Tuesday, March 06, 2007


I was puttering about WingNutDaily (Chuckles is blasting away at sexual slavery in lieu of Women's Month, and for once I agree with him), when I came across this site (on the WMD Norris jokes forum - I was checking to see if my challenge ever posted: no surprise, it sure didn't) , which in turn led me to this site, on which a "Values Voters' Contract with Congress" is listed.

Of course, my blood pressure shot up.

Fisk as follows:

"We are citizens of the United States of America and subjects of the sovereign Creator, acknowledged in the Declaration of Independence as the Supreme Ruler and Judge of the World. We hereby declare our belief in the self-evident truths established by the Declaration, to wit, that we are all created equal and endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that human governments are instituted to secure these rights, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. We strongly affirm our allegiance to the Constitution of the United States, as it was framed and amended in light of these truths, to provide for a republican form of government, which means a government of the people, by the people and for the people, in which they make laws and govern themselves through representatives they elect."

Most of this is all right (not crazy about the 'Supreme Ruler' or 'Judge of this World' crap, but I can let that slide). There's worse to come, however.

"Moved by our faith in God and this republican creed we join together now to defend representative self-government against the greatest assault it has ever faced. This assault has been more dangerous and successful because it comes from within and aims to destroy not just our physical defenses, but the moral ideas, habits and practices that sustain our character as a free people."

Uh-oh. Is there a 'Fifth Columnist' jingle I can trot out? I smell the distant scent of religious McCarthyism here.

"As a nation the United States of America has achieved material success unparalleled in previous human history."

True enough. So much for 'thou shalt not covet...'

"But without fortitude and selfdiscipline, we would not have reaped the fruits of free enterprise. We have thrice led our Allies to victory against foes that enacted the worst possibilities of human depravity."

What, only 'thrice'? WWI, WWII...what am I missing here? Probably Saddam. Okay, a little slack.

"But without courage and a true sense of responsibility for ourselves and all humanity we would not have triumphed against their cruel and implacable ambition. We have achieved or applied unprecedented advances in scientific knowledge. But without respect for the gentle yoke of God’s reason, and the diverse possibilities with which it has seeded the comprehensible universe, we could not have expanded the enlightened sphere of human comprehension. We have truly experienced the blessings of liberty, but never without the virtues and qualities of good conscience and decent character."

So thus far, slightly hyperbolic rhetoric, hard to really critique, all re-framing to solicit the unheard 'hallelujah!' Now that the targeted audience is well in the pocket, time for the 'excluded middle' fallacy and conspiracy charges.

"For some decades now supposedly “liberal” and “progressive” forces within our society have waged an insidious campaign to corrupt and destroy the moral foundations of our liberty."

And WE'RE accused of fear-mongering? Moral foundations? More Ozzie and Harriet histrionics.

"Under the compassionate guise of government welfare and social programs they have eroded our fortitude and self-discipline, taxed away our independent resources, and in particular undermined the centrality of family as the locus of individual self-reliance."

The 'compassionate guise'? Blaming welfare and social programs? Hidden agendas? See, there should be a program called Allegories Anonymous. What's wrong with welfare? Aren't they supposed to be 'feeding the poor'? Trying to eradicate povery? Apparently the 'ebil libruls' are doing their jobs for them.

"Under the guise of sexual freedom and self-determination they have corrupted our sense of responsibility for our own offspring in the womb and for our biological relationships in general."

You can file that 'guise of sexual freedom' under the 'pursuit of happiness' clause, thanks much. Christlation: 'Homosexual agenda, abortion, and gay marriage is corrupting our children's bodily juices'.

"This ultimately affects all relationships that draw upon the capacity for self-sacrifice we ought naturally to learn and practice in the context of decent family life."

Let me guess: you're drawing on the old 'good Christian family values' paradigm that it is an historical myth, right?

"Under the guise of scientific knowledge, and a fallacious separation of religion from public life, they have thrown off the yoke of reason, and denied our sovereign right to acknowledge, as a people, the existence and authority of the Creator. "

Denied? Nobody's denied these cretins anything. A hissy fit about loss of special privileges, no matter how sugar-coated in neologisms, is still a hissy fit.You acknowledge whoever you damn well please: but by no means are you entitled to push it on others.

But the Creator’s being and will represent the principle of unity that makes possible both the diversity of individuals and the orderly community that, on the whole, they may become. Thus, though they masquerade as the champions of community and compassion, these self-styled “liberals” and “progressives” have discarded the principle of unity, the sense of a common good, indispensable to both.

And now we have the 'common enemy'. Good vs. evil, poisoning the well, the threat of encroaching chaos! I swear, these people live in a comic book world.

"As the principal instrument for their assault upon the foundations of our liberty they have resorted to an abuse of the judicial system, and in particular the Federal judiciary’s assertion of supreme and unchecked constitutional power that supersedes and may arbitrarily nullify any action taken by the executive or legislative branches."

Can you say 'activist judges', boys and girls? The judiciary is supposed to provide a check - that's what it's there for. But let's not let reality intrude, shall we?

"But the Framers of the Constitution understood that sinful human nature is always a prey to inordinate ambition.

Ummm...I'm pretty well read on the Framers and their opinions, and I don't quite recall anyone mentioning Original Sin - not even Benjamin Rush. Of course, this is the old 'original intent' reframed so the believer will buy it.

"Therefore, the Constitution denies supremacy to any one branch of government in order to secure self-government by the people as a whole. By itself, therefore, the assertion of judicial supremacy overthrows the framework of self-government established by our Constitution. However, the power thus destructively obtained has been even more destructively used."

'Activist judges' again. 'Judicial supremacy'? Christlation: "Anything we disagree with."

"Disregarding the Constitution’s explicit terms, the U.S. Supreme Court has arrogated to itself governmental power that the Tenth Amendment unambiguously reserves to “the states respectively and to the people” and created from its false reading of the Establishment Clause a pervasive hostility to religion."

The Tenth Amendment, in it's entirety, reads thusly:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people."

It's sufficiently ambiguous (like the bible) to create numerous interpretations. A 'false reading' of the ES? What, it actually meant that it should respect religion?

"Disregarding the Constitution's explicit terms, the U.S. Supreme Court has arbitrarily withdrawn the protection of the community from generations to come. By authorizing an assault upon the natural rights of children in the womb it has abandoned in principle the Constitution’s stated objective of securing the blessings of liberty “to ourselves and our posterity.”

'Natural rights'? Gee, last time I checked the Fourteenth amendment explicitly gives rights to the born, not the unborn. 'Blessings of liberty'? Who said that, exactly?

"In consequence of this power-grab, and the false claim that makes it possible, the Courts have purported to forbid prayer and other religious elements in government funded schools, activities and projects authorized by the people;"

That's what the ES covers. 'Respecting or prohibiting'. Do work on your reading comprehension.

"They have interfered with the public celebration of religious festivals and observances determined by the people;"

Whom, exactly? No citations: hyperbole only.

"They now seek to remove all references to the Creator, God, from public declarations adopted by the people, in particular the display of the Ten Commandments or other revered religious symbols on public property; the words “under God” from the pledge of allegiance, and “In God we Trust” from our coins and currency."

That falls under 'respecting religion' in the ES. Anyone with a lick of knowledge knows those last two were recent insertions.

Having in this abusive fashion denied the people’s authority over their own religious affairs, power-grabbing Judges have begun a similar campaign against the general moral authority of the people. In Particular:

Ummm...no, the 'people's authority' (as in people, as in everyone) doesn't extend to imposing the majority's religion over the minority's.

"They are attempting to deny the sovereign right of the people as a whole to define the public standard of marriage in accordance with their moral beliefs and practices;"

I'm kinda losing patience here: MARRIAGE IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE: IT ISN'T DEFINED BY YOUR LIKES AND DISLIKES. That's discrimination, bucko.

"They are seeking to destroy the authority of parents to supervise the upbringing of their children, especially when it comes to their sexual education, behavior and decision making. In its place they mean to substitute the power of government as the chief determinant of individual personality, paving the way for totalitarian control and repression."

That crosses my eyes. I thought you people were doing that, vis-a-vis legislating your laughable 'morality'.

"Our identity as a people arises more from our adherence to common moral principles than from any other characteristic. The Judicial assault against the moral authority and sovereign rights of the people therefore weakens our sense that despite our great diversity we have become, out of many, one nation. But the Courts have also assaulted the strength of our national identity more directly:"

Oooh, oooh, time for patriotic imposture!

"By purporting to apply in their decisions foreign laws never subject to ratification or legislation by proper Constitutional means;"

What the hell is this guy talking about? Again, no citations.

"By interfering with the sovereign right of the people to establish immigration policies, police our national borders and administer public services and programs with respect for the distinction between citizens and non-citizens. This has contributed to weakened border security, and a tide of illegal immigration that, in the context of international terrorism, may also bring with it a threat to our physical security."

Man, this cat is just all over the place, isn't he? The 'ebil libruls' are just the harbingers of chaos, ain't we? I believe that W. is actually somewhat 'liberal' in this regard, isn't he? Maybe he should write a letter about the KSA exporting Wahabbi terrorists to the White House?

"In defense of our national principles, our Constitution of self-government, our decent character, and our shared national identity, we the undersigned citizens of the United States come together in support of actions we hereby agree to be right and necessary for the common good of all."

Yeah, that'll shut up all the alleged 'progressives' and 'libruls', won't it?

"We therefore seek the following:

"1. TO AFFIRM the national relationship with God in our places of worship, schools, mottos, and public spaces, we call for the passage of –

  • The Pledge Protection Act to prohibit activist judges from taking "under God" out of the Pledge (H.R. 2389, S.1046);
  • The Constitution Restoration Act to prohibit activist judges from ruling against acknowledgments of God (H.R. 1070, S.520);
  • The Public Expression of Religion Act to prohibit activist judges from ordering taxpayers to pay lawyers who seek to erode our national relationship with God (H.R. 2679); and
  • The Workplace Religious Freedom Act to promote religious accommodation in employment (H.R. 1445, S. 677).

Yeah, let's just scotch the entire First Amendment, shall we? Pesky inconvenient liberties we can do without, no doubt.

"2. TO SECURE our national interest in the institutions of marriage and family, we call for the passage of –

  • A constitutional amendment to completely protect the institution of marriage; and
  • The Marriage Protection Act to prohibit activist judges from forcing states to redefine the institution of marriage (H.R. 1100). "

Absolutists give me such a headache. Yeah, let's 86 (or amend) the entire concept of civil rights, shall we?

3. TO SECURE our fundamental right as parents to the care, custody, and control of our children, we call for the passage of –

  • Legislation to codify the principles set forth on Nov. 16, 2005, in House Resolution 547 which would protect parental rights;
  • The Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act to prohibit the transportation of minors against parental rights (H.R.748);
  • The Parental Consent Act to prohibit the use of federal funds for any universal or mandatory mental health screening (H.R. 181);
  • The Child Medication Safety Act, to protect children from being coerced into taking drugs in order to attend school (H.R. 1790);
  • Legislation that empowers parents to choose schools for their families that share their value choices, as well as ensures families are not forced to pay twice for their educational choices; and
  • We call for enforcement of the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA), which prohibits schools from using privacy invading surveys or evaluations without prior written parental consent (20 U.S.C. 1232h).

Actually, I'm in favor for most of number three, but there's so much information, I'm guessing it was structured so that it sounds good on the declaration, but most hard-working folks don't really do the homework.

4. TO SECURE our God-bestowed right to life, we call for the passage of –

  • Legislation to affirm the right to life of our children before birth;
  • The Human Cloning Protection Act to prohibit human cloning (S.658, H.R. 1357);
  • Legislation that protects life by prohibiting the use of human embryos for research;
  • The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act to raise awareness of the pain experienced by children before birth (S.51, H.R. 356); and
  • Legislation to prohibit any taxpayers’ money for organizations that perform, promote, and/or fund abortions.

Well then, there goes your 'original intent' argument right down the crapper, doesn't it?

5. TO SECURE our God-granted liberties, we call for the passage of –

  • Legislation to reverse the loss of religious liberty for churches concerning their involvement in moral and social issues;
  • Legislation to ensure that speech and lawful religious expression are never punished as a “hate crime”;
  • An amendment to the Higher Education Act to guarantee First Amendment rights of worship, speech, and association to students and employees as a condition of federal grants and student assistance;
  • Legislation to complete the incarceration process through prisoner re-entry training and child mentoring; and
  • Legislation or policies that call for continued rejection of the anti-family and deceptively-named “U.N. Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).”

Take a good look at 5.3: An amendment to the Higher Education Act to guarantee First Amendment rights of worship, speech, and association to students and employees as a condition of federal grants and student assistance - which sounds suspiciously like an effort to insert prayer back in school, as well as an effort to 'respecting religion' as prohibited in the Establishment Clause. Sneaky: always trying to slip things in under the radar.

6. TO SECURE our God-given stewardship of property, we call for the passage of –

  • Legislation affirming that government may not redefine “public use” to take the private property of one person to give to another.

That sound fine (but for the 'stewardship' part) - but instances, citations? A paucity.

7. TO SECURE an environment of decency that is free from pornography and obscenity, we call for the passage of –

  • Legislation to restrict obscenity and pornography, and guard against its mis-stated protection under the First Amendment.

How is it 'free from' and yet 'restricted'?

8. TO SECURE just taxes, and end immorally destructive taxation, we call for the passage of –

  • Legislation to fundamentally reform the national tax system and reduce the tax burden on Americans; and
  • Legislation to make permanent Marriage Penalty Relief and the Child Tax Credit.

This is how they work, y'see. They mix in some items that are perfectly all right with items that are outrageous to the extreme.

9. TO SECURE our national borders and identity, we call for the passage of –

  • True Enforcement and Border Security; and
  • Legislation to prohibit, in cases of constitutional interpretation, the use of foreign law as authority.

I'm still at a loss about this 'foreign law' crap.

10. Judges who legislate from the bench subvert our republican form of government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and threaten all these legislative aims.
THEREFORE, WE URGENTLY CALL FOR Judicial Restraint, and an end to Judicial Activism.

  • We call for the passage of the Judicial Conduct Act to hold federal judges accountable to the Constitution.

Define 'activism', if you please. Oh wait, I can: it means that the judges have to toe the party line, and are held accountable to...drum roll please...GAWD!

"Above every consideration of selfish passion, ambition, or interest, we hold to the ultimate intention of our Constitution: to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. For this purpose, and in support of the beliefs and actions we have herein declared, we pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our faithfulness, so help us God."

And so now he declares that this is all a selfless effort. Are you kidding me? You want to strip women of their reproductive rights (and self-ownership), you want to set marriage in stone (which it never has been before), you want to tell a minority they can't intermarry because it offends you, you want to attack the Mexican immigrants when we have a much clearer and present danger from the Middle East in re: terrorism, and you want to compound your viscous little fascist stew with a heapin' helpin' of 'think of the children'?

The real translation here, is that you want 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' on your own terms, and nobody else's. Which makes of you a tinpot tyrant, only a step up from the dynamics of a schoolyard bully who has no concept of the word 'share'.

Welcome to America, buddy-me-boyo. Your kingdom isn't 'of this earth' anyways, so spare us all your sanctimony and acrimony. This isn't my country, it's not your country, it's our country, and I'll be damned if I stand by and let some holier-than-thou religious fruitcake co-opt it under such a thin disguise.

Now go wait quietly for the Second Coming. It'll be a long wait, I guarantee it. 'Cause it ain't a-coming.

Final analysis: it's ON.

Till the next post, then.

Stumble Upon Toolbar


Anonymous said...

Some clarifications.

The Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act to prohibit the transportation of minors against parental rights (H.R.748)

That is, forbidding minors to go to another state to get an abortion without parental consent. The terminology is intentionally passive to make it sound like the minor is not an actor.

The Child Medication Safety Act, to protect children from being coerced into taking drugs in order to attend school (H.R. 1790)

Including vaccinations?

Legislation that empowers parents to choose schools for their families that share their value choices

i.e., vouchers for religious schools...

as well as ensures families are not forced to pay twice for their educational choices

and tax breaks for people who send their children to private schools.

Krystalline Apostate said...

anonymous - thanks for the clarification.
That is, forbidding minors to go to another state to get an abortion without parental consent. The terminology is intentionally passive to make it sound like the minor is not an actor.
I'm all for that. Wouldn't want my kid going across state lines w/o my permission, regardless of the reason.
Including vaccinations?
I'm assuming ridilin, but it's WAY too wide open, so probably.
i.e., vouchers for religious schools...
I was a little cross-eyed when I wrote the article. Obviously, yes.
and tax breaks for people who send their children to private schools.
2 words: special privileges.
Do Jewish & Muslim private schools get tax breaks too?

beepbeepitsme said...

OK, time to kick the south's butt again.

(So happy I don't live in the US, all that "holier than thou crap" that the new right fascisto come out with, would make me vomit on a regular basis."

I smell Mc Carthyism.

(By the way, I think the 3rd instance they were probably refering to, was the Cold War. You know, when our almighty leader, Ronnie Ray Gun, used the power of his mind meld, to destroy the Soviet Union.)

Krystalline Apostate said...

BBIM - yeah, old Ronnie still manages to haunt us years later 'from beyond the grave, oooh-eeee-oooh'.

karen said...

I don't think he wants a republic; I think he wants a theocracy.

And from the way I read this, all this dirty librool activity started after we participated in those three gawdly wars. He's suffering from good old days-ism, methinks.

Maybe that's Shrub's plan. Keep the xian soldiers marching on to war, to sidetrack the librool agenda.

Krystalline Apostate said...

karen - no doubt, & I'm sure we'll hear more of the 'for us/against us' nonsense to boot.

Chris Bradley said...

What, only 'thrice'? WWI, WWII...what am I missing here? Probably Saddam. Okay, a little slack.

Following I believe Sam Huntingdon who came up with the whole clash of civilizations crap, some people are starting to call the Cold War, World War 3. And World War 4 is the current global struggle between the "West" and "Islam".

No joke.

Krystalline Apostate said...

The Cold War was WWIII? That's pretty recent, I think: I grew up thru all of that, & never heard the reference.

Chris Bradley said...

Yeah, it's v. new, saying that World War 3 was the Cold War. I grew up during the tail end of the Cold War and I was surprised to hear it referred to in that way. My guess? Cold warriors trying to accrue the honor given to the Boys Who Stopped Hitler. :p