McDonnell Endorses the Ousting of RPV Chairman Jeff Frederick. McDonnell signs RPV Suicide Pact

Just in case you haven’t heard yet, several Republican Party State Central Committee members are attempting to boot their own chairman, Jeff Frederick.

Apparently, Republican Att. General and also candidate for Governor, Bob ” a BJ should be a Felony” McDonnell, supports dumping his own party chair before an election. Does the Bobber think he’ll get a lot of support from the many Jeff Frederick backers?
Yea, publicly support shafting your own party chair and alienate core voters as you run for governor. Yes, Bob proves his leadership genius on this one. He calls his chair ineffective? We’ll see.

The Democrat Party, The Libertarian Party, and other third parties must be erupting in cheer over this Va. GOP suicide pact. The Democrats especially. Surely, they must be chomping at the bit to use this obvious division and confusion against Republican candidates in upcoming elections!

I first spotted news on this in a posting by JR Hoeft on Bearing Drift. Later on The Virginian Pilot reported that the Republican candidate for governor, Bob McDonnell, was endorsing the dumping of his own party chair. From there, news continued to spread.

A lot of criticism has been hurled at Republican Chair Jeff Frederick unfairly in my opinion. Most charges fly in the face of the fact that Jeff Frederick was elected as the RPV Chairman during an upheaval in the party. The GOP was already devastated by continual losses statewide, the governors mansion, and the voters tiring of the many years of Republican dominance leading some Republican office holders to embrace “Big Government” and govern as if they were socialist lites. Jeff Frederick had nothing to do with those factors. It wasn’t Jeff Frederick that caused many a voter to no longer believe the GOP was the home to fiscal responsibility. Blame that on the Bush administration and a US Congress that FORMERLY was Republican controlled.

Where do we go from here? Do we argue for sanity in the Republican party knowing that insufferable RINOs in office will do us continued harm? Leave no true competition for Democrat left wingers? Or do we cheer for the RPV destruction in hopes that the Libertarian Party gains more ground in the mainstream? As a former Republican and admirer of Reagan, I admit being torn on this. Additionally there are many good conservatives in the RPV and many Ron Paul Republicans. It isn’t easy for me to just leave them to hang in the aftermath and hope they join the Libertarian Party.

What do you think? How does this affect your vision of Libertarian strategy. How do you think this will affect future races and specifically the upcoming governor’s race?


40 Responses to McDonnell Endorses the Ousting of RPV Chairman Jeff Frederick. McDonnell signs RPV Suicide Pact

  1. John Doe says:

    I have no dog in the fight, as I don’t know enough about Frederick or McDonnell to support one over the other. But I will say it took guts–or gross stupidity–for McDonnell to stand up against Frederick. Most “politicians” would never do that. I gather you think it was stupidity. I’m not convinced yet.

  2. Don Tabor says:

    I would think that if for some reason the differences between McDonnell and Frederick cannot be reconciled, McDonnell is wise to oust him now rather than later.

    Right now, the GOP’s problem is that it suffers from multiple personality disorder. There are three factions which would rather see the others fail than the GOP succeed.

    There are the small ‘L’ libertarians which I would like to see prevail, like Tom Gear and Bill Bolling.

    There are the ‘culture warriors’ like McDonnell.

    And then there are the RINO’s who lack any principles at all who will chase the polls and turn the GOP into ‘Democrat Lite’ if they think that will bring them power.

    I think that as the GOP exists right now, it is better that it break up and its members either rebuild with a single vision or migrate to other parties. I would be delighted to welcome Bolling and Gear into the Libertarian Party, let the RINO’s become Democrats for real, and let the ‘Culture Warriors’ who ruined the GOP go to hell.

  3. John Doe says:

    People like you are the reason libertarians “command” about 7% of the vote. People like you claim to be the true descendents of the Founding Fathers’ political philosophy but are really clueless about what the FFs stood for. Course, the FFs weren’t “Culture Warriors” as you call them. But that was because back then they didn’t have to fight for cultural values. The values were shared by a majority of the citizenry. And guess what? They enacted laws that would be anathema to idiot libertarians of today. You folks are welcome to your opinions, but you aren’t welcome to rewrite history to make it seem as though you are the true “conservatives.”

  4. Britt Howard says:

    John Doe, why not use your real name?

    First let me comment on strategy & McDonnell:

    I disagree with Dr. Tabor in that McDonnell should try ousting him now. This even if he knows that with his public support, he can get the numbers. The plain truth is that there are many Frederick backers and they’re not going to feel particularly loyal to McDonnell at the polls when he runs for governor. He is in effect splitting his core voting groups. They don’t have to vote Dem. for him to lose, just not show up or fund him.

    It is brave, if not brazen. However, it is tactically hazardous. It gives the Democrats ammunition and the abilty to point to the lack of cohesion in the RPV. I sincerely and putting my bias aside, think he damaged his chances by doing this.

    If McDonnell is a “Culture Warrior” he may be attacking his own. Frederick was ridiculed for his statements denying the theories of evolution on the floor during Charles Darwin’s birthday. Reference to this should be easy to find with google and other search engines. I personally believe that God created evolution so, while I don’t agree with Jeff on everything, I see the division that festers in the RPV as unhealthy…..for them. I don’t see the wisdom in attacking your base as you run for office.

    I understand your reaction to Dr. Tabor’s response. It may come down to a difference in the perception of what a “Culture Warrior” is. I don’t agree that the entire “Religious Right” should be lumped in with those that force views with legislation. I do believe in the First Amendment. I certainly personally discourage harmful behavior but, I know it is not my place to interfere with anyone’s life unless they damage other people. I know way too many people that are fundamentalist with strong views that understand that you must come to God willingly or it means nothing.

    In the GOP, I believe there is room for Fiscal Conservatives, Moral Conservatives, and Moderates. What there can not be room for is RINOs. They are cancer of the opposition party. They are a Democrat invasion pulling everything towards socialism and politically correct intolerance.

    It may interest you to know that while Libertarians reject the notion that you can force religious views on anyone, they encourage the use of vouchers for private schools. If we must be forced to deal with the federal government involvement in education, at least let there be choice(competition), allow parental direction, and have the money follow the student. Yes, this includes schools that have a religious background that meet testing standards. There are plenty of them out there.

    I don’t want this thread to get too far off of the McDonnell/Jeff Frederick/RPV/Libertarian connection but, let me assure you that while there is disagreement on some issues between Libertarians and the “Religious Right”, there are numerous commonalities. We do hold after all that freedom of religion is sacred, and that would include your right to yours.

    We are quite friendly at the TLP. Many if not most are GOP refugees and Christians. One of our repeat featured speakers at the Tidewater Libertarian Party is in fact a professor at Regent University. Professor Walker is respected enough at the TLP to be asked back on numerous occassions. Don’t let our principled view that government in order to protect the freedom of religion, must be seperated from it, put you off too much. I embrace religion just not a legal authority that is combined with one particular view(to include athiesm). Forcing a non-belief is everty bit as harmful as forcing a religion.

    Thanks for posting your views.

  5. John Doe says:

    Saying the “Culture Warriors” ruined the GOP and can go to hell is not exactly my definition of “quite friendly.” Especially since it is demonstrably untrue that the “culture warriors” ruined the GOP. And without the “culture warriors” for the libertarians to glom onto–but only when it suits their fancy–the libertarians would be reduced to having zero voice in elections, or lending their support to Big Gummint liberals.

    But at least I agree with you about the RINOs. Course, my definition of RINOs is probably more expansive than yours and includes a lot of “moderates.” My biggest problem with moderates is they want we “cultural warriors'” support, but never reciprocate. I’m glad you are trying to keep the warring parties at peace. Good luck wid dat.

    • Don Tabor says:

      First, I probably live my life very much like a good culture warrior. I’ve never experimented with illegal drugs, I don’t smoke, I’ve never been drunk in my life and I am married to my high school sweetheart for 40 years.

      But I do hold the culture warriors responsible for the destruction of the Republican party.

      I think my reasoning on that is sound, because it was their desire to use government to enforce their moral codes on others that transformed the GOP from the party of minimal government to a government that took away freedoms instead of protecting them.

      Once that threshold has been crossed, once you have declared that interfering in someone’s life when they are not violating anyone elses rights is a function of government for ANY reason, then you have no standing to object to someone else imposing their values when they have the power.

      The same authority given government to bring the Ten Commandments into our schools as a standard for behavior gives others the power to bring Captain Planet into the classroom to impose their Gaia based ethic on children. Bringing the Bible into the schools opened the door for Heather Has Two Mommies. The authority to impose values on others is the same, the only difference is who has the power at any given time and place.

      Values should have stayed in the home and the church, and never set foot on anything controlled by government. Government should be about protecting rights, as Goldwater and Reagan told us, and should never have been about morality backed by law. But the Culture Warriors opened that door and now the GOP has lost standing to object when the liberals force their agenda through it.

      The Republican Party abandoned its role as the guardian of our rights, so, what does it have left to stand for?

      • Britt Howard says:

        Don, well said.

        I do agree that was especially true in the late 80’s & early 90’s but, once the will to interfere with lives based on a moral correctness if you will, was fading, the GOP came back for another high and now a descent not due to the “culture warriors” but, the fiscally liberal free spenders. Take out the war in Iraq and Bush still far out spent Bill Clinton. I think Bush’s internal decisions were based more on his newly found comfort with “Big Government” and less about his religious views.

        Recent Republican declines were also due to a mishandling of the war in Iraq. Like you Don, I’m one of the minority of Libertarians that thought there was reason to go to Iraq and Afghanistan. I just think the Bush approach post “Shock & Awe” was horrible and caused too many US casulties.

        John McCain was hardly a friend to the religious right, yet he was an abyssmal choice to nominate.

        I seriously don’t think the “Religious Right” played much of a part in the recent Republican decline.

        Your logic as to why we can’t govern according to faith and the liberal political correctness that is allowed in once that Pandora’s Box is opened is spot on correct in my view.

        I know that Bob McDonnell’s pushing to keep consensual oral sex behind closed doors even for married couples is a relatively recent thing. Even with that said. “The Bobber” was soundly defeated by the US Supreme Court when they overturned the Texas Sodomy law. There weren’t many other examples of others following that course of interfering in our lives based on a moral correctness.

        We see now what truly motivates McDonnell as he publicly endorses the removal of a party chair that spoke against Darwin. Note: He spoke about it on the floor on Darwin’s Birthday and was not legislating anything. I’m all for making statements even if I find them flawed.

  6. Britt Howard says:

    Oh, to a degree, I agree on moderates being RINOs. Some socialists in the RPV call themsleves moderate. That doesn’t make it true of course.

    When I refer to true moderates, I mean those that are too conservative to be Democrats either fiscally or culturally but, may not be as fiscally conservative as I am or, perhaps, as culturally conservative as you. They would still in my opinion, fit in the GOP. We all are more passionate about some things than others.

  7. John Doe says:

    Mr. Tabor, Oh, PuhLEEEZE. You cannot enforce your morality my arse. Either morality is enforced or immorality runs rampant. The “cultural warriers” did not “open the door” to enforcing morality. Our Founding Fathers had no problem “enforcing morality” (go back and read some history) and it was never seriously questioned that the state had the power to enforce the morality of the majority until less than a hundred years ago. We can and do “enforce morality” even to day, when it agrees with the majority. We outlaw theft, burglary and murder and mayhem. You say, yes, but that is because those things “harm” others. Fine, but that is based on a moral code, just as much as any other law. Laws forbidding cruelty to animals are classic laws based upon morality.

    Mr. Tabor, you set up a classic straw man and then seek to destroy it. Name ONE instance where social conservatives “took away freedoms instead of protecting them” in the years since Reagan. Didn’t happen. Social conservatives have been fighting to protect the rights of the unborn. Social conservatives have been fighting the radical homosexual agenda which seeks to re-define marriage, and which doesn’t seek equal rights, but rather special rights.

    You sir, are no serious scholar of history. The Bible was the text used to teach students to read and write in public schools back when the Bill of Rights was penned. Don’t give me this garbage that “social conservatives” caused “Heather has two mommies” centuries later. It was the liberals and their distorted thinking, and people like you who don’t know their history.

    You confuse “liberty” with “licentiousness.” Our country was founded upon the notion of liberty within the confines of a shared morality. But liberty unbound from morality turns to anything goes, let every man do what is right in his own eyes. While people like you are attacking the “social conservatives” who are trying to hold back the invading liberal hordes, the liberals have no qualms against enacting their own laws based upon their own immorality.

    I for one see people like you for what you are. You are in the trench with us, but shooting us in the back. You want immorality? Join the liberals. You might as well. Because libertarians are about 5-7% of the population. You can join forces with social and fiscal conservatives, or with social and fiscal liberals. Or you can sit off by yourselves accomplishing nothing. It sounds to me as though you would be a natural ally of social conservatives. Instead, you sound like they are the enemy. When “social conservatives” start advocating “taking away freedoms” let me know, I may join you. All I see them doing now is fighting against the liberal immorality that is being foisted upon this country–with the help of people like you.

    • Don Tabor says:

      Mr. Doe,

      I didn’t say you could not enforce morality, all sorts of despots have done so. I said you should not. Right now, on the other side of the world, religious police whip women for allowing their ankles to be seen by a man not related to her. How’s that for enforcing morality? Perhaps you are not advocating that level of prudery, but that is merely a difference in degree, not in principle.

      And just because things were done in Colonial times does not mean they were in line with our concept of government. Massachusetts had a tax supported State church and Sumptuary Laws regulating dress within one’s class. Not quite the same as requiring a burka, but still none of government’s business.

      Do not confuse morality with ethics. It is a proper function of government to protect the rights of one citizen from depredation by another. But it is not a function of government to protect us from ou own poor choices. Libertarians do not advocate living an immoral life, on the contrary, what is immoral is also often irresponsible and leads to dependence on others. But we believe the proper way to achieve that goal is through persuasion, and by allowing the consequences of irresponsibility to fall on those who practice that irresponsible behavior.

      As for transgressions on our rights by social conservatives, it is true that we have been pretty successful at blocking those attempts, but there are many laws passed pre-Reagan which have survived efforts to repeal them thanks to often mindless opposition by social conservatives. Here’s one you might not have thought of.

      Why can’t I take my son hunting on Sunday? I can take him to a football game, or even a titty bar since he’s an adult, but every year, social conservatives block every attempt to open Sunday’s for hunting, denying working people half their opportunity to hunt.

      You misunderstand the Libertarian position on marriage. We believe the legalities of marriage should be available to all, in the form of something along the lines of a civil union for heterosexual and homosexual couples alike. That should be all government does with regard to marriage. The sacrament of marriage should be reserved to our churches, families and the communities that support that union. Government cannot sanctify anything and should be kept far away.

      I do not confuse liberty and license. But I also do not confuse what is Caesar’s and what is God’s.

  8. John Doe says:

    Ooooooh! The Taliban enacts strict laws. I expected better argument from a so-called scholar. If you want to be taken seriously, try a better argument. No mere words will stop the Taliban where ever they are in power. They agree in might makes right–just like you libertarians and liberals. Social conservatives, as our Founding Fathers did, believe that might does not make right. Rather, our rights come from our Creator, and no despot or unruly majority can take away certain inalienable rights.

    Why can’t you take your son hunting on Sunday? BECAUSE the majority of voters have decided it. It isn’t and never was an inalienable right to hunt on Sunday. Too bad! You don’t like it, change the law. There are an enumerable number of things you can’t that are not the fault of “social conservatives.” Drive without a license. Drive without seatbelts. Smoke in restaurants. On and on. I like to play poker. How’s about you and I and some like-minded individuals actually band together in a coalition. I’ll help you and you help me. As it is, libertarians just like to go off on their purist little galavants and refuse to help anybody who isn’t perfect in their vision of libertarianism.

    My point about the Founding Fathers was that libertarians have no right to claim the mantle of being true “conservatives” in the sense of preserving our Constitution the way it was intended when it was written. So in other words, you are no different than the liberals: You want to just ignore the Constitution as it was originally intended and instead make it say whatever the hell YOU want it to. [That makes you in favor of “might makes right,” my friend, whether you recognize it or not.] Sure, you disagree with the liberals in the details, but the effect is the same: Deny social conservatives any say in certain matters merely by claiming the “separation of church and state” somehow prevents social conservatives from enacting laws based upon their morality.

    Ugh ugh. The Constitution wasn’t originally intended to be interpreted that way, as evidenced by the laws that were in effect at the time of the enactment of the Constitution. “Progressive” jurists on the Supreme Court pulled that argument out of their asses just last century. So try some other argument, because that one is invalid.

    No, wait. NOBODY buys any of the crap spewed by libertarians. The fact that only 5-7% of the population are libertarians means you are losing the war of ideas. So get over it and deal with reality. OK, since your side is losing, now what? You either can side with the social liberals who generally are despicable fiscal and big government liberals too. Or you can swallow your bile and make an uneasy truce with the so-called fiscal, government and social conservatives to form a coalition, as in the days of Reagan. You won’t get everything you want, but it will be better than siding with damnable “progressives.”

    And then you can actually have a say in matters. You won’t get everything you want–but you never will at 5-7% of the population. That is the reality. My problem with libertarians is they all think they are so damn smart and so damn perfect that if they can’t have everything exactly as they want on every issue they will just take their ball, and go home. They vote for some idiot Libertarian Party nominee who will get his/her little 3-5% of the vote. Waste your vote if you want, or use it to the most beneficial (or least harmful)effect, the choice is yours, all you libertarians out there. On one saying at least Obama has it right: Sometimes the perfect is the enemy of the good. If libertarians can’t have a perfect candidate they refuse to support the better of the two candidates. And as the Nader voters learned in 2000, sometimes voting your conscience sways an election in a way that you would not have preferred.

  9. Britt Howard says:

    Doe, you argue against yourself with the “might makes right” arguement. We Libertarians hold that the Constitution is the barrier to “Might makes right”.

    When you reference the fact that the majority of people voted for or support that crazy hunting law you in effect argue for the “Might” or “tyranny of the majority”. One purpose of the the Constitution is to protect the individual from the tyranny of the majority in our system of government where the majority elects representative. Though it certainly wasn’t followed, slavery and denying women the right to vote was unconstitutional. Some of our founding fathers objected to slavery but, I suppose the Revolution etc. put enough on their plate. Still today we hold that just because the Majority vote to enact slavery or deny rights, that does not make it legal nor constitutional.

    As for hunting not being a right, I have mixed feelings. What if you need to eat on Sunday? You won’t convince me that social conservatives don’t allow this archaic law to stand. What business is it of anyone what day of the week somebody hunts? It is ridiculous and I suspect deep inside you agree.

    I will acknowledge that many laws that abridge our rights in an arbitrary manner did not originate with or even have support of social conservative. Many social conservative argued against the smoking ban and demanded eminent domain reform. Social Conservatives may favor a “Moral Correctness” but, they certainly oppose (with us) “political correctness”

    My arguement against legislating religion and tyranny of the majority? Have children in public school? Not all social conservatives have the money for private schools. Past arguements for instituting a Christian prayer in schools is that most Americans are Christian. While that on itself is a false arguement it isn’t as easy to explain but, look at it this way:
    We are increasingly being invaded from the south by illegal and legal immigrants. This quickly growing population is predominatly Catholic. As they grow in population they grow in power.

    To hear the rest of this post in English press 1. To hear it in Spanish press 2.

    Now you might appreciate a good Christian prayer in public school but, who defends YOUR right to YOUR religion when hispanics become the majority and force your grand children to pray to Mother Mary rather than directly to God as you might well prefer. I know many social conservatives that would be beyond outraged at that notion.

    I doubt you will belive me but, in truth, seperation of church and state protects you. It also protects you from enforced athiesm and Doc’s previous illustration on how many children are forced to learn about “Heather has two mommies”.

    The Constitution is a set of morals unto itself. That is legislating a morality. However, that morality has the purpose of allowing self-determination. It protects your right to religion and various other God given rights that are due you simply because you are here. Going beyond that self-determination goes to authoritarianism and lets the current “power” determine who has rights. To me, this self-determination, this free will, is very Christian. After all, unless you come to God of your own chosing, it is meaningless.

    You are correct that there should be real cooperation between Libertarians, fical conservatives, and religious conservatives. Us attacking you or you attacking Dr. Tabor doesn’t work towards that ideal. You would be surprised how many Libertarians vote for Republicans even given a Libertarian choice. The Libertarian Party also has its extremists. Sometimes we bow a little to reality and vote for someone that can win in the GOP or a conservative Democrat. However, given two poor choices, voting Libertarian is a welcome choice. I will compromise but, I will no longer vote for the “lesser of two evils”. That only rewards “evil” by allowing them to frame the question. It is akin to picking the best tasting crap sandwich offered.

    As to the 5-7% name calling, I’ll take it. We’re still a small majority however, we are growing. If we weren’t a factor, we would be completly ignored. The fact that we can, just as social conservatives can, ruin election chances of RINOs on occasion, means that people get angry with us for not blindly voting GOP.

  10. John Doe says:

    Mr. Howard: I’m not sure whether you and I disagree on our interpretation of the Constitution or not, so I will elaborate on my view. The Constitution is a barrier to “might makes right” only within the areas of constitutional protection. In other words,the Constitution forbids the majority from enacting laws prohibiting freedom of speech, because that is a Constitutionally protected area. But the majority can enact laws that forbid the minority who want to drive 100 mph as they do on the Autobahn, since speeding isn’t a protected freedom. Within areas that are not constitutionally protected, “might makes right” in the sense that the majority elect politicians who do what they want.

    In my view, hunting on Sunday isn’t a constitutionally protected right, therefore, it is an area where might makes right. Whether I agree with you or not that it is a ridiculous restriction is irrelevant. If you don’t like it, pursuade a majority to agree with you and change the law. And don’t use that one law to paint all social conservatives as losers who ruined the GOP party as Dr. Tabor seems to think.

    School prayer isn’t an issue with me as I think the current state of the law has it about right. Anybody can pray in any manner they want so long as the school authorities do not initiate the prayer. So long as school authorities don’t discriminate against those who want to pray or read their bible or koran or whatever, I have no problems. Once we are talking about adults, however, sorry, all bets are off. If the freakin Congress that enacted the Bill of Rights could start their sessions off with prayers and bible study, than the local school board or state police chaplain ought to be able to also. That does not “establish a religion” it merely allows adults to pray. If one does not like it, one need not join in.

    I know full well that the Bill of Rights protects me from GOVERNMENT interference with my right to practice my religion. But that is a far cry from the current understanding that any little prayer by public officials is “establishing religion.” Whatever you or Dr. Tabor say about “Heather has two mommies” the fact is that godless heathen ARE enforcing their views on us everywhere with that book and their teachings and their philosophy. That’s why social conservatives are fighting back. They started this fight, we have only recently joined the battle. And people like Dr. Tabor want us to shut up and take it. Sorry, I’m mad as hell and I’m not gonna take it any more.

    I don’t blindly vote for the Republican party, either. I despise John McCain. I held my nose and voted for him. But we make the choice between the lesser of two evils every day. Walk down a steep, curving rock strewn trail, or step off a 40′ cliff? Hmmm. Tough choice. Well, sure, I’d like to be carried down on the wings of angels, but that isn’t a realistic possibility. Neither is the current chance that a libertarian will get elected President. So you can either wish for things that aren’t or you can deal with the way things are.

    • Don Tabor says:

      Mr. Doe,

      Your interpretation of the Constitution is truly frightening.

      I would refer you to the 9th Amendment, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

      The Constitution is a list of the powers granted to the Federal Government and of those which are denied to the States. Your interpretation that only listed rights are protected is 180 degrees wrong. Only listed powers are given government.

      Under the 10th Amendment, powers not granted the Federal government are left to the States, within the limits pf the Constitution. So, States can regulate driving a car for the purposes of safety, and can regulate hunting and fishing for the purposes of protecting and equitably using the resources. But they cannot regulate driving or hunting or fishing for religious purposes, which would violate the First Amendment.

      So, Saudi style prohibitions against women driving would not be allowed, for example, as there is no safety purpose to denying women the right to drive.

      I chose the example of barring hunting on Sunday to illustrate the sham social conservatives have engaged in to get around the clear meaning of the Constitution by claiming that game needed a day of rest for conservation purposes. Were that the true reason for the ban, Tuesday would have served just as well.

      By the way,the Congress did not enact the Bill of Rights, they were ratified by the States.

      The disagreement we have is not so much on what is, and is not, moral, but on the role of government. Jefferson, Madison, Mason, Hamilton and I hold that government only has the power to use force to restrain men from harming one another through force or fraud, and that beyond that point, personal moral choices are ones own to take, and others may only intercede through peaceful persuasion.

      Those who stand with you in holding that force is properly used by government to impose moral choices on individuals who are not transgressing anyone elses rights would include Pope Gregory IX, the Ayatollah Khomeini and Mao Zedong.

  11. Britt Howard says:

    In regards to the 9th and 10 amendments I agree with Don. that is pretty much how I feel about the constitution.

    The hunting thing I have mixed feelings on. If it is sport, then I would think that the State can regulate it. It might be technically constitutional. Where I get fuzzy on it is that if you are hunting to EAT. Regulating one’s ability to eat sounds inherently evil.

  12. John Doe says:

    Tabor, you are excellent at setting up straw men and then destroying them. But I never mentioned the 9th and 10th Amendments. I take them into consideration in my overall interpretation of the Constitution. If a law is within an area of the power of the Fed or State govt to regulate, then it is not a “constitutionally protected right” and the power of the people through their elected reps prevails at whichever level you are talking about.I am as much or more of a state’s rights person as anyone I know. Not because I am a racist, as liberals attempt to paint us with a broad brush, but because I am a believer that the Constitution must be interpreted only as it was intended by the Founding Fathers (or the states when Amendments were ratified). Anything else is a bastardization, and/or a usurpation of powers by the court that is misinterpreting it.

    And YOUR interpretation of the 1st Amendment is truly scarey. You buy hook, line and sinker (sucker) the “progressive” argument advanced last century that the 1st Amendment prevents laws enacted “solely for religious purposes.” That is pure bullshit. We had such laws for almost two centuries since the Constitution was written. To suddenly discover such a new interpretation in the middle of last century is about as idiotic and removed from the original intent of the Founding Fathers as was the sudden discovery of the “Constitutional right to an abortion” and of the “Constitutional right to commit homosexual acts between consenting adults in private.” You may or may not agree that such laws are good policy or bad policy, I am not bringing them up for that reason.
    But don’t give me this bullshit that laws forbidding abortion and homosexual acts are “unconstitutional.”

    WHY the people enact a law should be irrelevant. And it USED TO BE irrelevant. But, godless heathen progressives wanted to prevent Christians from even being allowed a say in certain matters, so they invented the “religious purposes” restriction of which you speak. I want murder outlawed BECAUSE GOD SAYS SO. Should we therefore invalidate the law because it has a religious purpose? Your lame reply will be that it isn’t “solely” a religious purpose, it has a secular purpose too. But you are again sucking on the teat of the progressive courts’ “logic.” Preventing people from hunting on Sunday doesn’t “establish a religion” anymore than limiting a speed limit to 55 does. You can’t hunt on Sunday, that doesn’t mean you attend a church or synagogue or mosque.

    You and the progressives can’t win the argument at the ballot so you want to take away the right of the people to enact laws and regulate society as the majority wish. “Oooooh! you are violating my ‘constitutional rights’! whine whiiiiiine! Let me win without having to go through the legislative process.” If your argument about hunting on Sunday is so valid, present it to the people, change their minds. Get the law changed. Act like a man, not a sniveling little punk who whines that such laws are violating your constitutional rights. Heck, I’ll join you in your quest to change the law. It bugs me to drive all the way up to the mountains, hunt the first Saturday, and then have to go home and work without a second day of hunting. But I don’t cry about it violating my constitutional rights.

    You aligning yourself with Jefferson, Madison, Mason and Hamilton on this matter is particularly odious. What you really are (whether you know it or not) is aligned with the likes of Justices Wm Douglass, Wm Brennan, Thurgood Marshall and Harry Blackmun. You and your ilk have confused Jefferson, Madison et al. with John Locke. Locke influenced the Founding Fathers but his theory that you espouse was not universally shared by the people back in the day when the Constitution was written.

    Again, the very elementary step in logic which you miss is that the States HAD SOME OF THE VERY LAWS AGAINST WHICH YOU AND YOUR ILK RAIL at the time when the Constitution was written and subsequently ratified. If such laws were “unconstitutional”–as courts (your buddies Douglas, Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun etc.) almost 200 years later suddenly declared–wouldn’t the people have known it who enacted those same laws or similar ones when the Constitution was written? Did they not know what they were doing? Were they intentionally violating the brand new constitution and the Bill of Rights? Were they like me just too stupid or too ignorant to see what was happening? Or, and here is a toughy for a guy like you, did they KNOW what they were doing, and it was later supreme court justices who re-wrote the Bill of Rights to their own “progressive” liking?

    I don’t expect to change your closed mind, I write in case others with more open minds might happen to read this blog and hopefully have an “AHAH moment!” Supreme Court justices cannot have the power to rewrite the Bill of Rights willy-nilly. Otherwise, instead of being tyrannized by the legislature or the people, we are tyrannized by the majority of 9 unelected and appointed for life ex-lawyers. I, for one, have never agreed to allow five Justices who are accountable to no one change the meaning of the Bill of Rights for me. The correct procedure is to determine what the Bill of Rights was understood at the time it was written, and then to apply it to laws. If it doesn’t say what you want, AMEND the Constitution the correct way, not by getting your like-minded pals appointed to the Court to change its meaning for you.

    • Don Tabor says:

      Mr. Doe,

      Gee thanks for taking the 9th and 10th Amendments ‘into consideration.’ Its good to at least consider absolute limits on the power of government.

      Again, that laws were passed that were based on religious beliefs at some point does not make them Constitutional. For one thing, prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States. Up until that point, it was Constitutional for Massachusetts to have a tax supported State Church. Now it is not. The Constitution was properly amended to forbid States from violating the civil rights guaranteed by those Amendments to their citizens from that point on.

      Incidentally, I agree that there is no Constitutional Right to have an abortion. It is up to the State legislatures to define when live begins for legal purposes, and the Supreme Court erred in creating a ‘privacy right’ that overrode the powers of the States on that issue. Regardless of one’s religious conviction regarding abortion, if is even possible a life exists to protect, it becomes a State responsibility to define the parameters for when that life exists, since that power is not specifically given to the Federal Government nor denied by the Constitution to the States(that would be the 10th Amendment). If a State determines life begins at ‘x’ months gestation, then it has the power and the duty to defend that life. No right to privacy permits you to take the life of another.

      On the other hand, private homosexual activity does not involve anyone other than those involved and transgresses no rights of any third party, and thus cannot be outlawed based solely on religious grounds, as that would be a denial of equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. With no other grounds for interfering in their freedom to act as they choose other than a religious code to which they do not ascribe, laws forbidding that activity are an imposition of religion by government, which is proscribed by the 14th and 1st Amendments.

      Likewise, regardless of whether you or Britt or I think Sunday hunting is a good thing, if that law is based on religion (of course, sham claims for conservation purposes are made to get around the clear Constitutional restrictions) then imposing that restriction is the imposition of religion on those who have different religious beliefs, and clearly a violation of our rights. I chose that example for exactly that reason. You asked for an example of religious conservatives denying people their rights. Well, there it is.

      Note that I did not call on the courts to intervene, I just pointed out an example of an abuse of our rights by social conservatives as you requested.

      What I am trying to get across is that if you want people to respect your rights to live your life, and teach your children, as you choose, you must respect the equal rights of others to do the same.

  13. John Doe says:

    Britt, nobody is going to be put in jail if they are starving and they kill something to eat on Sunday. I think the law should be changed to allow hunting on Sunday. But I believe in doing it the correct way, by changing the minds of a majority of the people, and electing legislators who will change the law. Not being a sniveling whiner who claims that such laws violate my constitutional rights. That is just an attempt to get one’s way the easy way, by re-writing history and ignoring what laws our founding fathers had at the time the constitution was written, without doing the hard work of changing the law or amending the constitution.

  14. Britt Howard says:

    Just to clarify something, the Supreme Court weighed in on the constitutionality of gay sex. They ruled the Texas Sodomy Law as Unconstitutional. In doing this they also overturned Virginia’s sodomy law (felony to engage in oral and anal sex)with the exception of public acts. Two guys in a public bathroom or park can still be a felony.

    Regardless of my feelings on two guys being together, (for some reason two attractive women together doesn’t repulse me. 😛 )I can grasp the fact that it isn’t my business and they are not hurting anyone.

    This is a far cry from abortion in which if it is life, then it is killing. I agree that at some point there has to be a determination of life. I also think that if the baby is able to survive outside the womb then in almost all cases, abortion should not be an option but, induced premature labor can be. The parents then are liable to the state for child support payments and medical treatment until adoption takes place. I’m kinda like Jim Gilmore on the first trimester. However, I am not emperor and can’t make the rules.

    My point? Just that it has been ruled constitutional to have gay sex. Also, that consenting to gay sex in private harms nobody else. Abortion does. You’re comparing apples to oranges, my opinion.

  15. John Doe says:

    Tabor says the fact that laws were based on religious beliefs “at some time” does not make them Constitutional. Oh? Tell that to the Founding Fathers who wrote and enacted the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Would you at least concede that if it was done by them, then it was Constitutional at least when the Bill of Rights was ratified? Then it would be an easy matter to go back and show you the many laws that were “based on religious beliefs.” For instance, I vaguely recall that the Congress actually gave money to missionaries to convert certain Indians to Christianity. (If true that kind of destroys your argument, and it supports my interpretation.) The “based on religious” qualification that you glom onto as if it were Holy Scripture was invented out of whole cloth by the Supreme Court last century.

    And don’t even bring up the 14th Amendment as if that suddenly changed the laws regarding the “based on religious beliefs” issue. If that were true, why wasn’t this bastardized interpretation to which you subscribed immediately recognized by the Supreme Court and by the states who ratified the Amendment, rather than it lying in weeds like a snake for almost another century? Could it be that the progressive Supremes invented a Constitutional doctrine out of whole cloth? Oh perish the thought.

    And the entire premise of your argument regarding homosexual conduct rests upon your “religious purpose” argument. Since that premise is wrong–that a law cannot be enacted solely for a religious purpose–your entire argument falls to the gutter where it belongs. Such conduct–or similar conduct– WAS outlawed in virtually every state both when the Constitution was written and when Bill of Rights was ratified and when the 14th Amendment was ratified. Don’t give me this bullshit that those who wrote and ratified the Amendments didn’t know what they were getting themselves into. This is just you preferring the result of the progressive Supreme Court’s sudden discovery of this interpretation decades later BECAUSE IT SUITS YOUR PHILOSOPHY. The fact that homosexual conduct harms nobody (incidentally, that argument is demonstrably untrue, in fact, if you look at STD rates and death rates and HIV and AIDS rates amongst queers versus heterosexuals) does not cure the fact that you are getting to your conclusion with a false argument.

    The fact that religions might proscribe a conduct does not make the outlawing of such conduct an “establishment of religion.” “ESTABLISHMENT of religion” must mean more than simply that a law must have more than a “solely religious purpose.” Words have meaning. Take off your damn blinders.

    You are so stubborn and set in your ways to get where you want to go that you ignore how you got there. I’m not necessarily disagreeing with your conclusion, I’m pointing out that you got there off the back of a bullshit invented argument that was made up almost a century after the 14th Amendment was ratified. If you want to change the laws, change the laws. If you want to Amend the Constitution to say what you want it to say, AMEND the Constitution. Don’t just make up doctrine willy-nilly as we go along. And don’t accept the making up of such doctrine because it suits you view of the way things ought to be.

    And Mr. Howard, the mere fact that you feel it “isn’t your business” what two gay men do in private does not rise to the level of proper Constitutional interpretation. While I might agree with you, the issue is whether the Constitution forbids a society from outlawing their behavior. I say that the Constitution never has–until the progressive Supreme Court a couple of years ago suddenly wrote that into the Constitution. There are a lot of things that society condemns that don’t “harm anybody.” Cruelty to animals. Sex with minors, sex between adult parents and children or between siblings. We don’t allow, for instance, the bullshit argument that some pervert viewing child pornography in the “privacy of his own bedroom” is free to do as he chooses since “he isn’t harming anybody”. Now, you might argue that he should be allowed to watch toddlers have sex on video since he “isn’t harming anybody”. Fine, I say, then CHANGE the law, or AMEND the Constitution. Change the law the correct way, not by getting 5 of 9 Supreme Court Justices to suddenly discover the right to be a pedophile in private. Divorce your personal view of the way society should be run from what the Constitution was originally intended to mean is all I’m saying (to both of you).

    • Don Tabor says:

      Actually, Mr. Doe, the primary value of the Constitution is to prevent people like you from imposing your choices on others.

      Prior to the 14th Amendment, the States were not restricted by the Bill of Rights. You might want to read it, or at least Section one

      “Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

      Note that it does not distinguish between citizens who are heterosexual and those who are gay.

      Talking about “Straw men” BTW, no one other than you, is discussing child porn, which cannot be produced without harming a child who cannot legally consent to participate in its production. Straw man number two, you are concerned over the STD rate among gay men (it is insignificant among gay women) it seems. Fine, the best way to fix that problem would be to encourage monogamy among gay men by allowing them to marry.

      That has nothing to do with making laws against sex between consenting adults. With the ratification of the 14h Amendment, the 1st Amendment proscription against imposition of religion by the State, or interference by the State in the free exercise of religion, applied.

      Lacking any other justification for laws against private sexual activity other than religious doctrine, the Supreme Court decided correctly in striking down the Texas law against sodomy. Such laws are imposing through law a religious belief on others who do not share it.

      That is no different than enforcing a law against your religion. Keep in mind that Catholicism was illegal in some States prior to the 14th Amendment (though I think all of those laws had been repealed by then anyway.)

      There are few things I would not try to change through persuasion before resorting to revolution, but if people like you ever succeed in imposing some sort of Southern Baptist Sharia on this country, I guarantee the musket is coming down off the wall.

  16. John Doe says:

    Disgussing this topic with Tabor is as fruitless as disgussing rocket science with a toddler. He hasn’t a clue. The 14th Amendment has NOTHING to do with the homosexual argument. It is not a denial of due process to outlaw homosexuality any more than it has to do with outlawing cockfighting or speeding. The homosexuals never had a right to engage in homosexual activity when the Constitution was written and the Bill of Right was ratified.The 14th Amendment doesn’t suddenly come along and give them rights they never had. Sorry, but your version of licentiousness was not written into the Constitution. Liberty was understood to mean liberty within the broader context of morality. To the Founding Fathers, liberty did not mean the freedom to do anything you damn well pleased. There were many things that were outlawed that little Donnie Tabor would find abhorant today. Tough shit. The world doesn’t revolve around little Donnie Tabor.

    Sorry, but you are the one who is wrong on the child porn. If some child porn was made 10 years ago and some pervert libertarian watches it, the pervert libertarian cannot by any stretch of the imagination be said to have caused the child to be harmed any more than it can be said that a train passenger can be said to have caused the deaths of chinese laborers who built tracks in the 1890s. That is just some mental gymnastics that people like you invented to keep something illegal that everybody except (pervert libertarians) believe should be illegal.

    Little Donnie gonna get his gun if they take away his child porn in the privacy of his own widdle home? Well, John Doe is ready.

    • Don Tabor says:

      Actually, I am perfectly happy with letting the regular readers here determine which of us has a clue as to the meaning and function of the Constitution.

  17. Britt Howard says:

    John Doe, or whatever your name is, you just crossed the line. We can heartily disagree without resorting to name calling and accusing Libertarians of being in favor of child porn. Really, how can you stoop so low?

    Is it because your arguement is empty? No? Then argue respectable debate!

    Firstly, children are incompetent parties and are not capable of consent. ALL true libertarians believe the function of government is to protect the individual from “Force and Fraud”. Child porn is definitely violence against a child.

    Everytime somebody implies that they could care less about gays having sex, some go beyond the scope of the arguement and try to include children, dogs, and blood relatives. Children are not able to consent, dogs are not competent parties able to enter into contract either. Should blood relatives having sex be against the law, my personal disgust would argue yes. Having children definitely should be illegal as that is paramount to child abuse. Psychological abuse and physical abuse when they are born with inbred genetic disadvantages.

    As Doc Tabor said, you brought up child porn, not us! Your railroad arguement doesn’t hold. Yes, some rail was built with abused chinese labor. However, some wasn’t. Building a railroad CAN BE GOOD AND CONSTRUCTIVE. CHILD PORN NEVER IS BY DEFINITION! How dare you compare the two? How dare you connect US lovers of liberty and individual sovereignty with an act that is so horribly against individual sovereignty and rights given to us by our creator?

    I guess you can say what you want. You won’t be honest enough to use your real name.

    Hey, I tried to talk about the issues. I favored a gentlemanly discussion with an intelligent person of another opinion. I tried my best to respect you even as I disagreed with you on SOME points. The sad thing is, there is no doubt plenty that we agree on.

    So, this is what you consider when you talked about natural political alliances before? Your idea is to call us lovers of child porn?

    Let me just end by stating my disgust with that tactic you just used and that I am profoundly disappointed with how things ended up. I am indeed offended. More so, because you have the ability to reason. I could suffer those distasteful words far more easily had they come from a fool.

    This all could have been something of value. I guess it won’t be.

  18. John Doe says:

    Britt Howard, you reason like a girl. Because I said it was “some pervert libertarian” you from that claimed that I called all libertarians pedophiles. And you get all outraged. Go back and re-read what I wrote. What you don’t like is that I am exposing the ugly reality that the libertarian “logic” leads to: they either have to jump through hoops and find harm that in reality isn’t caused by watching kiddie porn, or let perverts watch it. The problem is that “lovers of liberty” are natural allies with perverts. Perhaps some like you are unwitting allies, but others, not so much.

    • Don Tabor says:

      “The problem is that “lovers of liberty” are natural allies with perverts. ”


      So, by extension, religious conservatives are natural allies with tyrants and despots?

      I would point out though, that it is not us Libertarians who are totally obsessed with other people’s sexuality. Have you ever considered why you are so concerned with sins committed by others that do not affect you? I can’t think of a healthy explanation for that.

  19. John Doe says:

    I’m sorry Tabor cannot actually reason, but that does not make what I say any less valid. Social conservatives advocate Liberty within the framework of traditional Judeo/Christian morality. They advocate (at least if they believe as I do) that the majority has the right to legislate morality so long as the act in question is not a right protected by the Constitution. There is nothing in the above the allies me with tyrants and despots. Tyrants and despots have all the power themselves; I advocate that the people have the power. Just because I advocate that the people have the power does not that I win–the people are still free to disagree with me and vote for a different morality, YOUR morality, or no morality, as the majority sees fit. Disagree with me all you want, but that is how this country was originally set up and how it operated for almost two centuries before Progressive social libertarians took over the Supreme Court of the U.S.

    You libertarians ARE though natural allies with the perverts. You both want the EXACT same thing. The absolute right to do as you please with nobody to tell you that you can’t. The only difference is that hopefully libertarians aren’t (necessarily) perverts.

    Nice try with the variation of the homophobe argument. Anyone who is “concerned with sins committed by others that do not affect you” must therefore be a pervert, or have some perverted reason to oppose it? By the same token, why are you concerned about child porn? It doesn’t “affect you.” Neither does it “affect you” when some yahoo conducts dog fights or cock fights? So, you can have no say in whether others engage in child porn or cruelty to animals? Obviously, you don’t mean that, you have an inability to express your views correctly, or you don’t know what your views are.

    I’ll try to help you, since you are losing this argument. What you mean is that you want me to accept your premise–that anyone should be absolutely free to do any thing they want in private so long as it is between consensual adults and it does not “harm” anyone. I am way ahead of you–I KNOW what you believe and am better able to articulate your view than you are.

    I just disagree with your premise FROM A CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS. Your view is not the view adopted by the Founding Fathers, since it has been abundantly clear since the beginning of this nation that the same people who wrote and adopted the Constitution also legislated morality. There was a dramatic shift when the Supreme Court began to make up new Constitutional rights that never existed before late last century. I understand, you like that, you applaud that.

    But I maintain that just because you like the result, doesn’t mean it is prudent, or that it is proper analysis. It boils down to sheer numbers. So long as you have 5 of 9 Justices, your side wins. Lose a couple, and you might not like how the next 5 of 9 rule. The Constitutional rights should not rise or fall on the make-up of the Supreme Court. The Constititution should transcend the Court. And buying into the view that the Court can interpret the Constitution any way that it chooses leads to tyranny not by a majority of the people but by a tyranny of a majority of 5 of 9 unelected ex-lawyers. The only proper way to interpret it is to interpret it as the Founding Fathers interpreted it. Then, if you don’t like what the Constitution says, you AMEND it. Don’t pull an end-run around the amendment process by getting some hack judge who feels like you do to amend it for you in some 5-4 decisions.

    Your problem is you are so emotional about your so-called “freedom” and “liberty” that you fall for a bogus method of getting where you want to go. I’m divorcing my views on how the Constitution should be written, or what laws we should enact or not, and I’m talking about method. Do you want to be ruled by the whims of a majority of 5 of 9 justices, who can make the Constitution say whatever the hell they want it to? And to change their collective minds on a so-called “fundamental right” not 20 years apart (Lawrence v Texas and Bowers v Hardwick).

    I know, I’m “reasoning” with a rabid dog who doesn’t want to hear logic. I got that from your very first comment on down to the last. On most topics I would tend to favor the libertarian viewpoint, as a matter of fact, and I’m not some social conservative who wants to cram all my views down your throat. I’m advocating for a return to the type of Constitutional form of Government that we had when this country began. Then, if you don’t like it, change it the proper way, by amending the Constitution. (I know I repeat simple concepts for you, but you seem to have difficulty understanding what I am saying, or you are being intentionally obtuse.)

  20. Britt Howard says:

    You’re right. I shouldn’t have been disappointed. You are a waste of time and offer nothing but, insults.

    Sure we could have said exactly what you said our beliefs were but, you’d only be obtuse yourself and bait us with minutia. (Something Libertarians are prone to, give us an tangent and we’ll go with it).

    You expect us to do anything but view you as an arrogant SOB blinded by his own narcissistic view of the world? You’re gonna “help” us while you insult us.

    Yes, you did accuse us of being infavor of child porn even though YOU are the sick bastard that says there is no harm in viewing it. You bizarrely try to connect railroads and child porn! YOU are the idiot not us! Somebody HAD to be violated to make child porn. Nobody has to necessarily be hurt to build a freakin’ railroad.

    Firstly you incorrectly tell us what our premise is THEN in the same post, you accurately relate our premise. You want it both ways evidently.

    Lastly, our view of government, IS LEGISLATING MORALITY. Libertarianism is a morality. Maybe you don’t like it, maybe it is too permissive for some “culture warriors” and not permissive enough for people like YOU that say viewing child porn doesn’t inherently harm somebody. You are the permissive freak not us. We insist viewing child porn is doing damage by supporting the act of making it. YOU THINK it is ok!

    All you do in your self righteous ranting is accuse us of what YOU do. All the while you insult us because you don’t REALLY want a reasoned discussion. You just want to provoke. That is your mission. I initially thought you might be somebody to that would offer interesting debate. That I realize was wasted effort due to the fact that you are a self-worshipping ass. You believe that “might makes right” and are perfectly willing to be a whore to get what you want. Furthermore you are a coward that has to hide behind a fake name as you spew insults and double talk. YOU are the one argue like a girl as you hide behind a lack of conviction desplayed by your FAKE name.

  21. John Doe says:

    Britt, THANK YOU! Seriously, THANK YOU!! You made my point: Libertarianism believes in legislating morality! I know they do. Idiots like Tabor just won’t admit it. I have no problem with people “legislating morality.” That is how the system was originally designed to work. And if I throw around insults, it is because I was insulted first. Go back to Tabor’s very first thread. “So Cons can go to hell.”

    You are bent out of shape because I correctly called you when you mistated what I said and then went off on a rant about what you claimed I said when I never said it. That is the mark of a pre-teen little girl. Get all offended about something that was never even said. I’d expect more when it was written down–you could have gone back and re-read it to make sure.

    Regarding child porn, my point is society should be able to regulate it without a showing of actual harm. My point is that something that was done 10 years ago, perhaps by some child who was technically underage but willing and paid handsomely was not a “harm” caused by somebody watching it today. Punishing them for watching it doesn’t cure what happened 10 years ago, either. Any harm was caused by the people who did it 10 years ago. Punishing somebody today for what they did 10 years ago is ludicrous if your purpose is to prevent a harm that occurred 10 years ago. My position is child porn should be outlawed not because of any proof of harm, BUT JUST BECAUSE A MAJORITY OF CITIZENS FIND IT ABHORRENT. And idiots like Tabor don’t agree with me. And yes, I think anybody who disagrees with me about kiddie porn IS an idiot.

    IF you are so hung up that you must know my name, come to my website and post a comment, I’ll respond with an email telling you my real name. How knowing my real name advances or destroys my arguments is beyond me. I don’t give out my credit card numbers on-line, either. Too many libertarians and perverts out there. 😉

    • Don Tabor says:

      Regarding the harm done by child porn, anyone who purchases porn supports the production of future child porn, which, of its nature, requires the abuse of children.

      Sure, the majority finds child porn abhorrent, including Libertarians. I would also agree that anyone who enjoys child porn does so at the peril of his soul. It is certainly sinful. But simply finding child porn abhorrent is not justification for using force, either directly or through government, to prevent someone from exercising their perversion. It is the harm done that justifies the use of force, and not simply persuasion, to discourage it.

      In many societies across the world and through time, the majority of that society has found differing things sinful.

      Right now, in some societies, a woman who shows her ankle to a man not a close relative can be horribly punished. In those same societies, a father who cuts the throat of a daughter who has been raped is deemed to have been justified in doing so. That is the majority religious view in those societies.

      Is that OK with you?

      Though such societies differ from what you advocate in degree, in principle, there is no difference.

  22. John Doe says:

    Tabor, I don’t know how you made it through life being so illogical. Does it succeed in your occupation when you set up absurd straw men and then ask your associates if they agree with the absurd straw man argument?

    Regarding child porn, I never said in my hypothetical that the person was “purchasing” the 10 year old kiddie porn. At best you could argue that because some guy looked at kiddie porn that was 10 years old some other person might try to make more kiddie porn and entice him to purchase it in the future. Pretty tenuous argument if you ask me. That’s like claiming if some guy smokes pot in the privacy of his own home somebody else might sell their 10 year old as a prostitute so they could afford to buy pot wholesale in order to sell it to the user retail. HUH? Yeah, pretty tenuous. Try again to justify your absurd belief that a society can’t ban kiddie porn just based on morality.

    Here’s a clue about the societies that you mentioned that are run by Moslem extremists: Your precious little Constitution won’t save you in those circumstances! If a vast majority of our country become Moslems, we are all fucked. They can Amend the Constitution–or more easily just get a majority of 5 of 9 Supreme Court Justices to “suddenly” discover the Constitutional right to impose Sharia law. That would be only a different degree than “suddenly” discovering the Constitutional right to commit abortion or to commit homosexual acts in private.

    • Don Tabor says:

      OK. I see your flawless logic now. If someone bases their law on Islam, that is tyranny, but if it is based on YOUR religion, that is democracy.

      Well, I have little use for either tyranny nor democracy. I choose to live in and be governed by a republic which protects my rights and the equal rights of others, and otherwise leaves me alone.

  23. John Doe says:

    No, you just want your own way. I don’t have a problem with you wanting your own way, but you seem to have a problem with me wanting my own way. Don’t give me this BULLSHIT about it being “tyranny” to live as I suggest. What I have been telling you is that MY WAY IS THE WAY IT WAS FOR ALMOST 200 YEARS. Not too many were sniveling around like little girls complaining about it being “tyranny.” Suddenly, since you got your way in the past few decades, it’s suddenly terrible what this country went through for almost two centuries. Oh the HORRORS.

    What you don’t seem to understand is that we had a republican form of democracy for the first 200 years of this country’s existence. I maintain, as did the Founding Fathers (those Tyrants, as you seem to think them) that a republican form of democracy can only be maintained if the population understands and accepts the morality as set forth in the Bible.

    If a country becomes immoral or maintains a morality that leads to killing daughters who have been raped, then our form of government won’t work. People like you will still be saying “let me smoke my dope in my home in peace” (or whatever it is you want to do in peace, I’m using that as an example), but the majority, who are no longer moral, will not care what you think. “Hey, we are the majority, we have the power, now we can make Don Tabor do any damn thing we want. Why not? After all, we have NO MORALS. Why do the right thing, let’s do this just because we don’t like Don Tabor.”

    When you eliminate the biblical morals upon which this country was founded, you get a LOT more than you bargained for. Not at first. But eventually. See Germany back in the 30s and 40s, or Russia or China after the Commies took over. A majority of them didn’t believe in morals either.

  24. Britt Howard says:

    Well, John Doe defender of kiddie porn, I can understand WHY you would be too much of a coward to use your real name. Why damage your reputation? Why not hurl insults at people with conviction while you can hide in your little secrecy.

    You have a website? What is it?

  25. John Doe says:

    I’ve NEVER defended kiddie porn, you ignorant POS. I’ve said you can’t justify making it illegal based on the bankrupt philosophy that is libertarianism. You have to jump through hoops to justify it, or just be like me and outlaw because it is morally wrong, not because it causes harm. I’m beginning to think that Tabor the idiot is better than you at following my arguments. And THAT is saying something.

    • Don Tabor says:

      Doe, you have become tiresome. You make no sense, but for some time you served a purpose as an illustration of WHY social conservatives have destroyed the GOP.

      But you have descended to name calling and repeating the same insults as though by repeating them they will become less ludicrous. All opinions are welcome here, but rudeness is not.


  26. Britt Howard says:

    I no longer have interest in your arguements let alone following them. You crossed the line way too many times.

    You say watching kiddie porn doesn’t hurt anyone.

    We say it violated a child and possessing it supports that violence. It lends itself to demand for more. Don’t worry, you’ll find plenty of people agreeing with your sick mind in the extreme left and NAMBLA. They agree with you. Go chat with them.

  27. John Doe says:

    Yeah, Tabor saying social cons should go to hell and Howard calling me a defender of kiddie porn is so “reasonable”. I can see why you might consider (my offense) of calling you a POS to be worse than (Howard’s offense) of calling me a defender of kiddie porn. Now we are really getting at how libertarian minds work.

  28. vispetti says:

    “We the People” are just going to have to keep giving the Republican Party a dose of truth until they are humiliated into embracing principles and honesty. It isn’t enough that they lost the state to the Democrats in the Presidential election, Gilmore lost his senatorial race to Mark Warner and that Hagar lost his chairman seat to Frederick. People have had it with the tricks and traps of this party. They humiliated Dr. Ron Paul last year, likely stole Bob Marshall’s election at the state convention, abused the rights of the Ron Paul delegates to assemble together at the national convention by taking their signs and buttons, and now they have succeeded in ousting Jeff Frederick, the first Hispanic chairman.

    Do you all see the handwriting on the wall? This party, from the highest echelons to the small town political realm, is waging war against anyone who dares to restore the party back to its conservative values. They have issued yet another blow against liberty and the sovereignty of our country. Even the so-called conservative media are doing their best to neutralize our liberty movement by creating phony movements. Gilmore recently created some kind of “Patriot” organization, Glenn Beck is dazzling conservative listeners with his mixed messages and starting similar kinds of organizations. Fox News reporters are forced to discuss terms like “New World Order” and “global currency”. This is the oldest trick in the book to regain power of any political organization — Neutralize the opposition!

    It is common practice for globalist controlled organizations like the Republican and Democrat parties to snuff out any threat to their agenda. With genuine patriot movements on the increase, Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty being one of the largest, it means that citizens are questioning the false left/right paradigm. This false left/right fight is what has kept the elite in power. The true patriot groups represent a severe threat to the current order. It is clear to me that the word is being handed down from top levels of both Republican and Democrat parties that they keep their movements in check and not to let them get out of hand. Hence, neutralize the so-called “fringe” part of the party. The Democrats appear to have succeeded at this but the Republicans are having some difficulty with the liberty and patriot movements springing up all over the country.

    I am offended by that term “fringe”! Yet, this is the image that the media continues to portray of those who speak out against tyranny (eugenics programs such as abortion, global governance and currency, unjustified wars, etc). The only reason some Republicans keep using the term “fringe” is because they are brainwashed by Fox News media, who mock freedom and liberty minded people. Yesterday, I spoke with Jeff supporters who were upset about his ousting. Yet they both voted for Gilmore and pledged to vote for McDonnell. They both told me that I would be a part of the problem if I didn’t take a stand for the party and vote for ANY Republican who could beat a Democrat. They practically threw “principles” out of the window. Talk about Doublethink! I explained to them that I will take a stand and vote my principles. I also explained to them that I would rather see the Republican Party burn down and be rebuilt from scratch with true conservative and liberty minded people who are able to THINK for themselves. Yes, these two folks support voting for the lesser of two evils to maintain Republican power by any means necessary. One supporter explained that Ron Paul’s message is good but some supporters are a little too passionate. The supporter also said that Ron Paul was selfish for having us not support Republicans (good or bad) when they run against Democrats and that Paul was basically using us to maintain his power. Complete Doublethink! He basically suggested that Paul had less than honest motives and had a good message simultaneously — the same thing that Fox News does every day. Strangely enough, Paul doesn’t have to be a congressman and doesn’t even take the Government’s health insurance package. Paul actually cares about this country!

    Folks, we had better start hitting our neighborhood streets and warn and educate our politically sleeping citizens to get involved in the Republican conventions to out number the doublethinking Republicans. And I mean yesterday! We are going to have to have a mob of 1000 people join each unit committee in one day for every 6 months with one agenda– to oust all of the old guard. Otherwise, we are going to lose any fight to restore principles back to this party and we will always have Republican Heckle or Democrat Jekyll running our country into destruction. As it is now, the most unprincipled characters are being elected by many Republicans who are conditioned to think as Fox News thinks, and who lack the backbone to stand for principles. It is an endless cycle of the blind supporting the blind. All will fall in a ditch. They have the numbers and we Constitutional loving Republicans DO NOT. We can’t convince all of these establishment Republicans to embrace liberty and freedom as many are conditioned to think this way and many will never change even with the current threats to our sovereignty. Sadly enough, these Republicans are in a hypnotized cult like state of mind like the characters in “1984″ who shouted “BE! BE! BE”!

    Actions taken during Ron Paul’s Presidential Campaign, need to be revved up!

    The statements made by Tony on the Jeff Frederick issue inflicted some truth-pain, as he spoke from the heart Now Ashleigh and I have inflicted some truth-pain in the following article: While the Republicans scramble to fix their image problem, the Democrats will continue to control it all and push through their version of a new order. If this happens, hopefully more compromising Republicans will begin to understand what the liberty movements have been saying. I’m convinced that the more the Republicans lose, they will be forced to accept the warnings of this community. But first they must take off their blinders and be brave enough to better understand who really controls the two major parties.

    Will the next vital blow to the Republican Party be McDonnell’s failure to win the governor’s race?

    • Britt Howard says:

      I agree with you Vispetti.

      Not only did McDonnell come out strong against Jeff Frederick but, he is known as Bob “one gun a month” McDonnell to those supporting the 2nd amendment. He supported the HRTA, thinks oral sex should be a felony, and tried to foist on us watered down legislation that was billed as eminent domain reform. Thank goodness his pitiful excuse that protected nobody’s property rights failed. REAL eminent domain reform was passed the following year.

      I really don’t see myself voting for McDonnell.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: