But in fact a theocracy is precisely what the rightwing is after. Not all the rightwing, perhaps, but clearly most of it, as this compilation of rightwing political statements proves.
Lindevaldsen told students in a speech entitled, 'Do Government Officials Have Authority to Impose Their Morals on Others?' that any law that is not 'consistent with Scripture' -- or, more accurately, their interpretation of scripture -- is no law at all, and therefore, officials are obligated to break such laws since 'civil government only has the authority that God has established.'
You never heard of Lindevaldsen, but she's dean of the Liberty law school, who replaced Mat Staver, Davis's attorney, in that job. (Liberty Counsel, by the way, describes itself as "this ministry," in case you think it is a law firm.)
More to the point, of the 5 theocrats singled out by Rightwing Watch, two have been serious contenders for the Republican nomination for president.
Although they are far out there, they are not at all fringe figures. They are mainstream GOP.
You may also have seen commenters compare Davis with Gavin Newsom who as mayor of San Francisco declared a "sanctuary city" and declined to cooperate with immigration sweeps.
The relevant distinction is that Newsom did not declare that a higher, non-governmental power justified his policy. And, in fact, (probably) rightwing elected officials have for decades declined to cooperate with immugration and Defense requests for assistance, and no one at Liberty has raised a peep.
That is, if you can imagine that Texas sheriffs are sometimes rightwingers. The evidence is in Joseph Schott's 1975 autobiography, "No Left Turns: The FBI in Peace and War."
When assigned to liaise with rural sheriffs, Special Agent Schott discovered they would pick up deserters only for the Navy. The Navy got preferential service because it paid sheriffs $40 a head for deserters, while the Army and Air Force paid less.
Lindevaldsen told students in a speech entitled, “Do Government Officials Have Authority to Impose Their Morals on Others?,” that any law that is not “consistent with Scripture” — or, more accurately, their interpretation of scripture — is no law at all, and therefore, officials are obligated to break such laws since “civil government only has the authority that God has established.” - See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/five-bizarre-ways-kim-davis-supporters-have-defended-her-lawbreaking#sthash.MiVxuvFI.dpuf
Lindevaldsen
told students in a speech entitled, “Do Government Officials Have
Authority to Impose Their Morals on Others?,” that any law that is not
“consistent with Scripture” — or, more accurately, their interpretation
of scripture — is no law at all, and therefore, officials are obligated
to break such laws since “civil government only has the authority that
God has established.” - See more at:
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/five-bizarre-ways-kim-davis-supporters-have-defended-her-lawbreaking#sthash.MiVxuvFI.dpuf
Lindevaldsen told students in a speech entitled, “Do Government Officials Have Authority to Impose Their Morals on Others?,” that any law that is not “consistent with Scripture” — or, more accurately, their interpretation of scripture — is no law at all, and therefore, officials are obligated to break such laws since “civil government only has the authority that God has established.” - See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/five-bizarre-ways-kim-davis-supporters-have-defended-her-lawbreaking#sthash.MiVxuvFI.dpuf
But in fact a theocracy is precisely what the rightwing is after.
ReplyDeleteAside from that being a steaming heap o' bollocks, Kim Davis is a Democrat.
You may also have seen commenters compare Davis with Gavin Newsom who as mayor of San Francisco declared a "sanctuary city" and declined to cooperate with immigration sweeps.
The relevant distinction is that Newsom did not declare that a higher, non-governmental power justified his policy ...
There is no relevant distinction. Kim Davis broke the law. Newsom broke the law. The law doesn't care why they broke the laws they did.
Funny, Kim Davis didn't get anyone killed. To some people, that might count as a distinction.
Name a Democrat agitating for Davis's release and the overthrow of our form of government.
ReplyDeleteName a Republican agitating for Davis's release and the overthrow of our form of government.
ReplyDeleteBe specific, use direct quotes.
And we shouldn't let off the hook left wingers hoping for the overthrow of our form of government: Occupy [fill in the blank]; Clinton, Sanders and Lessig wish to give politicians control over political speech, and you wish to trash the Second Amendment.
Done that. It's in that linky thingy.
ReplyDeleteNo, Harry, not done.
ReplyDeleteYou toss a link out as if it is an argument, and expect me to plow through layer after layer of self-referential nonsense. RWW referring to RWW referring to RWW referring to RWW is not, although I am certain this comes as a shock to you, persuasive.
But it did, indeed, waste a fair amount of my time. (In contrast, when I give you a link it is specific, and on point -- I'm considerate enough to not waste your time, so how about returning the compliment?)
Having fought my way through that morass of self-fluffery, I got to this, which, apparently, is the root of all evil.
Having listened to it, twice, I am quite certain that Name a Democrat agitating for Davis's release and the overthrow of our form of government. is yet another example of you blowing it out your hat.
Why? Because you can't provide an example of a Republican doing anything like that.
If I don't give you a link, you complain. I give you a link, and you complain just as much.
ReplyDeleteIt's as if you are not interested in substance.
It's as if you are not interested in substance.
ReplyDeleteNo, Harry, which should have been abundantly clear.
Your links are devoid of substance. By forcing me to wade through gallons of muck, your link wasted my time. You could have, but did not, provide me a link, and a quote, that made your point.
Your links are not specific and they are not on point. They are an insult. They waste my time, and when I finally reach something like a conclusion, they almost always torpedo you below the water line.
And what do I get in return?
Bollocks. Pure, unaldulterated, bollocks.
Having listened to it, twice, I am quite certain that Name a Democrat agitating for Davis's release and the overthrow of our form of government. is yet another example of you blowing it out your hat.
Why? Because you can't provide an example of a Republican doing anything like that.
The proper response is an example of a Republican doing anything like that.
Not some whiffling about how empty links are somehow anything other than worthless.
By your example, I now know what it takes to be a progressive: sloppy thinking.
It's like talking to a wall. http://www.towleroad.com/2011/02/watch-huckabee-says-states-should-follow-higher-law-not-gay-nups/
ReplyDelete[Harry:] Name a Democrat agitating for Davis's release and the overthrow of our form of government.
ReplyDeleteYour first link was an endless morass of self-referential bollocks.
The link above once again proves your inability to understand the simplest tense of all: present.
Let me help. "Agitating" is present tense. 2011 is past tense.
Worse, though, is that there isn't a single word in there that comes within a half dozen time zones of "... the overthrow of our form of government."
Which means your second link is worthless.
F-
Try again.
I thought an oldie but goodie was even better, since it shows that rightwingers have been out to destroy our government for some time.
ReplyDeleteIf you don't understand how our government works, I can't help you.
[Harry:] Name a Democrat agitating for Davis's release and the overthrow of our form of government.
ReplyDeleteI'm calling shenanigans.
By virtue of its vintage, the Huckabee link could not have anything to do with Davis, and its content is devoid of even a syllable about destroying our government.
This isn't about my understanding, or lack thereof, about how our government works.
It is about your shortcomings in logic, comprehension, and integrity.
In fact, it's exactly about Davis. Huckabee went to her because she is what he has advocated all along: the destruction of secular government and its replacement by a higher law.
ReplyDeleteEarth to Skipper: in this country, the highest law is 1) what the Supreme Court says it is; or 2) what the state legislatures change it into via constitutional amendment.
Huckabee went to her because she is what he has advocated all along: the destruction of secular government and its replacement by a higher law.
ReplyDeleteUntil I see a direct quote to that effect, which so far is glaringly absent, I can only conclude you are lying.
Why is integrity so difficult for you progressives?
http://www.towleroad.com/2011/02/watch-huckabee-says-states-should-follow-higher-law-not-gay-nups/
ReplyDeleteAgain. Sigh. Liberals did not edit this tape. That's a rightwing franchise.
Harry, I just listened to that clip again. And still there is nothing in it that comes even within shouting distance, or moderate delusion, of substantiating the destruction of secular government and its replacement by a higher law.
ReplyDeleteYour consistent inability to provide a quote otherwise speaks volumes that you got punked by towelroad's misleading headline.
Wouldn't be the first time.
Liberals did not edit this tape. That's a rightwing franchise.
What a steaming heap.
NB: The CMP has the unedited video available so that people could judge for themselves the accuracy of the video edited for broadcast.
I have seen the charge of deceptive editing hurled, but I heard of any evidence to back it up. I doubt you have either.
Unlike, say, a MSM network that maliciously edited the 911 audio of the Martin shooting.
History is fascinating, you could learn a great deal from it.
Are we not to think that Huckabee meant what he said? You have often denied the clear meaning of what people say.
ReplyDeleteSimple denial is not good enough, though. if Huckabee (and he is not an outlier) did not mean what I think he said, what do you think he meant?
Are we not to think that Huckabee meant what he said?
ReplyDeleteOh FFS, stop your dissembling and tell me exactly what he said that warrants the defamatory destruction of secular government and its replacement by a higher law.
That's at least the third time I've asked, and every time you respond with dissimulation.
He wants to replace our civil law with an appeal to his imaginary god.
ReplyDeleteI don't know why you choose to be obtuse. Nobody else is pretending to not understand him.
He wants to replace our civil law with an appeal to his imaginary god.
ReplyDeleteI don't know why you choose to be obtuse. Nobody else is pretending to not understand him.
Prove it.
ReplyDeleteHint: a link and a fraudulent headline don't constitute proof.
Kind of like Tea Partiers shouting "Let him die".
You need to change the name of your blog to "Ranting the Odious".
Nobody else is pretending to not understand him.
ReplyDeleteYou are pretending to understand him.
Or I'm missing something.
Here's how you set things straight: you made the charge, you provide the direct quote.
As if.
http://wonkette.com/594126/dumb-tennessee-republicans-have-new-plan-to-ban-gay-marriage-it-is-a-stupid-plan
ReplyDelete[Harry:] He wants to replace our civil law with an appeal to his imaginary god.
ReplyDeleteStop it with hyperactive goal posts and squirrels.
You made the accusation, back it up with some facts.
Because those of us in the blog viewing audience are starting to think you might, just might, be, shall we say, extremely economical with the thruth.
http://wonkette.com/594167/arizona-town-pretty-sure-jesus-never-followed-the-first-amendment-either
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteUpdate, Sept. 22, 2:12 p.m.: The Coolidge City Council has abandoned the proposal to allow only Christian prayers in its meetings.
ReplyDeleteCompare and contrast that which didn't happen to that which does all over the country: campus "progressive" speech codes.
Or the grotesque violations of due process under your Fearless Leader.
Except you won't, because the only thing that matters is the progressive narrative.
Certainly not the truth, since that, unlike vile defamation, is in very short supply here.
Earth to Skipper: in this country, the highest law is 1) what the Supreme Court says it is; or 2) what the state legislatures change it into via constitutional amendment.
Earth to Harry: Of course (except for the second part, that is just incoherent). So that means all states must honor concealed carry permits? Right?
Incoherent? Do you understand how the Constitution is amended?
ReplyDeleteAs for permits, no.
Shorter Harry: The highest law is the Constitution, as interpreted by the SCOTUS.
ReplyDeleteAs for permits, no.
Of course not, because you are a hypocrit. Either the highest law is the Constitution -- the 13th amendment incorporated the first 10 -- or it isn't. You can't have it both ways.
Gay marriage, which isn't anywhere in the Constitution, is binding upon all 50 states, but the unambiguous wording of the 2A isn't.
Go figure.
Oh, right, intellectual consistency and integrity aren't progressive hallmarks.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBTW, I take it that Huckabee went to her because she is what he has advocated all along: the destruction of secular government and its replacement by a higher law can be added to the ever growing sack of Harry's Bollocks.
ReplyDeleteHeh. http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/25/us-usa-gaymarriage-kentucky-idUSKCN0RP20M20150925
ReplyDeleteChicken comes home to roost.
The 2nd Amendment does not unambiguously address concealed carry, so your remark is not germane. It does unambiguously say that going armed is a function of membership in a well-regulated militia.
It does unambiguously say that going armed is a function of membership in a well-regulated militia.
ReplyDeleteNo, it doesn't, as anyone who is even glancingly versed in English grammar will tell you. Everything in front of the comma is an introductory phrase which acts as a representative justification, one of many, for the sentence, which can stand on its own.
But never mind that. As a progressive, nothing matters except the narrative. Not sentence structure, grammar, context, nothing.
What does matter here, though, is that Heller affirmed the 2A as an individual right.
Earth to Harry: in this country, the highest law is 1) what the Supreme Court says it is ...