Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Watcha Gonna Do When They Come For You?

"If liberals want to keep the Rick Santorums of the world out of their bedrooms, all they need to do is renounce the idea that even people they agree with have the right to sniff around in private quarters." (Nick Gillespie)
I keep hearing from big government leftists that the constitution is outdated, it was written by old white men way back in the 18th century, how can you look to them to solve our 21st century problems? The answer is, I don’t. The constitution is not a solution, it is a framework in which we work to solve those problems. It was meant to restrain government when it gets the urge for a final solution.

Two Side of the Same Statist Coin

Progressives have created a clanking soulless monster, piddling down their little legs with giddly glee as it tramples conservative and libertarian projects. But oh, how they scream like schoolgirls when those most sinister of figures, "old white men," grab control of it! The horror!

State-Sponsored Rape and other Abominations...

Ducky mewls about Virginia mandating sonograms for all women wanting an abortion, with the left elevating it to a civil rights issue, practically comparing Governor McDonnell to a modern-day Orville Faubus barring the abortion-house door. As if that were not enough, in a cute play on our emotions, the left equates the mandatory sonogram to state-sponsored rape. I wonder if language policewoman Shaw Kenaw has ordered her fellow libs to stop it, since it trivializes real rapes?

When you cry that everything should be collectivized and run by the state, and you acknowledge no overarching philosophy and no constitutional controls to bind it, you can't then complain when "old white men" seize the levers of power and do what they see fit.  In a world where there's no such thing as natural rights, might makes right, right?

So, my progressive friends, when your Frankenstein's Monster turns on you, please excuse the rest of us a schadefreude-induced chortle.

There is a way out of this.  It's called personal responsibility and personal liberty. Do what you want, when you want, on your own dime. Take these decisions away from the purview of the state. Government has no business in our private lives.

78 comments:

The Constitutional Insurgent said...

Amen!

Each party plays it's own end-field in the game of hypocrisy, where 'big government' is bad, unless it's in your particular ideological interests.

Silverfiddle said...

CI: You know, it took me most of my life to realize what you just said. I see it so clearly now, why can't everyone?

twoguys2012 said...

I'll tell them, "See? Instead of being such a sissy liberal who wants to hug the world, you shoulda been learning how to shoot a weapon. Now look at ya. Where's your Oprah, now? Where's your Pelosi, your Reid, your Frank, your Schumer? Where's your Obama? Exactly. I told you sheeple before that looking to the government to solve your problems is the same thing as waiting for the ocean to save you from the waves. But you didn't listen. And now you're screwed."

You leftists decry our 2nd Amendment, (and even now are using the tragic shooting in Ohio yesterday as fodder for this), as being primitive and archaic, but Heinlein said it best when he wrote that 'An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.'

I know that guns scare the majority of your leftists, since you aren't exactly the most masculine of people, but we can work around that.








Speaking of an old and useless Constitution, didn't SC Justice Ruth Ginsburg say something like that, recently, in Egypt? Hmmm. Not exactly a Conservative, now is she?

http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2012/02/17/ruth-bader-ginsberg-to-egyptians-dont-look-to-the-u-s-constitution-its-too-old/

LD Jackson said...

Allowing the government into our private lives never leads to anything good. The more control they have, the more control they will exercise.

Infidel de Manahatta said...

I'm beginning to lose hope for the American experiment. It seems the people prefer statism.

The American experiment was just that. An experiment. Unique. Could people govern themselves? Do they want to?

I think unfortunately we've learned the answer.

twoguys2012 said...

Benjamin Franklin is credited with saying:

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. (rightist)
-----

When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic. (leftist)
-----

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty. (leftist)
-----

Where liberty dwells, there is my country. (rightist)
-----

God grant that not only the love of liberty but a thorough knowledge of the rights of man may pervade all the nations of the earth, so that a philosopher may set his foot anywhere on its surface and say: This is my country. (rightist)
-----

Today is a day for rightist thought.

Always On Watch said...

At least two generations of Americans have been conditioned to prefer statism.

That is the hideous truth.

jez said...

Interesting, I wonder how necessary an "overarching philosophy" and "constitutional controls to bind [government]" really are? The UK famously does not have a constitution, would you say that we have been more draconian on average than you have in the states throughout the period of your existence? Do you think that actually there are constitutional bounds and philosophy to our government, only they're less obvious than your constitution, which, in keeping with your national stereotype, is more brash and up-front?

Ducky's here said...

Once you fundamentalist freaks stop trying to control human sexuality we might be able to move on and solve some issues.

Meanwhile put up L'il Ricky Retardo and get your freaking face punched in and watch the Republican Party begin to reform after the Bagger freak show.

Not that we'll ever have a progressive government so just watch yourself becoming more and more marginalized as you try to control pregnancy and keep on hating the homos.

Conservatives are losers.

Anonymous said...

Both The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution -- two distinctly different documents -- provide us with basic PRINCIPLES on which to govern ourselves as a nation-- and as individuals.

We live in age overburdened with TOO MUCH INFORMATION, and have become obsessed with SPECIFICS at the expense of understanding the underlying principles on which they supposedly rest.

The literalist is incapable of "seeing the forest for the trees," -- the beach for the sand, -- the building for the bricks, -- the dish for the ingredients, -- the fabric for the threads, -- the garden for the blossoms, -- the painting for the brush strokes, etc.

Literalists who dote on specificity to the practical exclusion of all else take a worm or a bug's eye view of the world.

Imagine for moment what it would be like to inspect an oriental rug and attempt to evaluate its significance from the perspective of moth larvae, and you'll begin to get the point.

The larvae use the rug as a source of nourishment, but haven't the faintest awareness of the intricate geometric patterns painstakingly woven by hand in myriad colors with millions of stitches. They have no awareness either of the jewel-like brilliance, vibrancy and great beauty discerning human beings perceive in these stylized patterns when seen from a distance.

AT THIS POINT IT WOULD BE JUST LIKE A LIBERAL TO LOUDLY INTERJECT:

"I don't think oriental rugs are beautiful at all. Look at the terrible advantage the rich white bastards have taken of the poor ignorant peasants who spend their lives working their fingers to the bone for pennies a month to produce these vile Emblems of Exploitation.

"The corrupt rug merchants, who cruelly take advantage of the miserable peasant slaves, make enormous PROFITS selling these Shameful Artifacts to the bloated Rich White Bastards at hugely inflated prices, ought to be horsewhipped and driven into penury, of course, but in TRUTH there would BE no exploitation, if over-privileged white snobs who think they're better than everyone else just because they an BUY things didn't have so damned much MONEY.

It's the MONEY that produces the evil. Money IS evil. All money should belong to the STATE not to INDIVIDUALS. Only the STATE knows how to USE money to the best advantage of ALL."


After that everybody will start yapping on about Management-Labor issues and "Inequality" which takes the discussion away from its original point completely, and the many ways in which oriental rugs maybe appreciated and understood will be lost.

I'm not a modern person. I love parables, fables, metaphors, similes, analogies, and I have what-is-probably an irritating penchant for DRAWING PRINCIPLES from SPECIFICS when most seem busily engaged in doing the direct opposite.

The modernist notion that ancient wisdom is "irrelevant," has come about primarily because Marxists grabbed control of our system of Education. Post-Modernism and Historical Revisionism are integral parts of the infamous "Dumbing-Down Process" to which everybody under the age of sixty has been rigorously -- and tragically -- subjected.

Avoid those who practice Critical Theory. Their deliberate intent is literally to drive you mad, thus rendering you helpless, incapable of resistance and subject to the will of our Collectivist Antagonists.

Keep it simple. Stick to Principle. Don't let yourself get sidetracked, hobbled, bound and gagged by aggressive, agenda-driven irrelevancies.

You may be accused of being a bore, but at least you will have a fighting chance of preserving your sanity in a manifestly insane society.

~ FreeThinke

Silverfiddle said...

Ducky, TwoGuys and (preemptively) Beamish: Stick to the topic, drop the gay insults and stop talking about your wieners.

Silverfiddle said...

Ducky: Good job avoiding the main point and throwing diversionary stink bombs.

"Hey everybody look over there, sex!"

I know you are not so dumb that you do not grasp the point I am trying to make.

Anonymous said...

Jez,

What do you have to say to this?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9107485/George-Osborne-UK-has-run-out-of-money.html

I'm reasonably certain you are probably devoted to the Manchester Guardian and have a low opinion of the Telegraph, so please don't bother denigrating the source, but I would be interested in your views of the subject raised -- Britain's apparently imminent bankruptcy.

~ FreeThinke

Silverfiddle said...

Jez,
So you are for politicians doing what the hell ever they want, completely unrestrained by anything whatsoever?

I do not know what has kept your governments in check. I haven't studied it that closely. Perhaps the British still value the virtue of prudence? Maybe it's the precarious position of being a tiny island that has historically and heroically always punched above its weight (not an insult. I am an admirer of Britain).

It appears your main restraint now is that the pound is no longer a global currency, so you can't play the money manipulation games the rats in our government do.

My point is a simple one. The constitution was written to restrain government as it carries out its mandate to protect our natural rights.

Telling people what health care to buy and making women get sonograms is a violation of the constitution (because it does not charge government to do such things) and they are violations of our fundamental rights.

How dare the government tell us what to do in our private lives when our exercise of our freedoms do not violate the rights of others?

Country Thinker said...

"Meanwhile put up L'il Ricky Retardo..."

Although I visit here frequently, I generally avoid commenting due to the vitriolic tone of the debates. The quoted passage above has compelled to abandon my usual silence here.

Ducky's vicious attack on special needs individuals is by no means limited to the left side of the political spectrum. But using the "R-word" in this manner speaks volumes about those who use it in this way. The inference is not only is Rick Santorum stupid, but he is also a bad person. To strenghten the case of his "badness," he has been compared to those with special needs. I'm not sure when, why or how special needs individuals became a symbol of human "badness," so to speak, but they have.

I'm not a PC freak by any means, and I would not suggest that people stop comparing their political enemies to special needs individuals if that is your wish. But I do want to point out that people who make these comparisons sound like moral and ethical degenerates, and their arguments lose any and all credibility.

jez said...

FreeThinke, the ultimate source of this is Mr Osborne himself, the Telegraph is merely promulgating his message unfiltered.
Osborne's purposes are obvious: he is managing expectations for the upcoming budget (it's very common to talk up how painful it's going to be, so that in the event it's not as bad as we thought and everybody sighs with relief), and he is in any case ideologically disposed towards public spending cuts.

To be honest the current recession doesn't feel as deep as the one we had in the early 90s, never mind the 1920s. I have little patience for economics, but based on my limited personal experience I am skeptical about claims of imminent bankruptcy.

SilverFiddle:
"So you are for politicians doing what the hell ever they want, completely unrestrained by anything whatsoever?"

No, but I wonder (I really don't know) what it is we have instead of a constitution that seems to be doing roughly as good a job over the over the last 3 centuries.

It might be the fairer comparison to put America up against Europe as a whole, which obviously has had a few wobbles with fascism etc. I could easily talk myself round to agreement...

"My point is a simple one. The constitution was written to restrain government as it carries out its mandate to protect our natural rights."

No disagreement, and I think it's about as good a constitution as is possible. I just wonder if there are any other ways of achieving the same end.

Silverfiddle said...

Country Thinker: You are not the only one who has commented on vituperative nature of comments here, although I don't consider Ducky the most egregious violator.

I am on the horns of a dilemma. I hate censorship, and yet I have others telling me they are driven off by the nature of the comments.

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Jez,

I'm inclined to view the claims of politicians of all stripes similarly, myself. Playing games with the truth to further the ends of oneself or one's party is endemic to the political process in both our countries no doubt.

I've spent several months in Britain on two separate occasions, and felt a tremendous affinity for the place wherever I traveled. I was fortunate to be the guest of several members of an English family related to an American friend of mine on both visits, so I believe the impression I got of British life was more authentic than that of the average tourist or businessman.

The last time I crossed the pond, however, was in 1981. From what I read I doubt if I'd be favorably impressed by the changes that have transpired since then. A lot can happen in thirty years.

I remember a quotation from Harold Macmillan, who was still Prime Minister when asked, "What do you fear most about the future?"

"Events, dear boy. Events" was supposedly his answer.

We do seem to have an inordinate capacity never to know when we're well off, and never to know when to leave well enough alone.

Despite pulling down the curtains, smashing the crocker and periodically setting our hair afire, I suspect we'll muddle through as we always seem to have done, although the dark foreign elements we've deliberately imported into our midst may preclude that possibility.

Nothing much we can do but wait and see what unfolds, I'm afraid.

~ FreeThinke

Jim at Conservatives on Fire said...

Two wrongs don't make a right. Those old white men would be just as opposed to statism on the right as they would to statism on the left.

twoguys2012 said...

Thanks, Kurt, for being you.

One Guy 2012

Anonymous said...

No thinking person should have a problem with honest statements of opinion, feelings or unpleasant facts that fail to flatter no matter how vehement, rough cut, or highly colored.

It's the highly personalized campaigns of repeated attack and outrageously flamboyant vilification that somehow ought to be aborted, because they rarely have any relevance to the topic at hand and quickly become downright stultifying.

As for the rest, all I would say is, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." This is not a Garden Party, a meeting of the Ladies Aid Society, a Debutante's Cotillion, or a Game of Whist. It's a forum where we try to discuss blood and guts issues apt to have a material effect on the way we live our lives.

The last thing we need here -- or anywhere in the blogosphere -- is a prissy, self-righteous, egotistical little Nanny, who thinks blogging is all about HER, slapping at our wrists and threatening DELETION every time we say shit. Frankly such tactics tend to bring out the beast in most of us -- certainly in me anyway.

Try to argue against CONTENT and leave STYLE the hell alone would be my advice.

~ FreeThinke

beamish said...

As one of the 232+ Million Americans that are thoroughly "corrupted by Satan," er, non-Catholic Americans, this is my main opposition to Sick Rantorum's anti-libertarian impulses.

Right-wing big government is no better than left-wing big government. I dare say the bigger the government, the less right-wing it actually is.

If Sick Rantorum is a "conservative," then I most definitely am not a "conservative" nor do I wish to ever become one.

"The heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." - Ronald Reagan

beamish said...

Silverfiddle,

Ducky, TwoGuys and (preemptively) Beamish: Stick to the topic, drop the gay insults and stop talking about your wieners.

Sex seems to preoccupy the left-wing statist mind, doesn't it? Ducky wants to turn the discussion into that, Jez preferred ruminating on my genitals to adding anything relevant to the fetal rights discussion earlier, and of course my neurotic left-wing sock puppet stalker too was reduced to preoccupation with genitals. Even you point out the language of turning sonograms into "rape." The preoccupation with sexual mores, assaults, and genitalia seems to be endemic to the left side of the zero to higher number IQ scale.

jez said...

The only good censorship is self censorship. There is nothing to be gained responding to the contemptible.

Bunkerville said...

Our founders deep in their heart apparently knew what was on the horizon. It took the Progressives about 100 years to do it, and we were asleep at the wheel taking it all for granted.

Hack said...

Great post.

Leticia said...

We need to get back to the basics and follow the guidelines our forefather's left us. It works! But the liberals are bound and determined to bankrupt this nation until we have no choice but to embrace Marxism.

Anonymous said...

"Right-wing big government is no better than left-wing big government. I dare say the bigger the government, the less right-wing it actually is."

BRAVO, Beamish! One of the best things you've said in my hearing. I couldn't agree more.

We don't need a reincarnation of Savonarola or Cromwell any more than we need another Lenin, Stalin, Vlad the Impaler or Attila the Hun.

Conversion to "Christianity" through terror is no more "Christian" than cutting human hearts out of sacrificial victims, roasting them and eating them or plunging a knife into little children bound to honor the Dark Lord on the altar of Satan.

We get so distracted by NAMES -- TERMINOLOGY. We are NOT what we CALL ourselves, we ARE what we DO.

~ FreeThinke

Jersey McJones said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jersey McJones said...

Silver, this post, eclectic as it is, is all over the place! I don't know what to make of it.

You quote from Gillespie (a crazy Libertarian loony, who banned me from his cult site), is completely out of line with any serious scholarly understanding of Fourth Amendment privacy. Even the conservative Supreme Court we have today, lined up for privacy in the Kyllo decision.

But you ignore that... too busy with adolescent verbosity of emasculating the "liberal" bogeyman.

You are calling hypocrisy in decrying imposing authority on one's body while imposing regulations on interpersonal behavior. Wow. Talk about "collectivism!" Are you a "person," Silver? Are you sure? I mean, blastocysts, corporations, churches - they're all "persons," right?

My ass.

People have rights, and privacy is OBVIOUSLY inherent in that.

"There is a way out of this. It's called personal responsibility and personal liberty. Do what you want, when you want, on your own dime. Take these decisions away from the purview of the state. Government has no business in our private lives."

Hey! Wow! What a genius idea! I guess you completely just changed your mind! Except, of course, you mean we should all live like dogs in the woods with no rules. Like a psycho.

Dude. This post was all over the place.

JMJ

Right Wing Theocrat said...

"....the left equates the mandatory sonogram to state-sponsored rape."

That's the hysterical left for you, any impediments to free abortion and the sky is instantly falling in on their heads, oh and it's equivalent to rape. It's very sacred to them, the killing of the unborn, it makes them go nuts.

"It's called personal responsibility and personal liberty."

For the modern liberal, the ultimate is no personal responsibility, they want the ability to do anything and avoid the cost or at worst, spread the cost around to take the sting off.

Right Wing Theocrat said...

"Ducky, TwoGuys and (preemptively) Beamish: Stick to the topic, drop the gay insults and stop talking about your wieners."

You'd better include jez in that list, he seems to have a penchant for wieners.

Jersey McJones said...

RWT,

If you were a woman, would you be okay with being forced to have a medical procedure that is completely irrelevant to the procedure you need?

You don't see this as Clockwork Orange-esque?

Loony.

JMJ

Anonymous said...

TwoGuys,

Ruth Bader Ginsburg comes from a treacherous, fundamentally anti-American background. She is what Michael Savage would call "a Red Diaper Baby." So, I am sure are Elena Kagan and Sonia Soto-Mayor. People of their ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds -- especially if born and raised in New York City, as these three unattractive females were -- almost can't help being leftists. It's practically in their blood.

Stephen Breier is a more genteel sort -- similar in demeanor to Gentleman Joe Liebermann as a matter of fact, though far haughtier -- a virtual Past Master at Condescension. However, when push comes to shove, those guys those guys, despite their aura of gentility and good-breeding, will side with the Marxists every single time. They may appear less obnoxious than The Three Ugly City Sisters, but they are no less dangerous.

We have one black three Jews, one Puerto-Rican, two Italians, one WASP and one nondescript white guy who most closely resembles a Boiled Potato. Of the nine three are women.

In a nation founded, guided and developed almost exclusively by WASPS till the latter part of the nineteenth-century, don't you think it's bizarre that WASPS, who are still significant segment of the white Christian majority, are so poorly represented on the high court?

Isn't high time they placed a genuine, bona fide REDNECK a among the lordly nine. And how about a American INDIAN? Surely we need a blind amputee too, don't we?

And how about a Mental Retard come to think of it?

Oh wait, we've already HAVE several of THOSE, don't we?

~ FreeThinke

Jersey McJones said...

"And how about a Mental Retard come to think of it?

Oh wait, we've already HAVE several of THOSE, don't we?"

FT, stop picking on Clarence Thomas.

JMJ

Anonymous said...

I agree with liberals in this regard:

The State has no business and no proper place in ANY woman's vagina.

If a citizen can't call her genitalia her own, what OTHER rights could she POSSIBLY have?

The one exception I would advocate is this:

Welfare mothers should be required to undergo MANDATORY STERILIZATION if they want to continue being supported by the taxpayers.

No one should ever be forced to undergo ANY surgical procedure, of course, but it seems more than reasonable to me to give chronic welfare recipients the option to undergo sterilization in order to continue getting a free ride indefinitely.

A long as it's presented as an "option," it can't be a violation of anyone's proper "rights," right?

~ FreeThinke

Silverfiddle said...

I'm not surprised this one went over your head, Jersey.

My point is lost on statists like you who think government should do whatever it need to do so long as it's implementing your agenda.

and BTW, what were you doing stalking a libertarian journalist?

Z said...

SF "I am on the horns of a dilemma. I hate censorship, and yet I have others telling me they are driven off by the nature of the comments."

The censorship problem's weird: I personally don't censor so much for ideology as I do for space-fillers or profanity, or (this is my biggest bugaboo) insults. Nobody needs to be insulted. It's also tough when the commenters can't focus on the point of the post and kill messengers, etc., instead.

FT...COME TO THE STABLE was on TMC last night. Sadly, I came in just as the last credits were rolling..Isn't that the film you discussed not having seen for a long time?

Great post, SF>

beamish said...

FT,

The State has no business and no proper place in ANY woman's vagina.

Even if it is the scene of a murder?

Welfare mothers should be required to undergo MANDATORY STERILIZATION if they want to continue being supported by the taxpayers.

Yuck, a big government solution. Why not just get rid of welfare?

Shaw Kenawe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Shaw Kenawe said...

Apparently, SF, you haven't heard:


U.S. broadens archaic definition of rape


January 06, 2012|By Moni Basu, CNN

Attorney General Eric Holder says the new definition will lead to a more comprehensive statistical reporting of rape nationwide.


The Justice Department announced Friday it is revising a decades-old definition of rape to expand the kinds of offenses that constitute the crime and for the first time, include men as victims.

Now, any kind of nonconsensual penetration, no matter the gender of the attacker or victim, will constitute rape -- meaning that attacks on men will be counted.

The crime of rape will be defined as "penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim," a Justice Department statement said.


Would you like to make a joke about it?

Shaw Kenawe said...

Under the new DOJ definition of what constitutes rape, a state's forced transvaginal probe on a nonconsenting girl or women in order to attain a legal medical procedure would indeed be state sponsored rape.

dmarks said...

I notice Shaw used a euphemism in the above comment, one that is not true. Abortion is never safe: a person dues during it. And if it is a "medical procedure", then so is capital punishment by lethal injection.

Finntann said...

Jez, I might point out your government is considered to be a parliamentary constitutional monarchy.

I'd have to say the key difference between our two governments is your concept of parliamentary sovereignty. In essence your parliament acts as what would be a perpetual constitutional convention under our system.

I would say that the bounds and philosophy of your government are found in many documents. The Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights of 1689, The Act of Settlement, Treaty of Union, Acts of Union, etc.

Ours may be more brash and up-front, but then again that is perhaps because Ole King George decided all the aforementioned documents didn't really apply to us.

Cheers!

Shaw Kenawe said...

dmarks, go check your facts. More women die in childbirth than from abortions.

SOURCE

And, indeed, abortion is a medical procedure. A legal one and a safe one. Safer than childbirth.

You need to prove that it isn't. I'll wait to read your evidence to refute this.

Silverfiddle said...

Shaw: You and Eric Holder spit in the faces of the women of Libya, Egypt and other hell holes where real state rape really happens.

Ain't life beautiful being a latte liberal reclining petulantly in the comfy confines of the land of the free and home of the brave?

As a bonus, you can play outrage bingo, using words that make a mockery of really bad things that really do happen to real people in really bad places.

Finntann said...

Make a joke about it? It is a joke.

The definition is appropriate, however...

That said, I kind of thought it was the function of the state legislatures to define criminal law as opposed to the rule of fiat by unelected officials.

Even if you wish to consider rape a federal offense, it is the Congress of These United States that make law, not the Attorney General.

For all I care, for statistical purposes, the AG can consider forcing someone to eat a hotdog an act of rape, given the complete and utter lack of binding legal force behind it. No one will be prosecuted under the AG's statistical definition...it isn't LAW!

So unless states change their legal code through acts of legislation, it's nothing but fluff, and a nice PR piece. Meaning, unless the State of Virginia changes its criminal code, NO IT WOULDN'T BE RAPE!


Nice try though.

Cheers!

Shaw Kenawe said...

SF, we're not talking about Egypt or Libya. Your post was about how silly the liberals were in calling Virginia's probe law "state sponsored rape."

I merely showed you that under the DOJ's new definitions of rape, that is exactly what it is.

The USA is not Egypt or Libya or anywhere else.

We don't expect this sort of state sponsored crime against women here in America.

And make no mistake, shoving a probe into an unwilling girl's or woman's vagina, who is seeking a legal medical procedure, is now by the new DOJ guidelines a rape.

Reality is a bitch, innit?

Anonymous said...

"Ours may be more brash and up-front, but then again that is perhaps because Ole King George decided all the aforementioned documents didn't really apply to us."

Finn stole most of my thunder re. the British Constitution i.e. They have one, they just haven't bothered writing it down. That works I think because the Brits seem to have the kind of innate respect for tradition that sends the left here over the edge, screaming and foaming at the mouth. Our Constitution is an impediment to them "fooling all of the people, some of the time" and getting away with it.

It also pays to keep in mind that the American Revolution was fought to preserve the rights of Englishmen. ;-)

viburnum

Finntann said...

"Reality is a bitch, innit?"

Read my above post and then answer that question.

LOL

Silverfiddle said...

Congratulations Shaw, you've gone off the loony liberal deep end with your phony equivalencies that cheapen the word rape.

Are you really going to equate this with what happened in Rwanda or Bosnia, really?

This is sickening...

Shaw Kenawe said...

Silverfiddle, I know an angry person when I read him. And you are one p.o'd. guy right now because I showed you that what Virginia [and other states] proposed and are proposing to inflict on girls and women is exactly state sponsored rape.

Stick to the subject. It isn't about what goes on in other countries. This is about what's going one here in America.

The facts are that the Virginia proposal is for state sponsored rape.

You don't like the new DOJ definition and apparently see nothing wrong with the state forcing girls and women, without their consent, to have probes inserted into their vaginas.

That you can defend that sort of state imposed violation of a girl's or woman's vagina is amazing to me and illustrates your weak libertarian bona fides.


No libertarian would ever, ever, ever find that acceptable.

Apparently, your anti-abortion views trump your libertarian ideals.

Very interesting. And very instructive.

Silverfiddle said...

No, I'm not PO'd. I am amazed that the word police would stand for the trivialization of rape. But I understand it, you're a liberal, so outrage and propaganda uber alles. I get it.

And what's very instructive is you selective reading skills. Let me lay my last paragraph on you again...

There is a way out of this. It's called personal responsibility and personal liberty. Do what you want, when you want, on your own dime. Take these decisions away from the purview of the state. Government has no business in our private lives.

Since you seem to have problems picking up on subtleties, let me help you, I'm against it!

You also blithely skirted over the main point of this post, which is "when my guys do it, it's ok, but when those guys do it I'll scream in outrage."

Her body? My life. Our personal lives. Government has no business there.

Ducky's here said...

You're pro-choice, Silver? I'm shocked.

Silverfiddle said...

I am pro-liberty.

Silverfiddle said...

Anyway, praise Lilith, "State-Sponsored Rape" will not yet reach our shores. Virginia has passed a law with the invasive provision removed.

Am I the only one who found the government wanting to insert a probe into people an apt metaphor?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/senate-finance-committee-eliminates-1-of-several-anti-abortion-bills-that-put-va-in-spotlight/2012/02/28/gIQAx4L7fR_story.html

Jersey McJones said...

Silver,

"My point is lost on statists like you who think government should do whatever it need to do so long as it's implementing your agenda."

You mean like forcing people to have medical procedures that have nothing to do with their healthcare? Do you guys wanna hold down teenage girls and make them watch Reefer Madness?

"what were you doing stalking a libertarian journalist?"

"Journalist?" Gillespie?

No, I was just commenting on his blog, when I reminded those dreamers that libertarianism is the political philosophy of spoiled, suburban teenagers.

JMJ

Grung_e_Gene said...

All your Vaginas are Belong to Us!

Government is not the problem. Republicans in Government are the problem.

Right Wing Theocrat said...

@ Jersey - "If you were a woman, would you be okay with being forced to have a medical procedure that is completely irrelevant to the procedure you need?"

If you were an unborn baby girl, would you be okay with being sliced up and tossed into the trash, because your mother doesn't want you?

I wouldn't call a external ultrasound of the baby you are going to abort completely irrelevant [or loony for that matter] to the abortion of said baby that you supposedly need. It makes perfect sense actually.

There might be a small chance that the mother might think twice about killing off her unborn baby after seeing a beating heart. Who knows, if she changes her mind and raises a wonderful child she may later realize it's the best thing she's done. I think i would want to have that possibility if i were a woman.

If this doesn't make sense to you, perhaps read my earlier comment.

Anonymous said...

Government is not the problem. Republicans in Government are the problem.

I might agree with you Gene, if only there were any Democrats to take their place. All we have these days is socialists flying under false colors. There hasn't been a Democrat in DC since Scoop Jackson died.

Silverfiddle said...

@ Gene: Government is not the problem. Republicans in Government are the problem.

No Gene, silly beliefs like this one you just expressed is the problem. Remove "republicans" and insert "democrat" and I'd say the same thing.

I am not calling you, Jersey, Shaw and Ducky fascists, not by a long shot, but it is people like you who enable them and hand them the reins of power.

Silverfiddle said...

@ Jersey: I reminded those dreamers that libertarianism is the political philosophy of spoiled, suburban teenagers.


That's rich, coming from a grown man who believes in government-approved fairy tales. I bet you bought Obama's crap hook line and sinker about how insurance companies giving stuff away for free really saves them money. They should just give it all away and save a whole wad of money, huh?

This from a grown man who believes the government gives things away for free...

Liberalism is the unquestioning religion of spoiled urban adults who choose to remain naifs at the knee of an abusive Uncle.

jez said...

I think a vaginal probe is not a rape, but it's closer than a body search or scan at the airport, which I seem to remember being described in pretty fruity terms.
Finntann, excellent. I love the comparison with the perpetual constitutional convention.
Maybe the really important thing is to have rule of law. I'd be surprised if our unwritten constitution, built up over the centuries, was altogether consistent philosophically... indeed much of it was written for the benefit of nobility / landowners, keeping the plebeian in their place. Crazy really, but I'm pretty conservative about it: I don't trust us to come up with anything better, so best stick with it.

Anonymous said...

"I know an angry person when I read him."

Thank you, Shaw, for that great line. It gave me a chuckle that quickly threatened to turn into an outright guffaw.

I wonder what you see when you look in the mirror?

Could anything other than an offended Muslim possibly be angrier than a doctrinaire advocate of State-Mandated, State-Enforced Women's "Rights?"

Could there be any wonder why the clever, whimsical, tongue-in-cheek, twinkly-eyed coinage "FEMINAZI" took off like rocket?

My oft repeated observation about the liberal penchant for changing the "official" meaning of terms to accommodate their agenda du jour was exquisitely well reinforced by Shaw's post about our august DOJ's "new" definition of rape.

Before the tide of insolent outrage, self-righteous hauteur, cold-hearted condescension and combativeness begins to flood the board let me restate my firm conviction that THE STATE HAS NO PLACE WHATSOEVER IN THE CONFINES OF A WOMAN'S VAGINA.

And let me restate my fervent belief that while human life most assuredly does begin the very second the sperm hits the egg, during the early stages of pregnancy that life has no ability to think, feel, hope, dream, or do anything whatsoever on its own. Because I believe that SENTIENT, DEVELOPED LIFE deserves preferential treatment over NASCENT, INSENTIENT life, I am -- reluctantly -- pro-Choice.

I say "reluctantly," because using abortion callously and casually as a means of birth control cannot help but have a deleterious effect on those personally involved, and eventually on Society as a Whole.

There is, however, a utilitarian streak in me that advocates pragmatic solutions to problems when strict adherence to idealistic doctrinal codes dooms a person to a stunted, curtailed existence devoid of personal fulfillment.

SilverFiddle's great point, first introduced here by Constitutional Insurgent, emphasizing the hypocrisy and inherent absurdity of "If our guys do it, it's laudable, but if your guys do it, it's abominable" is extremely important and deserves far more emphasis than it has yet received.

Get GOVERNMENT OUT of our BEDROOMS and OUT of our BODIES.

And that goes for the PRIESTHOOD and all the SELF-RIGHTEOUS DO-GOODERS of EVERY persuasion who dare to presume THEY know what's best for ALL WOMEN.

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

Most of you will be delighted to know that RICK SANTORUM narrowly LOST the Michigan primary.

[Of COURSE he did, the OLIGARCHS just wouldn't have it any other way no matter what the PEOPLE thought!]

This OUGHT to show ALL of us, however, that the politics of Right to Life for nascent human beings and Death with Dignity for worn out, diseased, incapacitated ones longing for death because existence has become unending agony guarantees LOSS at the polls.

Evangelical Christian Sharron Angle handed HARRY REID a victory in NEVADA, and whacky little Christine "I'm Not a Witch" O'Donnell handed the reigns of power to the Marxicrat in Delaware.

Unless you want ever to be on the losing side Keep POLITICS out of RELIGION and RELIGION out of POLITICS.

THEOCRACY is just another name for TOTALITARIANISM.

Meanwhile, e OUGHT to be working towards unseating The OLIGARCHS, but too many of our brightest and best would insist The OLIGARCHS don't exist.

Alas! The March to Doom seems Inevitable.

~ FreeThinke

Shaw Kenawe said...

"Could anything other than an offended Muslim possibly be angrier than a doctrinaire advocate of State-Mandated, State-Enforced Women's 'Rights?'"

Do you mean State-Mandated, State-Enforced Women's "Rights," as promulgated and enforced in the 19th Amendment? If so, I'm one of those "doctrinaires."


Sir,

Why such MALEvolent anger!

Silverfiddle said...

I'll let FT speak for himself, but I doubt he's talking about suffrage. He's probably talking about the state placing the right of not being inconvenienced over the right of a human life.

Leslie Parsley said...

In keeping with the rationale used by 16 states proposing a requirement for pre-abortion counseling and transvaginal ultrasound, I would like to add a requirement for pre-surgical counseling and penile ultrasound for patients requesting vasectomies and/or prescriptions for testosterone replacement therapy, Viagra or similar medications, to be paid for in full by health insurers.

Counseling would include but not be limited to lengthy and graphic discussion of the ramifications of unprotected sex, including the moral, legal and financial aspects of pregnancy and subsequent parental obligations; a course on sexually-transmitted diseases, including photos of symptoms of AIDS and other STDs, and detailed instructions on prevention measures; a detailed study of state and federal laws regarding rape, prostitution, child pornography, child rape and statutory rape; plus, mental health services for patients who have experienced any form of sexual abuse or have participated in abuse.

We can't be too cautious when it comes to protecting the family jewels.

Silverfiddle said...

Leslie:

A better solution is for government to stay out of our private health care decisions.

Anonymous said...

" ... I doubt he's talking about suffrage."

That is correct, sir.

"He's probably talking about the state placing the right of not being inconvenienced over the right of a human life."

That may be a point well taken, but it's not what I had in mind. I made it clear that I am Pro-Choice, albeit reluctantly and with reservations.

I was really talking about the emergence of repugnant, super-abrasive personalities like Molly Yard, Bella Abzug, Betty Friedan, Elizabeth Holtzman, Eleanor Smeal, Patricia Ireland and most of the members of NOW.

The performance of the Feminazis during the Clarence Thomas Hearings, and their spectacular silence on the culture of abuse and degradation to which Muslim women are subjected and in which they are imprisoned speaks volumes.

The object of Feminazis has not been to help women, but rather to gain political power to aid in the left's longstanding determination to convert the nation to Socialism by hook or by crook.

If you read what I wrote about what-might-loosely-be-termed Vaginal Politics, you'd know I am dead set against government intrusion into and supervision of women's private parts -- and by extension their private lives.

What I object to about NOW and other organizations of that ilk is the base hypocrisy with which they conduct their highly selective campaigns of outrage and disgust.

In general I abhor aggressive behavior of any kind, and favor accommodation over confrontation in most instances.

Your inherently affable, non-MALEvolent male, who is no MALEfactor, just an ardent exponent of Old World Graciousness, Charm and Civility,

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

By the way:

HAPPY LEAP YEAR DAY!

Am I the only one who noticed?

~ FT

Anonymous said...

Oh, Leslie,

Let's just com right out and SAY it:

The world would be much better off, if all human babies were sterilized at birth from here on in.

Eunuchs are by far the safest, best companions for women, and barren women are far less threatening to men.

What it all boils down to is this:


The Human Race may
Be as great as they say,
But we wouldn't be missed
If we didn't exist!



VOLUNTARY EXTINCTION is the WAY to GO.

All our troubles would be ended once and for all.

~ FreeThinke

Shaw Kenawe said...

FT: "I was really talking about the emergence of repugnant, super-abrasive personalities like Molly Yard, Bella Abzug, Betty Friedan, Elizabeth Holtzman, Eleanor Smeal, Patricia Ireland and most of the members of NOW."

Sir,

It is unfortunate that you consider repugnant the women who have had to overcome male barriers and male prejudices to attain equal rights.

"When today’s rich countries were still poor, the state of women’s rights in these countries was just as bleak as it is in the poorest countries today. For example, until the mid-nineteenth century, women in England and the United States lost all their civil rights upon marriage. Husbands had full control over their wives’ property and earnings, only men could obtain a divorce, and married women did not have any rights with respect to their legitimate children.

The situation improved only in the second half of the nineteenth century, when England and the United States started a series of reforms that ultimately led to the modern state of equality before the law. The rapid advance of women’s rights in today’s rich countries suggests that it is not some immutable cultural reason that explains cross-country differences in gender equality, but an interaction of women’s rights with the development process itself."

Power is never given up without a loud struggle and least of all to docile, obedient little second-class girly citizens.

Anonymous said...

Dear, Ms Shaw,

Your point is not ill taken, however, I doubt very much if Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who once lived in my home town in a large, very beautiful white-columned house surrounded by tall trees and wide sweeping lawns, or Susan B. Anthony -- or Lucille Pankhurst in England -- ever resorted to the kind of crude, boorish behavior I was forced to witness one day when I happened to be lunching at the same restaurant where Betty Friedan was ensconced three tables away.

Suffice it to say her behavior towards the waiters was appalling. Stevedores at a waterfront bar would have blushed to hear the obscenities that poured from her lips.

I felt embarrassed to be a member of the human race that day. What should have been a pleasant, high quality dining adventure turned into a nightmare because of the antics of this grotesquely uncouth virago. It spoiled my appetite -- and forever dissolved the sympathy I once had had for the feminist movement.

I am anything but squeamish, and usually willing to go along with most any gag, but this performance at the ill fated luncheon was just too much.

There is NEVER a legitimate need for that kind of behavior in a civilized society.

b the way, not o try to obviate your point about property right, etc. burt how do you account for the enormous success of such historic figures as Bess of Hardwicke, Queen Elizabeth the First and Catherine the Great? Or even Queen Victoria for that matter?

Regards,

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

Dear MS Shaw,
As a woman, I'm ashamed of you.
You and your type have ruined it for a lot of American women and, particularly, children.
Not a fan.

Anonymous said...

This might be worth repeating since it apparently escaped notice earlier:

The performance of the Feminazis during the Clarence Thomas Hearings, and their spectacular silence on the culture of abuse and degradation to which Muslim women are subjected and in which they are imprisoned speaks volumes.

The object of Feminazis has not been to help women, but rather to gain political power to aid in the left's longstanding determination to convert the nation to Socialism by hook or by crook.

If you read what I wrote about what-might-loosely-be-termed Vaginal Politics, you'd know I am dead set against government intrusion into and supervision of women's private parts -- and by extension their private lives.

What I object to about NOW and other organizations of that ilk is the base hypocrisy with which they conduct their highly selective campaigns of outrage and disgust.

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

Blithely terminating family life
In mad impulse to boost her ego strength
The little woman ceased to be a wife.
Told by pop psychologists at length
Existence as a mother was a scam ––
Robbing women of Fullfillment’s joys ––
Outmoded –– overrated –– a flimflam ––
Like childhood with no candy and no toys.
Deserted and dumbfounded the poor father ––
Bereft of help –– was left alone to raise ––
In sorrow and chaotic endless bother ––
The little ones perplexed and in a daze.
Children so deserted often grow
Harpooned by blades of grass they later mow.



` by FreeThinke - 3/1/12

Algis Petreikis said...

The Constitution is Graeco-Masonic anti-Catholic that is why it allows contraceptions and abortions. It was not until the Ellis Island offspring put forth the New Deal that we began to be freed of its oppression. If we bilingually translate it into Spanish, we will further make it better. The Ohio public schools were originally run by the Catholic Church. We must join with the anti-Federalists to return to private ordering of things. We don't need the Constitution, it is Judaic Deuteronomy Law, not natural law like Roman, the law of the Second Charlemagne, Napoleon, which should rule the earth, starting with our great Fourth Empire of the EU at Brussels. Prussia is Great because Prussians are really Lithuanians, so it is just that Merkel should be the Fourth Charlemagne to rule the world together with China and Islam. Is must blessings Brzezinski for Sineurabia Code uniting Roma, Mecca and Pekino against arrogant, aggressive Greeks, Jews and Hindus.