The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology. Those, who do not understand Monetary Sovereignty, do not understand economics. Cutting the federal deficit is the most ignorant and damaging step the federal government could take. It ranks ahead of the Hawley-Smoot Tariff.
============================================================================================================================================================================
So you thought the Tea Party and the Taliban were nuts? Read this:
Posted at 11:40 AM ET, 02/15/2011, South Dakota legislator defends bill to make killing to defend fetuses a “justifiable homicide” By Greg Sargent
An incendiary story by Mother Jones making the rounds on the Web reports that a law being considered in South Dakota would expand the definition of “justifiable homicide” to apply to killings intended to prevent harm to unborn children. Mother Jones writes that the measure “could make it legal to kill doctors who perform abortions.”
I just had a spirited conversation with the bill’s chief sponsor, State Representative Phil Jensen, and he defended the bill, arguing that it would not legalize the killing of abortion doctors.
“It would if abortion was illegal,” he told me. “This code only deals with illegal acts. Abortion is legal in this country. This has nothing to do with abortion.” Jensen’s defense of the bill, however, is unlikely to make abortion rights advocates any happier, since he seemed to dismiss as irrelevant the possibility that the measure could inflame anti-abortion fanatics to violence.
These are the same people who want to arm everyone with AK47s, the sole purpose of which is to kill people, but by heaven, they aim to protect microscopic fetuses.
Is there no limit to right wing craziness? Probably not, as these also are the same people who wish to cut $100 billion from the budget, with no idea and no care about who will be hurt. America is loaded with real scary people.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com
No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth.
#Monetary Sovereignty - Mitchell 
I just read where one of the initiatives the right wing wants to cut is anti-malarial netting for Senegalese children. But hey, they’re just children, not fetuses, so who cares?
LikeLike
The right to life ends at birth.
LikeLike
Roger, it is not craziness; it is religion (ideology). I guess you have haven’t read much Ayn Rand. She is their inspiration. BTW, her heroes are modeled on murder that she admired because he had not one drop of empathy in him. It’s not craziness; it is a romantic idealization of the law of the jungle.
LikeLike
The same sort of legislation is being introduced in Iowa and is expected to pass the house (but not the senate).
LikeLike
The IA House is GOP controlled, and the IA Senate is Dem controlled, mirroring the US legislature.
LikeLike
Tom,
I did read Ayn Rand, but I felt my heart turning hard and my brain turning soft, so I quit before I lost my humanity.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
LikeLike
My reaction, too. Beyond idiotic.
LikeLike
the language of the bill is clear.
suppose you are with your pregnant sister. her drunk boyfriend, unhappy with the pregnancy, threatens violent attack on your sister intending to kill the unborn baby. you step in to defend your sister from attack, and in the process the attacker is killed. the law would make this act “justifiable homicide.” this is totally reasonable. abortion mills and promoters might not like the precedent set, but they are hardly objective sources.
the right of americans to bear arms, something we’ve exercized responsibly for 100s of years even before the republic, has nothing to do with the above.
if these things frighten your delicate liberal mind, we can’t help you.
LikeLike
Bill, you said,
“i didn’t even read sergeant’s statement. so for you to claim it is “word for word” or say “brainwash” is absolute BS. show us all where what i wrote is “word for word” with something some sergeant said? please.”
O.K. read what you said, then read what Sargent said, “Say an ex-boyfriend who happens to be father of a baby doesn’t want to pay child support for the next 18 years, and he beats on his ex-girfriend’s abdomen in trying to abort her baby. If she did kill him, it would be justified.”
Remarkably close example, but you got a couple words wrong. Better study up.
LikeLike
Yeah, that’s exactly, word-for-word, the phony, convoluted rationale Sargent gave. Your brainwash is working. It’s very logical, except for one tiny detail: You already have the right to defend your sister from that attack.
You may be prepared to accept any disingenuous excuse from the right wing crazies, but somewhere deep within your logical mind, I hope you realize it’s just another threat against abortion, nothing more.
I might agree that Americans have exercised their right to bear arms “responsibility,” except for a second small detail: The vast number of Americans who are murdered each year, via guns.
And I would agree Americans have that right, except for a third small detail: I can’t understand why the framers of the Constitution would put in the meaningless, totally useless words, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State. . . “ Wasn’t that silly of these otherwise intelligent men?
Anyway, enjoy your AK47, and do not shoot any doctor providing an abortion — except in South Dakota, where it will be just fine.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
LikeLike
you’re hopeless
LikeLike
Excellent, fact-based reply
LikeLike
buddy. meet reality, reality, meet rmm. the “shootings” you refer to are overwhelmingly restricted to illegally owned guns and occur in cities destroyed by government housing projects. armies of cops can’t stop it. this is not the responsibility of law abiding american citizens owning weapons for self defense and to protect their property and rights. i wonder what kind of community you live in, rmm? perhaps if you had to live amidst criminals, not behind a gated community, you would like to own a firearm.
as for the law, it may be fully legal to defend the hypothetical pregnant woman from attack, but use of deadly force is only justified in defending against deadly force. punching a pregnant chick in the stomach is not deadly force, and the defender against such could be charged with homicide if assailant is killed in the process. not so if the law under discussion is enacted.
how on earth could you or anyone equate this with a defense against killing doctors performing legal procedures?
and if SD residents did in fact pass a law banning abortion, that too should be their right, as it was the right of all civilized peoples for centuries. but that is not the law of the land, so its a non issue in this case.
you should stick to economics, because advocating gun control is probably the least respectable, least rational, and least effective way to attract reasonable people to your valid economic ideas.
just some advice!
LikeLike
Passing a law specifically to allow anyone to kill someone who does any harm to a pregnant woman is beyond the pale.
So there you are, standing in the street one night, and you see a guy slap his wife. You whip out your trusty AK47, and put about 10 slugs into him.
Your defense: “Yes, I’m nearsighted, and it was dark. But in my unprofessional opinion, from where I was standing, the mother may not have been in danger, but that slap could have, might have, maybe, possibly would cause a spontaneous abortion, so I mowed him down. I claim justifiable homicide.”
And thanks for your advice, but I absolutely do not want the Sargents of the world reading this site. They are not competent enough to understand it.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
LikeLike
Anyway, enjoy your AK47, and do not shoot any doctor providing an abortion — except in South Dakota, where it will be just fine.
ha. and you want to talk about civil discourse? you can’t even reply without puerile ad hominem, immature attacks that are unworthy of a serious discussion.
LikeLike
Right wing example of civil discourse: “. . .if these things frighten your delicate liberal mind, we can’t help you.”
The problem with right wingers, they only have insults, never facts. The reason: As one contributor commented, this is religion to a right winger, and religion cannot be discussed rationally.
I know of no honest basis for Sargent’s law, nor seemingly does he, so he comes up with a far-fetched, invented reason.
If you are willing to put forward an honest reason for this law, tell us why it won’t inflame other right wing, gun nuts to shoot doctors and also tell us what this law accomplishes that current law doesn’t — aside from putting cross hairs on doctors’ backs.
After that, you can explain the meaning of: “. . .A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State. . . “ and why it was inserted in the 2nd Amendment.
“Why not simply: “. . . the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”?
LikeLike