Thursday, April 03, 2008

Duchy: Hate-Mail Has Stopped

The Sentinel has a story following up the news that County Council member Duchy Trachtenberg has received threatening mail for her part in sponsoring the recent Montgomery County gender identity nondiscrimination bill. Good news, it sounds like the flow of hate-mail has stopped.
Council member Duchy Trachtenberg said the threats and death threats she received during the past three months because of a bill ensuring the civil rights of transgender individuals have stopped since she made them public over a week ago, but police are still investigating.

Trachtenberg claims she received between 35 and 40 threats at her home and office. The threats come in the wake of the County Council's unanimous passage of bill 23-07, the Gender Identity bill, in November. The bill ensures that transgender individuals are not discriminated against in the workplace or in housing.

Michelle Turner, a spokesperson for CRG, said her group doesn't encourage or support sending threats.

But the bill has generated plenty of controversy. An opposition group, Citizens for a Responsible Government, submitted a petition with about 30,000 signatures in favor of putting the bill up for a referendum vote this November. Maryland's largest gay rights group, Equality Maryland, subsequently filed a lawsuit questioning the Board of Election's validation of the petition.

CRG claims the bill would allow pedophiles and peeping toms into women's locker rooms and bathrooms. Council members maintain, however, that there is no language in the bill having to do with bathrooms or changing rooms. Some of the threats were signed, some were left anonymous and others were signed with obviously fake names, Trachtenberg said. Sharon Kass sent letters to Trachtenberg and Dr. Dana Beyer, a senior policy analyst on the councilwoman's staff, Trachtenberg said.

When asked for comment, Kass responded by sending e-mails with anti-gay literature to The Sentinel. One contained a pamphlet titled, "You Don't Have to Be Gay!: Real Answers to Questions about Homosexuality," and an article titled, "The Desire for a Sex Change: Psychiatrist says sex-change surgery is a collaboration with a mental disorder, not a treatment." Trachtenberg Says Harassment Has Stopped

Wow, there is a lot of stuff going on here. Threats stopped but the police are investigating. I believe I read somewhere that the FBI is in on it. I say: good. Some people don't know where to draw the line.

Interesting that Michelle Turner defends the CRG in this story before we have even been told what the "CRG" is. I will trust a copy editor did that and not the reporter, they softened the blow by moving that sentence up so the story didn't (cough cough lawyers told 'em cough) make it look like the Citizens for a Responsible Whatever had sent the threatening mail.

The pedophile thing, that kills me. How does discriminating against transgender people keep pedophiles out of the ladies room?

Finally, Sharon Kass. No comment. Actually, there were comments last time we mentioned her, two prominent members of the community commented on this blog to say that they had received mail from Ms. Kass. One said she wrote to his boss trying to get him in trouble at work, the other said she wrote to his wife, trying to get him in trouble at home. We call that "taking the low road."
Kass then sent another e-mail to The Sentinel in response to last week's front-page article about Trachtenberg receiving death threats. "The ex-gay movement will prevail. We have the facts," Kass said. "Superficial and biased reporting is routine in the press. You and your profession will be called to account."

Turner said that Kass is a supporter of CRG and not a full member, as Trachtenberg suggested. Theresa Rickman, CRG's director, was out of the country and could not be reached for comment.

We have seen this group try to distance itself from its own representatives, for instance when their speakers at the March 2005 Hate-Fest got out of hand, and when their members threatened the school board on the old Recall web site. I would be pretty sure they have talked to their lawyers about this threatening-letter business, as it would seem there could be some liability assigned to the rabble-rousing group. But what do I know? I'm no lawyer. I just figure they might want to talk it over with the attorneys before it gets too far along.
Trachtenberg said that police are still investigating the matter so she didn't want to comment further on what legal actions might be taken. However she did say several restraining orders could result from the ordeal.

During CRG's signature gathering process, allegations of intimidation surfaced on both sides of the petition. Members of CRG claimed Beyer and other individuals harassed some people at petition sites, and those opposed to the petition claim the signature collectors misrepresented it.

Equality Maryland's lawsuit against the Montgomery County Board of Elections alleges that many of the signatures the panel validated were gathered improperly, and the board didn't fully investigate this possibility. At least one person in the suit is involved because they say the petition was misrepresented to them.

I want to know who gets restraining orders. Who do you think? Any guesses?

As for signature collectors misrepresenting the law, I'd have to say I talked to a lot of them and went to a lot of the sites, and I didn't see a single place where they were telling people that their signature would be a step toward re-legalizing discrimination against transgender people. Which would have been the truth. Lots of locker-rooms, predators, pedophiles, safety for the children, not much about discrimination.
Montgomery County Council President Mike Knapp got into a dispute with a signature gatherer in February at a polling place during the Maryland Primary. He said the petition gatherer was misinformed about what the bill did.

Bill 23-07 was scheduled to go into effect last month, but has been put on hold until the referendum vote in November, or until Equality Maryland's lawsuit overturns the petition.

"If the referendum question does make it to the ballot in November," Trachtenberg said, "I'm confident Montgomery County will vote against discrimination."

I am confident of that, too. The question is, who will spend the money to make sure the public knows this is about discrimination. Because people will also vote against creepy men waving their penises at women in the ladies locker-room. And that's what the CRW wants the vote to be about. If this goes to a vote, somebody's going to have to put up some money, buy ad time, sponsor some events, to make sure people know what they're voting for.

I'm glad the tone has settled down a little bit, and hope everybody at the County Council is safe. There is plenty of room in our community for a debate over a controversial topic, but no place for people to throw threats around.

44 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Council member Duchy Trachtenberg said the threats and death threats she received during the past three months because of a bill ensuring the civil rights of transgender individuals have stopped since she made them public over a week ago, but police are still investigating."

Since Duchy has tried to get a political benefit out of making these "threats" public, let's hope the results of police investigations can be made public as well, and as soon as possible. Certainly before the November referendum.

BTW, Jim, "hate-mail" and threats are not the same thing. Especially since Duchy's right-hand person has conceded that they think the very suggestion that homosexuality is immoral, a view held by the majority of mankind, both now and in the past, is, in itself, "hateful".

April 03, 2008 9:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Those crazy Democrats:

"The husband of U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow told authorities that he used the Internet to arrange a $150 sexual tryst with a prostitute at a metropolitan Detroit hotel, police said Wednesday

Thomas Athans, 46, co-founder of the liberal TalkUSA Radio network, was stopped by police who were investigating prostitution at the hotel, according to a police report obtained by The Associated Press."

I wonder if he's friends with Al Franken.

April 03, 2008 9:45 AM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

As being contrary to a vision of a universal morality, yes, your beliefs are hateful. As an aspect of your particular religion's beliefs, it is not immoral, because you define your morality as you see fit. You have no idea what the majority of human beings has thought in the past.

I won't respond to the rest of your insinuations, or your dream of a referendum.

April 03, 2008 9:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I know you think that, Dana, and I'm not objecting to you expressing that opinion. I'm just pointing out that Jim's equating that point of view with threats is inflammatory. This whole idea that disagreement about moral principles is a type of violence is a key component of the fallaciousness of post-modern thought.

April 03, 2008 10:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous: it is ludicrous for you to suggest that a member of the County Council, elected by the voters of this County, is trying to use death threats and hate mail against her for political gain. ("...Duchy has tried to get a political benefit out of making these "threats" public"). Why would you suggest that she keep these actions secret? She, in fact, has a responsibility to report to her constituents whenever such actions take place. You "conservatives" love to speak out of both sides of your mouths. You relish using Rovian tactics and then love to cry "discrimination" or "gay agenda" or "anti-American" whenever anyone calls you on your immoral and unethical behaviors and statements. Hypocritical to the nth degree!
RT

April 03, 2008 10:19 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"it is ludicrous for you to suggest that a member of the County Council, elected by the voters of this County, is trying to use death threats and hate mail against her for political gain"

Oh yeah, ludicrous. What was I thinking? A politician exaggerating for political gain? Of course not.

Not if she's been "elected by the voters of this County."

That's a guarantee of honest and upright behavior right there!

These gay advocates were saying all this last time their cause was in trouble. One time, Sharon Cox didn't show at a meeting with the upcounty voters because there was supposedly some threat. Very convenient. Was any proof ever found? What became of the investigation into that?

April 03, 2008 10:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, AnonFreak-- you are saying that threats and hate-mail is OKAY?

Hmm. Sounds pretty similar to the thoughts of the Westboro Baptist Church to me!

April 03, 2008 11:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Threats are obviously bad. Try to rise above your usual moronic level of thought, Derrick.

Hate mail is bad too, although this term is not clearly defined and not in the same league with threats. Some things that TTF calls "hate mail" is just people differing with their opinion.

My misgiving is that TTF implies that CRG or their supporters have sent threats but there is never any proof or, even, a rationale to explain why CRG would do this. The suggestion is just scurrilous.

CRG has consistently presented their opinion and used moral suasion to argue it. They have never engaged in violence or threats.

April 03, 2008 11:23 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

Some things that TTF calls "hate mail" is just people differing with their opinion.

Anon, Google shows the occurrence of the words "hate mail" seven times on the TTF web site, and two of those are duplicates, so the phrase has appeared five times. Twice in 2005 I referred to some nasty emails that were sent to us as "hate mail." If you saw it, I think you would agree, we received some extreme email after the 2005 court ruling. Other occurrences of the phrase were quotes from news stories: three of them.

Your comment is symptomatic. You have a stereotype of TTF or "liberals" or whatever you think you're arguing against, and you are blind to the reality. It fits your stereotype to believe that TTF calls differing opinions hate mail, but there is no substance to the assertion. It's just not a phrase we use, never mind use it to describe opinions that differ from ours.

I don't expect you to retract your comment or even to think about it. I expect you to continue making baseless assertions as if they were facts, without insight, without thought. Stereotypes are your substitute for thinking, I will not look for you to peek outside your world and see what's really out here.

JimK

April 03, 2008 12:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

AnonFreak- you sound frustrated. You deserve it. :-)

April 03, 2008 1:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, we'll let the readers make up their mind, Jim. Why do all their thinking for them?

Of course, on a related topic, it's hard not to feel for the Democrats in their current travails. I hear Bill Clinton got red in the face when someone mentioned Bill Richardson to him yesterday.

I think I have a best case scenario for you guys.

Consider this:

Harry Reid, selfless soul that he is, offers Hillary that Senate Majority Leader spot if she'll drop out and clear the way for Obama.

Obama, obviously unelectable, goes down by 10 points to McCain-Huckabee, entering the dustbin of history with Kerry, Gore and Dukakis.

Hillary becomes the most prominent Democrat in America leading Senate Democrats against the McCain agenda. She uses her platform to win the nomination in 2012.

McCain, because of age-related health problems, resigns before the end of his term, leaving the man from Hope to run for re-election.

Hillary runs on pro-choice platform, advocating a constitutional amendment to make abortion legal again after the Roberts court, with its three new McCain appointees, reverses Rowe v Wade.

Republicans get to beat Hillary in 2012, making it 4 in a row.

This time, by a historic landslide.

Anyone think this is possible?

April 03, 2008 1:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim,

I'm a newly-posting "Anonymous" to the site. I'll sign my posts as "Interested Reader."

Anyway, I'm not understanding your post about being offended that someone questioned your use of the the term "hate mail." You said that you have used that word only two times in 2005. However, you used the term "hate mail" as the headline of your post today and in your first paragraph.

I'm not following your logic here....??

Thanks in advance for any clarification you can give.

Interested Reader

April 03, 2008 1:55 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Interested Reader, it's pretty easy to confuse you. This post had not yet been seen by Google when I searched earlier. Now it shows up in a search. I could be a big fat liar, because I have used the term "hate mail" three and not two times over the past three and a half years, and you caught me.

This was not a matter of someone differing with our opinion of things, IR, these were death threats and ugly things. The FBI doesn't come in to iron out differences of opinion.

JimK

April 03, 2008 2:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If the FBI was called in, it was because an elected official alleged they received a death threat. I don't think they're investigating "hate-mail".

Could you give us your definition of hate mail, Jim? Reading your post again you continue to blur all distinctions.

April 03, 2008 2:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There was an interesting discussion on another of my favorite Blog sites: "Box Turtle Bulletin" today. The subject was the intrusive "taking over" of discussion by various "anonymous" responders. It sounded very much like what is happening here: "Anonymous" (in various guises of Anonymous) is trying to hijacking this site! Here's what two of the respondants on that site had to say:
Patrick
April 2nd, 2008 |
"I’ve noticed this strategy on other websites. If they do not wish to argue the merits of the argument, for whatever reason, anti-gay folks will deliberately change the subject of the conversation, try to overwhelm the opposition through many posts and academic-sounding language (which usually isn’t), or try to confuse the opponents (through obfuscation, using terms for which only they “know” the meaning, etc). When all is said and done, the one thing that remains is they never discussed the actual points being raised. You’ve witnessed a great example of this strategy. No matter how many times I go back and read their posts I either see no relevance to their argument or I cannot make sense of what they are trying to say. I’ve even had some of my smarter friends read their posts and they couldn’t figure it out either. It’s just a bunch of jibberish being passed off as if it were meaningful. It kind of reminds me of Jabberwocky - the words are used in grammatical ways but the meaning is nonexistent."
and again:
Fannie
April 3rd, 2008 |
"Thank you for doing this.
I am familiar with these bloggers and their tendency to completely overwhelm comment threads they participate and then declare victory when they are met with silence. They have a bold sense of entitlement in thinking that they have a “right” to monopolize comment threads, often forcing discussions way off topic. And, as I’m sure you’ve noticed, they are oftentimes unnecessarily aggressive and condescending.
They have been banned from a multitude of blogs (including mine) and they should really be asking themselves why."
AMEN to that!!
This is strikingly similar to what is happening on the Teach The Facts site. "Anonymous" believes he/her/it can use this forum to pass on his "wisdom" and condemnation of anybody who is different from him or who thinks differently. It seems this is now a common tactic of the hard-line extreme right-wing political and religious fundamentalists.
I have periodically suggested that the various "Anonymous" CRGers who pontificate here develop their own web blog site. But, as another commentator on Box Turtle pointed out, they will not do that as they know there is no audience for their distortions, lies, and hatred amongst themselves. They just have to hijack another site to hopefully reach a wider audience.

It seems it is now time for the moderator of this site to be more judicious and take more aggressive action to stop the redundant ramblings of "Anonymous".
Diogenes

April 03, 2008 3:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A death threat is not a love letter, it's hate mail.

April 03, 2008 5:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, it is. I think Jim throws more into the category than that though. He's been asked for a definition but none has been forthcoming.

April 03, 2008 5:08 PM  
Blogger Unknown said...

Stunning said…
"Yes, it is. I think Jim throws more into the category than that though."

Indeed, Jim uses a hyphen.

April 03, 2008 5:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

He's been asked for a definition but none has been forthcoming.

It sounds like Anon is getting ready to "declare victory [because her question has been] met with silence"

Good call, Diogenes.

April 03, 2008 7:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea- not anon
The suggested political future of America verifies my analysis of Anon- seriously nutty. NMAnon- did you go into your retirement fund to support Huckie?

After Obama wins the election, will you permanently retire from this blog?

April 03, 2008 7:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I hope that you learn to love yourself someday, AnonFreak...so that you can, in return, love others.

I am that there are tons of B.C. psychologist in the area (and not the fake ones like PFOX has) who can help you work towards that goal.

April 03, 2008 8:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The suggested political future of America verifies my analysis of Anon- seriously nutty. NMAnon- did you go into your retirement fund to support Huckie?

After Obama wins the election, will you permanently retire from this blog?"

Oh, sure, I promise.

Have you noticed, Andrea, that Huckabee has changed expectations for losing candidates in the primaries? Hillary now basically plagiarizes his words verbatim when explaining why she's not dropping out. That's the way it is with real leaders. Everyone says they're nuts and then follows them.

I will say this for Obama: he doesn't really have a chance after the revelations of the last month but he has handled the whole situation as well as can be expected. He comes across as genuine and dignified, not as a typical politician.

Having said that, have you heard about his extreme views on abortion? He opposed a law in Illinois that outlawed doctors killing babies that survive abortions. He has been quoted as saying babies don't deserve the protection of the law until they leave the hospital with their mother. Add this to the wife and pastor stuff and it's obvious Obama doesn't have a snowball's chance on the edge of the Antarctic ice shelf.

Huckabee is seen as nutty by the political establishment because he wants to abolish the IRS but Obama thinks it's OK to kill inconvenient children?

Andrea the androgynut from Takoma Park has a funny vision of common sense.

April 03, 2008 10:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's great Anon, cling to the old wedge issues of the so-called Moral Majority, which is neither moral nor a majority. When your arguments run out of steam on the "gay" issue, you revert to the old standby, "abortion." You even pointed out the hanky panky of an elected Democrat's spouse. which is a new low, even for you. Thanks for demonstrating just how low you're willing to go because you are so full of hate you're blinded by it.

Wake up and smell the new millenium! It's time to pull together and effect change we can all believe in. Americans of faith are uniting behind the goal of saving our planet Earth from environmental degradation. We're all looking forward to the day President Obama appoints Al Gore to help us solve the global warming problem Bush has ignored for 8 years.

April 04, 2008 7:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous:
Refer to my post above. You need to take a vacation where you can pull yourself together - exorcise your hatred and bigotry and smarmy know-it-all attitude. Perhaps you could even begin to make plans to establish your own Blog site where you can spout your inanities to the crowd out there that revels in disparaging everything, hating anyone who is different from them, and who see conspiracies against their own lives at every turn.
Get a life!
Diogenes

April 04, 2008 9:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"That's great Anon, cling to the old wedge issues of the so-called Moral Majority, which is neither moral nor a majority. When your arguments run out of steam on the "gay" issue, you revert to the old standby, "abortion.""

Are you not aware, Beatrice, that the vast majority of Americans believe abortion is immoral outside of certain extraordinary circumstances? Obama's stance will repel them.

"You even pointed out the hanky panky of an elected Democrat's spouse. which is a new low, even for you. Thanks for demonstrating just how low you're willing to go because you are so full of hate you're blinded by it."

Not long ago, TTF was highlighting every Republican sex scandal. I pointed out then that this stuff knows no political boundaries. Do you remember how low you were back then? Glad you believe in taking the higher road now.

"Wake up and smell the new millenium! It's time to pull together and effect change we can all believe in. Americans of faith are uniting behind the goal of saving our planet Earth from environmental degradation."

There have always been "Americans of faith" who considered environmentalism important. I remember going to a Bible study at an evangelical youth group over forty years ago where the leader of the study was emphasizing that God has commanded us in Genesis to take care of the Earth. Every time the media discovers its own biases, it pretends there's been some major shift in thinking. Take it with a grain of salt.

"We're all looking forward to the day President Obama appoints Al Gore to help us solve the global warming problem Bush has ignored for 8 years."

Gee, I hope by then Al actually has some idea what to do about global warming. The Kyoto Protocal was never submitted to Congress for ratification by the Clinton administration. Which is just as well since studies show it would be a tremendous economic burden and would not solve the problem. Symbolic PR won't bring temperatures down.

BTW, scientists have noted a global cooling trend in the last six months that may be the beginning of another break from global warming, like the one the lasted from 1945-1975.

Also, it won't be an issue for Obama anyway since McCain also favors talks with other countries to reduce global warming. Just saw him say so on TV last night.

April 04, 2008 10:10 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

Not long ago, TTF was highlighting every Republican sex scandal...

Anon, there is a kind of scandal story I tend to go with, and you're right, it does tend to feature a Republican or a Christian preacher. I skip a lot of them, but if I am going to blog about a sex scandal it is almost always when a rabid anti-gay extremist turns out to be gay himself. There are gay Democrats, and there are Democratic sex scandals, but isn't it strange that the Democratic sex scandals almost always involve a adult man and an adult woman, and the Republican scandals often don't? For what it's worth, it seems that Democrats are usually the sexual orientation they say they are.

JimK

April 04, 2008 10:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

OK, Jim, we'll ignore Barney Frank and Gerry Studds.

One other thing: someone mentioned this is low because it involved a lawmaker's spouse. Actually, the individual was the co-founder of the liberal, and not very successful, TALKUSA Radio network.

April 04, 2008 10:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea- not anon
Wrong as usual, NM anon - on both counts. Am I surprised!

April 04, 2008 11:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

well, at least andrea is concise, if not precise

a little hard to argue with someone who doesn't say anything

April 04, 2008 12:55 PM  
Blogger Unknown said...

"Not long ago, TTF was highlighting every Republican sex scandal. I pointed out then that this stuff knows no political boundaries."
--
The "highlighting" of Republican sex scandals in particular, has to do with their hypocrisy - which does seem to have very specific political boundaries.

Bad Boys, Nasty Boys: Out of the GOP’s Closet
by Michael Parenti


"GOP leaders dilate on the need to “put God back into public life.” Many of them even claim to be directly guided by their deity’s mandate when legislating and governing. Their private deeds, however, frequently betray their words. Consider this incomplete sampling of politically prominent “social conservatives” who preach the conventional virtues to their constituents while practicing something else in their off-hours.
[…]
In the above cases, what is deplorable is not only the obviously hypocritical inconsistency between professed beliefs and private behavior, but the professed beliefs themselves; beliefs that advocate discrimination against gays, brand prostitutes as criminals, equate abortion with murder, denounce divorce as a mortal threat to family and nation, and treat sex between unmarried consenting adults (even of the heterosexual variety) as sinful fornication.
[…]
So the holy hypocrites-philanderers, homophobic gays, and pedophiles—crow their devotion to traditional morality while pursuing material and emotional plunder more rapaciously than any of us ordinary infidels and libertines. Looking at the above cases, and the many others that one could add if space and patience allowed, we can conclude that professions of religiosity are no guarantee of moral behavior. If anything, the hypocrites use religion as a bludgeon to be brandished against liberal opponents in order that they themselves might better pursue their aggrandizing goals and desires—no matter how selfish and destructive these may be. If this be morality, who needs degeneracy?"

--
The article highlights 19 examples if you care to read about them.

April 04, 2008 3:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon claimed the vast majority of Americans believe abortion is immoral outside of certain extraordinary circumstances

Got some data to back up your fantasy? Here's what The Pew Forum reports about Americans' opinions on the issue.

The poll finds that a majority (52%) of Americans express support for legalized abortion in most (35%) or all (17%) cases, while 43% oppose legalized abortion in most (26%) or all (17%) circumstances. These findings are consistent with the results from other surveys over the past few years.

Women are slightly more likely than men (21% to 14%) to say that abortion should be legal in all cases. College graduates are significantly more likely than those without any college education to say abortion should be legal (62% vs. 46%).

Among major political groups, liberal Democrats are by far the most supportive of legalized abortion, with 85% saying it should be legal in all (35%) or most (50%) cases. Majorities of moderate and liberal Republicans (54%), political independents (54%), and moderate and conservative Democrats (58%) also say abortion should be legal. Among conservative Republicans, by contrast, 69% say abortion should be illegal in most (42%) or all (27%) cases.

Among religious groups, white evangelical Protestants are most opposed to abortion. Less than a third (31%) believes that it should be legal, while two-thirds believe it should be illegal in most (39%) or all (26%) cases. Majorities in most other major religious groups support legalized abortion, including white Catholics (51%), white mainline Protestants (63%), black Protestants (60%) and the unaffiliated (68%).

April 05, 2008 7:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't know what the definition of "most" is in your survey, but the Pew survey you cite says only 17% of Americans agree with Obama that abortion should be legal in all cases.

I know a CBS News survey in 2006 found that 27% of Americans believe this so the number of people who accept abortion as a morally neutral choice is in decline.

The Democratic party is cursed because they wholeheartedly embrace this evil without restriction or reservation. They need a leader to correct this.

April 06, 2008 5:08 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, I'm sorry but I for one am running out of patience with your bullshit. I'll leave this comment but after this I'm going to start deleting your lies. If you continue to be a problem, eventually I'll block you entirely from the site. Give it a break.

JimK

April 06, 2008 5:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The poll finds that a majority (52%) of Americans express support for legalized abortion in most (35%) or all (17%) cases"

"but the Pew survey you cite says only 17% of Americans agree with Obama that abortion should be legal in all cases"

"I'm going to start deleting your lies"

April 06, 2008 6:33 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, this is just what I'm talking about. Aunt Bea quoted that source directly. The fact that only 17% of people think abortion should be legal in all circumstances simply means most people think there should be some control over it. "All circumstances" might include a situation where the husband demands an abortion but the wife doesn't want to, it can be all kinds of things, and it's not surprising that most people think there should be some regulation. The fact is, as the report says and Aunt Bea quoted, "The poll finds that a majority (52%) of Americans express support for legalized abortion in most (35%) or all (17%) cases." If you are trying to imply that she was lying in reporting this fact, then you're crazy, because she did not say anything about anyone agreeing with Obama, she simply pasted in the results of a survey.

This kind of thing has got to stop, you are free to express you opinions here but I want you to remain factual, respectful, and on-topic, whether everybody else is or not. You know I can see your Fios address and will block it if you continue this, also your work account.

JimK

April 06, 2008 6:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

""All circumstances" might include a situation where the husband demands an abortion but the wife doesn't want to, it can be all kinds of things, and it's not surprising that most people think there should be some regulation."

It obviously doesn't mean that. To make abortion illegal, it would have to apply to someone involved in the act.

True that the poll wording that AB posted was vague but she used it to counter my statement that most Americans believe abortion is immoral except in extraorinary circulstances. That is a fact. Most Americans believe that abortion is wrong except in cases of rape, incest or when a pregancy endagers a mother's life. While not perfect, Americans at least have a good idea of the difference between right and wrong.

April 06, 2008 11:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Most Americans believe that abortion is wrong except in cases of rape, incest or when a pregancy endagers a mother's life.

Show us the factual basis for this statement of opinion.

April 07, 2008 7:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Better yet, let's focus on the poll AB cited above and examine how Obama's position diverges from the views of respectable Americans.

Obama believes that it should legal to kill a child that has survived an abortion attempt. He also believes late-term and partial birth abortions should be legal. That gets him an endorsement from NARAL but not from America.

Here's an excerpt from the Pew Forum website referring to the poll AB cited:

"Since the Supreme Court upheld the congressional ban on partial birth abortion earlier this year, views of the procedure have remained relatively stable. An overwhelming number of Americans (75%) favor keeping partial birth or late term abortion illegal. Even among those who say abortion should be legal in all cases, almost half (49%) believe that partial birth abortion procedures should be illegal. Overall, only 17% of Americans say that partial birth abortion should be legal."

April 07, 2008 8:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just when did Obama state, "it should legal to kill a child?" Can you provide a quote or are you lying again?

In the past, Mitt Romney was pro-choice. And during the 2000 election, we all remember this exchange with John McCain:

"What would you do if your 15-year-old daughter needed an abortion?," and McCain says, "We'd consult the family, but it would kind of be her decision."

Looks like all the Presidential choices are really pro-choice, just like the majority of Americans and unlike Anon.

April 07, 2008 9:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Look up his record in the state legislature, AB:

"Obama's record on abortion is extreme. He opposed the ban on partial-birth abortion -- a practice a fellow Democrat, the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, once called "too close to infanticide." Obama strongly criticized the Supreme Court decision upholding the partial-birth ban. In the Illinois state Senate, he opposed a bill similar to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which prevents the killing of infants mistakenly left alive by abortion. And now Obama has oddly claimed that he would not want his daughters to be "punished with a baby" because of a crisis pregnancy -- hardly a welcoming attitude toward new life.

For decades, most Democrats and many Republicans have hoped the political debate on abortion would simply go away. But it is the issue that does not die. Recent polls have shown that young people are more likely than their elders to support abortion restrictions. Few Americans oppose abortion under every circumstance, but a majority oppose most of the abortions that actually take place -- generally supporting the procedure only in the case of rape or incest, or to save the life of the mother.

Perhaps this is a revolt against a culture of disposability. Perhaps it reflects the continuing revolution of ultrasound technology -- what might be called the "Juno" effect. In the delightful movie by that name, the protagonist, a pregnant teen seeking an abortion, is confronted by a classmate who informs her that the unborn child already has fingernails -- which causes second thoughts. A worthless part of its mother's body -- a clump of protoplasmic rubbish -- doesn't have fingernails.

Abortion is an unavoidable moral issue. It also has broader political significance. Democrats of a past generation -- the generation of Hubert Humphrey and Martin Luther King Jr. -- spoke about building a beloved community that cared especially for the elderly, the weak, the disadvantaged and the young."

April 07, 2008 9:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Friday, April 4, 2008 19:14 EDT
Quote of the day

"We can be slow, as well, to give greatness its due, a mistake I made myself long ago when I voted against a federal holiday in memory of Dr. King. I was wrong and eventually realized that, in time to give full support for a state holiday in Arizona. We can all be a little late sometimes in doing the right thing, and Dr. King understood this about his fellow Americans. But he knew as well that in the long term, confidence in the reasonability and good heart of America is always well-placed. And always, that was his method in word and action -- to remind us of who we are and what we believe. His arguments were unanswerable and they were familiar, the case always resting on the writings of the Founders, the teachings of the prophets, and the word of the Lord."

That's John McCain, trying to apologize for voting against the federal holiday honoring the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. McCain spoke Friday, the 40th anniversary of King's assassination, in front of the motel where King was killed. He was invited there by the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, which King once headed. The apology prompted jeers from the crowd.

― Alex Koppelman

=================

"It took 15 years to create the federal Martin Luther King, Jr., holiday. Congressman John Conyers, Democrat from Michigan, first introduced legislation for a commemorative holiday four days after King was assassinated in 1968. After the bill became stalled, petitions endorsing the holiday containing six million names were submitted to Congress.

Conyers and Rep. Shirley Chisholm, Democrat of New York, resubmitted King holiday legislation each subsequent legislative session. Public pressure for the holiday mounted during the 1982 and 1983 civil rights marches in Washington.

Congress passed the holiday legislation in 1983, which was then signed into law by President Ronald Reagan. A compromise moving the holiday from Jan. 15, King's birthday, which was considered too close to Christmas and New Year's, to the third Monday in January helped overcome opposition to the law.

National Consensus on the Holiday:
A number of states resisted celebrating the holiday. Some opponents said King did not deserve his own holiday—contending that the entire civil rights movement rather than one individual, however instrumental, should be honored. Several southern states include celebrations for various Confederate generals on that day. Arizona voters approved the holiday in 1992 after a tourist boycott. In 1999, New Hampshire changed the name of Civil Rights Day to Martin Luther King, Jr., Day.

MLK Holiday Timeline

1968 Martin Luther King, Jr. assassinated; Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., introduces legislation for federal holiday to commemorate King

1973 Illinois is first state to adopt MLK Day as a state holiday

1983 Congress passes, President Reagan signs, legislation creating Martin Luther King, Jr. Day

1986 Federal MLK holiday goes into effect

1987 Arizona governor Evan Mecham rescinds MLK Day as his first act in office, setting off a boycott of the state.

1989 State MLK holiday adopted in 44 states

1991 The NFL moves the 1993 Super Bowl site from Phoenix, Ariz., to Pasadena, Calif., because of the MLK Day boycott.

1992 Arizona citizens vote to enact MLK Day. The Super Bowl is held in Tempe, Ariz. in 1996.

1993 For the first time, MLK Day is held in some form—sometimes under a different name, and not always as a paid state holiday—in all fifty states.

1999 New Hampshire becomes the last state to adopt MLK Day as a paid state holiday, replacing its optional Civil Rights Day.

2000 Utah becomes the last state to recognize MLK Day by name, renaming its Human Rights Day state holiday.

South Carolina becomes the last state to make MLK Day a paid holiday for all state employees. Until now, employees could choose between celebrating it or one of three Confederate-related holidays."

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/mlkhistory1.html

April 07, 2008 9:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon's unattributed quotes about Obama were written by Micheal Gerson, who was hired on as a speechwriter for Dubya's 2000 campaign by Karl Rove in 1999.
Gerson has described himself as a "Bob Casey Democrat" and said that Jimmy Carter was his childhood political hero.

Democrats aren't afraid of this issue because they know most Americans want abortion to remain safe and legal so women won't ever have to resort to back-alleys again to end unwanted and unplanned pregancies.

April 07, 2008 10:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anon's unattributed quotes about Obama were written by Micheal Gerson, who was hired on as a speechwriter for Dubya's 2000 campaign by Karl Rove in 1999.
Gerson has described himself as a "Bob Casey Democrat" and said that Jimmy Carter was his childhood political hero."

So what? The fact is, as Gerson pointed out, Obama opposed a law in Illinois to outlaw the killing of children who survive an abortion attempt. Supporting Casey and Carter are nothing that should scandalize any readers here. They are both superdelegates to the Democratic convention and Casey has endorsed Obama.

"Democrats aren't afraid of this issue because they know most Americans want abortion to remain safe and legal so women won't ever have to resort to back-alleys again to end unwanted and unplanned pregancies."

Most Americans don't want that. Abortion is a murder. It is, by definition, unsafe for somebody. Democrats' disregard for the life of the weak is a key factor in their defeat in seven of the last ten presidential races. One of those three wins was Carter who was viciously attacked by liberals for forbidding the use of Federal funds to pay for abortions when he was President.

April 07, 2008 10:55 AM  
Blogger S. Wales said...

Civil Rights are at the core of our constitution. I am somewhat afraid of having a gay book site, but feel I must not allow fear to prevent me from doing what is right. I wright gay books. www.beautobeau.com is my site, and I'm proud of it.

B.K. Wright

May 16, 2008 2:43 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home