What follows is a response to a response to a message from me to my member of Congress, Nancy Mace. I moved here just in time to vote for her. I never will again.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I recently responded to a most recent email from you entitled, "Springtime In The Lowcountry", in which you proudly announced the introduction of "a bill called The Women’s Healthcare Anti-Death Penalty Construction Act to categorize the death penalty for women who seek an abortion as “cruel and unusual punishment,”" after which you said, "No woman should be sentenced to death for seeking an abortion, that’s just crazy." In reply to my response, you emailed me the following:
"Rep. Mace believes it is outrageous to give more rights to rapists than women who've been raped. It's, quite frankly, an extreme and disgusting position to take. And you know what, the bill in SC that was proposed is worse than the Taliban. If you have an abortion you get 7 years in jail with the Taliban, but to the extreme lawmakers who proposed the SC bill that would execute women who have abortions, that's far far worse. It's abhorrent."
Before I respond to this response, I want to point out a major problem with the email, a linked story from a local NBC affiliate news site and first, a quote from the first paragraph: "No woman should be sentenced to death for seeking an abortion, that’s just crazy." I don't know that there is any jurisdiction who sentences anyone to death for seeking to murder someone. What is at issue regards those women who actually went through with an abortion. Is this a slip of the tongue, or an intentional distortion to more effectively demonize those who defend innocent life? I don't believe anyone ever got the death penalty for trying to hire a hit man, or conspiring to murder, so why would you say that?
Next, from the article to which you linked:
"It is part of the right against cruel and unusual punishment..."
Capital punishment for murder is not considered cruel and unusual punishment in 27 states (though there's a moratorium in three of them). That it is ostensibly considered cruel and unusual punishment in the other 23 states is absurd given it is no worse than the crime of murder itself, and the fact that the sentence is not hidden from public knowledge and thus, one who murders knows up front the punishment if found guilty, yet murdered anyway. What's more, what punishment better fits the unjust taking of life if not CP? How does one demonstrate compassion for the life of the innocent but by promising death to any who murders? "We revere life to such a great extent that justice demands the life of one who murders." That's not cruel and unusual. It's justice for the dead and the dead's survivors.
Among the worst of murderers are those who murder children. Even most who oppose CP have a harder time opposing CP for those who murder children. And when that murderer is a parent of the child or children murdered, most people are more righteously outraged to an even far greater degree. But when it comes to abortion, we're to ignore the FACT that what is being terminated by the pregnant woman is her own child and pretend that's not murder at all? THAT is just crazy, not executing a woman who murders her own child. Indeed, it is in no way "a manifest miscarriage of justice". It IS justice.
And who else most qualifies for CP? The hitman. To take money to murder another will almost guarantee a death penalty sentence. And your bill would remove that incentive to not murder for the hitmen involved in abortions...the "doctors" who perform this most heinous of human acts.
It is a stain on the character of this nation, and more so on any of its people, who argues there's any difference between a person born versus one soon to be, to the extent they are willing to dispense with logic, science, truth and absolute compassion for life in order to rationalize the unjust termination of the most innocent and defenseless of our kind. No one who presumes to identify as a "Constitutionalist" would dare attempt to argue against life in such a convoluted way. Indeed, such a person is a liar of the worst kind.
" Such right is clearly established at law..."
Again, those who claim to be "Constitutionalists" cannot pretend this "established law" was established based on any known Constitutional principle, as the Dobbs decision clearly reminds us. And then to rely on this sham of an argument further confirms the dishonesty of one who puts such forth.
"“Executing a woman who chooses not to carry her rapist’s child to term is the very definition of cruel and unusual punishment,”"
Actually, it's not even close to the very definition of cruel and unusual punishment. Here's a much more accurate example of cruel and unusual punishment (Scroll down to section "E".):
https://jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Abortion%20is%20Murder/horror_of_abortion.htm
The "mother" who aborts and is sentenced to CP would not be subjected to any of these forms of cruel and unusual punishment to which she agrees to submit her child. And for what is her child being punished? For the "crime" of having been conceived.
"Life is sacred and should be valued. Executing women goes directly against that belief. We should, for the American people, reject extremism on both sides of the aisle."
A more egregious example of straight up lying and deception would be hard to find. If you regard life as sacred and to be valued, then how can you allow the unjust murder of the unborn while never punishing those who murdered the child? We execute murderers as a demonstration of our regard for life, as we insist that to murder demands that the murderer must also die. One doesn't demonstrate regard for life while at the same time granting regard for the murderer who took it.
As to "extremism", please explain how true regard for innocent life is in any way "extreme". One needn't be an actual person of religious faith to understand how the defense of innocent life is pretty basic stuff for anyone who wishes to be regarded as a decent human being. But you only want to consider the life of people who unjustly take innocent life...preferring to somehow still describe them as "innocent" or "victims of extremism"?
(The following was not added to the message to Mace, but should have been, since it addresses the "pro-life=religious" canard:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDLBwInFTdg&t=423s)
To further prove your contemptible dishonesty, you pretend it matters that a woman seeking an abortion may have been raped. The hyperlink to H.R. 2430 does not provide the text for public viewing. But nowhere in your email or the article to which it links makes any mention of rape in the bill, nor any reference to how a woman might become pregnant before having the child murdered by an abortionist on her behalf. But as you seem to suggest that's the sole impetus for your concern in introducing a vile bill such as this, you might want to talk to any of the many people conceived during a rape for their input on the matter. You can also find any number of women who's child was the result of their having been raped, yet like true women of honor, they didn't hold it against the children so conceived. Sure, there are women who are so traumatized they can't get past the resemblance of the child's face to that of her attacker. Others who feign such trauma. They can all be aided in finding good psychological help in learning how to cope and to separate the child from the father. They can also give the child up for adoption.
Now, for my response to your response.
Who, aside from George Soros supported D.A.s and prosecutors, give rapists any rights at all, much less more rights than their victims? Name these people. No one who defends the innocent and defenseless unborn do. If any were to have murdered their victim after raping her, he would without question be a dead man walking. What kind of crap is that?
But this issue concerns those who murder the unborn...not anyone who simply partook in its conception, unless of course the father was active in aiding and abetting in the abortion. So NO ONE is suggesting such "an extreme and disgusting position" but you. And I don't give a flying rat's ass what the Taliban does or what any other country does. We're talking about the corrupt character of THIS country, a corrupt character of which I see no evidence of your efforts to improve. We are not a "good people" when we abuse children and less so when we murder them at any age or at any stage of their development. We are scum. And by "we", I mean you and those like you. It's abhorrent and outrageous to give more rights to women who've murdered their children than to the children they murdered in the womb.
You need to do a 180 on this crap sandwich. It won't win you back my vote. That's long gone now. But a reversal by you expressing the facts, logic and truths your bill ignores might result in the lives of thousands of children saved. It may also lead to women (and their men) being more mature and responsible. But those who murder children must be punished severely. OH!!! That brings up one more point: If you oppose executing these murderers, just what punishment do you suggest instead? ANYTHING AT ALL?
27 comments:
You say you'll never vote for this woman again. What if she wins a primary against other GOP challengers?
That's a legit question, Jesse, and I can't say that I'll vote for her anyway. She's clearly a RINO...not at all conservative, and clearly not truly a "constitutionalist". I'm still new to this state, and I've still much to learn about those tasked with representing me. If her only flaw was her support for SSM, and as much as I hate that anyone dares suggest such a right actually exists when there is no such right to force a new definition of marriage on the people who never consented, I might overlook it. But human lives are not on the same level. Nothing justifies murder, which is what abortion in any form is. And to add insult to this most heinous injury by parroting the same bullshit arguments as the "progressives" do is just too much.
I came here and established residency just in time to vote in the last election. I did have concerns about this fake, but not enough to prevent voting for her against a clear leftist from the other party running against her. However, since then she's said enough which convinces me she's no conservative or constitutionalist. I read where she said she represents a more "purple" district. But I didn't have the chance to really study who she is, nor did I see everything she said in her campaign which might have revealed her true self. In my mind, I would think she'd have to appeal to both left and right in her campaign rhetoric, and that would have made my vote for her more problematic at the time. She was all about Trump until Jan 6, then she bolted as if he really was responsible for it. She's been piling on the crap ever since and I'd like to get more people to write to her with the same message as above. She's lost my vote. We'll see what happens come election time. I hope a true conservative beats her out in the next primary.
It is my understanding that Nancy Mace is popular. If that is correct, trying to oust her in a primary is probably not going to be successful. Moreover, I can imagine that any democrat would be considerably worse than Mace. I know what you mean, but do you really have a choice?
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/nancy-mace-is-not-a-reagan-conservative/
https://www.gavinwax.com/articles/nancy-mace-doesnt-represent-republican-women/
https://www.conservativereview.com/biden-administration-more-careful-about-abortion-pill-ruling-than-nancy-mace-2659836301.html
https://mace.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-mace-votes-pass-respect-marriage-act
https://www.fitsnews.com/2021/06/14/nancy-maces-problems-with-conservative-south-carolina-republicans-persist/
https://libertyscore.conservativereview.com/nancy-mace
https://www.businessinsider.com/nancy-mace-trump-impeachment-censure-capitol-riots-gop-direction-2021-1?op=1
The above are just some examples of just how conservative Mace ISN'T, despite her claims to the contrary (almost as bad as Dan calling himself a Christian). While Conservative Review demonstrates she's good on some issues...maybe most...one needs to weigh the importance of some issues over others. For me, the social issues are really quite important, especially those that involve murdering one's own child. I'm opposed. This country needs a true conservative in as many positions politics exerts a philosophy through how one works in those positions. All in positions of public service need to constantly promote the best of virtue, character and honor and she clearly doesn't just drop the ball...she won't pick it up and run with it through a fierce defense (football analogy). I'm tired of that shit. REALLY TIRED OF THAT SHIT!!! One doesn't "compromise" on infanticide. One fights against it constantly like a good American should.
Popularity is vastly overrated in politics unless one is popular due to support for what best for the nation (or state or town or school district, as the case may be). Abortion's a deal breaker for me. What does it profit me to gain an expanding economy, safer streets and a strong military and border if I lose my soul to appease infant murderers? For all those who claimed their refusal to support Trump was a conscience decision to please God, he never backed that shit.
Good for you! Sounds like a winning strategy. Stick with it!
Don't you think you are overreacting to my comment? I didn't say you had to appease anyone.
No, Jesse. Not overreacting at all. Merely responding. My comment regarding appeasement was not compelled by any inference about your questions. Sorry if I gave that impression.
Vinny,
Thanks for the encouragement. Rejecting those who support vile and immoral policies is always a winning strategy. Now if you refuse to vote for Dems, you won't risk exposing yourself as a wise ass lefty liar, since they support the very vile and immoral policies so detrimental to the culture of our nation.
Now if you refuse to vote for Dems, you won't risk exposing yourself as a wise ass lefty liar, since they support the very vile and immoral policies so detrimental to the culture of our nation.
You still don't understand how a secret ballot works do you?
Who is Vinny?
Judging by the latest polls, it looks like 90% of Americans reject your extreme anti-abortion position.
"You still don't understand how a secret ballot works do you? "
Sure I do, always have and quite well at that. What I don't understand is what relevance this question has to the quote to which it is attached.
"Who is Vinny?"
Who are you? Answer that and I'll answer yours.
"Judging by the latest polls, it looks like 90% of Americans reject your extreme anti-abortion position."
What's extreme about defending innocent lives against their destruction by their own mothers and fathers? If those polls are a true reflection of national sentiment, then its a grave indictment of the character of its people and just how craven our culture has become. I'll stand with the few remaining who seek better for the United States than a population of people who puts their momentary sexual pleasure above the lives of those invited into existence by their engaging in the very act designed for that purpose.
Sure I do, always have and quite well at that.
If you had ever understood the concept of a secret ballot even marginally—much less "always and quite well”—you wouldn't have insisted that the Georgia Secretary of State could have dealt with the wrong county ballots by removing them from the totals because you would have known that a secret ballot makes that impossible.
What I don't understand is what relevance this question has to the quote to which it is attached.
You don't understand the relevance because you don't understand the concept of a secret ballot: if you did, would know that I don't “risk exposing [myself] as a wise ass lefty liar” by voting for Democrats because a secret ballot means that a person doesn't expose anything about himself by voting (other perhaps that his belief in democracy).
"If you had ever understood the concept of a secret ballot even marginally—much less "always and quite well”—you wouldn't have insisted that the Georgia Secretary of State could have dealt with the wrong county ballots by removing them from the totals because you would have known that a secret ballot makes that impossible."
If you had ever understood the concept of Georgia election law and residency requirements, you'd have understood the number of ineligible ballots found by the Trump team using Georgia's own database should have triggered and invalid election and a new election to resolve it. But no. You don't think any state should go through the trouble to do what they're supposed to do when a loss for your candidate is possible.
"You don't understand the relevance because you don't understand the concept of a secret ballot: if you did, would know that I don't “risk exposing [myself] as a wise ass lefty liar” by voting for Democrats because a secret ballot means that a person doesn't expose anything about himself by voting (other perhaps that his belief in democracy)."
First of all, with the well known criminality of your party regarding election integrity, there's never an absence of risk that one's vote won't be exposed, regardless of how unlikely. But the point remains in any case. By voting for Dems, you remain a wise-ass lefty liar since they support the very vile and immoral policies so detrimental to the culture of our nation.
If you had ever understood the concept of Georgia election law and residency requirements, you'd have understood the number of ineligible ballots found by the Trump team using Georgia's own database should have triggered and invalid election and a new election to resolve it.
I understand that one of your wingnut websites has made this claim, but since these are the same websites that left you confused about the mechanics of post marks and secret ballots, I don't consider them reliable sources.
You don't think any state should go through the trouble to do what they're supposed to do when a loss for your candidate is possible.
I don't think that Georgia should spend hundreds of millions of dollars to rerun an election just so the wrong county voters can cast the same vote in their new counties of residence, particularly because there would no doubt be wrong county voters in the rerun election as well, which would by your logic require another rerun.
First of all, with the well known criminality of your party regarding election integrity, there's never an absence of risk that one's vote won't be exposed, regardless of how unlikely.
Are you aware that Fox News agreed yesterday to cough up almost eight hundred million dollars as a result of spreading the Big Lie? The well known lack of integrity regarding the election is on your side.
Marshal lost the arguement. The election wan'y stolen.
"Marshal lost the arguement. The election wan'y stolen."
I'm thinking this is Dan's fake Christian troll drunk blogging. I'm also thinking anyone signing in under "Anonymous" won't be posted unless it's attached to a truly compelling comment.
"I understand that one of your wingnut websites has made this claim, but since these are the same websites that left you confused about the mechanics of post marks and secret ballots, I don't consider them reliable sources."
Not an accurate representation of my erroneous comment, but you have the typical leftist desperate need to find fault, as well as to deflect on the weakest of pretenses. At the same time, what you regard as reliable or unreliable sources is far more a matter of your own perversely leftist biases than any recognition of legit information. You still think lenders would willingly lend money to people with bad credit, so...
"I don't think that Georgia should spend hundreds of millions of dollars to rerun an election just so the wrong county voters can cast the same vote in their new counties of residence, particularly because there would no doubt be wrong county voters in the rerun election as well, which would by your logic require another rerun."
And you dare suggest I'm the confused one. If you had ever understood the concept of Georgia election law and residency requirements, you'd have understood there needs to be a particular number of ineligible ballots to trigger a new election or the refusal to certify the results. But hey...nice try pretending you've the superior understanding. It's precious.
In the meantime, I wonder if you know with absolute certainty whether or not those regarded as ineligible the first time around would be allowed to "re-vote" the second time around, which would make the requirement triggering the re-election to be unnecessary. That is, what's the point of a do-over if the people who failed the first time around are simply allowed to vote as if they didn't fail to follow the rules the first time. I'll bet you won all sorts of participation trophies, didn't you?
What's more, if there's a cost attached to correcting the failures committed in an election, then why have the election law which compels another election in the first place? A true leftist response validates the rejection of leftist input in law and procedure, given no integrity is possible where leftists are allowed to be involved.
"Are you aware that Fox News agreed yesterday to cough up almost eight hundred million dollars as a result of spreading the Big Lie? The well known lack of integrity regarding the election is on your side."
I'm aware their decision to settle gives Dominion the upper hand they would not have had given the difficulty of proving defamation. Reporting on claims that might not be true isn't the same as lying, despite the eagerness of lefties to pretend otherwise. At the same time, if they were lying at all, then all your sources should be hanged by their necks until dead. There's no comparison which puts Fox inferior to the leftist sources upon which you stupidly rely. But as usual, you leftists ignore the far greater flaws of your own while insisting on absolute perfection from your betters. Typical. Oh, so typical.
In the meantime, I wonder if you know with absolute certainty whether or not those regarded as ineligible the first time around would be allowed to "re-vote" the second time around, which would make the requirement triggering the re-election to be unnecessary.
There is very little that I would claim to know with absolute certainty. I do know that convicted felons in Georgia are ineligible to vote while they are serving their sentences, so prosecuting and convicting the wrong-county voters for felony election fraud would disqualify them from voting in a rerun. Other than that, I don't know how you would disqualify them.
That is, what's the point of a do-over if the people who failed the first time around are simply allowed to vote as if they didn't fail to follow the rules the first time.
Exactly!!! Now you're getting it. A do-over would make sense in a local election where the wrong-county voters have no legitimate interest in the outcome of the rerun election because they've moved from the locality. But in a state-wide election, the wrong-county voters have the exact same interest in the outcome of the do-over as they had in the original election. In order for a do-over of a state-wide election to make sense, you would need to have wrong-county voters who moved out of state.
What's more, if there's a cost attached to correcting the failures committed in an election, then why have the election law which compels another election in the first place?
There were no “failures committed.” The wrong-county voters showed up at polling places where they were legally registered to vote with identification showing that they were entitled to vote there. Election judges had no choice but to permit them to vote. The only way to prevent people from doing this would be to give the election judges access to a system that tracked every voter's residence in real time. Such a system would no doubt be prohibitively expensive as well as extremely intrusive.
The reason for having a law that calls for a rerun is to limit voting to people who have a legitimate interest in the outcome of the election. It doesn't make any sense when the rerun will have the exact same pool of voters as the original election.
I'm aware their decision to settle gives Dominion the upper hand they would not have had given the difficulty of proving defamation. Reporting on claims that might not be true isn't the same as lying, despite the eagerness of lefties to pretend otherwise.
You are correct: defamation is difficult to prove. Moreover, even if defamation is proved, proving a dollar amount of damages is difficult. So the fact that Fox settled for that much tells you how strong the evidence was in Dominion's favor.
The problem wasn't that Fox reported on claims that might not be true. The problem was that Fox's hosts endorsed claims that they knew to be false in order to win back viewers who were upset that Fox had called Arizona for Biden on election night. Letting Rudy Giuliani and Sydney Powell spew their lies without push back night after night in a desperate attempt to get viewers back from Newsmax and OAN isn't “reporting.”
You still think lenders would willingly lend money to people with bad credit, so...
Do you think that pawn shops and payday loan stores lend money to people with 800 FICO scores? Well they don't. They willingly lend money to people with bad credit and offset the risk of default with higher interest rates and/or sufficient collateral. That's Finance 101 stuff.
"There is very little that I would claim to know with absolute certainty."
Ah...some truth from Vinny!
"But in a state-wide election, the wrong-county voters have the exact same interest in the outcome of the do-over as they had in the original election."
That hardly matters when election law at the time invalidates their ballots due to being in breach of residency requirements. More importantly, they have a great interest in knowing the law and following it if they're truly concerned about election outcomes.
"In order for a do-over of a state-wide election to make sense, you would need to have wrong-county voters who moved out of state."
No. Most all residency requirements deal with one's district and living in the district where one votes. But I see you're now choosing to focus on a do-over as the only solution to Georgia's massive amount of ineligible ballots. I believe the other option was not certifying their slate of Electors since the amount constituted a totally flawed election. You know, you lefties need to give a damn about rules and laws beyond when it's simply personally convenient to do so. It's too damned bad one's vote is rejected. But when it's due to one's own errors, then perhaps one might wish to pay closer attention next time. I would prefer everyone does regardless of the outcome. At least it would be a legit outcome. You don't seem to care about such things.
"There were no “failures committed.”"
Clearly this is crap. Try paying attention.
"The only way to prevent people from doing this would be to give the election judges access to a system that tracked every voter's residence in real time. Such a system would no doubt be prohibitively expensive as well as extremely intrusive."
I doubt it...especially if one puts any value at all on election integrity..., but I'm checking on that now. As soon as I receive a response to my inquiries, I'll post them here.
"The reason for having a law that calls for a rerun is to limit voting to people who have a legitimate interest in the outcome of the election. It doesn't make any sense when the rerun will have the exact same pool of voters as the original election."
You're merely assuming that it will. If one can simply "fix" one's ballot, then why have rules at all? I consider voting to be too important to allow such willy-nilly responses to stupidity, ignorance and neglect on the part of the voter who's supposed to give a shit.
"So the fact that Fox settled for that much tells you how strong the evidence was in Dominion's favor."
That's only one possibility and not necessarily the most likely, despite your eagerness to find fault.
"The problem was that Fox's hosts endorsed claims that they knew to be false in order to win back viewers who were upset that Fox had called Arizona for Biden on election night."
So your response is to defame Fox and its hosts. Got it.
"Letting Rudy Giuliani and Sydney Powell spew their lies without push back night after night in a desperate attempt to get viewers back from Newsmax and OAN isn't “reporting.”"
That's for the viewers to decide. When do your lefty outlets do better? They're all in on every cockamamie lefty drivel their guests bring to the trough.
"Do you think that pawn shops and payday loan stores lend money to people with 800 FICO scores? Well they don't. They willingly lend money to people with bad credit and offset the risk of default with higher interest rates and/or sufficient collateral. That's Finance 101 stuff."
Wow. You're really desperate to defend your poor understanding of the mortgage crisis!! Unlike lenders who had no desire to make loans to those unlikely to repay until forced to by government pressure, pawn shops and payday loan companies operate entirely differently, with their market being those who can't get loans elsewhere because of their credit unworthiness.
Pawn shops require collateral from which they determine how much to lend, never giving nearly a fair market value to the item held hostage until the borrower returns to reclaim it. Then, if the borrower defaults, the pawn shop sells the collateral item for higher than its value and his profit is made one way or the other.
The payday loan is intended as a very short term loan, based on one's paycheck (a stub generally required) and is usually a portion of one's paycheck with a high fee attached upon repayment at...the borrower's pay day. It's only when the borrower can't or won't repay in the short term of the loan (usually no more than thirty days tops) when massive interest rates kick in.
But again, these two business models are targeting the credit-less borrower. Banks and other such lenders were not. They depended on borrowers with good credit and the high likelihood of timely repayment to make their profit. THAT'S Finance 101.
The American people are a disgusting group of people. You guys deserve all the bad that is coming your way plus much, much more. Keep your sodomite pedophile soldiers out of my fucking country.
And who the hell are YOU, and which is YOUR country? Do you have the stones to truly engage, or are you just another troll?
To be sure, those not of this country are justified in their contempt due to the policies of the left which are responsible for the decay of our national character.
Jason,
I would like to know more about you myself. I can understand if you do not reply. I've read Marshal's blog for years and he is an impolite asshole. Unlike him, I don't doubt you are a foreigner who genuinely dislikes American policy. Republicans here in the U.S.A. are a nutty bunch, but the democrats have their own nutcases and are generally sexually perverse. I admit that we Americans are a strange group. That's for sure!
Anonymous,
Why don't you identify yourself as well rather than hiding behind "anonymous"? Are you Dan's troll? Regardless, you know I'm never impolite to anyone who isn't himself an asshole. So don't lie to the new guy.
Post a Comment