Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Peter J. Wirs :: Townhall.com Columnist
Stop Griping Conservatives, This is It
by Peter J. Wirs
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


As promised, this is it. We delivered. The future of the Republican Party is now available for your inspection, by clicking on http://www.GOPonDemand.com. This is the public "beta" version of GOP onDemand,™ the gateway to your constitutional right to guide and instruct your Republican Party. You, the loyal readers of Townhall.com are the very first to see, to critique, to interact with GOP onDemand.™

Please note, various pages are still under construction, and features still must be added. But that's because we want, and need, your input as to what you think Republicans want to see on GOP onDemand.™ If a page’s not clear, if something else is needed, or can be made better — let us know.

GOP onDemand™ represents the Republican Party's return back to what Lincoln envisioned the GOP should be. From top-down marching orders back to voter-driven consensus building. From Washington-know-it-all consultants back to grassroots politics. From K Street back to Main Street.

Now the Republican Party can say Move Over, MoveOn, as GOP onDemand™ is the GOP’s response to the left-wing online member network. GOP onDemand™ provides Republicans every opportunity to meaningfully participate as MoveOn provides the Democrats.

As "drfredc" wrote us: "Thanks for getting it right and out in the public. As a concerned Republican, I've email the RNC several times over how they are just about impossible to participate in — all the GOP seems to want is grass roots folks like my self to send them money — for what? There's little to no options for discussion or grass roots input in contrast with all sorts of blogs and groups going in all sorts of directions at cyberspace speed. I suspect that few, if any of the GOP leadership use email, blogs or any new info technology. The GOP ought to replace it's elephant with the dinosaur . . . something big, slow and slothful like a brontosaurus."

Is what you don’t see on GOP onDemand™ which makes it extraordinarily powerful. On the flip side is Republican All in One™ a Web2.0 software accessible to each and everyone of the 365,000 precinct Republican committeemen and committeewomen. Your input in GOP onDemand™ goes not to some inpersonal call center, but to your neighbor, your Republican committeeman and committeewoman (or if need be, to your Republican county chairman). This is where the real grassroots politics occurs. Absolutely no one else even comes close in delivering this person-to-person connectivity.

There’s more to this breaking news development. If you are a Republican committeeman, a conservative activist, or simply a concerned voter, go to www.RepublicanTrustees.org for more information on both Web2.0 GOP onDemand™ and Republican All in One.™ Inform your Republican county chairman he or she needs to contact us for the password to download important information essential to rebuild the GOP, particularly after not one, not two, but now three devastating Congressional special election losses in what are suppose to be rock-solid Republican districts. And if your county or local Republican committee doesn’t have a website, go to www.MyGOPSite.com for an inexpensively comprehensive, but user-friendly entree into the Internet. And wait until we unveil the webcast services.

GOP onDemand™ also represents the Republican Party's transition from lobbyist-dominated, big ticket fund raisers to online campaign fund raising. Instead of being beholden to the special interests, the GOP becomes responsive to everyday Republicans.

Now, we the Trustees don’t want to sound like a broken record, but if you want the power you have to donate. And there’s a critical reason (beyond the obvious that money is the milk of all politics). All you have to do is look at the Obama campaign to understand why. Barak Obama is piling up support from super-delegates, particularly long-time Clinton allies, because he does not have his left hand out begging for money while extending his right hand soliciting support.

At the same time, by relying on grassroots Democrats to fund his campaign, Obama has truckloads of money to use for the fall campaign. McCain has conceded he must rely on public financing, at the risk he will be outspent by up 3 to 1 or more. Obama remains the media’s darling purporting to be free from pay-to-play politics, all the while Democrats are stockpiling campaign contributions.

Remember, 2008 is not merely about John McCain. There are 6,348 Republicans running for office. Republicans regaining control of governorships and state legislatures lost in 2006 is upmost concern in light of the fact that 2010 elections control redistricting for the next decade. Conceding a veto-proof Congress to the Democrats makes no sense in the long run, as incumbent reelection rates for Democrats are notably higher than for Republicans.

If you, the grassroots Republican want to regain control of your Republican Party, you have do it with votes, and with volunteering and cash. You can’t gripe and think that’s will cure all. If you want the Republican leaders to be responsive to you, then you have to control not only the vote, but the pocketbook.

James’ biblical reminder to be doers of the word, and not hearers only, is as valid in politics as in life generally. In other words, you can’t just talk the talk, you have to walk the walk. Otherwise, you’re merely deceiving yourself.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Peter J. Wirs is currently the Chairman & Co-Trustee of the Republican Leadership Trust as well as the incoming President of the National Conference of Public Officials. The views and opinions found in this article represent the author's views and opinions and not those of any institution or organization with which the author is affiliated.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
opposite week concluded
...

You keep writing things like "in order to punish, the government must conduct surveillance ...". Again - the government does NOT conduct surveillance on me as I raise my children, but if I kill one, they'll be able to "gather evidence, arrest, indict, and convict" me and anyone that helped me anyway. A properly crafted abortion law would be similar.

"as if voluntary abortion is undertaken through 'malevolence.'" - yeah, I consider intentionally killing your own children to be a great example of malevolence. (Obviously if mom's about to die and regrettably ends a pregnancy that would end when she dies anyway, that's a different story - but those abortions are a vanishingly small percent - and would be legal under "my law"). A child conceived from rape or incest is no less human than any other child, so I would not make an exception there.

"...agents of the government can and *WOULD* wire the pregnant woman for 24-hour-a-day monitoring." And then she can sue under the 4th Amendment and have that stupid policy overturned.

"Note that the privacy provisions of HIPAA protect your private health information from everyone *BUT* the government, which is arguably the one agency in society that no American citizen wants to have looking into his/her medical records."

- I completely agree.

Your entire position can be summed up as "anarchy - Which is preferable to a police state.". The whole concept of limited government for the last 400 years, best codified in our constitution, is how to find a happy medium between anarchy and tyranny. My position here is completely within that spirit.

And finally, "... Pregnancy Police statutes for which chris is calling." yeah - maybe in opposite world. Instead of making up positions for me, why don't you read what I wrote.

opposite week continued
... [man, pasting from notepad sure made a hash of my comments]

Child Abuse - I have major problems with the way various "child protective services" agencies usually operate - by presuming guilt, and many times attempting to perform warrantless searches. I would have the same problem with any "Pregnancy Police" agency.

I already said in earlier posts that parents are responsible for their children, not the government, so the government should not dictate what a women does to her body - even when pregnant - unless she has done it to kill her baby on purpose. It is NO business of the government if a woman choses to smoke or whatever while pregnant. And sex while pregnant is probably good for the mother...

"All of this [forcing potential mothers to live healthy], chris might argue, is obviously for the mother's own good" - must be some other guy named Chris. I've been very clear in previous posts about holding the OPPOSITE position to which you're attempting to ascribe to me.

If I wrote an anti-abortion law, it would be fairly easy for a woman to get away with it. But a HCP running an abortion mill would probably not get away with it for long - someone would eventually file a criminal complaint about something, and after getting a warrant, the police would investigate.

Like with "Child Protective Services", I'd even be interested in a provision that no anonymous tips be investigated, and that a false informant is liable for the various damages a criminal investigation causes. Sort of like "loser pays", but for criminal instead of civil cases.

...

Since it must be opposite week in NJ,
I'll take the points in reverse order.

You might be surprised to find I agree with you on the war on drugs. I don't think the government should interfere with

voluntary commerce or stop people from harming themselves. And things like this should CERTAINLY be up to the states.

And on medical drugs (as opposed to recreational) I don't think the FDA should even exist. A for-profit testing company

such as Consumer Reports would be much better at advising consumers on benefits and risks of drugs.

It's WRONG when a doctor says to someone "You've got a terminal disease - all we can do is keep you comfortable" and then

the government says "But if you try anything not approved by us, you're a criminal." So what if a terminally ill patient

tries a bogus or harmful course of treatment - they're about to die anyway!

I don't think the government should license HCP's - like medical drugs, they should be rated by private organizations

only.

The illegality of Abortion before 1973 didn't destroy prenatal care then. I know prenatal care is different now due to

major advances in technology, but we're talking about human nature here (the tendency of government to become tyrannical

unless checked), and there's nothing new under the sun with human nature.

...

chris - Addendum
--
L'esprit d'escalier lives, damnit.

Claims chris:

"...I'm trying to prevent the irresponsible malevolence of some people against helpless children."


...as if voluntary abortion is undertaken through "malevolence."

(Except when a "social" pseudoconservative claims that aborting a pregnancy due to rape or incest is allowable, of course. I mean, what else but "malovolence" could account for that sort of attitude toward the conceptus?)

We see above chris' desire for a government that punishes women seeking (and health care providers performing) voluntary interruptions of pregnancy.

We have from chris a denial of recognition that in order to punish, that government (at whatever level) must conduct surveillance, gather evidence, arrest, indict, and convict the participants in such activities, necessarily imposing inarguable "police state" practices to accomplish chris' objectives.

Beyond the hatefulness of these police state practices, chris also denies the effect of the aggressive criminalization "social" pseudoconservatives are demanding in this area, not the least of which is the fact that government-licensed HCPs - fearful of losing their ability to practice their professions as the result of government investigations and punishment - will increasingly refuse to care for women of childbearing age.

Hey, we're already seeing that as the result of the tort law (malpractice) environment in this country.

It is safe to predict that chris' Pregnancy Police will not only create a thriving black market in abortion services but pretty much destroy prenatal care in these United States.

But, then, chris' brand of tactics is working *SO* well in the War on Drugs, isn't it?

--

chris - ''Child abuse'' in utero
-- More --

What chris has proposed is nothing but the extension of "child abuse" laws into the womb of the potentially pregnant American woman.

And I use the word "potentially" quite deliberately. Because the female patient almost uniformly cannot be subjectively or objectively sensible of a pregnancy until sometime after the first trimester, it is impossible for a woman to know when she should take supportive steps (such as increasing her intake of certain vitamins, minerals, and supplementary substances like folic acid) to reduce the likelihood of her conceptus suffering developmental defects.

Moreover, the woman of childbearing years might also be forbidden by law to smoke tobacco, imbibe alcohol, work in certain occupations, live in certain housing, take certain prescribed or over-the-counter medications, engage in certain recreational activities (including sexual intercourse) - all on the presumption that she *MIGHT* be pregnant and therefore subject the conceptus (to which chris' brand of law must without exception enslave her) to what government will assuredly call intrauterine "child abuse."

All of this, chris might argue, is obviously for the (potential or actual) mother's own good.

But what real American conservative holds that the proper role of government is to impose a parental abrogation on the most intimate and inescapable right to a property in the citizen's own person in order to serve the putative "...right of unborn children to life"?

None.

Only the "social" pseudoconservative - who is no conservative in any real sense whatsoever - could or would insist on such irresponsible, fundamentally evil aggrandizement of government power.

-- 30 --

chris - ''Anarchy: It's not the law...''
--
"...it's just a good idea."


Skipping merrily over the discussion of the unintended but demonstratedly *inevitable* consequences of the national and/or state Pregnancy Police statutes for which chris is calling, we get:

"But if your criteria for good law is 'could there be unintended consequences?' or 'can this law allow government to abuse its power?' then we will have NO laws (i.e. anarchy)."


Which is preferable to a police state.

In chris' excuse for a mind, there is no understanding of the present state of both law enforcement and information technology.

The health care sector is under enormous government pressure to implement costly and unproductive (for us or our patients) electronic medical records (EMR) systems that will facilitate government "datamining" to access protected individual patient health information.

Note that the privacy provisions of HIPAA (which went into effect in 2003) protect your private health information from everyone *BUT* the government, which is arguably the one agency in society that no American citizen wants to have looking into his/her medical records.

Between the previously discussed matter of easy-to-implement screening for pregnancy (with the increasingly portable - even "wearable" - character of fetal monitoring technology) and the increasing intrusiveness of "Big Brother" law enforcement methods, agents of the government can and *WOULD* wire the pregnant woman for 24-hour-a-day computerized monitoring with less difficulty than they implement LoJack tracking of vehicles.

-- More --


point-by-point
> ...Ireland... Pregnancy Police already exist under national anti-abortion laws enacted elsewhere, chris.

Yes, and laws against theft result in the amputation of limbs in Saudi Arabia. That doesn't mean we should repeal our laws against theft - it means we should do a better job writing them that other countries do. Again - as good as we can get is the goal, not perfection.


> From now on, you're not ignorant.

I wasn't ignorant of the possibility of unintended consequences to begin with. I just understand the need for balance

> Just stupid and willfully irresponsible. Not incompetent, but malevolent.

My intelligence is a separate debate - but I'm trying to prevent the irresponsible malevolence of some people against helpless children.


> Better, perhaps, that you would have the 3rd Amendment repealed?

If the only alternative to quartering soldiers in private homes was the immediate death of said soldiers, the 3rd Amendment would have been written differently.


> This notwithstanding, the habits of reasoned thought include not only the consequences potentially associated with *DOING* something also have to be matched conscientiously against the outcomes likely to result from *DENYING* the option to take such a course of action.

I completely agree - you seem perfectly happy denying the right of unborn children to life. I am considering both sides and trying to find a balance.

(dichotomy) continued
We live in an imperfect world. I think we should do the best we can to see that all citizens' life, freedom and property are protected. Sometimes tradeoffs have to be made (the "slavery" of carrying an unwanted pregnancy for 9 months vs the "murder" of a child - or even the "slavery" of divorced fathers having to support their ex-wives and children).

We've got a decent system in place. We need to be vigilant against abuses of government. The confiscation of legally owned firearms in post-Katrina New Orleans comes to mind - the answer is not to get rid of police - it is to nail people like Edwin Compass and Ray Nagin who abuse their power to the wall for doing so.

dichotomy
The point I was trying to make is that your logic results in a false dichotomy of either anarchy or tyranny. Any law against any behavior harmful to others can be abused. Now, if you're an anarchist, I respect the consistency of your position but disagree with you.

I think we should have laws protecting people against others, and that unborn children should be included in those protections. The question -if we agree that we need laws - is how to limit the power of government while protecting its citizens.

Incidentally - I am a nationalist only in the sense that I think the USA is the best country there's ever been. But I'm in no way a socialist - I oppose any government ownership of the means of production, and I oppose the forced redistribution of wealth.

Our founders did the best job anyone has ever done in creating a government with limited powers. Clearly there's been a slide from limited government toward tyranny - most of our past "great" presidents (Lincoln and FDR as examples) seriously abused the constitution even while doing good things such as freeing the slaves and defeating worldwide fascism.

My goal is to return our republic to its constitutional roots - getting rid of the 95% of what the Federal government is currently doing that isn't constitutional.

But if your criteria for good law is "could there be unintended consequences?" or "can this law allow government to abuse its power?" then we will have NO laws (i.e. anarchy).

chris - Like a bad radish...
--
...you begin to do nothing but repeat. Tsk.

Better, perhaps, that you would have the 3rd Amendment repealed?

You want the government to command that "unborn children" be forcibly quartered in the bodies of American women, nicht wahr?


There is a saying in law, to the effect that "hard cases make bad law."

And abortion - in the abstract and in reality - is from top to bottom a "hard case" concept. No person with any functional moral sense wants to undergo or perform a voluntary termination of pregnancy, even when there is compelling reason (such as irremediable toxemia) to do so.

This notwithstanding, the habits of reasoned thought include not only the consequences potentially associated with *DOING* something also have to be matched conscientiously against the outcomes likely to result from *DENYING* the option to take such a course of action.

Especially in an era of electronic medical records (EMR) technology rendering all details of evaluation and treatment easily accessible to law enforcement agencies (who can dip into your own personal files without HIPAA hindrance *RIGHT NOW*), you are closer to calling for intrusive, invasive Pregnancy Police than you are blindly refusing to admit.




======
"In the case of an unwanted pregnancy, the existential choice for a woman is not abortion vs. no abortion, but, as [Garrett Hardin] has pointed out, abortion vs. compulsory childbearing. If others can force her to be a mother... then she is coerced into putting her body at the disposal of the fetus as if she were an unclaimed natural resource or a chattel slave.... Thus, the woman's most fundamental right of choice, the right to control her own body and happiness, is being abrogated."

-- Sharon Presley, Robert Cooke

unintended consequences
We should repeal laws against murder because now that the technology exists to see the inside of my house from afar via infrared imaging, the police have been watching me every night, making sure I don't murder my children. This invasion of privacy violates my 4th Amendment rights.

chris - So you're not a socialist?
--
Godwin's Law doesn't mean what chris thinks it does (look it up, chris, you bloody idiot).

And if you're not a "social" pseudoconservative and a nationalist in the bargain (therefore a national socialist, desirous of federal - national - laws to criminalize the voluntary interruption of pregnancy except, of course, in cases of rape or miscegenation or incest or lack of sufficient Christianity on the part of the parents or whatever...), that's certainly not the impression you give.

Meanwhile, chris, look up "abortion in Ireland" (see http://tinyurl.com/3ok324 and http://tinyurl.com/3s8ev4 for a start) and consider the case of the Emerald Isle's fine, upstanding Pregnancy Police (they call it "the Health Service Executive") in an action taken in May 2007 to prevent a young woman from travelling to Britain to abort an anencephalic fetus.

Pregnancy Police already exist under national anti-abortion laws enacted elsewhere, chris.

And bloody, unthinking, brainless damned fools like you want the same friggin' thing here in these United States.

The failure to take into account inevitable adverse consequences that *ARE* foreseeable is not evidentiary of your ignorance anymore, chris, because - like it or not - you've had to read these posts.

From now on, you're not ignorant.

Just stupid and willfully irresponsible.

Not incompetent, but malevolent.

--

chris, the pregnancy Nazi
Failing to come up with better arguments, SJ Doc has resorted to calling me a Nazi, and we all know what that means.

unintended consequences
We should repeal laws against murder because now that the technology exists to see the inside of my house from afar via infrared imaging, the police have been watching me every night, making sure I don't murder my children. This invasion of privacy violates my 4th Amendment rights.

chris - The pregnancy Nazi
-- More --

In 1973, we didn't have "idiot-proof" home kits for detecting urinary human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), and a health care provider (HCP) had to be a middlin' skillful technician to accurately use the lab equipment then available to pick up a possible pregnancy late in the first trimester, when the average woman still isn't more than mildly suspicious that she *might* be pregnant.

Nowadays, the Pregnancy Police (to whom chris wants to entrust the protection of "unborn children") can screen suspected "perps" - women of reproductive age who may be attempting to voluntarily terminate their pregnancies - more easily than a traffic cop can run a Breathalyzer test.

What "social" pseudoconservative chris would *LIKE* (that "...the state should do NOTHING to track pregnancies or monitor HCPs unless the state has cause to believe that abortions have happened....") is not what this stupid clown is going to cause.

Yet more Unitended Consequences.

Because the state *CAN* screen for and "track pregnancies," because the Geheime Staats Prägnanzpolizei *CAN* "monitor HCPs," because chris' Officer Friendly *MUST* intrude upon women's bodies in order to determine if "abortions have happened," and because the technology exists for the government's goon squads to do this, *THEY WILL*.

The appearance of naïveté is charming in my three-year-old granddaughter.

On you, chris, it looks like nothing more than flaming, irresponsible, blank, deadly stupidity.

And that's what it is.

-- 30 --

chris - Pregnancy Police tech
--
Not being a time-binder, chris says:

"Abortion was illegal in many states before 1973. Were there Pregnancy Police then?"


1973, your idiot, isn't 2008.

The technology now permits far more discriminate, far less medically invasive, and far more police-accessible measures for diagnosing and monitoring pregnancy.

I *remember* 1973, when the first 2-D ultrasonography equipment was just becoming widely available, and when I still had to use a DeLee-Hillis stethoscope to monitor the fetal pulse.

I remember scrubbing in to assist at an elective cesarean section late one afternoon when we discovered not only that the patient had a twin pregnancy (ultrasonography was a rarity, and had not been used during prenatal care in that case) but also placenta accreta, causing severe hemorrhage (we just about drained the hospital blood bank that evening) and requiring us to perform an emergency hysterectomy.

Today, however, that pelvis would have been imaged to a fair-thee-well, and we would've known everything about that womb and its contents months before the pregnancy got close to term.

Because today we can. And we can do it relatively cheaply, simply, and with practically zero risk to the patient or her pregnancy.

This means that chris' Pregnancy Police can do it, too.

-- More --

SJ Doc
Abortion was illegal in many states before 1973. Were there Preganancy Police then?

It's amazing that you think it's ok to kill anyone who doesn't have a birth certificate yet. I guess in your eyes it's OK to kill illegal immigrants or anyone else who isn't a lawful citizen here. You've become unhinged.

chris - On *your* Pregnancy Police
--
Befuddles chris:

"I think unborn children should be treated the same way as those already born - the state should do NOTHING to track pregnancies or monitor HCPs unless the state has cause to believe that abortions have happened. The police investigate if they have cause to do so. Kind of like after a murder of someone already born."


Our smarming "social" pseudoconservative chris (the blind idiot) doesn't seem to understand that "someone already born" - having a birth certificate - is already a government-registered citizen, with a paper trail evincing his/her status as a lawful citizen of the state in which he/she was born.

The disappearance of such a person is the business of civil government, upon which that incompetent child's parents and other caretakers may lawfully be called to give account.

Now, if we extend the protections of the "pre-born" to the conceptus *BEFORE* the kid gets born, we have the police powers of the state reaching - literally! - into the womb of every woman who *MIGHT* become pregnant.

Pregnancy Police.

Really stupid, well-intentioned, Christlessly dimwitted damned fools - hold up your hand, chris, so that everyone can see you - fail to anticipate the Unintended Consequences of their religious idiocies.

Among those spectacularly unintended but bloody awful adverse consequences will necessarily be Pregnancy Police, just as I've described them, in addition to which you would see a breakdown in prenatal care (and an increase in premature deliveries, deformed babies, and maternally fatal pregnancies) as women are sharply discouraged from seeking such care from doctors and nurses who are bound by law to report these patients' pregnancies to the Staats Prägnanzpolizei (just as we're bound by law to report gunshot wounds).

Denying your Unintended Consequences, chris, doesn't make them any less real.

--

superhighway to hell
Superhighway to hell? I'm trying to get our country to exit that superhighway and turn around.

Your responses to my posts make no sense. I've said in 3 different previous posts that I think a fetus should have the same right to life as any other person, but that the state should not be obtrusive about it.

AGAIN for the 4th time:

The police don't come around to my house to make sure I haven't murdered my children - and they won't unless they have cause to do so.

I think unborn children should be treated the same way as those already born - the state should do NOTHING to track pregnancies or monitor HCPs unless the state has cause to believe that abortions have happened. The police investigate if they have cause to do so. Kind of like after a murder of someone already born.

OBVIOUSLY the legislation would have to be carefully crafted to avoid the unintended consequences we so often see coming out of Washington and state houses. Clearly if they do a bad job writing laws, tyrannical police actions will result.

Was it Voltaire who advised not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good? I'm trying to figure out a good way to protect the life, freedom, and property of everyone, while you want perfection of mothers' rights but entirely ignore the rights of unborn children.

Mr. Wirs' message
The day I take advice from an idiot who sits on the board of the ACLU is the day I register as a Democrat.

Chris: Sadly, your excellent points

are falling on deaf ears......

And what's even sadder, those deaf ears are attached to someone who is SUPPOSED to be caring for others...

What is that again.. "First, do no harm.....?"

Knowingly, purposefully, and intentionally KILLING an innocent unborn baby... Yeah, that's doing harm!



chris - Staking out doctorrs' offices
--
Says chris:

"I think the law should be similar to laws against murder, which deter murder by providing for a punishment if caught. Only rarely does the state proactively prevent murder (restraining orders, protective custody, etc) - and I certainly don't condone that sort of thing for pregnant women.

"If it comes to light that a woman went to a doctor or other person to get an abortion, both should be punished."


Great!

So chris really *DOES* want Pregnancy Police!

Just how d'you think that the civil authorities might bring "to light" the fact that a woman had gone to a health care practitioner (HCP) to voluntarily terminate a pregnancy instead of following up on prenatal care? How do you determine that a woman *IS* pregnant in the first place?

Regular urine and/or serum tests for hCG, the way we do random drug screening on high shool athletes?

And when she *does* prove pregnant, does your Officer Friendly (of the Pregnancy Patrol) fix her with a monitoring device to track her travels so that she doesn't go near any HCP wethout a policewoman accompanying her into the examining room?

Does each HCP who sees her have to submit documentaion to the Staats Prägnanzpolizei so that our Law Enforcement Officers can keep a record of all activities that might be conducive to the murder of "the pre-born"?

I mean, you can't catch 'em if you don't treat 'em like the potential perpetrators they are, right?

Hey, "That's not tyranny."

That's a police state.

And isn't chris just the cutest little bundle of "good intentions" paving that superhighway to Hell?

--

Change Out McCain
Is it possible to eliminate McCain from the GOP ticket at the convention? A new real conservative is the only hope for us.
I have been so disappointed with Bush that I can not bring my self to donate any money to the Republicans. (I like him very much as a person) Is there some one running who is truly conservative (who also listens and does what he says) who we can donate directly to? There is no way I am putting money into a slush fund that can be tapped by McCain or anyone who supports him, abortion, EPA, or the global warming hysteria.

my morality and parental authority
I'm not trying to impose my morality on anyone else - I just think the state should preserve everyone's right to life.

I'm a big proponant of parental authority - parents should be able to raise their children as they see fit without interferance from the state.

Some parents do things to their kids that others think are unhealthy. I think the state should stay out of it except in cases of demonstrable extreme harm.

Some might think I'm harming my kids by spanking them, or by withholding some recommended vaccinations. I want the state to stay out of it because I believe my wife and I have made the healthiest choice for our children.

I'm not trying to force other parents to do the same. I don't want to force them to follow my religion, live according to my moral code or anything else - just that they not intentionally kill their offspring.

That's not tyranny.

how to enforce anti-abortion laws
SJ Doc,

I think the law should be similar to laws against murder, which deter murder by providing for a punishment if caught. Only rarely does the state proactively prevent murder (restraining orders, protective custody, etc) - and I certainly don't condone that sort of thing for pregnant women.

If it comes to light that a woman went to a doctor or other person to get an abortion, both should be punished. If the woman's partner is involved, he would be an accessory and also punished. The "force" would be after-the-fact in the form of fines or imprisonment or whatever.

I don't think the state has any business in proactively preventing an abortion.

Our country did pretty well with laws like that for almost 200 years. And you're thinking of the whole "back alley coat-hanger" thing - that would be a woman choosing to harm herself (which the state should not stop or deter) while depriving another of his right to life (which the state should deter).

chris - On absolute ideals
--
Says chris that my position:

"...is that the mother can absolutely do what she wants with her body and anyone else's that happens to be inside her."


Yep. Both morally and as a matter of practical reality. One of the few lessons that gets taught to a man who's willing to learn is that no matter what sorts of laws, regulations, rules and strictures laid upon them, people are going to do just precisely what they decide to do.

Are you willing to learn, chris?

And even if a conceptus comprises "a person," chris, just how the puck d'you propose to *FORCE* a woman who wants to terminate her pregnancy to carry that pregnancy to term?

Let's pretend briefly (for the sake of argument) that your moral position on this issue isn't completely brain-dead as well as fundamentally violative of all human rights.

Okay. Now, O Mighty Master of All Tyranny, how are you going to make sure that every woman with a fecund uterus complies rigorously with your Impeial ukase to responsibly conduct her pregnancy and confinement for the exclusive benefit of the potential baby you'd like to see resulting from this process of SWAT-swaddled perinatological management?

You've already foresworn persuasion, chris. To fulfill your "moral" objectives, you've *GOT* to use coercion.

So in what form will you inflict it upon the women of America?

And will it be powder-blue for little male embryos and pink for teensy female zygotes?

--

off topic
Scottie, to get back to topic, Wirs and the RNC should take a long walk off a short bridge. Anyone disagree?

back off topic:
I thought it would be obvious I was quoting various Star Wars movies tongue in cheek since I used the word "Seriously" when I was done.

On absolutes - we're both espousing absolute ideals - yours is that the mother can absolutely do what she wants with her body and anyone else's that happens to be inside her. Mine is that a baby is a person.

The "yelling fire" quote is just one example of an occasion where one person's right (to free speech) is in conflict with another, and therefore someone's right must be limited. Our right to free speech generally includes making false statements. My point was that this right is limited in some situations (crowded theaters, under oath, etc).

Do you seriously believe there is never a time when a persons' right would be limited due to a conflict with anothers'?

Another example:
The libertarian concept of ideal government is that people's right to the product of their labor is limited (by taxation) to provide for the common defense.

Stop Griping?!?!
You've got some damn nerve.

Doc & Jeff
This is not the appropriate forum for a debate on abortion. Perhaps a more appropriate one would be under an article that refers to .... abortion!

chris - Quotes from the Star Wars plenum
--
...are seldom uttered by the scientifiction fan except *VERY* much tongue-in-cheek.

Says chris (#125):

"Only a sith deals in absolutes. I will do what I must."


And you're really serious about that, aren't you? Hoo, boy.

Ever wonder how the writers of that series could push the idea of the whole damned Jedi establishment (complete with plush downtown headquarters, high military rank, and a recruiting system designed to suck in uncritical toddlers as fresh fodder) getting wiped out by a handful of Sith lords, a bunch of bounty-hunter clones, and a couple of turncoat Jedi.

Maybe 'cause the inability to handle "absolutes" is a characteristic of spectacularly bucketheaded idiots.


And that's *FALSELY* yelling "Fire!" in a crowded building, chris.

Failing to yell "Fire!" when there really is one is a recipe for long-pork barbecue.

If you're going to pull something from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., make sure you're pulling the sense of it accurately.

--



Jeff - Whenever she spreads her legs...
--
...a woman does so with the intention of becoming pregnant? Is that what you're saying?

Jeff posts (#209) that:

"It seems you have separated the sexual act that results in conception with the product of conception, as though the woman was invaded (no, I’m not writing of rape – more on that in a moment). If a woman consents to having sex, she and the father should consent to carrying a baby to term and supporting him/her."



This automatically implies that all acts of heterosexual coitus are both (a) capable of resulting in conception, and (b) *INTENDED* to result in conception.

So what if they're not? Even the Roman Catholic Curia approves of heterosexual coitus undertaken - via the "rhythm" method - to avoid pregnancy, which in its intention (if not in its reliability) is certainly contraceptive.

Is it safe to say that the overwhelming majority of sexual contacts between men and women are undertaken with *NO INTENTION WHATSOEVER* of making a baby?

Certainly the widespread use of barrier, spermatocidal, and pharmaceutical contraceptive measures (documented even in Egyptian hieroglyphics predating Christianity by some four thousand years) implies that people will take great pains to enjoy the pleasures of copulation while preventing pregnancy.

I don't know of any cases in the medical literature where a woman capable of carrying a pregnancy to term (i.e., one who doesn't extraordinarily hazard her health or her life in the process) ever sought voluntary termination of that pregnancy unless she hadn't consciously decided to provide that gift-of-service to the conceptus, whether intentionally kindled or not.

But you've got a damned odd notion of what "consent to sex" implies, Jeff. Care to explain a bit more?

--

ACLU Board Member
Thanks to Anna and all the rest for pointing out that Wirs is in the ACLU.

His own website says:

Pete Wirs is the first and only elected Republican officeholder from Pennsylvania to be elected to a ACLU Chapter Board

This is the guy who is telling conservatives to stop griping?

Jim
Excellent posts!

The GOP is an aging thoroughbred with a fractured pelvis.

Time to call the glue truck.

correction
I just realized I made a silly statement above.

I should have said "some rights have limits", not "rights always have limits".

The point still stands.

Piling on to SJ Doc
is the mother ... "a person with rights - specifically to a property in her own body - or is she not?"

As I've been saying since the very beginning, she has the right to do as she pleases with her body which she solely owns, but the baby is not her body - he is his own.


SJ, I feel the good in you; the conflict.

You wrote: "There can be no 'conflict of rights' in any situation. One of the parties has the right; the other(s) cannot."

Only a sith deals in absolutes. I will do what I must.

Seriously - rights always have limits - No "yelling fire in a crowded theater" is a tired example.

I have four children aged 3 - 10. I am expected to give them some of the product of my labor, and the State will force me to do so if I try to abandon them. Would that not make me a chattal slave to my children if I decided I wanted to abandon them?

Let's remember the responsibility side of the rights coin - and the choices that the mother made to become a mother in the first place.

Obviously if the mother was raped and wants an abortion, then you do have a conflict. Either the mother will be forced to support another (for 9 months until the baby can be adopted) or the baby will have its potential of 90 years of life forcably taken. I say the baby wins. But let's let each state legislature decide.

Hate the New Fund Raising Effort
As others have already said, if you think you can now tell me that because the RNC leadership didn't listen to its constituents and is now in deep doo doo so therefore I have to contribute more money to say anything about what a f**ked up mess we're in - you must be smoking something a liberal handed to you.

Not a dime! Not a vote for Juan! Nada, Niche, Nyet! Tell McAmnesty to look to his illegal immigrants - now there's an untapped source!

Ain't gonna happen folks. I can't believe that after what we told Congress last June, you didn't wake up and smell the coffee. Guess you were just too smug. Ole Juan thought he was dealing with the liberals who might be willing to forgive and forget, but that's not me.

Stop Griping (Part II)
The GOP abandoned conservatives long ago, and that decision has been made crystal clear in its recent actions, including, illegal alien amnesty (they are NOT immigrants), taxpayer benefits for the same, spending tax dollars at a pace that made even the Democrats blush, McCain and Gingrich embracing the global warming fiction, refusing to drill for oil in places like ANWR, and last, but certainly not least, blowing the chance we gave you to lead this country by tucking your tails between your legs when a Dem said "boo".

And now, the GOP has the temerity to send an card carrying ACLU member of dubious character and professional background as their errand boy to attempt to tell us to shut up and quit griping. Amazing.

I fear that the GOP is too far gone to make a full recovery. The wounds it has inflicted upon itself appear to be mortal. Perhaps it's best to put it out of its misery by letting it die from those self inflicted wounds. Better than, than continue to witness its pathetic path of self destruction under the guise of "rebranding".



Stop Griping?

"Pete Wirs is the first and only elected Republican officeholder from Pennsylvania to be elected to a ACLU Chapter Board"

And you wonder why Republicans are griping?

Setting up a web site that claims to be soliciting input from the base is not going to prevent most people out there from quiclky figuring out that this is just another hollow backdoor attempt to solicit donations. IF the GOP had any inclination to listen, we would not have a candidate that has started smoking from Al Gore's global warming bong.

I have been a member of the Republican party since 1974, and have voted the ticket in every election - until now. It is clear that the GOP has abandoned conservative values and principles in an attempt to attract a more "diverse" base. Multiculturalism is alive and well in the GOP.

The GOP now wants to listen. Were they listeing when Lindsey Graham referred to over 80% of your members as "bigots"? Were you listening when McCain's idea of the outreach he promised at CPAC has been limited to dispatching henchmen and women to insult, deride and shame those who would not "fall into line"? Were you listening when the amnesty bills for illegals went down in flames, not just once, but several times based on angry US citizens, both Democrat and Republican? Were you listening when I requested the GOP to take me off its list of donors because the GOP had abandoned me?

The GOP just lost 3 seats they should have won; 3 seats that had been under GOP control for decades. Were you listening to the reasons why you got bear worse than a rented mule in those elections? Were you listening when the donors who were there for you in 2000 and 2004 fell off the face of the Earth?


Arrogant and Condescending
Wow, I cannot believe this column:

"If you, the grassroots Republican want to regain control of your Republican Party, you have do it with votes, and with volunteering and cash. You can’t gripe and think that’s will cure all. If you want the Republican leaders to be responsive to you, then you have to control not only the vote, but the pocketbook."

~~~~~~~~~~
Hey, we already did that and you did not listen to us. You act first and prove you're willing to do your part, then we'll see about the rest.

Then there's this:

~~~~~~~~~~
"James’ biblical reminder to be doers of the word, and not hearers only, is as valid in politics as in life generally. In other words, you can’t just talk the talk, you have to walk the walk. Otherwise, you’re merely deceiving yourself."

~~~~~~~~~~

It is wrong to use the Word of God as a club for political purposes. The devil can cite Scripture for his own devises, you know.

Norman
Thank you for your encouragement. The debate is worthwhile, even if an arrow misses the mark. Someone may see why.

For the Foundation (1 Cor. 3:11) of the Founders ><>

SJ Doc – You are off base
It seems you have separated the sexual act that results in conception with the product of conception, as though the woman was invaded (no, I’m not writing of rape – more on that in a moment). If a woman consents to having sex, she and the father should consent to carrying a baby to term and supporting him/her.

What “conflict of rights”? An unborn child’s right to life trumps someone else’s desire to kill it for no good reason.

Because of human nature, we have laws to protect people and property from those who would take or destroy. We have allowed our laws and sense of right and wrong to degrade to the point of sacrificing others because they are inconvenient. If we all have the unalienable right to life, why should we not protect the unborn, including via the law? Why did most states have laws restricting abortion?

You presume wrongly that I think it is “just hunky-dory ‘for rape victims’ to abort *THEIR* pregnancies.” Look at what I wrote before, and you will see that I said “maybe for rape victims.” I have always supported the idea and efforts of those who counsel girls and women who have been raped not to abort the child, because it is not the child’s fault. I have never attributed culpability to the child for the “crime of its father.”

But if it means wording legislation or a court decision that overturns Roe v. Wade to save over 95% of those babies who are now being aborted, I will take that as a start, and work toward saving the rest. It is not a perfect solution but in this case making the perfect the enemy of the good costs too much in human lives.

For the Foundation (1 Cor. 3:11) of the Founders ><>

Idiocy
The Republican Party ignores its voting base, fails to lead when it had control of the Congress and let the Democrats push them around, nominates a leftist Senator for President, then has the nerve to ask for money to tell them what we think and then you know they will ignore that. Screw them. When I see some substantial movement to the right I'll not only send money, I may even vote again for the Republican Party.
A republican (note the small "r")

Jeff
It's frustrating, isn't it, trying to hit a target that keeps moving while the arrow is in mid-flight.

May God bless you for your patience, brother.


In Christ,

Norman

Jeff - Is the pregnant woman...?
--
...a person with rights - specifically to a property in her own body - or is she not?

There can be no "conflict of rights" in any situation. One of the parties has the right; the other(s) cannot.

So. The conceptus (which is what we call the zygote/embryo/fetus and its intruterine support elements) may well be considered to be an incompetent individual with a right to a property in its own physical existance.

But does it have a right to a property in the body of its host?

Property rights turn on matters of exclusivity with regard to use, possession, and control. If a woman consents to continue providing a conceptus with habitation in her womb, she does so not out of any particular duty you or any government official has any lawful power to impose upon her, but because she's willing to do so.

Carrying a pregnancy to term is a gift-of-service, not a duty.

And your smarm about the value of a conceptus' life is shot completely to snot when you utter the anti-abortionist's perpetual caveat about how it's just hunky-dory "for rape victims" to abort *THEIR* pregnancies.

If it's an unique human with "his/her own DNA," just how the hell d'you conceive that it can somehow be held culpable for the crime of its father and thereby become meat for the slaughter you claim to abhor?

--

SJ Doc - Living human beings
What is the definition of "fully human being," as opposed to "human being"? When and by what criteria does one cross the threshold to "fully" – conception, second trimester, birth, puberty, fully grown, college, parenthood?

Whether "much regarded" or not, unborn children have been protected or supported in law and medicine in many societies for thousands of years. Why?

The degree to which one may "cold-bloodedly" determine who is going to live or die "when the luxuries of time and effort and materiel run short" does not change the value of human life one bit.

Just what part(s) of the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness do not apply to unborn children, and why?

Just what "right" does "another individual who doesn’t want him/her there" have to decide that the right to life of "him/her" in the womb can be terminated? How does one "right" trump another? What is the source/authority, and is it valid?

Enforcement of laws against voluntary abortion (not including saving the life of the mother and possibly for rape victims) can start with the abortion providers. Arresting them may help some women who consider abortion to wake up to the nature of the act. Education helps too, as has already been demonstrated. What is a conceptus or fetus? When does the conceptus or fetus possess his/her own DNA? What happens in an abortuary?

It is a travesty of law, medicine, liberty, and life that babies can be killed because of "inconvenience."

I have to go. I’ll try to check back later today.

For the Foundation (1 Cor. 3:11) of the Founders ><>

Jeff - Recognition of newborns...
--
...(in custom or in law) as fully human beings is not only a very recent phenomenon but also one that has not been even remotely well-embraced for most of recorded history.

It's one of the luxuries resulting from the Industrial Revolution and its sequelae. Prior to the production of plenty created by capitalism, only the offspring of "nobility" (the very wealthy, and/or the very privileged) were much regarded, and then only because they promised either dynastic stability (if male) or the prospect of marital alliance.

In hunter-gatherer and subsistence farming societies (which covers the overwhelming majority of the human race's history), until a child is of age and capability to do productive work more valuable than what's involved in their care and feeding, they're a net liability, and - in some cultures - it's been considered unnecessary (or bad juju) even to give them names.

The medical profession as we currently know it is yet another post-Industrial Age luxury, and any physician who's ever so much as taken the ATLS course (or actually handled a multi-casualty disaster) can tell you precisely how cold-bloodedly we can determine who's going to live and who's going to die - whom to treat and whom to set aside - when the luxuries of time and effort and materiel run short.

But as for here and now....

Just what part of the "preborn" conceptus' rights include the right to hold (by proxy, for the fetus has no ability to voice such an imposition) its host as a chattel slave to its well-being?

And even if such a "right" is recognized, how the hell d'you propose that the officers of civil government should enforce it?

--

SJ Doc
You wrote: "Show me where any individual has the right to live within the body of another individual who doesn't want him/her there."

Oh, come on. Did "him/her" ask to be inserted in the womb? (Why "him/her"?) It’s not like he/she is squatting in the park.

If he/she is alive, why does the law not protect him/her more than it does? How does "another individual who doesn’t want him/her there" have any "right" to decide that "he/she" can be put to death? Both occur in large part because of bad decisions like Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton.

Unborn babies have been protected or at least supported in law for several thousand years. They haven't had the same protection or support everywhere, but that doesn't mean they were not recognized as humans. Hippocrates wrote that he would not give a woman anything to produce an abortion.

Why do "the canons of the profession kick in with a vengeance" once the child is out of the womb? What, if any, significant difference is there between being in the womb and out, especially if those two locations are also separated in time by seconds? Arbitrary lines ought not determine whether one lives or dies. Ask the elderly in the Netherlands.

That being said, I am glad you have helped save premies.

For the Foundation (1 Cor. 3:11) of the Founders ><>

chris - Yeah, ''faunch'' is a real word
--
To the science fiction fan, "to faunch" means (1) "to desire, to want; to yearn for," and (2) "to hunt for, to acquire."

Much (if not all) of the terminology used in online exchanges (including virtually all of the acronyms, including "LOL") are borrowed from the linguistic usages of SF fandom.

Which is pretty much coincident with the world of hackerdom and technogeekery. Despite Algore's blowhard political idiocy, the people who built the 'Net (and took it to its preent state of development) were scientifiction fen, not mundanes.


On the matter of individual rights....

Okay. Show me where any individual has the right to live within the body of another individual who doesn't want him/her there.

I've helped to salvage a bunch of premature infants (a lot more time in the NICU during training than the average GP-wannabe), and I'm the last man to advocate the "ownership" of babies by their parents - inluding the nonsense of the "28-day rule."

If the perinatologists and neonatologists say that they've got a chance at keeping the kid alive once it's out of the womb, Mommy Dearest has no right - moral or in law - to command that we do *NOT* intervene.

At that point, the kid is a patient, not a conceptus, and the canons of the profession kick in with a vengeance.

You want it any other way?

--

SJ Doc
In #194 you wrote "It's that I stick to *INDIVIDUAL* rights".

I think we all agree that individual rights are important - I just think we should protect an INDIVIDUAL's right to not be killed unless he's convicted of a capitol crime.

But that's not my decision - and shouldn't be any judge's decision - it should be up to state legislatures.

Also, I don't think "faunching" is really a word. And if it is, it shouldn't be.

SJ Doc
I’m sorry I didn’t check back earlier. Here are my responses to several of your points (post #173).

The term “coercive anti-abortionists” is interesting, but Roe v. Wade has wrought much more government-backed coercion, resulting in the cruel deaths of millions of babies who had no choice (they were not merely parts of women's bodies, like toenails – they were distinct individuals). Do you not have a problem with that abuse of “lawful power”?

Roe v. Wade should be overturned because it was unconstitutional and morally wrong (what is law for?). There is no legal “emanation” or “penumbra” of a right to abort a child in either the Ninth or Fourteenth Amendment. (Indeed, the Fourteenth can be said to argue for protecting the unborn: “…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...” If you would like to discuss what “person” means, we can do that.) The subject should be returned to the states, most of which had laws restricting abortions. Why?

Whether or not you think “holocaust” is a religious term is immaterial. It is accurate. How else would you describe the killing of 50,000,000 babies, who for the most part (>95%) were killed because they were considered inconvenient?

Your “can of worms” arguments involve enforcing laws against voluntary abortions (except to save the mother’s life, maybe for rape victims) but they should not be used to disqualify protecting the unborn, who are living human beings with their own DNA and unalienable individual rights.

For the Foundation (1 Cor. 3:11) of the Founders ><>

BrianR
I had the same thought - still no response. I wonder if they would respond in any way if they were flooded with the same request? These people don't get it. They want us to support them and they state they are going to change, but they won't listen to what it is we want.

This Wirs guy and his "Stop Griping" response is exactly what I expect from them. So what do they get in return? Go figure.

Norman: Again, check out *Hope*...
--
...with special attention paid to Chapter 21 as to the subject of criminalizing voluntary interruptions of pregnancy.

I never assumed you were trying to "bait" me, but cramming a solution to overweening statism into one of these "Comments" boxes is a wee bit too much like trying to explain the concept of sarcoidosis to my brother-in-law (who's a nice guy, but effectively dyslexic) in five minutes of discussion using words of no more than three syllables each.

Besides, I don't think you'd much like my "simple solutions" set.

For example, as to "public education," my preference runs to full expression in three stages:

1) Blow up the buildings.

2) Burn the rubble.

3) Salt the ground.

A samadh (a la Kipling's "The Grave of the Hundred Head" - see http://tinyurl.com/5r8jve) would not be something I'd insist upon, but at the very least I'd want something symbolic and persistent established on each scorched and poisoned lot.

Something invoking the same spirit as the skull-and-crossbones, or the tangent trefoil of radioactive hazard.

Apply that perspective government-wide, and you'd have a fair idea of why my personal preferences as a "Hobbesian Sovereign" would best be tempered with the advice of reasonable men like L. Neil Smith and Aaron Zelman.

There are temptations to which it would not be nice for me to succumb.

Despite the triflin' image found in *The Princess Bride*, us Sicilians are not a subtle, devious people.

Though we're very good at making sure that the bubbles stop coming up.

--

SJDoc
Never said that you WANTED the power, nor was I trying to bait you. I was just trying to figure out what exactly it is that we've been talking about.

I can see that that's not gonna happen, though. I'm more confused than ever, and it's way past bedtime. G'night.



Norman - As a "Hobbesian Sovereign"
--
States Norman (#187):

"Imagine that the Constitution is suspended for one week (to be restored with your changes intact on the eighth day), during which time you have the absolute power of a Hobbesian Sovereign. Every power ascribed to the three branches in the Constitution is completely within your purview."


Easy answer?

I'd call in L. Neil Smith and Aaron Zelman (co-authors of the novel *Hope* [2001]) and ask 'em for a battleplan.

Read the book. It's apparently gone out of print recently, but it's still quite "get-able" online.

See http://tinyurl.com/5osct6 for a review.

As a matter of fact, that novel is almost certainly the reason why you hear the chant "Hope for America!" at Ron Paul political rallies.


I do not hold ambitions to become a "Hobbesian Sovereign" now or at any time in the future. Thirty years in medicine, combined with raising three kids to the point at which I've accumulated a dozen grandkids (many of them the results of prior or succeeding marriages among my children and their spouses), I've got percisely *NO* delusions about my command and control capabilities.

I hold that anyone who wants that kind of power is - ipso facto - a psychopath, and therefore unfit to exercise it.

--

not ashamed - Don't you get tired...?
--
...of being wrong on everything? You say:

"Makes me wonder if you have a law degree, are really a liberal, an atheist, or a doctor who performs abortions (or maybe all of the above.)"


Wrong on every count. No law degree (medicine), never a "Liberal" (though von Hayek would readily count me as a liberal in his definition of the word), indifferent as to religion (I believe what I believe; I won't try to convince anybody that what I believe in the line of ghostly suppositions is more "true" than whatever fable they've fixated upon), and I've never performed an abortion in my life.

I've done my best to talk my patients out of 'em, but I've got GYN guys in my Rolodex who will perform voluntary interruptions of pregnancy, and I do refer to them.

Think of me as a militant individualist. Individual rights, individual responsibilities, and if you want to get past *Primum non nocere*, you've got to show me a risk/benefit calculation predicated on something more objectively valid than "God's gonna gitcha!"

It's not that I bring up "abortion rights," friend. It's that I stick to *INDIVIDUAL* rights, and any state that decides to criminalize the voluntary termination of pregnancy is - de facto and de jure - bringing down the proverbial sh!tstorm upon itself.

You, too, have no idea of what the indulgence of your meddlesome self-righteousness would necessarily entail.

Pregnancy police, gestation at gunpoint, random urine testing for hCG (in precisely the same way that the War on [Some] Drugs has public schools required to spring surprise tests on kids in their sports teams), Uncle Tom Cobbly and all.

Once that bullet goes downrange, all the "I'm sorry!" in the world isn't gonna call it back.

--

SJDoc (#192)
Sorry to butt in, but I'm betting Chris, being a sensible soul, is in bed.

I think that I can speak for him, though, since he and I seem to be on the same page here.

All we're saying (and please forgive me, Chris, if I inadvertently misrepresent your position here) is that Roe v. Wade was a bad decision and that the States should decide the question of abortion.

That's it.

Some states would allow abortion and others wouldn't. As you yourself wrote, women would be free to vote with their feet, literally.

I still don't understand what the problem is, here.

If the issue is that you think Chris and I are all wet for believing that abortion should be illegal, you've made your position abundantly clear.

You disagree. We get it. You've made some good points, and now it's time to move on, IMO.


NATBR (#191)
I'm confused, too, as you noted.

So if where jest two stoopid two git it, will ate list bee two stoopid two-gether!

;-)

Cheers!

chris - You've never worked the ER
--
Says chris:

"Spontaneous abortion is no different than someone dying of natural causes or disease - no homicide investigation needs to happen in those cases."


If a licensed health care practitioner isn't able to sign off a death certificate as to an assuredly non-criminal probable cause of death, such a mortality by what laypeople have come to call "natural causes" becomes a coroner's case, and (depending significantly upon the prevailing political climate) can very readily become the subject of a homicide investigation.

The study of Medical Jurisprudence in med school is full to the brim with the consideration of instances in which "stupid policies" have been realized by way of statute law and government regulation (not to mention Managed Care).

My "A - C list" is merely the *beginning*, chris. You've never had to deal with a county coroner in your face at three o'clock in the morning, chittering like a rabid rodent about a motor vehicle accident fatality that proves (from beginning to end) about as complicated as slice of bread falling butter-side down.

Nobody really cares what "our society" might opine about voluntary termination of pregnancy. What people have to look out for is what gets into the criminal code.

And unless you haven't noticed, those cement-headed badge-flaunting uniformed goons with semiautomatic side arms and handcuffs us "civilians" aren't allowed to own are called "Law Enforcement Officers."

Forget about "emotionally difficult" choices and think - if only for half a minute - about the Unintended Consequences of the sorts of law you're faunching for.

--

SJDoc, to be frank with
you,your posts are just confusing to me. Maybe I am just too slow on the uptake for your academic level, but I think you are one who gets a kick out of word twisting and gameplaying. Makes me wonder if you have a law degree, are really a liberal, an atheist, or a doctor who performs abortions (or maybe all of the above.) Even Norman acknowledged a similar response after several back and forth posts with you (which made me feel a little better.)

I don't clearly understand what you are getting at other than you think states should determine their own rights. I have no problem with this as I agree. Why you continue to bring up abortion rights repeatedly is not clear to me.
Pregnancy police? Gestation at gunpoint? Sports teams and drug testing?

Like others who have posted on this thread you appear to have some deeper issues. Good luck posting, I will choose to refrain from engaging with you in the future.

Chris--Correction and Clarification
Just to be clear, the "sinister" reference in my last post was not to anything you wrote, but to SJDoc's early comment on the Constitution.

I got it wrong though. The word he used was "shady," not "sinister," viz. when he referred to the "shady past" of the Constitution.

Of course, I respectfully reject that point of view, which was the only point I was trying to make.

Chris (#188)
I should have added to my previous response to SJDoc (#187) that, although I am not a Paulista, I agree that returning the matter of abortion of the states is, constitutionally speaking, both a necessary and sufficient way of addressing it.

I see nothing "sinister" in our Constitution, except what certain Supreme Court Justices have unjustifiably read into it. I believe that it is the greatest political document in human history, bar none.

(Before someone says, "What about the 3/5 Compromise?" that's been rightly removed and is only still present in the text because we don't airbrush our history, even the sordid and shameful episodes. Our Founders were great men, but were quite naturally imperfect, just like you. "Let he is without sin . . .")

I also agree with everything you wrote, so call me your "dittohead."

Very well said, indeed.

Cheers!

to - SJ Doc
> So Ron Paul's "push it down to the state-by-state level" is satisfactory for both of you, right?

for me, yes.

Spontaneous abortion is no different than someone dying of natural causes or disease - no homicide investigation needs to happen in those cases.

You're creating a straw man argument - trying to assign stupid policies to my point of view. A state can criminalize voluntary terminations without your A - C list.

A law against abortion would be similar to laws against murder in that people still murder people, and some get away with it. It would probably be easier to get away with abortion because no one would know the baby exists. But for our society to say it is fine and good to end the life of a human because they're small or dependent on others or difficult to see is immoral.

I'm even fine with early-stage abortion to save the life of the mother - since if the mother dies the baby will also die it's an emotionally difficult but ethically easy choice.

SJDoc (#185)


I really don't understand what you're getting at. I understand that you don't agree with me, which is fine, but I honestly don't have a clue what you think should be done. You don't agree with Roe v. Wade, but I get the sense that you don't want it repealed, either. I thought that we were largely in agreement, but I see now that I was wrong about that. I'm really quite confused.

If you'll indulge me, this may help.

Imagine that the Constitution is suspended for one week (to be restored with your changes intact on the eighth day), during which time you have the absolute power of a Hobbesian Sovereign. Every power ascribed to the three branches in the Constitution is completely within your purview.

As such, among your powers is the ability to impeach, remove, and replace every single governmental official--elected or not--at every level of government from the lowliest town council to the US Congress and Supreme Court.

The bureaucracies of every branch and level of government in every state, territory, and possession are also fully under your command.

Any changes you make to the Constitution--including its abolition (which I’m thinking you would effect)--can only be undone (starting on that eighth day) via Amendment or Constitutional Convention.

You have a chance to make permanent, lasting changes.

What would you do?

Hey, Nice One gf! (# 183)
And the funniest part is that GOP, having given away the real "store" (viz. its conservative base), is trying to remedy that fatal error by opening this RINOS-R-US online montrosity that Wirs is promoting in his latest RINO turd.

If it didn't portend so ill for my beloved country, I wouldn't be able to stop laughing at these RI-NO-P (rhymes with "G-O-P") clowns.

chris & Norman - On los federales....
--
Says chris (#182):

"Since defining murder and manslaughter is not in the Constitution's list of powers enumerated to the Congress, each state's legislature should be able to define and set punishments for them however they want."


Says Norman (#184):

"If you want to know, I believe that abortion is murder, but that's not a constitional issue. That's one man's opinion. The Constitution does not speak to the issue, so it should be up to state legislatures to decide the matter. If I lived in a state that legalized abortion, following the repeal of Roe v. Wade, I would leave it if I could."


So Ron Paul's "push it down to the state-by-state level" is satisfactory for both of you, right?

Okay. Now what happens when the pro-abortion crowd starts invoking the Fourteenth Amendment (not to mention the Thirteenth)?

Speaking from the perspective of a man who's spent entirely too many years covering the Emergency Department (and having seen many, many miscarriages and spontaneous abortions), any state measure that criminalizes *VOLUNTARY* terminations of pregnancy is going to bring in a whole slew of medicolegal problems, including:

(a) Treating every woman as under the suspicion of felony each time she evinces a menstrual irregularity.

(b) Consideration of every miscarriage or spontaneous abortion as a homicide necessitating criminal investigation.

(c) The enforcement of protections for the safety of the "unborn" upon every woman of reproductive age or condition (because we can't reliably detect pregnancy during the first trimester in most cases except by way of extraordinary diagnostic testing, and the conceptus is especially vulnerable to teratogenic factors in the earliest months of gestation).

The state that does what you'd like to see is going to open one helluva can of worms, guys.

You have no idea.

--

SJDoc
The question of abortion should be decided at the state level. To that extent, I was actually supporting your point of view, constitutionally speaking. My personal opinion is not the issue.

(If you want to know, I believe that abortion is murder, but that's not a constitional issue. That's one man's opinion. The Constitution does not speak to the issue, so it should be up to state legislatures to decide the matter. If I lived in a state that legalized abortion, following the repeal of Roe v. Wade, I would leave it if I could. To borrow your own language, I would vote with my feet, literally.)

That said, I oppose the tendency of some (but certainly not "most") social conservatives to bend the Constitution just as the left has (only in the opposite ideological direction).

The Supremes in 1973, via the Roe v. Wade decision, besmirched the Constitution by attributing to it the view that we have the the "right" to murder human beings in the womb. That is, they read their own policy preferences into the Constitution on a matter to which it simply does not speak.

So, there is clearly no "right" to commit abortion to be derived from the Constitution. Once Roe v. Wade is overturned (hopefully by a Supreme Court decision recognizing the error of the earlier Court), the matter will once again be within the province of the States, where it belongs.

Retailers
are loosing sales to the internet. It appears that the GOP is also loosing sales to the internet. We no longer have to shop at the GOP store.

to SJ Doc
This is simple: A woman should have the right to do whatever she wants to her body. But the baby she's carrying is not her body - it's the baby's.

Any libertarian other than an anarchist will agree that the primary role of government is to protect its citizens' life, freedom, and property from being taken without due process. Abortion is a prime example of a situation calling for government intervention.

But that's just my opinion. Since defining murder and manslaughter is not in the Constitution's list of powers enumerated to the Congress, each state's legislature should be able to define and set punishments for them however they want.

Norman - On enumerated powers...
--
...and the U.S. Constitution, Norman remarks (in #179):

"Then any state that wants to legalize the killing of babies can have the blood on its own hands, and not besmirch the Constitution by pointing to the Roe v. Wade's claiming that some nonsensical and non-existent 'right' embedded somewhere in the Constitution's equally ephemeral 'emanations and penumbra' entitle us to engage in the wanton and inexcusable murder of the youngest and most helpless among us."


Is it possible to conceive of anything (other than the initial handling of chattel slavery) as having the capability to "besmirch the Constitution"?

It's a charter of government.

With a helluva shady past, if you take seriously the anti-Federalists (like Elbridge Gerry and other contemporary opponents of Hamilton's conspiracy to void the Article of Confederation).

And I do.

It's the constitutionalist's best contention that the Congress (and therefore the federal government) has no lawful power to rule in any matters pertinent to a woman's right to do with her body whatever she damn' well pleases.

That's where Rove v. Wade fails the test of lawfulness, and not as a matter of conniving at the condemnation of voluntary abortion as "murder" in such a fashion as to lead to the consideration of every miscarriage as a species of manslaughter.

Do you mean that a woman *DOESN'T* have the right to abort a pregnancy she's carrying?

And if you deny the validity of that right, what actions and advocacies on your part does that denial necessarily entail?

--

What happened?
Why can't I find a candidate committed to small government AND protecting the country from Muslim who want to kill us all? Is that too much to ask? I can't even find a 5th party willing to do both. The closest thing I saw to that this year was Fred Thompson, and even he had a ways to go on the limited government side.

What's up with that?

NATBR (2 OF 2)

On SJDoc's comment, it is certainly true that SOME social conservatives don't mind (wrongly) using the Constitution as a cudgel, just as the Supremes did in '73 with the intellectually, morally, and and constitutionally vacuous Roe v. Wade decision. That's not a road that I, as a Christian and dyed-in-the-wool social conservative want to go down. You can't beat the bad guys by switching sides and putting on their uniform (something that Weird Wirs and his RINO cronies--including their, not my, irascible nominee--are going to learn in November).

Repeal the horrendous and unconstitutional Roe v. Wade decision, and give it back to the States. That's "States Rights 101" and I'm 100% for it. I take it that that is what SJDoc is getting at.

Then any state that wants to legalize the killing of babies can have the blood on its own hands, and not besmirch the Constitution by pointing to the Roe v. Wade's claiming that some nonsensical and non-existent "right" embedded somewhere in the Constitution's equally ephemeral "emanations and penumbra" entitle us to engage in the wanton and inexcusable murder of the youngest and most helpless among us.

NATBR (1 OF 2)
(BEEN TRYING TO POST THIS FOR 15 MINUTES. NOT SURE WHAT'S GOING ON, BUT I'M GOING TO BREAK IT DOWN INTO TWO POSTS, AND SEE IF THAT WORKS. PLEASE FORGIVE ANY MULTIPLE POSTINGS.)

I think that Wirs has two main pastimes.

First, he uses his obvious sock puppets to play the Bizarro version of Henry V on the message board (infilitrating the ranks not to INSPIRE the troops, but to browbeat them).

Second, he goes to his most recent column and gives himself "five stars." Then he flushes his browser cache, and gives himself "five stars" again. Then he flushes his browser cache, and gives himself "five stars" again . . . ad infinitum.

Heck, it beats verifying signatures as the youngest Notary Public in PA history! (He actually brags about this. No kidding. Check out http://www.peterjwirs.com. It's a laugh riot!!!)

(Hey, that "submit vote, clear cache, submit vote again" thing has given me an idea, heh, heh, heh . . .)

not ashamed - It's not ''nanny''...
--
...of whom we have to be most wary but rather (remembering the screenplay from *Cabaret*) "Cleo the Whip Lady."

Not government as our smothering caretaker, but government as leather-clad (and Kevlar-armored) dominatrix.

Brings up the memory of an old RTKBA observation, to wit:

"The relationship between the private citizen and his government is fundamentally masochistic. And the Second Amendment is the safeword."


In #135, not ashamed to be right says:

"As a social conservative I am repulsed by the government nanny state and want the federal government out of my life as much as possible.
I believe there are millions of social conservatives who would agree."


I can see that it is possible to oppose the "Liberal" nanny state while maintaining self-identification as a "social" conservative, but does your conception of "social" conservatism include advocacy of an active anti-abortion policy on the part of the federal government in these United States?

When you get right down to it, I find the hallmark of a "social" political conservative these days to be the advocacy of "pregnancy police" federal activism.

Gestation at gunpoint, if you will.

Think "nanny state" run by "Cleo, die Dame mit die Peitsche," with urines collected for pregnancy tests on reproductive-aged girls and women in much the same way that authorities are inflicting random drug testing on the members of high school sports teams.

Is this in some way a properly "conservative" position at all?

--




Well, Norm and "notashamed" as to Wirs's

rating, it really seems to be irrelevant tonight on this column, because all he's managed to eke out is a lousy 2 stars.

Further, as far as I can recall, he's never done much better, and probably worse.

But I think, "notashamed", that your analysis is correct. Sometimes I'm simply staggered by columns that I consider the height of liberalism getting 3 - 5 stars, and truly conservative columns getting only 1 or 2.

But bear in mind: this site is absolutely saturated with RINO GOPer lemming apologist enabler fools, too.

Else, why would this stupid column by a moron like Wirs ever see the light of day?




SJDoc,
"But most "social" conservatives want something more "active" out of the federal government."

I would have to disagree when you use the word "most" as I do not believe that to be true.
As a social conservative I am repulsed by the government nanny state and want the federal government out of my life as much as possible.
I believe there are millions of social conservatives who would agree.

In addition I think many social conservatives who favor nannyism are reacting in response to what they see liberals doing, thinking it is the only way to beat them when in reality it just mucks things up worse.

Norman, I have noticed that
same thing with several of the TownHall RINOgram columns. There will be many negative posts yet the column will be rated 3,4, or 5 stars. I am not sure if readers briefly glance at the column title, maybe read a paragraph or so, and then give it a high rating completely passing over the posts. You have brought up an interesting point though.

Anyone care to discuss McCain's latest talk today? The one is which he predicted 4 years into the future? OMG, it just gets worse and worse with this guy each day. Just confirms my belief that the GOP needs a major flushing, and that voting third party is the message they need to hear (since they apparently are deaf to anything else with the exception of their empty coffers.)

Jeff - On abortion, the issue...
--
...that the "big government" conspirators have always used to divide the American freedom movement.

Says Jeff (#134):

"I consider myself to be a real conservative who agrees with many "social conservatives," especially about the holocaust of abortion, and I disagree with your painting social conservatives as 'religious whackjobs'.

"I think if you bothered to look, you will find many 'social conservatives' are also Constitutionalists, which you appear to find agreeable...."


I find constitutionalism so agreeable that I take coercive anti-abortionists (even those who disclaim religious motivation) to be advocating *UN*constitutional government.

Even if their professed motives for addressing this "holocaust" (NB: a religious term) is alleged to be entirely secular.

Putting it bluntly, the federal government has no lawful power (see Article 1, Section 8) to command a woman to carry a pregnancy to term.

Ron Paul - an OB/GYN guy who is also a hard-line anti-abortionist - doesn't conceive that the Constitution empowers los federales to do *ANYTHING* in this area, and he wants the determination pushed back down to the state level.

And that's just fine with me. People in some states will criminalize it, while in other states they won't. And a woman who wants an abortion badly enough can vote with her feet.

Literally.

But most "social" conservatives want something more "active" out of the federal government.

Federal pregnancy police, if you will.

And up with that no constitutionalist will put.

So are you still a "social" conservative by this criterion?

--

Weird Wirs' Ratings
Am I the only one wondering about the ratings on Wirs' "columns"?

Every one of them features a barrage of negative comments from outraged conservatives, but he's actually managed to get four stars once or twice. That's Mike Adams/Ann Coulter country.

Hmmm. . .

In the present case, this particular RINO-dropping is his worst EVER, which is saying something.

Why then does it have two stars at present?

Who is counteracting the "one star" votes of me and a whole bunch of other people?

Seems to me Wirs may be playing politics Chicago-style here, voting early and often via his sock puppets.

Anyone else have a thought on this?


Orthodoxa.....
"Do you accept the Matricula Consular card? I could get 295 of those easy."

Of COURSE.......

That's the new ID of preference out here in Leftifornia, where I live!

Another Pledge Option

posted by pj 5/24/07 Robert Novack column

I pledge allegiance
To the flags
Of the “Diverse States of the Americas”
And to the socialists
For which they stand
Many countries
Baja Dios
Indistinguishable
With gringo dollars for all.


Hey Brian R...
... You said:

"Now you owe me $25 for reading your comment.



Will that be a personal check (295 forms of ID required) or credit card?"

Do you accept the Matricula Consular card? I could get 295 of those easy.

usa4freedom
Great post. And Wirs can read it for free! What a bargain!

The more I think about this, the more ticked off I get.

Hey Wirs... here's the deal. You guys implement that list of usa4freedom and THEN we'll send money. Jerk. You think we're like libs who just fell out of the VWVan stoned or something?

Hey Wirs, why don't you...
...put the GOP's new Pledge of Allegiance on your website?

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of Mexico,

and to the bribe money for which it stands,

One North American Union,

under Presidente-for-life Juan McAmnesty,

with liberty and justice for those who paid a large enough donation."

PS -- Why don't you suggest that McCain use your website idea and incorporate it into his next version of McCain-Feingold? You can continue to have 1st Amendment rights... as long as you pay a fee.

It's time for patriotic Americans to leave the treasonous GOP and vote for Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, or some other real conservative!

Feel The Pain Of Voting McCain
There's a bumper sticker

good one
IOU...$25
lol

The "New GOP"
Will be the success that "New Coke" was.

usa4freedom
nicely done

Well said, usa4freedom!

Now you owe me $25 for reading your comment.



Will that be a personal check (295 forms of ID required) or credit card?


here are the answers!! with out the $25.
Well I’m not a political expert but I can tell you want we (the base) want for the most part. I don’t need to send you $25.
I have sent you money before. (my Mom send enough money to be invited to one of the balls in DC) for what good it does..
What was my thanks: a poll asking me questions like.. do you think that national security is important? At the end of this great poll they ask for money.
A better question would be: do you think that the GOP should grow a set of balls? Then I might give money so they can buy a set..

Its simple to me, what the base wants..
Not in any particular order..
#1: Tax cutting
#2: spending cutting
#3: pro gun
#4: pro life
#5: no ear marks
#6: build fence
#7: clamp down on companies using illegal help
#8: fair or flat tax
#9: strong defense
#10: drill for oil
# 11: build more refineries
#12: cut foreign aid to countries that criticize us for 5 years
# 13: make election day April 16th.
#14: win the war.
#15 keep your dam hands to yourself.

Now see how easy that was??

You in the GOP, somehow you don’t seem to understand, you have crapped on us for a long time, a dam web-site that cost $25 to play on will not erase it.


Scottie!!!!!!

Think "Norm!!!!!" on the TV show "Cheers".

Where you been, man? I keep going by your blog -- daily, you'll be happy to know, adding to your count -- and you've been AWOL.

And HEY! That wharf-rat dog is my daughter's, not mine! I'd rather be disemboweled than have to lay claim to that .......... thing.

Hey Brian
Don't you have a plane to fly, or a gun to clean, or a rat sized dog to feed? You are having way too much fun on this one.

"When I was a kid, I was so ugly they had to tie a pork chop around my neck so the dogs would play with me. Now that I'm all grown up, I have to pay a political party to listen to me. Whoa I'm tellin' ya', I don't get no respect."

Is Wirs under the mistaken impression that we've all been zapped by the amnesia pen from Men In Black? Seems like it.

The old "GOP' of Lincoln?
It was the "old" GOP that in 1866-1870 that by-passed Article V of the Contitution and refused to seat the legal representatives of 10 Southern States ie. No State shall be refused sufferage(voting priviliges) except it be by consent of that State.
The modern day "Lincolnites" forced John McCain on the Conservatives by not offering a decent candidate.
You folks who are unhappy with McCain, might try a real Conservative and Constitutionalist. His name? Dr. Chuck Baldwin nominee for President from the Constitution Party. He gets my vote.

Hahahahahahahaha, Joyyyy!

THAT needed a Spew Alert!



Gad...........I'm STILL chuckling.......

Hey Brian
A gal that goes by feebiebabe on Michelle Malkin's site suggested:

'I'm with Stupid'

And yours is spot on! Have you ever seen anything like it? I know I'm laughing, but really it's one of the saddest things I've ever witnessed.

And while I'm usually not the vulgar type, this is McCains slogan:

McCain '08 - Who dropped the soap, I'll get it!

With a pic of McCain and Gore under it.

Joyyy... My proposal for a GOP slogan:

"The Stupid Party!
Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory since 1994!"


So seriously...
Does Moveon.org require people to PAY to be able to post and participate in the dialog?

So far there are two lonely comments on GopOnDemand... lol They've raised $50.oo

I hope the rats can't afford their stupid convention. I've been a lifelong Republican and the GOP of today is making me GAG. I mean, think of the whole notion behind the title 'GopOnDemand'... are they freakin' kidding?

Hey Wirs - with that $50.00 maybe you can get a half tank of gas.

New GOP slogan

The GOP - Ideals and Integrity that are bought and paid for.


Hahahaha!..Gawd!...........

You guys are just CRACKING... ME ... UP!


Couple of Links for Wirs
Best Townhall article on the subject, EVER!:
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/JohnHawkins/2008/05/09/t he_republican_partys_real_problem_in_a_nutshell

And a bon mot on the issue by the inimitable Mark Steyn from The Corner at National Review:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M2U3OGMxODM4MjA1Yj BlNGU3MjBkMTVlMTdiNmFhMGE=

Pays to read the whole intro
O-I-C

"But if you want the power you have to donate. A $25 contribution is all that is asked. And if you make it a monthly $25 contribution, you get to participate in live, interactive webcasts with national, state and local public officeholders and Republican officials, personally answering your questions and concerns. So tell us what you want and give us $25 so we can deliver the future of the Republican Party to you."

In other words, OUR party will only speak for us if we PAY THEM TO... Oh man.

GOP - RIP

Let me see...
You want me to give you money so that I can have some input as to how the party bigwigs are going to act, when I have no guarantee that what I say would change anything. Heck, I don't even have a guarantee that what I would say would be read.

If you can't hear the voices of the masses already, forget it. A campaign contribution won't change a damn bit o' difference.

GOP is D-E-S-P-E-R-A-T-E
And they D-E-S-E-R-V-E to be!

"So tell us what you want and give us $25 so we can deliver the future of the Republican Party to you." Hahahahahaha


Wirs
Member of the ACLU? ROFL Holy Moly, I'd take that off if I were you.

Well, I signed up and tried to post something and it didn't take. The RNC, GOP and McCain won't get one thin red cent out of me.

NO to McCain.

R.A.M. (#139)
Excellent post! I'm getting really, really tired of people comparing Ronaldus Magnus to Angry Melanoma Guy (should be a new recurring character on SNL).

Thanks for the proving the link to the Great Communicator's quotations, too. I'll check it out to add a few more arrows to my rhetorical anti-RINO quiver.

Cheers!

Jeff and Ziggy
Thank you for rebutting SJ Doc, I'm a committed Christian also and dislike these mindless, bigotted attacks because I am a believer. ditto to both of your posts.

change of subject: I got an invitation from Tom Cole, to attend the 2008 Presidential Dinner. Haaa! They must think I'm in the money, as opposed to what I really am, I ain't got a barrel of money. Besides, I have voted Republican but haven't been a member except once
in the 80's. Independent because of the despicable RINO's. They got an e-mail back,
both barrels (no $), they haven't a clue or they are mindnumbed arrogant twits which is about the same. They get their mail returned also with a fat zero and a few words in their envelope. This column is absolutely insulting.
Mr. Wirs, WE AREN"T TO BLAME for your losses.
I support and vote for conservatives.
Contacting State and local chairs..your are joking, right? I contacted the state chair many times during the primaries, griping about
McCain and I got a return e mail..they will support the nominee, regardless. Snarky and arrogant.
After the GOREBULL Warming speech and todays I am finding it very difficult to even consider this old goat. Someone called Rush last winter, a delegate who wouldn't toe the line for McCain and was told to shape up or ship out, he shipped out. So the delegates won't be with us if that's been the norm, they will be like the lemmings, running over the McCain cliff.
I'm thinking third party for POTUS too, Renaldo Magnus is intriguing but I don't think it will
make a difference to them, they hated him and us. But if enough Americans decide to vote for
an alternate candidate other than one of the stooges, who knows, miracles can happen. I agree, with him buddies with the Swimmer, we aren't going to get any decent judges.

CVN65 (#88)
Please accept my somewhat belated thanks for your kind words about my posts.

Weird Wirs provides a "target rich environment," to say the least!!!

Cheers!

Backstabber
Every time you McCainites bring up Ronald Reagan v. McCain I'm going to ask you to tell me if Reagan ever stabbed his party members in the back?

Did Dole?
Did W?
Did Ford?
Did Newt?
Did Tom Delay?

I can do this all day...

ScottR #77
Fair enough, and well-said.

Glad you don't work for lil' Georgie Soros. :-)

Cheers!

What does it take to get through to you?
... GOP leadership?

I DO control your pocketbook -- you don't have to tell me to get hip to that -- and I am exercising that control.

The way you'd like for me to do it is to send cash so you can ignore my emails, letters, and phone calls.

But I'm wise to you. Pay attention: This is me, controlling your pocketbook.

Millions for conservative candidates. Not one bloody red cent for RINOs.

SJ DOC
I agree with several of your points, but take umbrage at your name calling. I don't think its neccessary or appropiate. I am a conservative. I am also a Christian.I don't require you to believe as I do and it doesn't make me a "whacko nut job"..I believe in smaller government,less spending, and a return to a government under the constitution. In my opinion our Government as presently constituted is unconstitutional and therefore an illegal government. People,including you, are free to agree with that or not...Either way I would be out of bounds to call you a name and feel you should extend the same courtesy to others. Thanks for listening.

Bush/McCain NOT like Reagan
Let's stop that nonsense right now. Today's Republican Party is only a mere shadow of what it used to be. The liberty driven, limited government message of Reagan has clearly been abandoned for Democrat-lite. Honestly, I won't be surprised if McCain worked out something with Hillary to be his running mate if Obama chooses Edwards or Ed Randell.

Check out these quotes from Reagan.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan

The distinction will be crystal clear to those who have been paying attention to this administration. Their views of war, spending, government differ drastically.

Bush is no Reagan Republican. McCain couldn't hold his jockstrap. Reagan would consider THEM to be liberal RINOs.

Leroy, bobthebuilder
Leroy............ your "carbon footprint"!

That needed a Spew Alert, man.



Bob, I posted my comment over 12 hours ago, just checked my email, and NADA. Not even a canned automatically-generated response. Absolutely zilch!

I am sooooooooo bummed!

Could it be because I didn't include my MasterCard number?

I posted a comment
in the GRIPE section of GOP ondemand. Let's see if they respond. And I didn't donate. I did tell them I would after they return to conservative values - and get rid of ALL the RINO's - like that will happen.

bobthebuilder, 2 things...
...first thing, you got to the web site and expected it to do something? As in, be productive? You, young man, are a lot more optomistic than me, I didn't even bother enlarging my carbon foot print to make the trip.

Thing number two, you're quite right, and correct, Mr. Wirs and his buddies haven't heard gripping yet, and don't intend to, they want us all to shut up and morph with the party. "Just fall in line, don't ask questions, we have everything under control, no reason to be concerned, fall in line now..."

CVN65

Great idea. "" Write in Ronald Reagan.""

SJ Doc
Use a smaller brush.

I consider myself to be a real conservative who agrees with many "social conservatives," especially about the holocaust of abortion, and I disagree with your painting social conservatives as "religious whackjobs."

I think if you bothered to look, you will find many "social conservatives" are also Constitutionalists, which you appear to find agreeable, in that they think Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (among others) to be inventions of confused or agenda-driven people rather than decisions based on the Constitution.

I agree with some of your other points about the party leaving us, but I hope you will consider refraining from over-generalizing. It doesn't help.

For the Foundation (1 Cor. 3:11) of the Founders ><>

BTW: Mr Wirs
I don't think your title to the article was very inappropriate. You haven't even heard griping yet.

Seriously - why do you think the GOP is having trouble - WHY?

I just went to the site
I can do what????? with this site???? "GOP on Demand" HUH????? Is it me, I don't get the joke.

Mr. Wirs, I don't think this is what people are looking for. I haven't read the comments yet, but I believe they will be very critical of your seaminly effortless attempt at repackaging the GOP.

We want reform back to the core values of what conservatives stand for - and this is going to do that HOW?

to the GOP & Reimaging - for you Bob--

We aren't buying. You've been bad too long to remake yourself on short notice. Show us. Like bobthebuilder, we're all from Missouri, the "show me state".

This is interesting
MSNBC has headline "GOP in crisis" GOP trying to reimage itself before Nov.

Hydrogen Production Engineer, your
post (#82) was simply outstanding. Thank you for the food for thought.

And Justpaul (#85)...I about lost it with the "ebonics for Republicans!" Mr. Wirs columns often reveal poor spelling, grammar, etc.
You would think he would realize how this reflects him as a columnist overall. Does he proofread? Or does he have someone like his teenager (if he has one) doing the writing for him? Good review of the mistakes this time around.

audax

Have spent a major part of my career and life in Latin America, just about all of it. At present located in the Yucatan but very near to selling my home and considering an alternate.

Matt, good point on the judges.
I have said it over and over whenever the argument about judges is used as a reason to vote for McCain.

McCain, who is in bed with Ted Kennedy? Oh yeah, and what is the likelihood of a strict constructionist judge EVER making it past the starting gate when they have to pass McCain's buddies' approval? Or how about a judicial nominee that would actually turn over McCain-Feingold since it is unconstitutional? A snowball's chance in h*** is what. And that is the reason I refuse to fall for the "it's the judges" argument/vote McCain.

Hahahaha, Ned


Yeah, I use that Truman quote, too, because it is just SO a propos!

Well said, buddy.


Onceamarine..
yes, been to Praha (Prague, just west of Schulenberg) Texas many times and Praha Czech Republic just yesterday.....

Where are you overseas?

audax
good answer. Leaves me open for nearly the same one. The foreign address is the problem so I use an alternate the government and half the world c