of those in power.
When our children ask in the first decades of the twenty-first century the question Franklin faced in the eighteenth, will they respond, "a republic, if you can keep it," or will they be forced to admit that we are ruled by an unelected oligarchy?
Jonathan W. Emord is a constitutional lawyer based in Washington, D.C. who sues the federal government frequently. He has defeated the Food and Drug Administration more times in federal court than any other attorney in American history.
© http://www.tothepoi ntnews.com/ content/view/ 2646/87/
Mick, thank you for the post. Most do not realize what is happening in regard to the effect the unelected oligarchy is having on our freedoms. I work here and see it every day.Nearly every aspect of our personal lives are influenced by staff and appointees who often have their own agenda which is not even close to that of the person who hired or appointed them nor to that of the public who elected them.
Thanks Steve , Welcome on this blog ..
Oshtur,
To have a bill you need to have it allowed a hearing , the democrats often use their power to stop bills friom ever having a hearing . This always happens ,both sides do it when they can , but with the amount of power the left has in Olympia , it is even worse . You only hear certain matters arise in the papers , one because the republicans know they have to pick their battles , two the media around here sucks .
you equate abortion rights with a civics class?
Don't know where you got that from. I was talking about the obsession of some withe limiting the choices of others. The country was formed on the premise that the individual has rights, not the group and that government is a tool to serve the individual. As such there are choices the properly functioning government can not force upon the individual but rather government's purpose is to, at the very least, not stand in the citizen's way.
you call the important ones deists, then you see the important ones as not agreeing with you on this basis of our country ..
No I don't see it. Limited government, purpose is to support people the way they are. Again, what you don't seem to see is that we have a long history of personal autonomy - of having aspects of our life that the government has no right to intrude on.
The anti-choice crowd doesn't get it - this isn't about if a zygote is a human or not. They could be writing novels and the host's right to be an incubator for it or not would still be their choice. Just as I can't be forced to donate blood, bone marrow or a kidney to save someone's life a person can't be forced to be an involuntary incubator. As long as only one person can support the fetus it is that person's decision on whether they choose to do so or not.
The court recognized this precedence and actually limited it, saying the option to remove consent was not unlimited and that after a certain amount of time the individual was basically committed to incubation and could no longer withdraw that consent. It regulated the right to personal body autonomy but its a dangerous road saying the government can order people absolutely what to do with theirs. Look to china involuntarily harvesting the organs of prisoners WHILE THEY ARE ALIVE to see the road that leads to.
I can fully appreciate people thinking abortion is wrong but how about convincing others not to have them rather than trying to vainly force them? Look at the abortion stats from before it was legal - the rich white people got them anyway, the poor black and hispanic people didn't. Make it illegal and you will just see the same thing again - lots of quick trips to Canada for the rich, backyard abortions for the poor.
Tell me, where can you go to work and have sex at your work station , with someone who sees you as the boss , and your superior not fire you if they found out
Easy - at a home office like the White House is. Again, hardly indefensible except by the crowd that think they have a right to micromanage other people's lives. I mean I ran a business, and I did catch a night employee with another night employee doing similar (if not the same) things one time. What kind of jerk would fire someone over that? Please, common sense.
Woe, Abortion rights is what our country was founded on
And that takes us back to my comment that it is your side that is obsessed with abortion. You think anyone talking about 'your right to choose' is talking about abortion? Ha! That IS the tiniest aspect of your right to liberty, your right to forge your own path with your own choices. You have a RIGHT to choose, and a legitimate government recognizes that and intrudes on that right as little as possible, just as our founding fathers intended.
your idea of choice is someones elses idea of death
And we come back to my point that you seem to have the idea that someone else doing something is somehow you doing something. If you think abortions are wrong THEN DON'T HAVE ONE, if you don't want the state to know if you married a guy then DON'T LICENSE THE CONTRACT WITH ONE!!! I think riding a motorcycle on the freeway is wrong but that doesn't mean I am going to prevent someone else from doing it or begrudge them the money it takes to scrap them up off the asphalt when they have an accident. Again, that is what 'tolerance' means: allowing someone to have an opinion or behavior that I don't approve of. A more mundane point is the current request to rob my pocket for yet another sports arena. I wouldn't give them a dime - its repugnant to waste all that money needed elsewhere so that grown men can go around playing a silly game for million dollar salaries. Yet it will most likely be that I will have to donate money to this stupidity but that's me being tolerant - not every dime of the money I put in the common pool is going to be going for the things I would want; I recognize that other people wanting things I don't approve yet they have a right to government support too.
Then Move/Org / , Planned Parenthood , ACLU would be actually working for all people instead of for a few of them.
Hmmm they work for all people (well not sure that move.org is a service organization). Yes, there are some people who think that family planning isn't necessary and others who would just love to curtail everyone's civil liberties in ways but again but it is they who are in the minority I would suspect (or at least hope).
As to the oligarchy claim, I agree - things like the Banking Commission and the like are influencing the entire world market in vast ways - I mean Greenspan virtually controlled the world for how many years? But we do have to look at the pluses and minuses: the great depression was a result of an unregulated financial infrastructure and each time a crash like that occurs more of the nation's wealth gets concentrated into fewer people. These commissions though are appointed by (primarily) the executive branch. Would seem that offers some level of control over their function by the simple act of replacing their members.
To have a bill you need to have it allowed a hearing , the democrats often use their power to stop bills friom ever having a hearing .
As did republicans when they were in power. (What rights bill was blocked by the republicans actually adjorning early a year or so ago?) But as I pointed out most of the crime related bills are primarily Democrat sponsored! Why would they block their own legislation efforts? Makes no sense. Of course it CAN happen, but where is the evidence it IS happening to any greater extent than normal right now?
Actually, abortion was not made illegal in our country until Susan B. Anthony worked to get it made illegal. Men were taking their mistresses to legal back alley clinics to hide their improprieties. Susan B. Anthony also worked to help women have the right to vote because "Women would never allow this (abortions) to happen to other women." Ooooooppppps!
Yes at the time of forming of this country people openly advertised abortion services before 'quickening'. And of course the Catholics used to follow the doctrines of St. Aquinas who said the soul wasn't formed until the 8th or 9th week of pregnancy.
That's what's so amazing - this concept that a magical soul gets zapped into a fertilized ovum at the moment of genetic recombination is a very new contention that was never held before in Judeo-Christian history. They radically change their religion's beliefs on all sorts of things and then balk at some thing that can only make people's lives better.
Tis a quandary for sure.
Ahhh , watching PBS again I see. You need more balance . Yes abortion has a history as long as murder ... Thats an interesting coincidence is it not ..
In fact in my neck of the woods , the local tribe here would actually kill their new borns if they were twins , after birth , sort of a religious taboo in their belief systems having twins . That was less then 100 years ago that practice stopped .I am not sure if that is a back street abortion to Planned Parenthood , but I wonder exactly when you yourself consider the limit is .. One second after leaving the birth canal , in the process of leaving the canal , a day before , two days ? I notice the pro abortion crowd has a problem with an intellectual look at themselves on this subject , I admit I am not God , thats why I choose to err on the side of life ..
So god , all those lefties and humanists out there , when does life begin and when should we allow our tax dollars to kill life that is not a life yet . ?
Just wondering ...
Oshtur ,
Your comments have a bit of deceit in them from my perspective . Medical science has had more of just a passing comment in regards to this debate . Being able to see babies hands , fingers , measure brain waves has caused this debate much more concern , and any person who looks at it with a brain and a conscience , I would suggest at the very least , would not ignore some facts about pre born children .
Were there laws against abortion in the early American colonies?
The colonies inherited English Common Law and largely operated under it until well into the 19th century. English Common Law forbade abortion. Abortion prior to quickening was a misdemeanor. Abortion after quickening (feeling life) was a felony. This bifid punishment, inherited from earlier ecclesiastic law, stemmed from earlier "knowledge" regarding human reproduction.
INTERESTING THE CROWD THAT TALKS ABOUT LEGALIZING GAY MARRIAGE THE LOUDEST AND USE THE TACTIC OF SUPPORTING CIVIL RIGHTS , HAVE NO PROBLEM ALLOWING PRE BORN BABIES TO BE KILLED .
CIVIL RIGHTS SHOULD NOT BE A TACTIC FOR SELFISH GAIN .
Mick you are again arguing as if the point was they were 'pre born children' when I made it clear that is not important to me or to the reasoning of the court.
The mother has a right to decide if they are going to an incubator or not. You want the fetus to survive develop the technology to safely remove them for continued development. The choice before the mother is not if the fetus is going to live or die but whether she is going to be the incubator or not. Once someone else can take responsibility for the fetus then they can, with both individual's right to choose being observed.
Actually the first laws against abortion weren't passed until late in the 18th century according to my sources.
Your comment about PBS seems a bit snide to me: I can safely say none of my opinions spawn from there other than those of the nature 'what is the best way to bake a Spritz cookie?'(convection oven -50° from regular oven, shorter time ~8 minutes). What would even prompt you to say such a thing? Why not just ask where I get my opinions rather that try and preemptively taint the value of my opinion by attributing them to a convenient source you obviously don't like or respect for some reason?
INTERESTING THE CROWD THAT TALKS ABOUT LEGALIZING GAY MARRIAGE THE LOUDEST
No no the request is for marriage equality - all citizens having reasonable access to licensing the contract with someone they can reasonably expected to marry. There's no such thing as 'gay marriage' there is only marriage.
AND USE THE TACTIC OF SUPPORTING CIVIL RIGHTS , HAVE NO PROBLEM ALLOWING PRE BORN BABIES TO BE KILLED
I acknowledge that my choice on this subject is limited to only the pregnancies I might have myself, i.e. zero. But just as I can refuse a life-saving donation of any of my body to someone even it it will cause there death even more so can someone decide if they are going give the use of their womb to something that has as yet had a cognitive thought.
Oshtur ,
First .
In your response to Anom
How do you know when a child has its first cognitive thought ? One of my kids did not have one till he hit 22 . Is a cognitive though something that only happens when the child hits air outside the womb. And you guys laugh at the Noah Ark deal .
Second
My comment about PBS was snide ? Actually sarcastic I guess , I am sarcastic and it is a fault . Sometimes I use it in good humor , when in politics it is a bit bitter . .. But actually I watched a deal on PBS on the history of abortion . Very left winged view , like most stuff on PBS .. But of course it is independent and non partsian ..
Their kid stuff is great and Civil War Burns Documentary almost got me to donate .. Unfortunately regular programing was returned .
Your belief that the reasoning of the court sounds something like the Dred Scott decision concerning slavery . In fact very similar ...
And as before , the decision is not agreed upon by many , if not the majority of legal scholars . It would not change the laws in Washington State if it was over turned , it would however allow states to declare it illegal if the voters chose to . Something the left seldom talks about ...
Abortion prior to quickening in the colonies was a misdemeanor. Abortion after quickening (feeling life) was a felony. Again science has brought the issue to be much more .. Brain waves , which you refuse to even speak to are recordable inside a womb ,
You take such a incredible lala land defense of your abortion views .
Answer this please ....
When is it then a life , seconds right after it is born ?
So if a baby is born at 6 months , << science is getting better and better allowing premature babies to live > ,
But in your mind a baby that is 7 months and aborted , it happens ,,, is not feeling pain ?
If you hit the 6 months premature baby in the rear , you think it feels pain .. What makes you think the baby inside the womb does not ?? What logic is this , where is the science ,?
The baby Does not have civil rights because of where it happens to live at the time , yet the baby that is pre maturely born at 6 months has more rights .
So if you live in a special hospital intensive care unit you have civil rights , but inside your Mom , your free game ..
Ok I get it , you sugar coat it , but I get it .
Consider trying to answer some of these questions ,,, I have NEVER seen a liberal who is trying to win an abortion debate even attempt to , usually now my spelling or sarcasm gets attention .
The moment the baby is outside its place of residence it obtains Constitutional Protection , regardless if it born 5 months premature or 10 months ..
Just don't call me on being inconsistent ... Ansdd being sarcastic is still better then calling someone bigot if they disagree about the civil rights about the unborn ..
Also how do you darken your answers ? When ever I copy and paste the boldness goes away .
How do you know when a child has its first cognitive thought ?
Sorry, you are missing my relevance. Regardless of if the baby has had 1, uncle ernie who will die without my bone marrow has had a lifetime of them. If I can deny such a wealth of experience their life, a woman can deny the fetus a womb.
When is it then a life , seconds right after it is born ?
You've missed my point - it doesn't matter when its 'a life' - if it can survive outside the womb and does on delivery or removal then it does, if it can't it doesn't. This isn't some magic line were on one side it isn't a person and one side it is, biology takes care of that whether you consider it a person or not. If the 'person/fetus' can survive outside the womb then someone else can take care of it if need be, if the 'person/fetus' cannot then it dies.
As to answering your questions the Supreme Court already did:
• a woman and her doctor may freely decide to terminate a pregnancy during the first trimester,
• state governments can restrict abortion access after the first trimester with laws intended to protect the woman's health.
• abortions after fetal viability must be available if the woman's health or life are at risk; state governments can prohibit other abortions.
So all your examples are moot - you already can limit abortions to the time when the fetus is KNOWN to be nonviable outside the womb. I have no problem with that at all. In fact that's why I've repeatedly suggested that you develop the technology to push that time even lower.
Again, the right is to not be an incubator against your will, not the right to destroy the fetus. Once you've carried the fetus to a time when it might be viable outside the womb I have no problem with the options and situations to be extremely limited as per the Supreme Court ruling. The VAST majority of abortions in this country are within the non-viable period (If I remember my embryology the limitation is when the lungs start producing surfacton so they can properly inflate and transperate oxygen which is at the beginning of the 3rd trimester)
88% of abortions in the US are in the first trimester, 98.8% are within 20 weeks (5 months)
So all of your examples relate to 1.2% of the abortion cases where I would have absolutely no problem with telling the woman 'look honey you carried this fetus 6+ months, unless there's a hell of a good reason that you have to have an abortion (life threatening, baby is non-viable due to gross defect, etc) you're just going to have to stick it out'.
But I bet that won't satisfy you will it? Its not that 1.2% of abortions you use as examples that you are really worried about, its all 100% of them, fetus viable or not, isn't it? If so it would be a bit disingenuous to be focusing all the questions on what are basically the exceptions and not even necessarily allowed by Roe v Wade, when the real goal is telling the woman what to do with her womb from the moment of conception.
If the anti-choice crowd's concerns really was that 1.2% and people actually could believe them when they said those were the ones they wanted to severely limit they'd probably get great cooperation. Its because we know that so many of them would really consider the 1.2% 'just a start' that they are met with resistance.
Oh and darkening is with the [b]this is dark[/b] but using the open and close carats on the shift-comma and shift-period keys instead of the square brackets. (won't let me put in a carat at all without an error) And when you cut and paste since you can't see these formating sequences it doesn't pick them up and you lose the bold or italics on the paste.
Oshtur, I have rarely witnessed such a profoundly lost soul. You detest my pity; I freely give it. I will reserve my prayers for your Uncle Ernie. I thank the Great I Am who rules the universe that you were not given an incubator.
Mick, there is no remedy for the moral vacuousness of the left except faith in Jesus Christ. I admire your attempts - I threw in the towel when Oshtur continuously misrepresented my words, stating as fact that I had compared his marriage to his mate to that of my box turtle. In fact when I first posted, I didn't know his gender, his age, his marital status or his agenda, and merely pointed out the slippery slope of allowing gay marriage. It's typical of him, and a waste of time in my mind. May I point out that the left will never have a sense of humor, because to them there is no cause larger than humanism and the self, and therefore everything is soooooooo serious. No ability for eternal worldview, nor to laugh at oneself.
I love the old Batman series. Has your grandson seen any? My kids love Green Acres!
Mimi, I don't 'detest' your pity, I just think is incredibly ironic - here you are totally invested in a lie, a lie that you will use to hurt others and yourself and yet you pity me. ;)
And if you can't see that you're equating marriage equality with marrying a box turtle is a direct slam at my spouse and I you are still in a delusional state of bliss, so much so you refuse to recognize they hurt you cause. I didn't misrepresent your words, you just don't like me pointing out the damage they do - ruins your self-righteous buzz.
Why not tell a jewish joke, or a racist one? "Ha ha, ho ho, can't you take a joke?" No, not when I know you meant it seriously.
I wonder do you laugh at the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, drag clowns dressed as nuns? If not why not? Do you laugh at clowns dressed as policeman, fireman or the like? Or are some jokes just not funny to some people and that in no way implies they are 'humor impaired'?
Give me marriage equality and we can tell any jokes you want - I have a few I could share too. But don't withhold equality and expect me to just laugh about it.
Mick, et. al.
A quick correction (see your quote below) - State Laws ARE RCWs (Revised Code of Washington). What you are referring to in your below quote are WAC (Washington Administrative Code). The reality is that the legislatures on both the Federal as well as State levels gives legal authority to Excutive Agencies to carry out the legislation they have enacted (since they just make but do not execute).
I understand your dilemma but there is more to the story. I am a CPA and this is all very normal. The Internal Revenue Code (enacted by the US Legislature) gives the IRS the authority to create Regulations which, presumably, properly interpret/apply the law. People go to Tax Court when they believe the IRS has incorrectly done so.
Hope this makes sense!
Peace,
In Christ,
Human
I found this quite relevant , perhaps something to irk our liberal lurkers , but possibly allow for growth and understanding . In our state we have become a state of RCWs instead of a state with laws , and those RCWS are enforced by un elected< self serving sometimes> agencies.
Mick,
Please see my response on the Lobby blog - hope this helps.
Human
Mimi,
SO HAPPY TO HAVE YOU BACK - I was worried when you suddenly dropped out. Welcome!!!!
Human
Thanks Human ..
What I was trying to say I guess were laws , especialy Common Law was based on right and wrong ... An attempt to support justice by man . RCWs are more based on regulations , sometimes based for nothing but ease of agency operation .
Thats why I believe if you read what I copied and pasted , you might make more sense of what I was trying tos say ..
Oshtur ..
Sorry, you are missing my relevance. Regardless of if the baby has had 1, uncle ernie who will die without my bone marrow has had a lifetime of them. If I can deny such a wealth of experience their life, a woman can deny the fetus a womb.
,IS THIS darker
I see , you become a mini god . Whose life has more value .. Reminds me of a value clarification class they use to use on kids , who do you throw out of the boat first . Now I would use the anology of inviting Uncle Ernie in your house then killing him your self . The abortion is just not removal , they actually kill the life first , less messy I guess.
I can't believe you said this one ..But you did .
You've missed my point - it doesn't matter when its 'a life' - if it can survive outside the womb and does on delivery or removal then it does, if it can't it doesn't.
Wow ...!!!
So all your examples are moot - you already can limit abortions to the time when the fetus is KNOWN to be nonviable outside the womb. I have no problem with that at all. In fact that's why I've repeatedly suggested that you develop the technology to push that time even lower.
So your support life having civl rights when "science" provides independence from the womb . Your definition of protecting civil rights is completly based on science .. Do you feel like you lost this debate .. ? I can not see how you justify gay marriage with your belief that science is apart of any aspect of that debate . Do you believe people who born with Down's syndrome have less civil rights them yourself ? I bet not .. I think ... You are off the chart on this one .
This is where world views collide , civil rights are not government ordained in my view , they are there regardless government recognized them or not , any government . Blacks had Civil Rights even when Dred Scott was the law of the land , its just the government , our government did not recognize those God Given Civil Rights . Our government is suppose to support civil rights , not deny them .
So all of your examples relate to 1.2% of the abortion cases where I would have absolutely no problem with telling the woman 'look honey you carried this fetus 6+ months, unless there's a hell of a good reason that you have to have an abortion (life threatening, baby is non-viable due to gross defect, etc) you're just going to have to stick it out'.
Your right , most abortions are birth control , convenience . I was using extremes . Like back alley abortions . But I value a life after conception , to me thats when it has civil rights . You can make me look ridiculis , and the left has . Actually science makes me look smarter all the time , amazing what is happening to those cells , a miracle if youask me , obviously your side does not .but again , I will side on life when it becomes worth protecting , think of it as a baby whale or something . Too bad abortion clinics did not have limits to their catches like we do for fishing liscenes , your right , I will support about any bill to protect a life . I am shameless that way . My main supports thou are the ministries that care for children after they are born ... I can't change your heart , or view , but I can help those who are here already . I think that is what we as Christians should be doing more of ..
But I bet that won't satisfy you will it? Its not that 1.2% of abortions you use as examples that you are really worried about, its all 100% of them, fetus viable or not, isn't it? If so it would be a bit disingenuous to be focusing all the questions on what are basically the exceptions and not even necessarily allowed by Roe v Wade, when the real goal is telling the woman what to do with her womb from the moment of conception.
Not at all , disingenenious . My point is I am not GOD , I use examples that perhaps might get you thinking , and either they did or dd not . I thought you got a bit testy , maybe they did or forcing you down to my level of treating unborn children as human beings is really got you ticked off . Because you yourself now allow babies inside the womb to have rights , with being able to live outside the womb as a lipmus test for their civil rights to be defended . .. To me that is a contradiction and what the NARAL crowd fights . Its what the gun folks fight with not allowing machine guns to be outlawed and such .. They are afraid an exception will cause incremental changes that stop abortions or gun s .. And they are right I guess . My point is the Constitution speaks nothing about abortion , but does comment on guns . Even then , a limit on guns has been made out of common sense if nothing else , laws like parental notification are still stopped by the abortion wingnuts.
If the anti-choice crowd's concerns really was that 1.2% and people actually could believe them when they said those were the ones they wanted to severely limit they'd probably get great cooperation. Its because we know that so many of them would really consider the 1.2% 'just a start' that they are met with resistance.
Well thats true , and not .. Parental choice is always stopped by the 1.2 percent of the Father raping the child . Just like your 1.2 percent of long termed abortions . Both sides use politics ,,, I value life .. I admit it .. I think it hurts all of us too , I think the way you can feel free to decide a baby is no more important then a kidney being donated is a sad cultural standard that effects us all . But definitly , are you bigot , no , but i really thought you be more sensitive to the issue .. You handle it like idealogue .. No compassion at all .. Perhaps that is the way the abortion crowd has to .
Hey Mimi ,
Green Acres , wow .. Tht was a classic . I often think that if the folks in the middle east had our TV they would never consider doing what they do to each other . If you can root for a pig , somehow putting a bomb under your coat to kill becomes totally out of your culture .
I am amazed by some of the comments made by Oshtur , I really thought considering his anger and sensitivity to civil rights dealing with marriage , he would have had some openness on this issue ..Interesting thou I am not a bigot on this issue according to him ... I don't think .. But your right , world views and where we base our hearts does sway our conclussions .
I ran for a school board position about a decade ago , and the lefties came out at the forums big time . Kept asking me questions about creation . There were a couple of Evangelical Christians running , the left freaked ...
I stated I believed Evolution was the best theory that the majority of scientists believed that explains our origins , my concern was the philospical and social consequences of Darwinism , not the science behind it . I left it at that .. Ticked the liberal activists off . I think they wanted me explaining Genesis .. I had a guy call me sealth candidate because I did not force my religion on people .. Some lefties just hate Christians is what I learned .
I think Oshtur comments regarding those who can survive have rights , those who can not do not pretty much backs the world view that often is involved in that debate also .
Those old Batman shows are a hoot .. My kids went through that stage of watching them too . Not my Grand Kids yet , we don;t have TVLand here with our cable ,
Remember the blown up shark on the ladder with Batman hanging on the helicopter . I think he had shark spray in his belt to stop the shark .. One thing I will say some of the movie cartoons these days are awesome . We just watched this one Barnyard .. The only thing the cows were boys and girls . The voices often have movie stars doing them ... But I had as much fun watching it as my Grandson ,,
Mick,
I understand your point - it has some merit. However, RCWs ARE the actual laws - it is the WACs that are agency regulations. The reality is that the WAC are to reflect the RCWs in action.
You can look on the WA State Dept of Revenue site for copious examples of both.
Sincerely,
In Christ,
Human
Mimi and Mick--I must confess--the pig on Green Acres tickles me!! I don't remember batman though. Maybe the reruns will come back on PAX
The newer "comedies" seem stupid to me and remind me of my nasty puberty humor of Jr. High. And then I grew up--but they didn't?
At least the old comedies have a clever absurdity.
WACs ,
Ahhhh , a good name for some of them . Thanks for explaining the difference . I know at work I have some RCWS that deal with ticket coupons and such that have expired that I had to deal with ... Maybe they were WACS ?
Hmmmm Human no CPA I know (and I've known many) would spend all this time goofing off on the internet.
No compassion at all .. Perhaps that is the way the abortion crowd has to .
No Mick, you once again misunderstand. I was showing why our legal precedence says the law can't force someone to complete a pregnancy any more than they can force me to donate a kidney. Not that the should but that they can, its their right.
If your side was just appealing to compassion that would be different, but you are trying to force it. As you should recall I have time and again said you have the right to try and CONVINCE people they shouldn't have an abortion, but you don't want that, you want to remove their choices. The simplistic idea that you can legislate away the natural right to choose - I know you're a young whipper snapper :) but hasn't your life experience taught you that never works as planned?
I admit it, I don't believe in woo woo magical souls. We are memories and experiences stored in that holographic neural net between your ears and a fetus of the age where the Supreme court ruled abortion was always an option doesn't even have a functional one to store anything in. Your views may vary but that's just it - they do vary. No one who thinks there is a magical soul in that lump of cells need every have an abortion. But to me, honestly, in the first trimester the fetus isn't developed enough to be a person.
And you have it backwards - it is the anti-choicers that would be trying to act as a 'minigods' by trying to force someone to use they body in a way they don't want to. The choice isn't life or death, its personal autonomy or someone's body becoming a slave to the will of another. Even in your religion the ability to personally choose was the most important quality of man given to them by God - don't keep trying to take it away. Influence them, don't enslave them.
Oshtur
And you have it backwards - it is the anti-choicers that would be trying to act as a 'minigods' by trying to force someone to use they body in a way they don't want to. The choice isn't life or death, its personal autonomy or someone's body becoming a slave to the will of another. Even in your religion the ability to personally choose was the most important quality of man given to them by God - don't keep trying to take it away. Influence them, don't enslave them.
Not really ... Once you use my tax dollars , which I get from my time , you are asking me to spend my time helping abortions to be performed . And like your example of my extreme cases of completly livable babies being aborted , the abortion side used raping a daughter by her father as examples of needed abortions is just as frequent , in fact more so ... . The vast amount of abortions are for convenience and within the First semester .
The choice is the couple deciding to have sex or not . That is the FREE Choice . You skipped that part ...
Now you have a liberals view that government is obligated to people to make up for their choices by limiting mine with my tax dollars .. Its why most religious Christians/Jews/ and Muslims that I know are for limited government . Government is not God , its job is not to provide a false belief that there are not consequences for our actions . More government allows fewer choices .. I think if we had school choice things would be better , and consequences for at least paying for your own abortion would cause less people having sex , at least unprotected sex , something both sides would agree on that is good .. I
But you see , your idea of choice when used by government support limits my concept of free choice . Now leave government out of it , and your points politically have substance with me .. Keeping government in bed with people and their consequences , from my perspective its the ACLU in people's bedrooms , not Jerry Falwell . Whats a free choice with me and you paying for providing health clinics for high schools that allow abortions without parental knowledge ..
Human When you support the use of perjoritives and attempt to put people in groups as a means to dis credit them and attempt to minimize their value , and God is no respector of persons , therefore you are a liar are you not . .
Former Vice President Al Gore referred to GOP activists as "brown shirts." He called people with Conservative Christian views as having a extra chromosome . Newsday columnist Hugh Pearson likened the Republican National Convention to the "Nazi rallies held in Germany during the reign of Adolf Hitler." Linda Ronstadt said that the Republican victory on Election Day meant "we've got a new bunch of Hitlers." Chuck Turner, a Boston city councilor, smeared National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice as "a tool of white leaders," akin to "a Jewish person working for Hitler."
Yeah Republicans and Conservatives do it , According to Bob Woodward, Secretary of State Colin Powell described Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith as running a separate government out of his "Gestapo office."
Commentator Ralph Peters, writing in the New York Post, accused Democrat Howard Dean of using the tactics of Hitler and Goebbels to silence his competitors. Too many conservatives and libertarians refer to anti smoking extremists as "tobacco Nazis," or to the humorless critics of fast food as "food Nazis." Whether it comes from the right or the left, language like that shuts down debate .
Cameron Diaz declared that rape might be legalized if women didn't turn out to vote for John Kerry. Or when Walter Cronkite told Larry King that the videotape of Osama bin Laden that surfaced just before the election was "probably set up" by Karl Rove.
Bill Moyers warned a television audience on the last election day that if Kerry won narrowly, "I think there'd be an effort to mount a coup, quite frankly. . . . The right wing is not going to accept it."
A cartoon by the widely syndicated Ted Rall described Pat Tillman, the NFL athlete who gave up his career to enlist in the Army and was killed in Afghanistan, as a "sap" and an "idiot."
A political flier in Tennessee, depicting Bush as a mentally disabled sprinter, bore the message: "Voting for Bush is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded."
The St. Petersburg, Fla., Democratic Club took out an ad calling for the death of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. "Then there's Rumsfeld who said of Iraq, 'We have our good days and our bad days,' " the ad read. "We should put this S.O.B. up against a wall and say, 'This is one of our bad days,' and pull the trigger."
Fantasies of murder likewise animated British pundit Charlie Brooker, who ended his Oct. 24 column in the Guardian with a plea for Bush's death: "John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr. — where are you now that we need you?"
Mick, my tax dollars go to all sorts of things I wouldn't want them to go to - its because the government must support all citizens needs that that happens. A call to 'limited government' is very nice but I'll wait until the people calling for it get off the special rights government teat with such things as licensing the contract of marriage and such before I'll take them seriously.
Of course 'sex' has many more purposes than making babies - you have unwittingly (I assume) given a reason FOR allowing abortions when pregnancy is an unwanted and unintentional side effect of sexual intercourse.
And you bring up incest and rape in a way I don't fully understand. Those are the reasons why there shouldn't be a blanket prohibition not an advocacy for abortion.
And there in lies the difference - we are on opposite sides - you are trying to limit people to doing only what you want, I am saying they should have a choice to do what you want or not. Maybe you can convince them all to your side but I'm not asking for any particular action or limitation - only that they have a right to choose for themselves what to do.
I think the real 'elephant in the room' is that some people think a zygote/blastocyte/fetus of any age has a magical 'soul' and others don't. The rabid fervor of the anti-choice crowd is really based on this purely religious belief and most of what they say is trying to rationalize it in secular terms.
I will touch on the procedure you alluded to that anti-choicers call a 'partial birth abortion' and used to try and motivate their minions. These are performed quite rarely and all I know of have been to save the life of the mother. There are several medical conditions that can occur late in the pregnancy where the pregnancy itself is putting the mother's life at extreme risk. (look up 'eclampsia' there are others.) The mother wouldn't survive a surgical procedure and she can't deliver the child - a choice has to be made. The people that would try to present this as an easy choice or a capricious decision aren't following any 'Christian principles' I'm familiar with - most likely they are just demagogues trying to manipulate people for their own agendas.
Oshtur Vishanti said...
Mick, my tax dollars go to all sorts of things I wouldn't want them to go to - its because the government must support all citizens needs that that happens.
Oh come on , your not being honest here . People have tried to stop the dollars being used for military because they are against the war and killing people andhaving our people killed . People lobbied to stop funding of nuclear energy research because of their views on it , Congress just recently quit funding the mucho bucks oil companies were getting for research .. Thats what responsible citizens do , you question what the government does ... Of course you would not support money being used for something you thought was wrong , immoral , etc and actually hurting us . I think ?
Of course 'sex' has many more purposes than making babies - you have unwittingly (I assume) given a reason FOR allowing abortions when pregnancy is an unwanted and unintentional side effect of sexual intercourse.
Not at all , I have given the reason why sex has responsibility with it , or should . Thats the choice , the time for the choice ..
I happen to believe sex is a gift from God , thats fine if you don't believe that , but its still something that needs to have certain aspects of responsibility attached to it by society . Consent , trust , safety , etc .
BIRTH CONTROL if no baby wanted .
Beer helps too I am told .. '0)
How can you not see that or agree with it ?
And you bring up incest and rape in a way I don't fully understand. Those are the reasons why there shouldn't be a blanket prohibition not an advocacy for abortion.
I brought that up just like you made a point of abortions at times when you can see the face , know their is cognitive thought , ect .. It seldom happens , I thought you were trying to promote the perception that it was unfair use in the debate because it was the least done . Blanket prohibition , yeah it is one of those things causes most of us to stop and think ... Something I wish the other side did more of too . Of course allowing for incest or rape we get called hypocrits too. My wife always says like it is not the fault of the child the circumstances , you see I have the view the child has civil rights ...Its no a win circle . And you are right , the best we can do is to make the world easier for Moms to get help if needed to have babies with people willing to help ..
And there in lies the difference - we are on opposite sides - you are trying to limit people to doing only what you want, I am saying they should have a choice to do what you want or not. Maybe you can convince them all to your side but I'm not asking for any particular action or limitation - only that they have a right to choose for themselves what to do.
And that is a humanistic so called "tolerant" view , drugs being legalized too. use that line of reasoning . Once you use tax dollars , uhh uhh ... Now your choice is my choice too . Also with your method human life is degraded to a choice .. Not exactly a winning debate tactic , maybe a slap on the back from the pro choice crowd . But you forget the audience , how allowing people to throw rocks at pro gay parades , its their choice ? No on that one you agree with me , what you don't get is I value that unborn person , I value you , One day I hope to value Human .
I think the real 'elephant in the room' is that some people think a zygote/blastocyte/fetus of any age has a magical 'soul' and others don't. The rabid fervor of the anti-choice crowd is really based on this purely religious belief and most of what they say is trying to rationalize it in secular terms.
Well my zealousness for it perhaps was spurned on by my belief in my Faith . But I always thought abortion was wrong ., but maybe be more prone to just keep that view like many others to myself . The culture you are in is also the one I am in , and the live and let live era we are in , has its effect on all of us .. Not good from what I see happening .. We allow others to suffer don't we .We allow kids in schools to be engulfed with drugs and other crap . We allow a lot of stuff because of this culture that I see as bad . Somethings are better , but it appears we sacrificed alot for those things to be better ..
But somehow you are not sounding pro choice to me , you sound almost pro death , like ha , your wrong and abortions are no big deal .. That I just don't understand ... Science , not religion shows the hands , toes and even sex at such an early stage . Science has spurned this deabte to a higher level , not religion .. I was in the room when my wife had an aminiothesis , I remember getting that Dad protective deal when the little dude went shooting to the other side of the sac when the needle came in .. That was not religious or philisophical , that was a normal instinct , killing your young just ain't normal to me .. I don't get it ... That kid in there would be described by the abortion crowd as a bunch of goo , science showed me he was fast and knew when danger was around the corner .
"I will touch on the procedure you alluded to that anti-choicers call a 'partial birth abortion' and used to try and motivate their minions."
Ha sort of like the rape and incest deal I was talking about from your side .
"These are performed quite rarely and all I know of have been to save the life of the mother. There are several medical conditions that can occur late in the pregnancy where the pregnancy itself is putting the mother's life at extreme risk. (look up 'eclampsia' there are others.)"
Well again you mis represent the other side , why would people fight so hard to stop this if it was as you say ? .
The laws I have always seen tried to be written on this , correct me if I am wrong ,, I know you will , always have the Life of the Mother as an exception . The debate goes on because the death industry wants to make sure the health of the mother , and you know health can be a migraine headache from being forced to watch F Troop Reruns .. That is always the turning point in the debate , and it has been done and documented of frivious reasons for partial birth abortions .. Which is exactly what really makes our side see you as full of baloney on this one . Your like the NRA supporting the nuclear bomb to be allowed because it would cause a precedent to make it illegal . . Your right it is hardly done , the procedure is pathetic , the baby's head is out , if its head was not crushed the odds it would be fine unless for those rare circimstances you mentioned ,
Partial Birth Laws always allow for the life of the Mother . t
, yet no , not even here , the pro death squad is afraid of any standard that puts life in front of the person's right to kill when it wants to while the baby is inside .
Your defending even Partial Birth ... Thats not pro choice Oshtur .. You remind me so much of the guy who is extreme in his view but wants you to think he is a moderate . I know I am conservative , be honest here .
Is abortion important to you in the people you vote for ?
Legal approaches to abortion involve a dilemma. Therefore, civil rights can be argued for both sides because it's really a case of conflicting rights.
Pregnancy is a situation in which two person's lives are entwined in such a unique way that is unparalleled.
The life of the fetus may either be supported by its mother (the default) or it may be actively destroyed. It is thus distinct from the person needing a bone marrow transplant (from Oshtur Vishanti's post). In pregnancy, there is no passive choice to not help. The mother is involved in the conception of the child and from that point until birth she is inseparable from the child. Her involvement may be ended by an active destruction of the fetus: abortion. But I grant that the alternative to an abortion is to support the child's life until the child has developed and been born.
I think this creates a complicated legal situation . . . I can feel for the arguments of both sides . . . for women's rights (After all, that would be MY rights, wouldn't it?) . . . and for baby's rights (protecting helpless, innocent children) . . .
I'll admit that as of my writing this, I'm still developing some of my political positions: I may see a better solution to this down the road. But I can't see how a legislative approach is sufficient to the complexities of this issue. I do not see the possibility of a good legal solution: one which will fully protect the rights of both mother a fetus.
This is the dilemma.
Thanks Rebecca,
I believe you hit it right on ..
A dilemma .. Why I advocate supporting orgainzations and ministries that support Moms and kids .
Jimmy Carter said he stated WIC in order to promote healthy chances for kids , of course I am not sure it slowed down abortion rates , but I can see why he advocated for it .
Rebecca,
Thanks, this has long been my position.
Mick,
A liar for making perjorative statements? With all due respect, you lay down not just a few (including a few at me) - what does that make you?
Sincerely,
Human
Human is no CPA
BIRTH CONTROL if no baby wanted...
How can you not see that or agree with it ?
Oh I totally agree that anyone having sex who doesn't want a child should use birth control if there is a risk of pregnancy. But that means they need to know how to have birth control so the silliness of 'abstinence only' sex education is out the window. But 54% of women who have abortions DID use birth control. Of the 46% that didn't 1/3 thought they were at low risk, 1/3 were concerned about contraception, about 1/4 had unexpected sex and a few were forced.
Aain, this is a question without a soundbite answer.
Well again you mis represent the other side , why would people fight so hard to stop this if it was as you say ?
Because they are zealots trying to force someone to act the way they want them to and as such have ulterior motives would be my knee-jerk response.
The laws I have always seen tried to be written on this , correct me if I am wrong ,, I know you will , always have the Life of the Mother as an exception
Now Mick, either you have not really researched this issue or you are playing dumb. The reason the legislations have been fought (and struck down) is because they are so vaguely written that if enacted they could actually be used to prohibit a common abortion method used at far earlier stages of pregnancy. In fact there is no known way as yet to successful describe them discretely in unchallengable legal terms. Again, we are dealing with zealots who's real agenda is to deny all abortions - who would give them such a legal tool for a procedure that isn't really being abused in the first place?
Your defending even Partial Birth
Don't you? Are you saying that a woman in eclampsic hypertension shouldn't be able to terminate their pregnancy? If you say 'yes', they you are for partial birth abortions too.
Thats not pro choice Oshtur
Well maybe not in the alternate universe you live it but it is in this one. :)
Is abortion important to you in the people you vote for ?
Only as a bellwether of their positions on civil rights and civil liberty. But then I don't know anyone I would support because of other issues that wouldn't also support the right of the individual to choose for themselves on this issue in the first trimester.
Anon 5:46
You ARE a liar and an emmissary of Satan.
You or anyone else put up $10,000 and I will give you my CPA license which is active and on file in Olympia.
Sorry,
In Christ,
Human
You ARE a liar and an emmissary of Satan.
Well considering they are probably the same anonymous who thinks we are the same person they need as much compassion as we can muster. The person is a few bricks short of a load.
OV,
As you read in the NT, there are times when Jesus and the disciples had to point out blatent evil. We are seeing it here. It is not my preference but when it occurs, I follow the example.
On the other hand, Mick is not such a bad fellow though I know I hurt his feelings a while back and he has not fully recovered - but he is not evil.
Human
I hope for his sake and ours, that Human gets a job and a life soon.
Dang...there so much more to life than this.
Post a Comment
<< Home