Posted on 02/18/2014 5:28:04 PM PST by SeekAndFind
I beg to differ! Mi querido perro anaranjado (a little ess-pan-yole lingo there for my dear orange dog), the effort is absolutely fruitful and useful if lurking or new FReeper conservatives who are themselves moral, Christian-guided small-l libertarians, see it and perceive that the guys who "don't like libertarians" (i.e., guys who are emotionally vested in remaining willfully self-deceived and ignorant as to what small-l libertarianism actually is) are only one small part, and a misguided one, of an overwhelmingly RIGHT-guided and deeply moral Free Republic.
Challenging the divisive "libertarians-are-child-molesting-drug-abusing-abortion-pushing-homosexual-advocating-liberals" is always productive, good effort because it validates those lurkers/newbies who agree with you and me, who might otherwise leave FR if not for posts like yours and mine that help them see that there's a lot more to FR than the lying, deceitful likes of those who have to lie about what libertarianism is in order to advance their agenda.
And yes, I did have one FReeper accuse me in at least 17 posts, on one thread titled "One Nation Under Drugs, of promoting and advancing abortion/opposing pro-lifers, pushing for gays in the military and everywhere else, advocating drug abuse, etc. etc., without a single, solitary proof of my doing so, despite my repeated requests for him to please cut-and-paste my words where I did such things. He couldn't ... because he was LYING. It is so horrifically ironic that these types claim the moral high ground and BEAR FALSE WITNESS in their losing attempts to take it.
It is never wasted effort, it is always fruitful and good, to call such liars out in a public forum because it assures readers/lurkers who agree with us, that they are in good and plentiful company.
It sounds, to me, almost like a
(Luke 7:36-50)
One of the Pharisees asked Jesus to eat with him, and he went into the Pharisee’s house and took his place at the table. And a woman in the city, who was a sinner, having learned that he was eating in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster jar of ointment. She stood behind him at his feet, weeping, and began to bathe his feet with her tears and to dry them with her hair. Then she continued kissing his feet and anointing them with the ointment.
Now when the Pharisee who had invited him saw it, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what kind of woman this is who is touching him—that she is a sinner.”
Jesus spoke up and said to him, “Simon, I have something to say to you.”
“Teacher,” he replied, “speak.”
“A certain creditor had two debtors; one owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. When they could not pay, he canceled the debts for both of them. Now which of them will love him more?”
Simon answered, “I suppose the one for whom he canceled the greater debt.”
And Jesus said to him, “You have judged rightly.”
Then turning toward the woman, he said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has bathed my feet with her tears and dried them with her hair. You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not stopped kissing my feet. You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. Therefore, I tell you, her sins, which were many, have been forgiven; hence she has shown great love. But the one to whom little is forgiven, loves little.”
Then he said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.”
But those who were at the table with him began to say among themselves, “Who is this who even forgives sins?”
And he said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”
By my count the War on Drugs has damaged all but the 3RD Amendment from the Bill of Rights — reposted from a thread on the USSC:
Revel: It is time to understand the USSC is a lawless bunch who rule for political and devilish reasons.So, yeah, IMO it's impossible for one to simultaneously support the War on Drugs and be a Constitutionalist.
Theoria: That was Scalia and crew with Heller. They helped put limitations on gun ‘rights’.Despite what some people think, Scalia is not a Constitutionalist; support of the War on Drugs and Constitutionalism are mutually exclusive, as the War on Drugs has damaged 90% of the Bill of Rights:
Amendment 10 — Destroyed by combining “necessary and proper” with the intrastate/interstate regulation of Wickard.
Amendment 9 — Everything. Seriously, EVERYTHING about the War on Drugs is about the federal government exercising powers not expressly delegated by the Constitution.
From Justice Thomas’s Dissent in Raich:“If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress’ Article I powers – as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause – have no meaningful limits.”Amendment 8 — Mandatory minimums and zero tolerance combine to make the punishments outweigh many of the “crimes”, even is you accept the crime as valid.
Amendment 7 — In [civil] asset forfeiture, the victims are routinely denied jury-trials even though the amount in controversy exceeds $20.
Amendment 6 — The clogging of the courts with drug-related cases erodes the notion of a “speedy trial” to a joke. Often drug charges are added on to the list of crimes, which can “taint” the jury w/ prejudices. Often police act on informants whose identities are “protected”, which impairs the ability to confront the accuser.
Amendment 5 — How does “Comprehensive Forfeiture Act of 1984” comply with “No person shall [...] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”?
Amendment 4 — Kentucky v King“The Fourth Amendment expressly imposes two requirements: All searches and seizures must be reasonable; and a warrant may not be issued unless probable cause is properly established and the scope of the authorized search is set out with particularity. [...] The proper test follows from the principle that permits warrantless searches: warrantless searches are allowed when the circumstances make it reasonable, within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment , to dispense with the warrant requirement.”In other words:Yes, the fourth amendment requires warrants for searches, but… fuck that!
Amendment 3 — [Nope, nothing here... yet.]
Amendment 2 — Arguably, the “prohibited persons” from the `68 GCA.
Amendment 1 — Religious freedom is denied via the war on drugs ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith ), there are stories of “legalization”-advocacy publishers being raided/harassed.
Hughey's husband Jason explained that "the Bible is not a book of political theory." Nevertheless, "there are themes we get from the Bible that give a good foundation for Christians to embrace libertarianism or even anarchy," Jason Hughey said.
Why would you say that's nonsense? — A lot of people would classify Constitutionalism under our current Constitution as anarchy, as most of the federal government has no basis in the Constitution as-written (Ag. Dept, DOE, other DOE, DEA, NASA, Air Force, BATFE, NSA, CIA, FBI, HUD, etc.)… it'd probably be easier/quicker to cite those agencies that actually had Constitutional basis:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.