True Descent

>> Wednesday, January 28, 2009

People of logic, reason and true love for America need to be on the phones to their elected representatives to thwart this true roadmap to moral depravity and injustice, laughingly dressed up as "civil rights". How did Patrick Moynahan describe it? Oh yeah. "Defining deviancy downward". It continues unabated if good men do nothing.

72 comments:

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford January 28, 2009 at 7:37 PM  

Quite simply put, even for what Sadly, No! calls "Clownhall", that was pretty bad. It was gobbledygook, nonsense, codswallop, and balderdash. All of it, from beginning to end; whether the ludicrous idea of "special rights", or that somehow this is an assault of "religious freedom" - it's all just ludicrous.

You wonder why I don't take you seriously, and then you link to nonsense like this as if it had any merit whatsoever.

Mark January 28, 2009 at 8:49 PM  

I read the article, and I have strong opinions (convictions) about the subjects presented. Oddly enough, I actually disagree with one part. Well, not really disagree so much as agree but don't feel it's as serious as presented.

Aw, shucks. I am not going to write a book in this comments section. I have written out my take on this article and posted it as a blog entry over at my place, if anyone cares to read it.

You libtards can read it too, but don't expect me to publish your comments.

Eric January 28, 2009 at 10:07 PM  

Mark, look. It goes without saying that the Geoffrey's, Feodor's, Dan's, ER's, and so on will likely never agree with the likes of you or I unless it's rubbed in their faces-- it's hard to deny you have shit on your face when it's crammed up your nostrils and smeared on your lips. They will always ridicule the websites from which we get information, and will always declare their sources to be above reproach. It's their M.O.

Having said that, you only do yourself a disservice when you allow their folderal to goad you into attacking them personally. That's what THEY do.

I understand your frustration... really, I do. But we have to be better than this. Geoffrey has the right to think what he wants. If Geoffrey wants to sit in the dark, that's HIS business.

So he doesn't take you seriously... so what? He never will. And attacking him personally, AND his wife... that's just not cool. It cheapens you, AND your message... OUR message.

I don't like Geoffrey's politics OR religion [which is not the same as Faith] any more than than you do, but I'm not going to resort name calling...

That's what THEY do.

Having said all that, Geoffrey can choose to be as blind to what's only just beginning as he wishes, but I saw nothing even remotely resembling "balderdash". Geoffrey said it, but in typical Liberal fashion provided no axioms or corollaries for his proof. You can't just "say" the angle is bisected, you have to provide the proof. But this is his style... the Liberal style. Attack the Message... Ignore the Content.

I received the following in email from a Dr. David Reagan, head of Lamb Lion Ministries. It is essentially the same as Mr. Sears article.

---

War on Evangelical Christians Has Begun
-by Dr. David Reagan

The Obama Administration has wasted no time in declaring war on Evangelical Christians.

Within minutes after the new President took his oath of office, his staff posted his agendas concerning homosexuality and abortion on the White House website.

Sexual Perversion

With regard to sexual perversion, the President's policy goals are spelled out as follows:

1) Defeat all state and federal constitutional efforts to defend the definition of biblical marriage as being a union between one man and one woman.

2) Repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) signed by Bill Clinton. (This is currently the only line of defense keeping all 50 states from being forced to recognize so-called "same-sex marriages" from extremely liberal states like Massachusetts and Connecticut.)

3) Repeal the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

4) Pass "hate crimes" legislation granting homosexuals and cross dressers special rights denied to other Americans. (This legislation, depending on how it is drafted, could even attempt to muzzle any criticism of homosexuality as being unbiblical and unnatural perversion.)

5) Pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) which would force business owners (religious and otherwise) to abandon traditional values relative to sexual morality under penalty of law. [EL's Note: This would certainly include Churches...]


6) Create intentionally motherless and fatherless homes by expanding "gay adoption."

To see it for yourself, go to www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/civil_rights/ and scroll down the page to "Support for the LGBT Community." (LGBT is an acronym for "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered.").

Abortion

With regard to abortion, The President's agenda is:

1) Opposition to any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's abortion decision in Roe v Wade.

2) Support of the Prevention First Act which would provide access to contraception and "preventive services to help reduce unintended pregnancies" (a euphemism for abortion).

You will find these proposals on the White House website at www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/women.

Although it is not mentioned on the website, the President has made it clear that he will support the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). In fact, he promised Planned Parenthood that signing the FOCA would be "the first thing I'd do as President." FOCA is by far the most radical piece of abortion legislation ever introduced into the Congress.

According to pro-choice advocates:

FOCA would overturn the ban on the barbaric procedure called "partial-birth abortion."

FOCA would invalidate scores of pro-life laws passed by dozens of states.

FOCA would eliminate existing laws against taxpayer-funded abortions.

Consequences to the Nation

This outrageous attack on biblical morals should come as no surprise to anyone. The American voters were warned time and time again during the presidential campaign that Obama would push the most radical homosexual and abortion agenda in American history. But millions voted for charisma and eloquence rather than paying attention to the issues.

I cannot overemphasize how critical a situation we are facing in this country. We are in the midst of a great financial crisis and we have enemies worldwide who desire to destroy us. I want to see President Obama succeed in solving our financial crisis and defending this nation against Islamic terrorism. But he has literally no hope of succeeding as long as he thumbs his nose at God and God's Word.

In addition to pushing homosexuality, same-sex marriage, and abortion, he has also made it clear that he will demand a division of the land of Israel as part of a "two-state solution." These policies are national suicide. [EL's NOTE: "...for Israel[

God cannot be mocked, nor can He be deceived (Galatians 6:7). He will not sit idly by and allow our nation to turn its back on Him and do what we please. We have been blessed more mightily than any other nation in history, and to those to whom much is given, much is expected (Luke 12:47-48).

Call to Prayer

We need to pray as we have never prayed before for our President. We need to pray for his heart to be softened and his ideas to be conformed to God's Word (Proverbs 21:1). And we need to pray that all his efforts to implement policies contrary to God's Word will be confused, frustrated, and defeated.

-----

And to that I say, Amen. Pray for the man, his enlightenment, and his ability to protect this nation, but for all those policies that "flick the bird" at God almighty? Pray for confusion, frustration, and defeat.

----

One final thought...

It would be nice if these smug cats could argue the points of these articles, rather than resort to name-calling and guffaws.

Jesus is returning soon. And these guys all seem to think it's some big fat joke.

Mark January 28, 2009 at 11:18 PM  

Jesus is returning soon, Eric, and Geoffrey, his wife, ER, Dan, Feodor and oter false teachers will follow the Devil and his angels into the place reserved for them, and take hundreds of people whomlistened to their teaching with them. There must be a special place in Hell reserved for false teachers like them and others who pervert the Word of God to conform to their own mores.

But This knowledge won't trouble them. They don't believe there is a Hell.

Mark January 28, 2009 at 11:23 PM  

LOL! Geoffrey fancies himself more intelligent than a former Federal Prosecutor and CEO of the Alliance defense fund, a successful law practice with hundreds of law partners spanning the entire United States of America.

Oh yeah, Geoffrey, with his false doctrine seminary education, is smarter than an experienced attorney with a doctorate in jurisprudence.

His egocentric arrogance knows no bounds.

Marshall Art January 29, 2009 at 2:02 AM  

Geoffrey,

Really, dude. How 'bout some substance for a change. I regard it as a given that you don't give much credence to any of the bright, insightful and intelligent opinions to which I so often link. It would simply be a pleasure to get an idea of why you dismiss it. No. I don't want to hear about the lack of peer review or whether someone gets mention on any citation index. Neither of those are relevant to the points presented in the articles. Now I know you score high on the "miss the point" meter, but that you shouldn't let that handicap prevent you from trying if you truly think the message is untrue. Go ahead. Be bold. Pretend you have a pair. Don't hide behind, "You wonder why I don't take you seriously, and then you link to nonsense like this as if it had any merit whatsoever." It is statements like that standing alone without resolution that is what is truly ludicrous.

Now to be fair, there is something ludicrous presented in the article to which I have linked. That would be what is found when the link within the article takes you to the White House site where all of Obumble's crazed proposals are listed. They are dangerous to our culture, the reasons for which having been explained again and again without reasoned rebuttal from the likes of you or anyone who feels as you do. You think its nonsense? Explain why. Until you do, it is you who is the clown.

Dan Trabue January 29, 2009 at 11:45 AM  

It's hard and probably counterproductive to read gibberish and give it the credibility of explaining why it is gibberish. But here is one example:

Every violent crime is rooted in hate, and every victim deserves equal justice.

He's suggesting that hate crimes are merely about hate. He ignores that hate crimes are crimes against A GROUP. So, if person A hates person B because he thinks B is an idiot and then commits a violent crime against B, he has not committed a hate crime. Merely hating a person is NOT what hate crimes are about.

Hate crimes are when Person A hates Christians (for instance) and assaults against Person B who is a Christian, because he is a Christian. That assault is TWO separate crimes. The crime of assault and the crime of intimidation of Christians.

It's like terrorism. If Terrorist A plants a bomb and blows up a building in an effort to oppose US policies and he gets arrested, he is NOT only charged with damaging property. He is charged also with terrorism. It's a separate crime.

This author exposes some serious ignorance (or perhaps deliberately twists facts, I don't know) by suggesting that hate crimes are merely about hating someone.

The author also states:

[Obama has issued] a virtual declaration of war against those who oppose the demands for special rights and privileges by those who engage in homosexual behavior.

1. No, no declaration of war.

2. They don't oppose "special rights and privileges," they oppose gay folk having the SAME rights and privileges.

The author's wording exposes him, in at least this article, as an intellectual lightweight who uses specifically divisive and ignorant language that twists truths.

As I say frequently, if you oppose a certain policy, by all means, oppose it. But oppose it with consistency and integrity. Don't make up lies and twist truths to further your political agenda. Doing so makes others just dismiss you out of hand as a crank and any serious concerns you might have get dismissed along with the goofy non-truths.

Eric January 29, 2009 at 1:25 PM  

"That assault is TWO separate crimes..."

In corrupt human courts, yes. Break it down however, and "hate" is just hate. And a crime all on its own.

Whether you hate your brother, or a whole class of people, is irrelevant in God's eyes; you are, either way, guilty of sin.

But what do you call a Leader's policies which overwhelmingly strip away the moral fabric of a society, but an attack? If Bush were to have had an opportunity to nominate 2 more Supreme Court justices during his tenure, would the left-wing press (which includes pretty much all of it) and Liberals not have cried about Bush's "attack" on Roe?

Just because you don't see it, Dan... Geoffrey... doesn't mean it isn't there.

Dan Trabue January 29, 2009 at 1:53 PM  

So, Eric, are you opposed to the notion of charging people with terrorism?

In the real world, Eric, like it or not, most of us realize that a terroristic or hate crime assault is, in fact, TWO separate crimes. One, the assault on the person(s). But the second crime is inducing fear to a group by targeting that specific group for attacks. Those ARE in the real world, two separate actions with very different consequences and which should be dealt with differently.

If someone attacks me because they don't like me, it is a horrible crime against me and that's the end of it. If someone doesn't like Christians and attacks me as a Christian, then that hurts me (crime one) and it hurts Christians at large (crime two).

Just because you disagree with the majority of people on this point doesn't mean you're right. Sometimes, the majority is just being sensible in agreeing on some point.

Dan Trabue January 29, 2009 at 1:55 PM  

You obviously have never been part of a group targeted for real oppression and hatred and attacks.

Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there.

Mark January 29, 2009 at 2:04 PM  

Dan, he's a Christian. very few groups have been targerted as much. And the left, with which you so proudly identify yourself, is second only to Muslims in their hateful attacks on Christians.

I guess that tells us why you don't feel as if you are targeted.

Mark January 29, 2009 at 2:10 PM  

"If someone attacks me because they don't like me, it is a horrible crime against me and that's the end of it. If someone doesn't like Christians and attacks me as a Christian, then that hurts me (crime one) and it hurts Christians at large (crime two)."

You are still just as dead, Dan. Do you really think it's necessary to execute someone twice? Hate crime legislation is a superflous legislation meant to do nothing but siphon more money out of taxpayers pockets, and to threaten people who believe in morality.

Violent crimes are already against the law. How does it serve anyone to punish the perpetrator twice for the same crime?

Dan Trabue January 29, 2009 at 2:13 PM  

What part of "IT'S TWO separate crimes" are you failing to grasp? A crime against Dan hurts Dan. A crime against Dan because he's a Christian hurts Dan AND Christians at large. Two separate crimes.

You all haven't answered: Are you opposed to trying someone for terrorism, even though they've already been charged with planting a bomb (for instance)? Do you not recognize that terrorism is a crime beyond merely the attack itself?

You're not going soft on terrorism, are you?

Mark January 29, 2009 at 2:16 PM  

It's only two crimes because Congress passed a superflous law in a perfect example of Government overkill.

As I said. Dead is dead. No need to execute someone twice.

Dan Trabue January 29, 2009 at 2:17 PM  

So, are you opposed to charging people with terrorism?

Mark January 29, 2009 at 2:18 PM  

You might have noticed that Saddam was scheduled to stand trial on a couple of more crimes, but it wasn't necessary after he wound up swinging from the end of a rope.

As I said, no need to execute someone twice.

Mark January 29, 2009 at 2:23 PM  

That is a stupid and illogical response, Dan.

The terrorists should be executred but again, there is no reason to execute them twice, unless you get your kicks butchering a dead body.

Try again. You're stretching for an argument.

Dan Trabue January 29, 2009 at 2:24 PM  

Here. Let's deal with specifics:

The indictment charges all four defendants with conspiracy to levy war against the United States government through terrorism and conspiracy to possess and discharge firearms in furtherance of crimes of violence.

DOJ

Should we just arrest and charge them with conspiracy to possess firearms and let the terrorism charge go? After all, they're already being punished for trying to get guns illegally, why would we punish them twice?

Answer the question, please. Do you recognize that sometimes, a second crime can be committed at the same time or not?

Dan Trabue January 29, 2009 at 2:26 PM  

You DO understand that not every crime results in execution? That some crimes (trying to illegally get firearms) might result in spending a few years in prison but adding the second charge (terrorism) adds more time to their sentence?

You understand this, don't you?

Marshall Art January 29, 2009 at 4:54 PM  

That would be "conspiracy to levy war against the United States government". The rest is superfluous. What matters the reason or method of waging war in such an indictment? The war is waged either way, the defendants were conspiring to wage it either way. THAT is the crime, not the methods of waging war they planned to use, even if it was listed in the indictment. You do like to stretch things to make it fit, though.

As Mark says, dead is dead. How does one establish hate, and how does one limit when and upon whom the charge may be leveled? Who decides what was on the mind of the perpetrator of a crime? One can use anything to show motive, but this motive is now criminal and all other motives are not? How does THAT work? As I said in a previous discussion over this most stupid of liberal ideas, when a crime is committed in my area, I am terrorized by the thought of a crime being committed in my area. Does this mean the perp is now guilty of terrorism? How can I be made confident that the homo next door was truly killed for being a homo and not because he hit on another guy's boyfriend, or because he cheated on someone or because of any other reason? There are many questions surrounding the Shepard murder that include conflicting and recanting testimonies that make any charges of homosexual related hate to be less than concrete. This cannot be anything more than what will be typical of such trials. But in the end someone's still dead and given the chance to comment, I doubt he'd give a flyin' rat's ass why he was being killed. Hate crimes is just an immoral tactic to promote an immoral lifestyle and force it and it's unnecessary consequences upon the rest of us. The law has no right to punish thought. The fascist liberals and pro-homosex supporters believe otherwise, and I'm not the least bit surprised.

Dan Trabue January 29, 2009 at 5:07 PM  

So, Marshall, does that mean that you favor abolishing our terrorism laws? Since they constitute thoughts ("Did he intend to terrorize or was he just setting off bombs??"), it sounds as if you'd support getting rid of some of the laws instituted in the days since Oklahoma and 9/11, is that right?

A simple, "Yes, I support abolishing terrorism laws," will suffice.

And y'all still don't seem to be grasping that some "normal" laws that might be violated by terrorist or hate crime offenders might only involve a punishment of, say, a year or two. By having the additional charge of terrorism or hate crime, you can further penalize the criminal.

It honestly sounds like you fellas are going soft on criminals - even Terrorists! - wanting to let them go with shorter penalties. Wow. Whodathunkit?

Dan Trabue January 29, 2009 at 5:09 PM  

How about thought crimes like "terroristic threatening" or plotting to kill someone? Since no "actual crime" is done in either of these two instances, then no harm, no foul - is that your position?

Are you supporting abolishing all crimes connected to thoughts since, you know, they're only thoughts?

What a bunch of bleeding hearts!

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford January 29, 2009 at 5:40 PM  

To your first comment, Eric, I do not attack personally. I have never descended to the kind of vitriol Mark engages in. I would never insult you, or anyone else, personally.

See, here's the thing. I dismissed this article because it was factually inaccurate, its framing was erroneous, and I am still curious as to the whole "attack on religious freedom" thing; my guess is the author was just blue-skying, saying stuff to be provocative.

Are there reasons I am saying this? Of course! Am I going to waste my time giving you all the reasons? Of course not! Why? Because none of you ever take them seriously.

Again, I do this for the sake of humor, my own amusement. Reading these dispatches from another universe where Barack Obama is some anti-President, the Republicans have never been conservative, and the economy is OK as long as Pres. Obama doesn't screw it up is a bit like looking through a funhouse mirror. It's funny, but I'm not going to linger because I might get a headache.

You all go on and enjoy your sense of persecution, your moral and religious superiority, your political and intellectual acumen. Seriously, it makes no never mind to me that you all actually get your feelings hurt because I think most of the stuff you write on politics is from Bizarro world. Suffice it to say that, with the exception of Eric and Marshall, I really don't value the opinion any of you have.

So, I will continue to come over here, and as long as you allow me, I will continue to post comments. Just don't mistake that for engagement.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford January 29, 2009 at 5:43 PM  

From Mark: "Jesus is returning soon, Eric, and Geoffrey, his wife, ER, Dan, Feodor and oter false teachers will follow the Devil and his angels into the place reserved for them, and take hundreds of people whomlistened to their teaching with them. There must be a special place in Hell reserved for false teachers like them and others who pervert the Word of God to conform to their own mores.

But This knowledge won't trouble them. They don't believe there is a Hell."

I will be blunt. Don't. Ever. Bring. Up. My. Wife. Again.

She isn't in this. I don't bring up your family, and the same minimal courtesy would be nice. Although, I really, really doubt "courtesy" is a virtue you either understand or would cultivate if you did.

As for the rest of it - LOL is all I have to say.

BenT - the unbeliever,  January 29, 2009 at 6:06 PM  

Marshall asked one interesting question.

"How does one establish hate, and how does one limit when and upon whom the charge may be leveled? Who decides what was on the mind of the perpetrator of a crime?"

The answer of course is pretty simple. Trials, Judges, Grand Juries, District Attorneys, etc. For further refinement of the idea there are representatives at both the state and federal level. All of these people are in place to counteract the known liberal, bleeding-heart bias of our nation's law enforcement community.

Mark January 29, 2009 at 6:42 PM  

" will be blunt. Don't. Ever. Bring. Up. My. Wife. Again"

Why? What are you going to do? Cry?

Don't you and her believe the same non-biblical doctrine? If you and her believe the same thing, then you and her will both go to Hell.

That's the truth. Deal with it.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford January 29, 2009 at 6:49 PM  
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Mark January 29, 2009 at 8:11 PM  

Geoffrey, you know what I can do as an administrator of this blog that you can't ?

Mark January 29, 2009 at 8:19 PM  

"I do not attack personally. I have never descended to the kind of vitriol Mark engages in."

This is a blatant lie.

Everytime Geoffrey insults my intelligence, he descends into vitriol.

And he insults my intelligence, either directly or indirectly, every time he comments. I am sick of it.

Geoffrey can't stand me because I have him pegged for what he is:

A phony, arrogant, condescending, pseudo-intellectual, elitist snob.

And, everytime someone accuses him of that, he denies it and whines that he has been misunderstood. But the facts are right there in his comments.

Read 'em and weep!

Mark January 29, 2009 at 8:36 PM  

OK, I got caught up in insulting Geoffrey and failed to respond directly to Dan's question,

"Answer the question, please. Do you recognize that sometimes, a second crime can be committed at the same time or not?"

Absolutely. Oftentimes a perp can be arrested and tried for a number of crimes committed during the commission of a crime. But you're (intentionally) missing the point.

The point is, we already have more than enough crimes on the books without having to pass a law that adds motivation of the crime as a separate crime all on it's own.

On fact, if you know anything about the law, you would know that it isn't even necessary to establish a motive to successfully prosecute a crime. It often helps, but it's not legally necessary.

Ask any lawyer. It's fundamental in jurisprudence.

Therefore, creating a law that makes the motivation of a crime a crime in itself is superfluous, and redundant as well as unnecessary.

Oh, and insulting Geoffrey got a little out of hand. I'll stop insulting him if he stops insulting me.

Dan Trabue January 29, 2009 at 8:45 PM  

So, I'm still unclear, Mark: Are you proposing abolishing terrorism laws? How about plotting to kill someone and other "thought crimes"? Abolish them?

Mark January 29, 2009 at 9:04 PM  

I've answered your question, Dan. If you don't understand it yet, then you are as stupid as a certain other someone who comments here, who shall remain unnamed (out of undeserved respect).

Hate crimes are laws that prosecute motivation, not intent.

I can intend to slap you around, but if I never do it, there is no crime.

On the other hand, if I slap you around and no one ever finds out my motivation, I am still guilty of battery, regardless of why I did it.

Proof that I committed the crime is enough evidence to convict. Why I did it doesn't matter as far as the law is concerned.

Let me spell it out for you so that even you can understand it:

1. Knowing why an individual committed a crime is not legally necessary to gain a conviction.

2. Hate crime legislation makes the "why they did it" a crime in and of itself.

3. Since motivation isn't necessary to convict an individual of a crime, ergo, hate crime legislation isn't necessary.

Is that clear yet?

Am I the only one that understands this? It seems so simple to me. Am I so smart that I can comprehend something that Geoffrey and Dan can't seem to grasp?

Unlike Geoffrey, I don't believe I'm that smart, but I guess if Dan doesn't really understand, maybe I am...

Dan Trabue January 29, 2009 at 9:57 PM  

...

?

Did you see the question I asked, Mark?

Dan Trabue January 29, 2009 at 10:01 PM  

Let me make it easy for you and me, both Mark. Fill in the blank:

I [do/don't] support abolishing terrorism laws and other "thought crimes."

Marshall Art January 30, 2009 at 12:50 AM  

Dan,

Your question is pointless without citing an exact law in full.

Terrorism is an action, not a thought. I can terrorize you in a number of ways, but they are all actions. And here's the thing---I can terrorize you for being:

White
Black
Homosexual
Lesbian
Anabaptist
Woman
Liberal
Not having enough money when I tried to rob you
Being an idiot

Which reason would make it hurt more, or make you feel more terrified? Which of the above reasons would matter to the person(s) witnessing the terrorizing or physical beating inflicted upon you? Do you truly think that non-idiots would observe the incident without emotion or without wondering if ONLY idiots provoke my terrorizing habits?

Even conspiracy is an action. Something must take place that can be observed or recorded in order for a conspiracy charge to stick. Two guys speaking for the first time about how they'd like to kick your ass is different than two guys speaking for the first time about how and when they're going to kick your ass. But their arrest would not be because of their dislike for you or even for their desire to inflict harm upon you. It would be for a specific action.

Hate crimes legislation does not do this but assumes it can read the mind of the accused and prove that it matters to the victim. This is not possible. It's not like using "gang activity" since joining a gang is joining a known criminal enterprise. As unfortunate as it is, free Americans are free to hate each other. Hate alone is static and harms no one. How one acts on the hate is what matters and if that action is already provided for in the criminal code, the hatred is really already covered through the penalties attached to the manifestation of the hatred.

Hate crimes legislation is liberal fascist thought control.

BenT - the unbeliever,  January 30, 2009 at 2:59 AM  

"1. Knowing why an individual committed a crime is not legally necessary to gain a conviction."

This statement is flatly wrong.

Being able to explain to a jury the motive for a crime is one of the strongest tools in a prosecuting attorney's arsenal.

"2. Hate crime legislation makes the "why they did it" a crime in and of itself."

As Dan has rather pedantically pursued whys and wherefores are often integral to criminal convictions and sentencing.

"3. Since motivation isn't necessary to convict an individual of a crime, ergo, hate crime legislation isn't necessary."

This is akin to:
Chickens crow when the sun rises, ergo, chickens make the sun rise.

strike three, yer out.

Mark January 30, 2009 at 6:33 AM  

Bent,

Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

As I said, ask any lawyer. They will tell you motive is not necessary to convict. You've been watching too much Boston Legal or The Practice, or Perry Mason or something.

I didn't say it isn't helpful, but it isn't necessary, especially when there is enough evidence to convict without it, and often criminals who confess to crimes won't explain their motive. Yes, motive is a strong tool, but it is not the defining or a necessary tool.

Heck, if motive was needeed for a conviction, all a criminal would have to do is deny there is one, and if the prosecution couldn't come up with a clear motive, the criminal would walk despite tons of evidence.

I've been involved in two criminal trials in my life and in neither case was a motive produced, or even addressed.

I fail to follow your convoluted logic in your third point. It's plain as the nose on your face. (You do have a nose don't you? Otherwise it wouldn't be so plain)

If motive is considered a crime itself, but motive is not necessary to obtain a conviction, ergo, hate crime legislation isn't necessary. Simple logic.

Dan Trabue January 30, 2009 at 6:59 AM  

Which reason would make it hurt more, or make you feel more terrified?

Okay, let me try this one more time.

If I'm attacked because someone hates me because they think I'm stupid, then no hate crime has been committed and the harm has been done to me. End of crime.

If I'm part of a group (gay folk, black folk, Jews, Christians) which is repeatedly attacked for being part of that group, in the real world, that affects that whole group of people. You start having to be careful where you go ("if I go in to THAT neighborhood, I might be attacked..."), you start having to hide WHO you are ("I can't let anyone know I'm gay/Jewish/maybe I can 'pass' as white..."), you have to limit WHO you are, how you act, where you go, what you do, how you behave.

Perhaps it's just because you all are wholly unfamiliar with actual persecution that you don't get the chilling effect there is in being part of a persecuted group and you just don't get it. (And I know you think you ARE persecuted as Christians in the US, but get real, you're not, you're just not).

Perhaps you lack the human emotion of empathy, and are unable to put yourselves in another's place and maybe you just won't ever get it. But the fact is, in the real world, a SECOND crime is done when a hate crime is committed. The attempted terrorizing/destruction of a group.

If you don't get it, I'm sorry for you. Fortunately, you're the minority on this and most of us DO get it and that's why there are these very real laws to deal with a very real, distinct and separate crime. Fortunately for you, too, just because you're a minority that doesn't get it, you will still be protected by these laws, too, should you ever become part of a group that is actually singled out for real attacks.

Mark January 30, 2009 at 7:29 AM  

Dan, what part of unnecessary don't you understand? I've explained it so even a 4 year old can understand it, yet you remain unconvi--er--stupid.

It doesn't matter if you are attacked for being part of a group or attacked just because your personal lack of understanding is infuriating.

Hate Crime legislation makes motive the crime, and motive is unnecessary to obtain a conviction. Therefore, hate crime legislation is unnecessary. Simple as that. Perhaps too simple for you. eh?

Oh, and about this quote: "And I know you think you ARE persecuted as Christians in the US, but get real, you're not, you're just not"

No one has ever gotten angry at you for witnessing to him? No one ever shouted angrily at you for talking too much about Christ?

Perhaps the reason you have never been persecuted for being a Christian is because there is so little difference between you and those who persecute them.

Kind of like the old axiom, "When Satan knows he already has you, there is no reason for him to tempt you".

Mark January 30, 2009 at 7:31 AM  

Also, If youi were on trial for being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you? Remember, motive is not necessary to prove guilt.

Dan Trabue January 30, 2009 at 8:50 AM  

I reallly shouldn't bother, but at least one more note...

No one has ever gotten angry at you for witnessing to him? No one ever shouted angrily at you for talking too much about Christ?

1. Someone getting angry at you for bothering them with your religious views is not persecution. It's not. Look up the word in a dictionary. You're simply imagining persecution in the place of annoyance.

2. The only folk who've shouted angrily at me (albeit in print) for witnessing about Jesus have been those on the religious right. They've accused me of being "holier than thou," and much, much worse ("follower of Satan," for instance). This, too, is not persecution.

You know, don't you, that dictionaries are available for free online these days.

Dan Trabue January 30, 2009 at 9:04 AM  

Someone earlier requested that I provide an actual law for you to be able to answer my simple question. Fair enough.

From the FindLaw website, it seems to me (correct me if anyone knows better) that what happens is, if someone is convicted of a "regular" attempted murder, there might be a penalty associated with it of, say, 25 years in prison.

If, however, someone is convicted of attempted murder in a terrorism-related attack, the penalty might be kicked up to 35 years in prison.

This is my understanding of terrorism laws. You can read more here. Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that is the thinking behind terrorism laws as well as hate crime laws. Second crime, second penalty.

So, are you in favor of getting rid of additional penalties for those convicted of attempted murder in a terrorist attack? That's a yes/no question and it would seem fairly easy to answer. DO you - Mark, Eric, Marshall, Bubba - do you wish to have an additional penalty attached to those who commit acts of terrorism for the terrorism motive?

Dan Trabue January 30, 2009 at 9:04 AM  

This is the same kind of thing we have for hate crimes. Motive matters because, as I've noted, there are TWO separate crimes happening.

Now this does not mean, as some of you all seem to cringe in fear thinking it does, that IF someone THINKS that you hate gays, then you can be convicted of an additional crime if you attack a gay fella. No. What it means is, IF you hate gays as evidenced by your behavior, your writings, your behaviors, and you attack gay folk - having the additional effect of casting a pall on the gay community, thus the second crime - you can be convicted IF the evidence supports it. No one is proposing "reading minds" to guess at what people's motives are. We're talking about actual evidence, as in any trial.

What some few people apparently don't understand is that a second crime is happening, having never been part of an actual persecuted community and apparently lacking the human trait of empathy. I'm sorry for you, if that is the case.

David#999 January 30, 2009 at 9:18 AM  

Wonderful blog Mark, we think alike.
We can not support this Marxist! No way no how.

Mark January 30, 2009 at 9:52 AM  

Not my blog per se, David. I'm just one of the contributors, byut thanks anyway. My blog is found at
http://leftfieldperspectives.blogspot.com/

Mark January 30, 2009 at 10:18 AM  

Dan are you intentionally stuck on stupid? Gawd, I don't know why I bother.

If you don't get it by now, you're either too stupid or you are just arguing for arguments sake. Either way, arguing with you about this is a waste of time. I could spend my time better watching paint dry.

But here goes(for the last time):

We are not talking about terrorism here. We are talking about hate crimes.

Terrorism goes to intent. Hate goes to motivation.

Mark January 30, 2009 at 10:18 AM  

It's like arguing with a wall. Sheeeeeeesh!

Dan Trabue January 30, 2009 at 10:29 AM  

So, you are OPPOSED to changing terrorism laws? That's all I'm trying to get from you, Mark, a straight answer. ("Yes, I am in favor of abolishing terrorism laws..." or "No, I am opposed to abolishing terrorism laws.")

I have a simple mind, I'm looking for a simple yes, no answer. Something you have yet to provide. I can at least now get that you are saying you are opposed to abolishing terrorism laws because they involve people's thoughts about their intentions, but you support abolishing laws because they involve people's thoughts about motivation, according to you.

As to your "Intent" argument:

Has it not occurred to you that when, for instance, the KKK burns down a black church, they do so with the INTENT of scaring blacks away in addition to having the motive of hating black folk? Has it not occurred to you, then, that when some neanderthal beats up a gay guy, it's sometimes with the INTENT of keeping gay folk hidden and silenced, if not obliterating them altogether?

As noted, most of us recognize that it is a second crime, as with terrorism laws. If you truly wish to abolish hate laws, you'll have to convince folk of something we already know. You're in the minority on this one and you're in the minority because you are wrong.

Sorry. But good luck with your campaign (actually, I don't wish you good luck, that was just being polite).

Dan Trabue January 30, 2009 at 10:30 AM  

Perhaps now that I've used your language (Intent is okay, Motive is not okay), you, too, can recognize the second crime that is obvious to everyone else.

Dan Trabue January 30, 2009 at 11:00 AM  

Let's take an actual example and maybe you can begin to understand why the need for the additional penalty for the additional crime.

Some fool burns a cross in a black family's front yard. The intent is to drive "their type" out of the neighborhood because the criminal hates black folk.

What crimes has the criminal committed?

1. Trespassing, which carries a penalty of a fine and perhaps, worst case scenario, a short time in jail.

2. Vandalism,which carries a similar penalty, and probably a restitution payment.

Do you really think that the only penalty such a person should get is a slap on the wrist and a couple of fines and, MAYBE, a few days in prison? Do you understand the chilling effect in the black community of burning a cross in a yard for a black family?

Thanks to hate crime laws, such an idiot would not get just the slap on the wrist and fine, but would face some real jail time. And that is because an additional crime has been committed.

Believe it or not, that's what most of us in the real world recognize as just and appropriate punishment. Again, I'd have to note that it seems some here are awfully soft on crime, as long as the crime is committed towards "the Others."

Marshall Art January 30, 2009 at 1:55 PM  

"I have a simple mind"

I have never read a statement made by Dan with which I so totally agree.

More later...

Dan Trabue January 30, 2009 at 2:28 PM  

"A simple mind," meaning, when I ask question A, I sorta expect an answer to question A, not a scattershot jetsam of unrelated opinions on topics not asked about.

Like this:

Q. Do you favor ending the Terrorism Law?

A. Why, yes, I do favor ending the Terrorism Law.

NOT like this:

Q. Do you favor ending the Terrorism Law?

A. What part of unnecessary don't you understand? I've explained it so even a 4 year old can understand it, yet you remain unconvi--er--stupid.

It doesn't matter if you are attacked for being part of a group or attacked just because your personal lack of understanding is infuriating.

Hate Crime legislation makes motive the crime, and motive is unnecessary to obtain a conviction. Therefore, hate crime legislation is unnecessary. Simple as that. Perhaps too simple for you. eh?

====

I'm sorry, but my simple straightforward-thinking mind did not see an answer to the question asked in that mental detritus.

Marshall Art January 30, 2009 at 2:54 PM  

"If I'm attacked because someone hates me because they think I'm stupid, then no hate crime has been committed and the harm has been done to me."

Says you. If your stupidity alone provoked the attack, then stupid people anywhere near the perp are in similar danger. But until he attacks any of them as well, only one crime of assault has taken place. At the same time, if you were attacked because of your color, stupid people would feel terrorized to witness the event if they thought you were being beaten for being stupid. Indeed, anyone near the event would feel, at the very least, very uncomfortable, if not horribly worried that they are in equal danger. Yet, their terror doesn't matter to the charge to be leveled against the perp.

If a racist burns a cross on my black neighbor's lawn, his crimes of trespassing and vandalism terrorize me as well, and I'm a white guy. I would further be in danger once the racists realize that I am prepared to defend my black neighbor. Now, their hatred crosses the color line to cover also those who disagree with their racism. Anyone who defends my neighbor is equally at risk. The bias of the racist doesn't matter if he isn't actin upon it. It doesn't make the cross burn hotter, and it's impact on who is terrorized is not relegated to even the group who was his target.

So this brings up yet another problem with this form of legislation:

At what level of hatred would this kick it? If I beat up a particular homosexual because I find him to be especially revolting to me personally, how can I convince anyone that it is only THAT homosexual who would ever be in any danger from me? I'm still beating him for his being a homosexual, but there is no threat to any other. I still dislike the idea of homosexuality being wrongly forced upon my culture, but if not for that one dude, I'd never allow my disdain to manifest in such a way. At the same time, no matter what I say about my motivations and hatred for the sin of homosexual activity, would it not seem reasonable to conclude that other homosexuals would still feel terrorized or endangered? What then? All the while, the reality is that among homosexuals as well as other timid people, my actions against the one would elicit a varied degree of concern from among those who feel any at all. And what if none of them feel terrorized? Why should my punishment increase if NO ONE feels terrorized by my actions? And should no one feel concerned as a result of my actions, how can I be protected against those who lie and say they ARE terrorized by my actions, because of THEIR hatred for people who justifiably oppose their blatantly sinful behavior? Are they not themselves guilty of a hate crime by their lies and the effect they hope the lie provokes?

It doesn't freakin' matter why one is beaten, only that one is beaten. It doesn't matter who is meant to be terrorized, only that some will be, some won't be and there will exist between them various levels of both.

Hate crimes legislation is a ploy, and a lame one through which honest people easily see, designed to support the agenda of a small group of people who wish to foist upon our culture a sinful and dangerous lifestyle and demand we consider it benign.

Dan Trabue January 30, 2009 at 3:20 PM  

Hate crimes legislation is a ploy, and a lame one through which honest people easily see, designed to support the agenda of a small group of people who wish to foist upon our culture a sinful and dangerous lifestyle and demand we consider it benign.

Sez you. This honest person thinks it a way to stop the terrorizing of groups of people. It's a bit disturbing that some people are opposed to such.

Fortunately, you are a minority.

Further, this honest person thinks that language such as you used above is itself a ploy.

"that honest people..." implying that either we agree with you or we're not honest. Bullshit ploy.

"designed to support the agenda of a small group of people..."

There is no "agenda" other than ending the terrorism of groups of people. Bullshit ploy.

"who wish to foist upon our culture a sinful and dangerous lifestyle..."

We wish nothing except that people (whether gay, straight, black, white, Christian, Jew, etc) not be terrorized. Bullshit ploy.

You use code words to try to bully your position upon others and we're not buying it. But by all means, keep on trying your bullshit ploys, maybe it will work eventually.

I doubt it. People aren't that dumb.

Dan Trabue January 30, 2009 at 3:22 PM  

You'd have more credibility when you say you love all people - gay, black, jew, muslim, whatever - if you supported rules that protected every group, even those groups that you aren't a part of. You'd have more credibility if you used reasonable language instead of your abusive, "my way or the highway" language.

As it is, you have little credibility, brudda.

Al-Ozarka January 31, 2009 at 5:38 PM  

"Hate crimes are when Person A hates Christians (for instance) and assaults against Person B who is a Christian, because he is a Christian. That assault is TWO separate crimes. The crime of assault and the crime of intimidation of Christians."

So...there should be an awful LOT of leftist bastards who are prosecuted for their well-documented violent and hateful behaviour towards Republicans!

But I won't hold my breath.

I think during this administration violence towards Republicans will be praised and encouraged.

Just look at what the "tolerant" leftards are trying to do to Rush Limbaugh.

Hateful assholes, every one!

Al-Ozarka January 31, 2009 at 5:42 PM  

"You'd have more credibility when you say you love all people - gay, black, jew, muslim, whatever..."

Dan, when have you EVER read ANY of us expressing that we DON'T love gays, muslims, etc.?

I have love for EVERY individual and hope each and EVERY one finds Christ.

But I hate perverted behavior, terrorism, etc.

Are you able to separate the individual from the behavior?

No, you prefer to throw out erroneous accusations against ANYONE who speaks out against behavior you wish to protect!

Yo know, perverted behavior, terrorism, etc.

Erudite Redneck January 31, 2009 at 6:46 PM  

New low, Mark.

Only a coward and a cur goes after a man's wife, after being called on it.

Mark January 31, 2009 at 7:21 PM  

ER, I'll value your opinion again when you return to the common sense values that you possessed when I first came across your blog.

You were fair-minded and balanced then, but you've changed and now you are just as whacky as the rest of the moonbats. I don't know what happened to you.

Erudite Redneck January 31, 2009 at 7:33 PM  

Not sure I was offering an opinion as much as I was stating what used to be a common understanding among men. Good Lord, man, the least you can do is be common!

Mark January 31, 2009 at 7:37 PM  

I am above common. Geoffrey merely pretends to be.

Erudite Redneck January 31, 2009 at 7:57 PM  

You *are* above common, Mark, which is exactly why it stinks so bad when you lower yourself on such a personal level and then dig in your heels. I'm not talking about politics, or faith, or anything like that. By besmirching a man's wife in the first place, then continuing once you were called on it, you got down into a special kind of mud recognized by honorable men of all stations, all opinions and all persuasions. Were it my wife you so sullied, and were it to my face, and were it in another time and place, I would demand satisfaction at 10 paces. Yor owe him an apology, and as his friend -- I would be his "second" in a duel -- I am calling you on it. You owe him a personal apology.

Al-Ozarka January 31, 2009 at 9:32 PM  

"You were fair-minded and balanced then..." - Mark

You must have been under some kind of spell, Mark. I knew him for the pathetic self-promoting hater of anyone who doesn't agree with him from the very beginning.

Mark January 31, 2009 at 9:41 PM  

Naw, be fair. ER used to be pretty cool. I respected him back then. But he went way left when he started agreeing with the lies that the Libtards spread about G W Bush after Katrina.

ER, you said, "You *are* above common, Mark, which is exactly why it stinks so bad when you lower yourself on such a personal level and then dig in your heels."

You mean when I lowered myself to Geoffrey's level, right?

I will apologize, when:

Geoffrey apologizes to me for mocking me and insulting my intelligence.

When Geoffrey stops mocking me.

When Geoffrey admits he isn't as smart as he wants everyone to believe.

Al-Ozarka January 31, 2009 at 10:18 PM  

Then you got there before I did, Mark.

What did you do to him?

Erudite Redneck January 31, 2009 at 10:37 PM  

Mark,

You don't understand the nature of the insult you've leveled at yourself by insulting another man's wife. It's a social offense. Your other arguments with Geoffry have nothing to do with this. You've offended me, as a man, partly because in insulting Geoffrey's wife you've lowered manhood itself, and it's made worse because I'm Geoffrey's friend.

You owe an apology to Geoffrey because I demand it as a man, not because Geoffrey demands it as the aggrieved -- because, he, actually, demands no such thing as far as I know.

You, Sir, are a cur. A dog. And you deserve to be whipped in the street like a dog.

Marshall Art February 1, 2009 at 1:13 AM  

I'm not digging this wife argument thing, particularly on a thread I posted. But since it is being played out publicly, rather than through personal emails, which means I have to endure it if I want to engage the point of the post, I insist on an accurate retelling of just what Mark said that is so low. In what manner did he insult Geoffrey's wife? I do seem to recall some mention of her by Mark, but I assure you that I can't recall anything that I'd call "insulting my wife".

As I recall it, Geoffrey brought up his wife and her occupation, as he is wont to do now and then. In wondering about where in the wide, wide world of sports it is that Geoffrey gets his notions regarding Christianity, I don't see how wondering if Geoffrey's minister wife being a possible source is insulting. It actually seems a logical question.

If there was anything more to it than that, I can't recall ever reading it. As Geoffrey has real trouble with getting points being made, could there be a misunderstanding on his part? In any case, is neither gentleman strong enough in their faith to find a way to resolve this? Please, guys. Cut the crap.

Marshall Art February 1, 2009 at 1:17 AM  

"This honest person thinks it a way to stop the terrorizing of groups of people. It's a bit disturbing that some people are opposed to such."

I'll do ya one better. I'd rather that no one be terrorized in any way to any degree by criminal acts of any kind. What idiot believes that criminal acts only "terrorize" members of a group and not everyone in the vicinity?

And I don't believe the majority you claim supports this crap is that stupid. Wait. The majority elected Obama. I guess I could be wrong on this one. But not on the stupidity of hate crimes legislation. It is unAmerican in the extreme.

Mark February 1, 2009 at 7:14 AM  

Art, First of all. I did make a comment about Geoffrey's wife that I subsequently deleted, because Eric said it was out of line, and I agreed.

And then, I said, "Geoffrey, his wife, ER, Dan, Feodor and oter false teachers will follow the Devil and his angels into the place reserved for them, and take hundreds of people whomlistened to their teaching with them."

That probably was over the line somewhat, because I have no idea if Geoffrey's wife preaches the same false docrine that he apparently believes.

So, I aplogize if any statements I made might have offended someone, who may have taken them in a way not intended.

Now, that's at least as good an apology as the apologies Dick Durbin, John Kerry, Cynthia McKinney and other Democrats offered after making much more offensive statements.

Democrats were pleased with their apologies and Republicans pointed out they weren't sincere enough, but I defended them. Every last one of them. Which is more than any of these Libtard Democrats ever did for any Republicans that ever offered apologies.

I said we should accept their apologies but my compadres disagreed with me.

Now, ER, if that aint good enough for you, remember, at least I'm not naming names.

And, with the Democrats in power in Washington, this is NOT a good time to be unemployed.

Not a threat. Just a reminder.

Erudite Redneck February 1, 2009 at 8:25 AM  

LOL Whatever trump card you think you have - you don't. You crack me up. You do the right thing, and then you tarnish yourself, and your own honor, yet again.

Mark February 1, 2009 at 9:14 AM  

So, apparently that isn't good enough for ER. So it goes.

Al-Ozarka February 1, 2009 at 11:22 AM  

Dude! You'd have to put make-up on and wear a dress to win ER's love, Mark!

You should know that!

Post a Comment

Your First Amendment right to free speech is a privilege and comes with a measure of responsibility. You have the right to exercise that responsibility here but we reserve the right to inform you when you've used that right irresponsibly.

We are benevolent dictators in this regard. Enjoy.

Barry Obama : The Young Turk


Young Turk:
Date: 1908
Function: noun
Etymology: Young Turks, a 20th century revolutionary party in Turkey
:an insurgent or a member of an insurgent group especially in a political party : radical; broadly
:one advocating changes within a usually established group.





Photos: 1980 Taken by, Lisa Jack / M+B Gallery

Labels

"House Negro" "No One Messes with Joe" "O" "The One" 08-Election 1984 2009 Inaugural 2012 Election 9/11 abortion abortionists Air Obama Al Franken Al Gore Al-Qaeda American Youth Americarcare Assassination Scenario Atheism Barry O Bi-Partisanship Biden Billary Birth Certificate Border Security Bush Bush Legacy Change Change-NOT child-killers Christians Christmas Civilian Defense Force Clinton Code Pink Congress Conservatism Constitution Creation Darwin Del McCoury Democrat Hypocrisy Democrats Dick Morris Dr. Tiller Dubya Earth Day Elian Gonzalez Ends Justify Means Evil Evolution Evolution-Devolution Failure in Chief Fairness Doctrine Feodork Foreign Relations Free Speech Frogs Fuck America - Obama Has Gates George Orwell Gestapo Global Cooling Global Idiots Global Warmong God GOP Descent Graphic Design Great American Tea Party Gun-Control Guns hackers Harry Reid hate haters Heath Care Heretic Hillary Howard Dean Hussein ident in History identity theft Illegal Immigration Iraq Jackboots Jesus Jihadist-Lover Jimmy Carter Joe Biden Jon Stewart Kanye West Karl Rove Katrina Las Vegas Left-Wing Media Leftists Liar Liberal Media liberal tactics Liberals Liberty Lying Media Marriage Penalty Martyr Marxism McCain Media MSNBC/Obama Administration murderers Norm Coleman Obama Obama 2012 Obama Administration Obama Dicatorship Obama Lies Obama Wars Obama's Army Obamacare Obamists Olympia Snowe Partisanship perversion Piracy Police State Political Hell Political Left Populist Rage Pragmatist Prayer Proof of Citizenship Proposition 8 Racism Regime Change Revolution Ronald Reagan Rush Limbaugh Second Amendment Separation of Powers Slavery Socialist Government Tea-Bagging Tea-Parties terrorists The Raw Deal Thuggery Tom Tancredo Traitors War Criminal War on Weather War-Crimes Worst President in History

  © Blogger template Werd by Ourblogtemplates.com 2009

Back to TOP