« Unintended Costs of "Making Health Care Affordable" | Main | Obama Rhetoric Watch »

May 06, 2010

It's Called "Due Process", Dana

Whatever Dana Milbank has been snorting lately, I want some. It appears to be powerful stuff.

Just a few days ago, Milbank had his Hanes Ultrasheers in a wad over conservatives who have the temerity to believe that the Constitution (aka the supreme law of the land) expressly limits the scope of federal power:

Conservatives have never said that all government is bad. They believe government exists to fill a limited set of needs neither the states nor ordinary citizens have the ability to provide on their own: national security, maintaining a common currency, mitigating natural and man made disasters, regulating interstate commerce.

Wishing Congress and the President to respect those limits is far from being the same as wishing there were no federal government at all. Once again, Mr. Milbank seems to be wondering why Congress can't just do away with Constitutional rights he (and they) personally disapprove of:

"I'm not so sure this is the right solution," Graham said, concerned that those on the terrorist watch list might be denied their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

"If society decides that these people are too dangerous to get on an airplane with other people, then it's probably appropriate to look very hard before you let them buy a gun," countered Bloomberg.

"But we're talking about a constitutional right here," Graham went on. He then changed the subject, pretending the discussion was about a general ban on handguns. "The NRA -- " he began, then rephrased. "Some people believe banning handguns is the right answer to the gun violence problem. I'm not in that camp."

Someone needs to explain due process to Mr. Milbank. The nature of fundamental Constitutional rights is that the federal government isn't supposed to arbitrarily deprive us of them without due process of law. And simply being placed on a watch list isn't due process of law, no matter how much that may disturb Mr. Milbank.

People can be placed on watch lists without notice and without any form of evidentiary or judicial review. Their names can be added erroneously and once there, can be difficult to remove. Since we're playing ideological gotcha here, isn't it progressives who keep reminding us of the dangers of abuse of authority by the law enforcement community? What other Constitutional rights is Mr. Milbank willing to be deprived of by law enforcement?

Moreover, the nature of a right is that it isn't granted subject to the value judgments of pundits. Getting on an airplane isn't a Constitutional right. The right to bear arms, on the other hand, is explicitly protected by the Bill of Rights.

I don't actually want terror suspects to be able to buy guns either, but it would seem that our security could be protected by a less knee jerk reaction. Surely a waiting period or mandatory notification of law enforcement when a flagged individual attempts to buy a gun would address Mr. Milbank's concerns without abridging a fundamental right granted by the Constitution?

If that's not good enough, Mr. Milbank is free to lobby the several states to amend the Constitution and make gun ownership illegal for everyone. After all, by his own logic if progressives want to ban gun purchases by people on terrorism watch lists, they must want to ban all Americans from owning guns.

There is obviously no middle ground here.

Posted by Cassandra at May 6, 2010 05:22 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/3657

Comments

And simply being placed on a watch list isn't "due process of law", no matter how much that may disturb Mr. Milbank. People can be placed on those lists without notice and without any form of evidentiary review.

Oh, Come on. There are only 44,705 of me in this country. Denying enumerated rights to such a trifling number of people on absolutely no basis at all other than that they share a name is no reason to get your ultrasheers in a bunch.

Posted by: John Smith at May 6, 2010 06:40 PM

Yeah, it's not that bad. It only took me a month to convince Tom Ridge, The Director of Homeland Security, to remove my name from the No Fly list.

Hardly any trouble at all.

Posted by: Ted Kennedy (I'm getting better!) at May 6, 2010 06:49 PM

Since we're playing ideological gotcha here, isn't it progressives who keep reminding us of the dangers of abuse of authority by the law enforcement community?

Only because their people are the ones abusing such authority. Making their political opponents take the blame for their own crimes (Deep Throat) is just the icing on the cake.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at May 6, 2010 07:04 PM

Liberals are comical when out of power, alarming when close to it, and mortally dangerous to the Republic when in it.

Posted by: rrpjr at May 6, 2010 07:17 PM

Thank You for posting this! I love your blog!!

Common Cents
http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com

ps. Link Exchange???

Posted by: Steve at May 6, 2010 10:33 PM

Due process, indeed. Overdue, in some instances...as with the recent health care rationing legislation.

Posted by: camojack at May 7, 2010 03:35 AM

Lemme get this straight. Expansion of executive powers, warrantless spying, congress abrogating it's responsibilty to declare war, increasingly invasive airline security procedures, racial profiling, and torture- all in the name of feeling safe and in direct violation of the constitution- are all legitimate and supported actions of the government. Attempting to ensure all citizens have affordable health care, reeling in the out of control corporatocracy, attempting to aid our nation's poorest, and thinking that maybe, just maybe, individuals who have been alleged to be too dangerous to fly on airplanes being allowed to readily purchase firearms might not be such a hot idea is encroaching tyranny. Do I have this right?

Posted by: Remarkulus at May 7, 2010 06:21 AM

I see you need a history lesson about what the federal government provides and should provide. Mitigating natural and man made disasters: How silly and convenient that theory is.

Please read more and blog less and perhaps such crazy and silly thoughts will not come to you.

Posted by: buckjohnson at May 7, 2010 06:36 AM

and thinking that maybe, just maybe, individuals who have been alleged to be too dangerous to fly on airplanes being allowed to readily purchase firearms might not be such a hot idea is encroaching tyranny. Do I have this right?

you never could recognize tyranny to be begin. That was the problem all along.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at May 7, 2010 06:47 AM

Ymar, you ignorant slut :p

Tyranny is when the government does something you do not agree with (as opposed to, say violating the expressly enumerated - and limited - powers reserved for the government in the Constitution).

And if you think the law is supposed to mean something, clearly you want to abolish all government.

*rolling eyes*

Posted by: Cassandra at May 7, 2010 07:37 AM

“A government big enough to supply you with everything you need is a government big enough to take away everything that you have.... The course of history shows that as the government grows, liberty decreases.”

Posted by: Thomas Jefferson at May 7, 2010 07:39 AM

That government is best which governs least.

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.

In matters of power let no more be heard of the confidence in man but bind them down from mischief by the chains of the constitution.

The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all.

"The true theory of our Constitution is surely the wisest and best, that the States are independent as to everything within themselves, and united as to everything respecting foreign affairs. Let the General Government be reduced to foreign concerns only, and let our affairs be disentangled from those of all other nations, except as to commerce, which the merchants will manage the better, the more they are left free to manage for themselves, and our General Government may be reduced to a very simple organization, and a very inexpensive one; a few plain duties to be performed by a few servants."

I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.

A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.

Posted by: Thomas Jefferson at May 7, 2010 07:52 AM

Lemme get this straight. Expansion of executive powers, warrantless spying, congress abrogating it's responsibilty to declare war, increasingly invasive airline security procedures, racial profiling, and torture- all in the name of feeling safe and in direct violation of the constitution- are all legitimate and supported actions of the government.

How, pray tell, are all those -- with the exception of expanding executive powers -- in direct violation of the Constitution?

Please cite paragraph and line number -- you don't have to post the entire Constitution, because I'll just read my copy when you post your references.

Posted by: BillT at May 7, 2010 07:53 AM

And those things Remarkulus thinks government should be doing AREN'T among the federal government's enumerated powers. Hmmmm.

Posted by: Miss Ladybug at May 7, 2010 08:29 AM

Government broke the cherry tree, Washington lied, but that's why DC exists.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at May 7, 2010 08:36 AM

Let me get this straight. The Democrats and the Left almost had an orgasm after seeing dozens of children burn to death in WACO, an innocent man assassinated in Ruby Ridge, and an innocent boy with a new and prosperous future in America taken at gun point and returned to the sadism of Castro Cuba, and they think warrantless spying is a problem?

What's the problem, loli. Not enough people being killed for you to get your rocks off.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at May 7, 2010 08:38 AM

Don't fret, children. I never expected introspection or critical thinking from any of you. Please, by all means, return to your tiny worldviews and pretend none of this happened.

"Orgasms over Waco." Great name for a band. I'm thinking industrial or death metal. How bout you?

Posted by: Remarkulus at May 7, 2010 09:00 AM

A minor quibble: The nature of fundamental Constitutional rights is that the federal government isn't supposed to arbitrarily deprive us of them without due process of law.

Umm, the Federal government cannot deprive us of fundamental Constitutional rights--or of any other Constitutional rights--even with due process of law. Such alterations require an actual Constitutional amendment, not mere law activity.

As you alluded at the end of your original post.

A concept which the Social Democrats of the current Federal administration and of the NLMSM clearly do not get.

Eric Hines

Posted by: E Hines at May 7, 2010 09:32 AM

I'm thinking you're not exactly the brightest light bulb in the knife drawer :p

Posted by: Cassandra at May 7, 2010 09:32 AM

Let me get this straight. The Democrats and the Left almost had an orgasm after seeing dozens of children burn to death in WACO, an innocent man assassinated in Ruby Ridge, and an innocent boy with a new and prosperous future in America taken at gun point and returned to the sadism of Castro Cuba, and they think warrantless spying is a problem?

WOAH WOAH WOAH!!! I don't think anybody was happy with the deaths of those kids in Waco (the adults... eh), Ruby Ridge was hardly an assassination (much less of an "innocent man", Randy Weaver was a disgusting militant white-supremacist who had been stockpiling illegal weapons). And in the sad case of Ilian Gonzales, he WAS kidnapped from his father (which BTW, is what we call it when the non-custodial parent takes a kid and flees the country with them) and his father never gave up his parental rights. Of COURSE Cuba is a brutal Communist dictatorship, and of COURSE Ilian would have been better off here. BUT, the father still has the right to have his child sent back to him. The relatives in Florida HAD threatened violence if law enforcement tried to take the kid back, and I can kind of see why SWAT was called for that one.

Ymar, just because a Democrat is in office does not make every police action during that administration evil, anymore than any action taken during a Republican administration makes them good. Excessive SWAT raids on non-violent offenders took place during the Bush administration, and that wasn't some kind of "jack-booted thuggery" then either.

Posted by: MikeD at May 7, 2010 09:42 AM

Lemme get this straight. Expansion of executive powers,

That's a rather broad complaint that could include anything including having the audacity to have a Chief of Staff (a position not created by the constitution) all the way up to being the CiC of The Airforce (also not created by the constitution)

warrantless spying,

Spying is by definition warrantless. You don't exactly send a warrant to OBL saying you are going to track Al-Qaida's phone calls. If Al Qaida happens to call someone in the US that person is protected because the information (since it was collected without a warrant) is inadmissible in a court or law.

congress abrogating it's responsibilty to declare war,

Didn't happen. Congress did declare war. What it didn't do is Title legislation as "Declaration of War" but please cite chapter and verse of the Constitution which says Congress shall have the power "To Declare War by drafting Legislation which is Titled "Declaration of War". You can't. All it says is "To declare War". That's it. There is absolutly no requirement on *how* congress is to declare war.

increasingly invasive airline security procedures,

You'll find that most of us here opposed the creation of TSA.

racial profiling,

Another broad term as it means very different things to different people. But like it or not the conditional probabilities of being a terrorist given a demographic *are* different and acting like those facts aren't true is stupid. That isn't to say that all Arabic looking people should be searched and white seniors should never be searched. But a 50-50 distribution is simply wasting resources for PC appearances.

and torture-

Another loaded term. 1) The Constituion only bars "cruel and unusual punishment", but the Constitution only applies to citizens and those on US soil. Foreigners on foreign soil are not protected. 2) The 3rd Geneva Conventions apply to uniformed soldiers of a heirarchically structured beligerent who adhere to the conventions themselves (signatories or not), the insurgents in Iraq and Afganistan don't qualify so they lose those protections.

all in the name of feeling safe

As we seem to be finding out now that Obama's "Smart Diplomacy" isn't working out so well we didn't just "feel safer" but actually *were safer*.

and in direct violation of the constitution-

Nope, already demonstrated that isn't true.

are all legitimate and supported actions of the government.

Legitimate, yes. Supported not necessarily. There are lots of things the Gov't is allowed to do that I don't want it to do. The two are not at all the same thing.

Attempting to ensure all citizens have affordable health care,

Here's a good example of my prior comment. The constitution gives Congress unlimited spending power. A single payer scheme would not be unconstitutional. It's just bloody stupid.

They reeling in the out of control corporatocracy,

Oh yes. Let's get business out of gov't by making business and the gov't the same thing. BRILLIANT! [/sarc]

attempting to aid our nation's poorest,

...and doing a pitiful job of it. Gov't is the only entity whose failure is justification for *more* of it.

and thinking that maybe, just maybe, individuals who have been alleged to be too dangerous to fly on airplanes being allowed to readily purchase firearms might not be such a hot idea is encroaching tyranny.

And I allege that someone with your same name (but not you) is too dangerous to fly on an airplane. Can I now take your right to bear arms? And if I can do that, can I take away your right to free speach? Can I take away your right to assemble? Can I quarter a soldier in your home? Can I take away your right to petition the gov't for redress? Can I take away your right not to testify against yourself? Can I dispense with the whole warrant business completely? After all, if you are fine with denying constitutional rights based on nothing more than an allegation against someone who happens to share your same name (not even against *you*), how in the helk do you complain about denying any other constitutional violation? The constitution is not a buffet where you can pick and choose which rights you want to protect.

Do I have this right?

In a word: NO.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at May 7, 2010 11:00 AM

Thanks Yu-Ain..

Posted by: crazy mike at May 7, 2010 11:04 AM

Randy Weaver was a disgusting militant white-supremacist who had been stockpiling illegal weapons

Disgusting, maybe; that's a matter of taste. Militant, no. White-supremacist, no. Stockpiling, no. Illegal weapons, no. One shotgun altered at the request and direction of BATF in an attempt to coerce him into spying on others, yes.


The level of ignorance is astounding. Now, about the Branch Davidians ... no, I'm going to go have a good day.

Posted by: htom at May 7, 2010 11:11 AM

Listen, kiddies, if you are going to defend torture AND go so far as to link torture to the "enumerated authority of government," you have already lost any argument you are trying to make and you have no legitimacy in any discussion pertaining to the defense of our liberties. Although you do verify what some people are saying about you: that your comprehension of what the America is supposed to be about is no greater than a toddler's comprehension of the moon ans stars.

That's not me saying it, mind you. I think you're great. But try telling them.

Posted by: Remarkulus at May 7, 2010 11:17 AM

WOAH WOAH WOAH!!! I don't think anybody was happy with the deaths of those kids in Waco (the adults... eh)

Sorry, gotta go with Ymar, here. What exactly about having whacked out religous beliefs makes their deaths inconsequential?

Ruby Ridge was hardly an assassination (much less of an "innocent man", Randy Weaver was a disgusting militant white-supremacist who had been stockpiling illegal weapons).

So disgusting people don't have rights? Secondly, Randy wasn't killed: His wife and child, however, were. What exactly were their sins? And all of it because the court screwed up and told him the wrong date for his court appearance.

Neither qualify as "assasinations" (the deaths of people were certainly not the intention of the actions) but the gov't did royally screw the pooch on both.

BUT, the father still has the right to have his child sent back to him.

I'll grant you this one is gray. The problem is that the father did not actually possess the freedom to make his wishes known. Kinda hard to say he wanted his son to stay in the US with a gun in his back, yanno?

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at May 7, 2010 11:25 AM

Remarkulus,

I noticed you didn't actually refute anything I said.

I don't like your argument and therefore I, I mean, some other people, think you're stupid isn't an argument.

But thanks for coming, you're great.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at May 7, 2010 11:30 AM

Refute anything you said? What would be the point, exactly? Improved digital dexterity?

Look, I'm sorry. I've been grouchy all day. We got off on the wrong foot. Let me start again.

All I'm saying is, if you were silent and/or supported the abuses of the Bush years, I don't want to hear a peep from you about encroaching government in the Obama years. You do not get to justify abuse of the constitution on one hand and rail against the same on the other and get to be treated seriously. The fact is there are very few of us who legitimately fight against government intrusion in our bedrooms, our persons, and our property regrdless of what party is in power. And I don't see any representatives on this blog.

You folks don't even get that with the same breath that you're arguing for closed borders and profiling and no fly lists and "show me your papers," you're arguing for allowing suspected terrorists to be able to purchase lethal weapons. Or if you do get it, you cannot see the disconnect. Where were you people when the government was building fences along this free country's border, or when we were allowing police officers broad authority to pull us over and search our vehicles because we aren't wearing a seat belt, or allowing our government to seize our property for alleged drug offenses, or allowing our government to collect our personal communications regardless of how innocuous, or allowing our government to fine a broadcaster because a nipplewas flashed for the briefest of moments on live tv, or...

The fact is, if all of your paranoid delusions do actually come to fruition, it will be all your fault regardless of what you complain about now.

Posted by: Remarkulus at May 7, 2010 12:05 PM

Refute anything you said? What would be the point, exactly? Improved digital dexterity?

Unless your idea of a conversation is the pointless exchange of ad hominems, responding to other people's points is the general point.

If what you prefer is a feces flinging contest, move along.

You folks don't even get that with the same breath that you're arguing for closed borders and profiling and no fly lists and "show me your papers," you're arguing for allowing suspected terrorists to be able to purchase lethal weapons.

And you (apparently) don't understand the critical difference between Lists of Suspected Persons and, oh I don't know, it actually being proven you're a terrorist. We don't deprive people of their rights on nothing more than suspicion (which is, I believe, the argument you folks used to explain to us why detaining non-citizen combatants was "unConstitutional" even though non-citizens aren't granted any rights by the Constitution). But apparently you don't believe in extending the same rights to American citizens that you think ought to be extended to non-citizens.

Got inconsistency?

All countries have the right to defend their borders and enforce their laws, and all countries distinguish between citizens (who are treated one way) and non-citizens (who have a different legal status). Pretending these two things are the same may make you feel like a wonderful human being, but try that in any of the enlightened nations of Europe and see how far you get :p

Posted by: Cassandra at May 7, 2010 12:22 PM

I never expected introspection or critical thinking from any of you.

However, I *did* expect answers to my question. Silly me.

Listen, kiddies, if you are going to defend torture AND go so far as to link torture to the "enumerated authority of government," you have already lost any argument you are trying to make and you have no legitimacy in any discussion pertaining to the defense of our liberties.

The Left has defined "torture" as "annoying temporary discomfort inflicted on people who were caught trying to kill American soldiers" -- I know people who have had their bones broken with pieces or rebar for *not* killing women and children, then forced to watch as every member of their families were brought into their cells and then shot.

"Kiddies" my left foot, chum -- you haven't seen enough of the world to be out of the diaper stage.

Posted by: BillT at May 7, 2010 12:43 PM

Non-citizens are granted some rights by the 14th Amendment, which distinguishes between "citizens" and merely "person." The rights of persons are as follows:

"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

So, the idea is that you can't grab somebody off the street of NYC and detain him without a lawyer, etc., whether or not he's a citizen. He has all the usual 5th Amendment rights. If you capture him in a cave in Afghanistan, where there are no US courts or laws in force, a non-US citizen can be dealt with according to the laws of war; but a US citizen retains his rights.

I take it this is Sen. Lieberman's point about inclusion of terrorists alongside Americans who have joined a foreign army. (This 'loss of citizenship for joining a foreign army' thing is longstanding but stupid; a US citizen who joins an allied army, like the Escadrille Lafayette, should not be subject to penalties, and a US citizen who joins an enemy army should retain his citizenship but be tried for treason.)

That actually raises an interesting question with regard to the 2nd Amendment: does the exercise of that right constitute "equal protection of the laws"? If so, there's no Constitutional foundation for denying resident aliens (for example) the same right to keep and bear arms that you or I have. Whatever the state does, it has to do equally.

Alternatively, we could say that the 2nd Amendment rights pertain to citizens only. It's not hard to do that: you can say, "Well, arms bearing is like voting: it's something that pertains to the nature of citizenship, as a stakeholder in the social contract that founds the Republic." However, that opens the door to leaving resident aliens deprived of their right to self defense -- which is a basic human right.

Posted by: Grim at May 7, 2010 12:44 PM

the Federal government cannot deprive us of fundamental Constitutional rights--or of any other Constitutional rights--even with due process of law.

I will agree with that statement in the aggregate, as in "the federal government cannot legislate or dictate Constitutional rights away by fiat". But I meant that individuals cannot be deprived of their rights without due process.

Individuals absolutely can be deprived of their liberty by the government, but that power is subject to due process. And we can be deprived of our property as well, but we have the right to appeal in court.

Sorry I wasn't more clear as to what I meant by "we" - i.e., each of us, as opposed to all of us.

Posted by: Cassandra at May 7, 2010 01:33 PM

All I'm saying is, if you were silent and/or supported the abuses of the Bush years, I don't want to hear a peep from you about encroaching government in the Obama years.

Accept, as I showed, you didn't actually cite any real abuses. The closest you came was TSA and that is at best an infringement of the unenumerated right to travel. Constitutionally, it's a vague area, but as I said, I doubt there are many here who supported its creation.

And I don't see any representatives [of fighting gov't abuse regardless of who is in power] on this blog.

Then you haven't been around long enough. There are quite a few around her for drug legalization, some that are for prostitution legalization and no one to my recollection supported Texas' law against homosexual sex. Three examples things that occurred under *both* republican and democrat administrations. Usually, when someone comes to conclusions about people based on their preconcieved notions we call that prejudice.

You folks don't even get that with the same breath that you're arguing for closed borders and profiling and no fly lists and "show me your papers," you're arguing for allowing suspected terrorists to be able to purchase lethal weapons.

Closed borders? No. In fact, immigration should be much easier than it is. But that does not mean that immigration should be as easy as swimming accross a river. Choosing between only those two is a false dichotomy.

Profiling? Do you really mean to say we should ignore facts because they're inconvenient? Sure it's correlation and not causation, but until we can find the causative factors, it's the best we got for optimizing resources.

No Fly lists? Not really a fan of them. When a US Senator shows up on the list and it takes *him* a month to get off it and that only after direct personal appeals to the Director of Homeland Security your process is seriously FUBAR.

"show me your papers,"

Yes, that's just tragic. Arizona's law has only been federal law for decades (under both R and D admins mind you). In fact, Arizona's law is even more liberal in that you have to be detained for suspicion of a crime while the federal law only specifies "contact". So saying "Hello" to a federal agent can get a "show me your papers" but not to an Arizona LEO. Yep, them Arizonans are just bastards. [/sarc]

you're arguing for allowing suspected terrorists to be able to purchase lethal weapons.

No, we're arguing that sharing the name of a suspected terrorist is not enough to infringe on an enumerated right. When you can devise a method that identifies the actual suspected terrorist then we'll talk.

BTW, exactly how long do you think it'll be before 90% of all the names in this country are on the list (especially since you aren't allowed to see it)?

(Personally, I think if you can't be trusted in society with a firearm, I just stop at the first part and think you can't be trusted in society period.)

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at May 7, 2010 02:12 PM

Except, not Accept. PIMF.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at May 7, 2010 02:14 PM

I don't want to hear a peep from you about encroaching government in the Obama years.

This is the same craptastic thinking behind the Left trying to get people to go to war so that they'll shut up about their WMD lies.

However, that opens the door to leaving resident aliens deprived of their right to self defense -- which is a basic human right.

Simple solution to that. Link firearms training and marksmanship to voting rights. Can't have one without the other.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at May 7, 2010 04:19 PM

The Left considers the police questioning them "torture".

Such standards lead to their current erratic and simplistic behavior.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at May 7, 2010 04:23 PM

Looks like they missed the father in Ruby Ridge but got everybody else. They can't even carry out non-judicial executions correctly, I see.

Effective and uniform use of terror tactics can inspire order amongst the population. But ineffective or incompetent methods used simply generates feelings of disgust, disrespect, and ridicule against the occupation forces.

Don't fret, children. I never expected introspection or critical thinking from any of you.

That's cause you feel better by finding people and causes to hate and attack. Like most criminals, they always tell themselves that they are right and anybody that gets in their way is wrong and needs to be taught a lesson. Self-justification becomes the criminal's end goal and its own world. No need to live in this world any more.

For many people, hate is a form of self-medication. So many internal conflicts and emotions tear at you in your heart of heart's that you just simply have to find a release valve. Somebody to blame, somebody whose fault it is. Somebody, anybody, that is the cause of your disconnect from normal functioning society.

You go around the internets trying to find people to argue with, negating their thoughts and inner hearts, because it serves your desired purpose. Your "fix".

The butcher expects no introspection or critical thinking from the cow. The torturer treats the subjects as children, to be used or abused however one sees fit.

The Left is full of people like you. Even if their goals were noble and their philosophy sound, the corruption in the heart of the Left would render it evil regardless of the nobility of the thought.

Btw, talking about children after I said you were a "loli" probably wasn't a good idea.


Posted by: Ymarsakar at May 7, 2010 04:31 PM

(which BTW, is what we call it when the non-custodial parent takes a kid and flees the country with them) and his father never gave up his parental rights. Of COURSE Cuba is a brutal Communist dictatorship, and of COURSE Ilian would have been better off here. BUT, the father still has the right to have his child sent back to him.

So basically it is as I said. The Left created feminism and gender warfare which tried to take children from fathers, and now those fathers end up support Communism in order to "preserve their rights".

I hate to tell you this, but supporting Communism Is Not Going to do anything about preserving the rights of ANYBODY.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at May 7, 2010 04:39 PM

Here are some pictures.

Link

The lawyer's account went somewhere else entirely.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at May 7, 2010 05:37 PM

Liberals are comical when out of power, alarming when close to it, and mortally dangerous to the Republic when in it. Posted by: rrpjr at May 6, 2010 07:17 PM

This is a trait they share in common with Republicans.

Posted by: I Call BS at May 7, 2010 09:00 PM

Ymar, you ignorant slut :p Posted by: Cassandra at May 7, 2010 07:37 AM

True, dis ...

Posted by: I Call BS at May 7, 2010 09:01 PM

> Their names can be added erroneously and once there, can be difficult to remove.

More critically, it's a name, not a unique identifier. There are a number of people of Islamic descent who have the same name as a banned individual, and who actually have to carry around a special notification that they are NOT the individual banned from flying.

It would be nice if the list was better implemented, but, hey -- it's the government.

Posted by: O Bloody Hell at May 8, 2010 02:38 AM

I hear another ship got sunk.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at May 8, 2010 08:30 AM

Here's some fun with accents until Cassandra is back.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at May 9, 2010 02:03 PM

What we need is the fifth element.

Posted by: Cricket at May 9, 2010 05:30 PM

I could use a fifth, but I'd settle for a six-pack...

Posted by: BillT at May 9, 2010 05:52 PM

Congress will plead the Fifth.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at May 10, 2010 06:01 AM

Post a comment

To reduce comment spam, comments on older posts are put into moderation 5 days after the last activity. Comments with more than one link also go into moderation. If you don't see your comment after posting it, try refreshing the screen. If you still don't see it, your comment is probably in the moderation queue.




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)