I keep trying to imagine what Jefferson, or someone like him, would do today.

I think that it would get really ugly, really fast.

He would be labeled as a nut and ridiculed on the 24 hour news networks.

"Tom, your union held. It took another three generations and a civil war to free the slaves, but it expanded and developed over pretty much the entire known useable land mass. By 150 years later, through the freedom found by the nature of government you proposed, and the ingenuity of its people, it has become the strongest nation on earth. In fact it helped save England from Prussian takeover by joining on its old foe's side. Now its currency is the most traded, its culture the most copied, its incorporations the most valued, and its military completely without equal."

OK TS, you give him the bad news.

WWJD~~ What Would Jefferson Do? :biggrin:

Well it's nice to see that there are still blatant elitists/pompus asses/clods still walking around on earth, sometimes I get worried that aren't enough of you around. You still haven't gotten my point and doubt you ever will. I was making reference to the authority of the king through God, and that this code was constructed to see that goodness and greatness of God bestowed on all his people. In the Epilogue of the code it also states that Hammurabi also condems destruction to whomever breaks the code to the God of righteousness, because he would be dead you brute, of course it was supposed to go past the lives of kings. Men carrying on man made tradition is fool hearty and ill-advised, but as exhibited by the ruin of Babylon. Your continued obsession over the word divination gives me a hint that you are probably nothing more than a hyped up bean counter with time to waste posting here for all the many years you've been spouting your nonsense. I would love to scrutinize one of your posts, but they seem to be attack oriented and of a venomous and contemptious nature with little more than negative dim whitted sarcasm attached to each worthless word.

To my point:

"Hammurabi, the king of righteousness, on whom Shamash has conferred right (or law) am I. My words are well considered; my deeds are not equaled; to bring low those that were high; to humble the proud, to expel insolence. If a succeeding ruler considers my words, which I have written in this my inscription, if he do not annul my law, nor corrupt my words, nor change my monument, then may Shamash lengthen that king's reign, as he has that of me, the king of righteousness, that he may reign in righteousness over his subjects. If this ruler do not esteem my words, which I have written in my inscription, if he despise my curses, and fear not the curse of God, if he destroy the law which I have given, corrupt my words, change my monument, efface my name, write his name there, or on account of the curses commission another so to do, that man, whether king or ruler, patesi, or commoner, no matter what he be, may the great God (Anu), the Father of the gods, who has ordered my rule, withdraw from him the glory of royalty, break his scepter, curse his destiny"

- This section binds his curse to future leaders by the will of God, which is my point on the code it's bound by God, the king is just the God's representative, that was my contention, you chose to view it as only the king's authority, that's your problem.

"When Anu the Sublime, King of the Anunaki, and Bel, the lord of Heaven and earth, who decreed the fate of the land, assigned to Marduk, the over-ruling son of Ea, God of righteousness, dominion over earthly man, and made him great among the Igigi, they called Babylon by his illustrious name, made it great on earth, and founded an everlasting kingdom in it, whose foundations are laid so solidly as those of heaven and earth; then Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land"

- this goes to my point on divination, in many accounts of Hammurabi's inspiration of the law, and in the very text of the code, he makes reference to divine inspiration, in the name of righteousness, being spoken to and so forth. This isn't even taking into account that he consulted an oracle from time to time.

On the issue of my use of divination, my usuage of the word was in reference to what Hammurabi felt was his calling. My usage was as such: Example: Oxford English Dictionary: "the practice of divining or seeking knowledge by supernatural needs" Example : American Heritage Dictionary: "Something that has been divined"

Whether Hammurabi believed it to be set from high or not, which I believe he did, the fact remains that the authority set out in the law stems from God, or Gods in this case, that's it, and frankly I refuse to be daunted by your chastising, it's a matter of interpretation on the usage of this word. Your chose to look at any possible given meaning to the contrary, avoiding the fact that, although this set of laws had many secular applications and regualted many mundane processes, the prologue and the epilogue make reference to the heavenly nature of its origin. The concept of doing good is the key point here, why do good, because its the right thing to do? Says who? Some guy, no it's the representive of God in this case, that's all. I refuse to address any further commentary my spelling mistakes, I think a simple spelling error says nothing about comprehesion or knowledge of a subject if done in haste and in an informal medium such as this.

-Walrus

If I tell you that you are never again allowed to put salt on your food and my authority to make that decree comes from God, then of course you will stop using salt because it is God's will. Right? :eyebrow:

While I'm certainly no stranger to sarcasm, you needn't be so heavy handed with it. :)

I don't think that our accomplishments to date are as important as our current direction. I'm hoping that things will be smoothed over when we take the average down the road, but I'm rather sure that our current vector would not please him as they are now.

Random thing I noticed... you used to write it as G-d. Did you have a change of heart about that rule as it applies to digital writing, or did you just forget? Just curious.

We're starting to act like England.

absolutely not. we still visit dentists.

It was a conscious decision. In my mind at least the idea of using G-d is not to 'use the Lord's name in vain'. In Orthodox Judaism, I believe that they limit themselves, in both Hebrew and English, to using G-d or a Hebrew equivalent for everything outside of prayer. In addition, when reciting a prayer for practice or scholarly purposes, they will change the normally recited name of God, which is itself not a direct phonetic translation of the word as it is written. The word used for non-religious purposes is Hashem "the name". The word used in synagogue translates as 'Lord'. The word actually written in text and never used is the "Y" word, thought to be the proper name of God.

IMO, discussing religion and advancing knowledge in general are not light pursuits and so I am moving away from worrying about it being 'vain'.

P.S. I just did a fact check and found this link which gives two of the names discussed above, along with others I had never heard. "Hashem" is not listed, possibly because it is a spoken convention. I also found that I was wrong about the 'Y' word never being used. There is one exception in English, but I am pretty sure I have never heard it used in synagogue.

Oh dear.

Time for a recap because it's getting lost in the noise and there's come serious cognitive dissonance and cross talking going on.
A very, very long time ago you stated, incorrectly:
I've been trying to get that though and you've been dodging the point ever since. The only other point I made, etymology & definition of divination aside, was that the code was not meant to be changed by future kings - it was meant to be a fundamental legal construct beyond their power. I mean this is the thing, I'm well aware the King got his mandate of sorts from the gods but regents and vice regents aren't normally related are they? (we're not talking prince-regents here obviously)

What I don't get, is where you got the idea I was denying the King's authority came from god. It has no bearing on whether the code itself was largely secular, which is what I posted to start this. You seem to have problems with separating the two, maybe we're talking at cross purposes. I obviously feel that the code can be secular in a theocratic governmental structure and that while the code may have been obeyed for religious reasons it was still a largely secular system of laws. Do you disagree? To save hunting around:
Judding by:
I'd say yes. This is the core of the whole thing, I think he was a wise bloke that realized that a separate code of laws was key to stable and just government, you think it was a religious thing.

I did? I said that the king was not descended from the Gods, that's all.

That is (Oxford at least, not sure about that crappy American dictionary since you didn't post how it defines divined) the same as the Cambridge one. It however makes no sense contextually.
You stated:
.
So you think so the kings were afforded their rule though seeking knowledge by supernatural deeds? Rightyo.

Yea, secular liberal democracy is a silly idea, let's go back to a dark-ages theocratic government, that rocked. And you wonder why I think you're a halfwit, it's pompous, ludicrous twaddle like this.

Well if you believe god will smite you down with a whacking great thunderbolt for doing so, yea. Cultural paradigms and all that anthropological claptrap.

I wasn't being sarcastic at all. I think Mr. Jefferson would be utterly pleased with the outcome AND the direction. I wanted to put a fine point on it by telling the story of what happened in the big picture. And with the lack of any truly negative narrative offered so far I have to assume I was right.

Wouldn't the old boy be a touch pissed about the federal government gradually grabbing power?

Basically, Jefferson coming back to encounter the modern US would have the same net result as Jesus coming back to encounter the modern church. Something along the lines of "The Man in the Iron Mask" comes to mind. :eyebrow:

I think he would find the modern world different from the post-colonial one, in ways that make federalism less of a concern. The main issues would be whether the government remains representational and the country free and productive. Check check and check.

The difference in perspective between you two is intersting. I don't knwo nearly enough to know who is right but while UT has a point, he always seemed to be jolly pragmatic surely the erosion of lot of rights would have been....unwelcome.

He would approve of international kidnapping? Unilateral invasion of sovereign nation without one valid reason and without even a declaration of war. Mandating the principles of one religion on all other people? Running up debts at record levels using accounting that would be fraud anywhere else. Government free access to a person's home and of personal papers without even a court order (Patriotic acts). Government approved torture as long as the body damage is not permanent. And a people who would even encourage this - with veins hanging from their teeth. Clearly Jefferson would be happy?

Jefferson owned slaves. Jag's hit on it, I think he would have been pragmatic about it.

One of my points is skew to the politics involved. The big picture is what's really important. We can always find faults and we perceive some problems as being just enormous... when perhaps they aren't, and it's just our perception that's at fault.

Look at surveys of public opinion and you see that lists of the "most important issues" change constantly. One year the economy is the most important issue. Next year the war is the most important issue. Next year the environment is the most important issue. Next year crime is the most important issue.

9/11 was a perfect example of this. Clearly, the most important issue in the USA in the year 2000 was terrorism. In surveys of public opinion it would not have made the top 100.

We are not immune. Right here on the cellar is a thread asking whether we "feel safe" - I might have asked the question, even. But the question is silly. On 9/10/2001 100% would have answered YES. Everyone felt completely safe. The real question is ARE we safe, not do we FEEL safe.

Each and every one of us here is perfectly convinced we know the most important issues to our nation and the world. A third of us believe it is the environment, another third believe it is military/governmental overreach, and another third believe it is following the will of their god. Two-thirds of us are wrong!

Sorry for the threadjacking...

I was being sarcastic, Jag. Anyone can set down rules and claim it's god"s will. Don't make it so.
Which is why Bush stonewalls knowing the public will lose interest shortly and move on to the next subject at the water cooler. Also why Nixon would have succeeded had it not been for people like TW with the tenacity to beat the drum till the public took notice. I disagree. The truth is we are never safe, be it a terrorist, rabid mailman of diseased mosquito. But feeling safe has a great deal of effect on our quality of life. People in jail have much less chance of being killed in a car crash but I think they'd rather be driving. :)

looks like iamthewalrus109 has bitten the dust, oh well, wheat from the chaff.
Yea my bad there but my point stands, build up enough stuff around it and people start believing you, look at all the wacky cults and their followers out there, all you need is good salesmanship. Soon as that happens whether it is or not is moot.

Oh No! Not LumberJimism! :eek:

I've been waiting for LJ to get tired of the car game and go into televangelism.

He's got the look for it.

And the necessary gregariousness.

They'd have to put him on tape delay to bleep out the naughty words :D

I think that Jefferson would be amazed at the way things have turned out. Remember, in his day, they left the only home they'd ever known to go to a new country that was barely habitable except in the few "urban" centers, and create an entirely new way of running a country. There were some monarchists in the new world, but the majority of the folks were into freedom and becoming something more than just another British colony (not that there's anything WRONG with that). The FF's had the backing of the populace.

Today, Jefferson would see a country with an unfathomable number of citizens, living in conditions that are downright Utopian for the most part, arguing the finer points of government and Constitutionality, arguing WITH the government without fear of reprisal (for the speech, anyway). I'd think he'd be beside himself. Plus, he'd think airplanes are cool.

Jesus, on the other hand, would probably need some Alka-Seltzer.

He's cable-ready. I think it would work.

All things considered, I'd be a _lot_ more comfortable with the God Squad if their Congressional representatives didn't keep submitting bills like the Constitution Restoration Act to Congress. What in the blue fuck is _wrong_ with people, my alleged district representative among them, who have attempted to make this bill a law _twice? (It was introduced last year by Zell Miller and Sam Brownback with Judge Roy Moore present, reached subcommittees and died there, and was reintroduced a few weeks ago.)

Text of <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.1070:">House bill</a>, companion <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN00520:@@@L&summ2=m&">Senate bill</a>

Summary:
<i>Constitution Restoration Act of 2005 - Amends the Federal judicial code to prohibit the U.S. Supreme Court and the Federal district courts from exercising jurisdiction over any matter in which relief is sought against an entity of Federal, State, or local government or an officer or agent of such government concerning that entity's, officer's, or agent's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.

Prohibits a court of the United States from relying upon any law, policy, or other action of a foreign state or international organization in interpreting and applying the Constitution, other than English constitutional and common law up to the time of adoption of the U.S. Constitution.

Provides that any Federal court decision relating to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction by this Act is not binding precedent on State courts.

Provides that any Supreme Court justice or Federal court judge who exceeds the jurisdictional limitations of this Act shall be deemed to have committed an offense for which the justice or judge may be removed, and to have violated the standard of good behavior required of Article III judges by the Constitution.</i>

Let's break this down, shall we?

The second paragraph is a direct slap at O'Connor, Ginsburg, Kennedy and the others in the "liberal-moderate" wing of the Supreme Court, who have cited international law on several occasions as being worthy of examination and comparison when judging our own law. However, that's not the spookiest part.

Paragraph one: The Federal Courts, including the Supremes, would now have _zero_ jurisdiction over any case involving Christianity. Paragraph three removes past findings in these areas as binding precedents on state courts.

Roy Moore's Ten Commandments idol? Replaced. Sodomy laws? Back in black. Laws banning abortion or a variety of other things on the explicit grounds that "God says it's wrong?" Suddenly quite possible.

Imagine a state whose courts are packed with fundies. (If that sounds like a stretch, imagine Alabama.) Its state legislature passes some noxious and discriminatory bill on religious grounds. If the highest state appellate court upholds the bill, it's DONE, because it cannot be appealed to and overturned by ANY federal court.

Extra incentive for that? Paragraph four. If a judge violates this new jurisdiction and tries to overturn some blatantly unconstitutional law that's religion-themed, it's considered an offense worthy of impeachment and removal from the bench.

Fucked if I even want to _think about_ driving through the South if this bill somehow passes.

The political ju-jitsu involved is both clever and dangerous. Goes something like this:

* Congress: Hey! Supreme Court! You now have no jurisdiction over God-related laws. We can put up the Commandments, enshrine Old Testament law into American law, and do anything we want in the name of God. Nyahh.

* Supremes: Fuck THAT. That's unconstitutional.

* Congress: Ah, but we've removed your ability to judge that to be unconstitutional, using Article III of the Constitution as our basis. Better yet, if you _try_ to rule that way anyway, we can impeach any of you who do so.

* Supremes: ... Shit.

CAN Congress pass a law that specifically exempts itself, much less an entire class of laws, from federal court jurisdiction and Constitutional scrutiny without amending the Constitution itself? Do they have the independent authority via Article III to do this? It's a Constitutional clusterfuck waiting to happen that'd make Watergate look like a parking ticket hearing.

Now, is this likely to pass or even reach the floor for full consideration? No. It'd be a very open admission of "We want theocracy" by the hard right, and thus would have its share of Republican defectors. It's been submitted once before, and went nowhere. Many lawmakers have a habit of submitting bills that are more symbolic than serious. I'm not losing too much sleep over the possibility.

But when the House Majority Leader has come right out and declared war on the judicial branch, he's under severe scrutiny and may be on the way out, and there's a bill in the House and Senate _already_ that would clamp down severely upon the "activist judiciary" who are "tyrannizing" the country (a country whose former president he attempted to impeach, citing "He holds the wrong Biblical worldview" as one of the justifications)... well... I itch.

Just a bit.

One more time, just in case you didn't get it ...

Freedom of is not freedom from.

And I have no idea what that has to do with a proposed law that would not only specifically endorse Christianity, but remove all judicial checks and balances ensuring freedom OF.

Nice post and analysis vsp. But I would look into getting my dosage of anti-itch medication reduced, because this kind of story is not the warning of an attack, it is the attack.

You and I both have seen the most unrealistic proposals gain traction and reality from sheer repetition. By saying it over and over and over again, it becomes familiar, and from familiar to reasonable. Look at our police officers--how they're always having to arrest criminals. I mean they wouldn't arrest them if they weren't guilty, right? But what happened to the presumtion of innocence? Oversaturation by the idea that we arrest guilty people leads to belief. Repetition doesn't create truth, but it can create belief.

Which is why this story is dangerous.

Ironically, the way to combat this insidious attack on the foundation of our nation's guiding priciples is MORE discussion. This kind of story can not live in the light of day. Even loud long exclamations like the chicken little lies we've heard this week from both the President and the Congress about "saving" Terri Schaivo did not mislead the majority of the population. When the ridiculous anti-constitutional idea of having Congress write a Federal law to "save" one person (that's how it was spun), was revealed to the people, they saw how wrong it was and rejected the Fed's attempt to extend it's control into our lives.

This power grab you write about is much more frightening, but still has the same vulnerabilities. When people see and hear this wrongness, they will reject this one too.

Except that the entire law is itself unconstitutional and the if the court rules it so, cannot be enforced. The only way for that kind of change to be made is a Constitutional amendment and there the checks and balances will work.

Maybe. It's a stretch, but the proponents of this bill claim that Article III of the Constitution gives Congress the right to restrict the judiciary's oversight of the Constitution, literally locking away entire classes of laws and saying "You _can't_ rule these to be unconstitutional, because we've taken away your right to do so." That's a Pat Robertson wet dream right there, as it would give states the ability to become miniature Christian-right fiefdoms without federal recourse.

Would it work? Which side (the legislature saying "No, you can't" or the courts saying "yes, we CAN") would be enforceable, and how? Hopefully, it'll never be tested.

Man, this could get seriously ugly. Maybe we need for it to.

I've been of the opinion, for a few years now, that it isn't nearly bad enough to get better yet.

It's also been a theory of mine that America as we know it is only a stepping stone on a still rather long and bumpy road.

Let's see

If Congress intends to say that displeasing members of Congress is bad behavior, than the courts will have every right to strike down the law. Just like a cop can't get fired for giving a speeding ticket to the mayor, a judge can't be fired for doing his or her job.

If they try this, then it will be the wake-up call for anybody who is anywhere to the left of rabidly stupid right-wing, which includes true conseratives, moderates, libertarians, liberals, .....

Look up hipocrisy in the dictionary, see this cite
 

From here:

RELIGIOUS EXTREMISTS SEEK THEIR OWN 'ACTIVIST' JUDGES

Sat Apr 2, 8:25 PM ET

By Cynthia Tucker

Friends of Florida judge George Greer describe him as a low-key conservative Christian, a Republican, a family man, a dog lover. Appellate courts have found over and over again that Greer simply followed the law in deciding a sad and controversial case. But for that sin, the Pinellas County Circuit Court judge was invited out of his Southern Baptist Church.

Apparently, Greer's critics, including his pastor, didn't like his rulings in the Terri Schiavo case, which landed in his courtroom in 1998. They wanted him to be an activist judge -- a jurist who ignored the law and ruled according to the passions of a group of partisans.

Ultraconservatives want you to believe the term "activist judge" applies to a group of determined liberals whose rulings have overturned historic precedent, undermined morality and defied common sense. But the controversy that erupted around Schiavo, who died on Thursday, ought to remind us once and for all what "activist judge" really means: a jurist whose rulings dissatisfy a right-wing political constituency.

emphasis mine.

I can see inviting the judge out of the church. It's a private organization, like, say the Atlanta Country Club where the Masters Tournament is held that prohibits women from playing. Whatever. Stoooopid, but not really my business. They wouldn't want me, and I f'sho don't want them.

But the whining and clamoring about "activist judges" is a drum I'm worn out beating.

To be plain:

Coming from people who don't get their way, the decisions are coming from "activist judges". When they do get their way, the decisions come from "stalwart constructionists".

This kind of partisan rooting and cheering is something that lends spice to the local football game, but on a national level, um, aren't we all Americans rooting for the Con-sti-too-shun?

Hey, can I get a show of hands here? Who thinks the actions of the courts in the latest round of this story rises to the level of jurisIMprudence, judicial activisim, etc?

Hey Wolf, what kind of bulk discount does Cheaper Than Dirt offer?

You might actually be able to do better if you have stuff drop-shipped from the manufacturer.

True, I hadn't thought about that.

I may go ahead and order that carbine I was looking at as well.

If I might suggest this ...

It's available in a variety of grip styles, so you can match your carry to your carbine ... oh, and yes, the 30 rnd stick mags work just fine. Don't worry about how I know ...

That sound’s logical but what about when a 6.7 magnitude, shallow crust earthquake hits Seattle. 39,000 buildings destroyed, 130 simultaneously burning fires, 7700 dead or badly hurt, every major bridge down, hillsides sliding, a 10 foot wave through the waterfront and emergency services non-existent.
Or a tsunami hits any coast.
Or a dirty bomb in any city.
Now you have martial law in an ever expanding swath to prevent looting, clear the way for emergency services and prevent the spread of disease/contamination. For the children, damn it!!!
It’s a national crisis....unusual measures for unusual times.....we certainly need God’s help in this disaster.....these new laws and “adjustments” are only temporary until......damn it, we don’t have time to debate this......per order of Homeland Security.....if ya got a problem, write your congressman, now get on the damn truck.........cuff him, Dano. :whip:

I had looked at it, and a friend of mine has a pistol of their's. It's rather ugly, although neither of them is a beauty queen.

I don't like the skeletal look and it's a bit pricier.

It's around $350, doesn't have to be beautiful to be functional, and it folds in half. How cool is that?

They also have the SU-16 line, which fires .223, and has a fold down bipod integrated into the design. Oh, and it also folds in half for compact storage.

I want to move to some uniformity in ammunition across my line. It's going to be .40 cal all the way.

All I need is a sub-gun, and the carbine. Or the two combined...

I understand about uniformity of caliber, I'm a .40 woman myself, which is why I selected the KelTec ... not only is it in my favored caliber, but it uses the same magazines.

wolf, TS, I lost the track of the beginning of the weaponry discussion... could you guide me back to the start of it so I can understand what in the world y'all are talkin about, please?

It's my fault. I mentioned buying bulk ammo after seeing the post about the religious wackos who are getting ready to try to take over America.

I will not go quietly in the long night, etc, etc, etc...

I believe that TS is half-jokingly discussing the possibility of a "constitutional crisis". I'm just along for the ride.

Only half?

That reminds me. Where's Slang?

Good question ... what does is location say on his profile right now? That's the only way to keep track.

Location:
rural Minnesota - It could be worse

Ugh...

It's cold it's closer to the Artic Circle, so the days stay darker longer, I could live with that. And they got concealed carry now, I believe.

I may be going to a conference at the Mall of America in Sept 2006 ... okay, in the Hotel connected to the MOA, but you know what I mean.

Do they let you get drunk and then ride on the rollercoaster at Camp Snoopy?

Hey Wolf,

I spoke to my gunsmith today about the Keltec/hi-point carbine question and he said that he has a keltec. So I guess that answers my question, he said the hi-point is the gun to buy if you have to have a gun but don't have much money to spend and since this is not the kind of item you want to cheap out on Keltec it is.

Have fun with it.

Oh, and it makes a hell of a stir when you take it to the range and unfold it.

I had mine right after they came out ... so there weren't a lot of them in the distribution stream at that time. I was shooting it for the first time and everybody in the place wanted to try it ... the range master even came in for a look-see, and he went and got the salesmen from out front ...

Not that this is an issue for you ... but it's New York (State, not city) legal, last time I checked. It's a rifle, so there are fewer restrictions on where you're allowed to transport it and how.

Living In Interesting Times, Vol. 495:

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38308-2005Apr8.html">And The Verdict On Justice Kennedy Is: Guilty</a> (washingtonpost.com)

I am clasping my head like a stunned monkey over ultraconservatives <i>quoting Joseph Stalin approvingly</i>, even at one of their own gatherings.

I suppose that it is unusual for you to hear conservatives referencing someone that the liberals have been worshiping and apologizing for for the last 60-odd years ...

I think somebody at the Post needs to readjust their tinfoil hat, and take a couple Xanax for the hysteria ...

It's not hysteria when they're quoting. :worried:

You seem to be receiving some Stalin-approving liberals in your tinfoil hat, while the Washington Post has an actual quote:

The title of the discussion they were attending was "Remedies to Judicial Tyranny". This is the current goal of the current Republican leadership - to remove the Judicial branch of government as a check to the others. You can only keep pretending that this is just some fringe group for so long.

You know, I wonder what it was like to be one of the groups on the 'list' in 1930's Germany, watching the government crack down on some other group, and then watch them pass the first laws restricting your movements or other freedoms. A lot of people, at least the majority who still believe the Holocaust actually happened, probably believe that the death camps went up overnight and caught everyone by surprise.

A lot of people thought the Nazi's were a 'bunch of crackpots' or 'a passing fad'. Some even allied themselves with the group in the hopes of gaining some benefit or saving themselves from harm.

By the time the hammer came down, the victims were so legally and politically marginalized that there was no legal solution, since the law itself had been corrupted.

Hysteria? "Liberals worshiping Stalin?" Physician, heal thyself.

If there's one thing that most ultraconservatives have always had in common, it's been their staunch belief that Communism is THE ENEMY, to the point that some are _still_ flinging "socialist" at American leftists as the ultimate pejorative. (Which dates them nicely, as Communism is old and busted and Islamofascism is the new hotness. Didn't you get the memo?)

So when an ultraconservative endorses one of the slogans of the most infamous and brutal Soviet leader of the 20th Century, pointing at him and saying "Hey, here's a guy who said something intelligent that we should learn from, and it involves killing those who oppose your goals," am I entitled to allow my jaw to drop a little bit?

Just a little tiny bit?

Thanks.

EDIT: No, I'm not done after all, because this is the second time Wolf has snipped at me in this thread, and I'm more than a little annoyed at being dismissed again like a know-nothing conspiracy crank or a Phil Hendrie caller.

You can call them "Dominionists." You can call them "Christian Reconstructionists." They have a variety of names, organizations and support structures. But the bottom line is this: there _are_ a bunch of people out there who want nothing less than to replace as much of our American system of government and laws as possible with a system that'll govern according to a much stricter Biblical worldview.

Are they the majority (or even a sizeable minority) among religious people in general or Christians, Republicans or conservatives specifically? No, which is what allows me to sleep at night. But they're out there, and you can't just fucking wish them into the cornfield and pretend that they don't exist.

Randall Terry just spent a couple of weeks on CNN and Fox News and such as a high-profile spokesman in an issue of high national interest, and they treated him like someone with a shred of credibility rather than as a raving fucking loon, someone who matches the definition of "terrorist" more closely than a lot of people in Guantanamo Bay and someone who's openly stated repeatedly that the US needs to become a theocracy yesterday. RANDALL FUCKING TERRY!

Things like that wouldn't unsettle me so much if _some of our elected officials_ weren't openly receptive to these people. This isn't just Sean Hannity saying "I need ratings and the far right watches me, so I'll invite some fundie huckleberries onto Hannity and Idiot tonight"; there are far too many Dobson-types who have at least some of the ear of Bush and some of Congress. The Republican Party grew and nurtured Frankenfundie through the 80's and 90's as part of their support base, and they have to feed it once in a while; some of them aren't even shy about throwing red meat to that crowd. DeLay. Santorum. Brownback. The dearly departed Zell Miller. Shelby. Coburn. Musgrave. My OWN REP, Joe Pitts, isn't too far off; he's cosponsored both years' versions of the Constitution Restoration Act.

When my own rep wants officials to be able to "act in the name of God being the sovereign source of law and government" without any federal judicial review, and when one of my own senators feels that the government _should_ be able to prohibit consenting adults from playing with each other behind their own closed doors, I have to whack myself in the head with a Wiffle Ball bat and remind myself that I'm _not_ in deepest Alabama, I'm _not_ in Mississippi, I'm _not_ in some heavily segregated Bible Study university somewhere in the hinterlands, I'm living in an affluent suburb of a major city that's _supposed_ to have joined everyone else in the 21st Century a few years back instead of regressing to the 17th.

Am I going to wake up tomorrow in Gilead, with cross-wearing troops at my door ready to drag me off for heresy? No, of course not. There will be no "Oh, by the way, GOD is in charge now and we're about to nuke the heathens" coup in America. But the fundies _are_ calling in their markers and saying "We voted you in, you have both houses of Congress and the Presidency, now give us what we want." Even incremental change along the lines of what they really want is detrimental to this nation, because the average church-going person won't wake the fuck up and oppose it until laws and "judicial reform" have changed to the point where he's personally affected, and by _that_ time it may be too late to easily rectify things. It's a good thing that the Constitution is very difficult to amend, else the _real_ fun would've started already.

But in the short run, I'm damned glad that I'm not a judge or related to one, just like I'm glad that I'm not related to anyone who works in a facility that performs abortions. Why? Because I don't want to even think about knowing what it must feel like to feel an imaginary laser-sight or bull's-eye on my back 24-7, wondering when some ultrafundie with a gun and a grudge is going to take a shot at me. People like DeLay and Cornyn and those quoted in the article I linked are stirring up the anger as hard as they can, and if some Matt Hale/Paul Hill/Eric Rudolph/Hal Turner type decides to take action and snuff someone who he's convinced is An Enemy Of God, the blood will be on their hands. (The one good thing that the Schindlers did in the entire Terri saga was to come out in the end and specifically denounce violent action taken on "their behalf.")

There is scary shit in the works right now, more unsettling than anything I've seen or felt in the past 20-25 years. I don't think violence against judges is a possibility right now; I think it's a sure thing, and the countdown is ticking. And once it starts, this country is going to get ugly in ways not seen since the height of the Vietnam era. I hope I'm wrong. I really do. But I don't make a habit of making outlandish predictions often, because I'm not often far off.

And, quite frankly, I'm more than a little surprised to see someone whose own spiritual beliefs (as far as I've gathered from years of her posts) are most definitely on the Dobsonites' "Not Approved" list lining up to defend them.

They just went over this on Fox News.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) mused about how a perception that judges are making political decisions could lead people to "engage in violence."

Cormyn was on trying desperately to step away from these remarks. He swore he wasn't saying there should be violence and that it was poorly stated remarks and that they were taken out of context of a 30-minute speech etc. etc.