In Reply: Whiny Wingnut Victimization and Unsubstantiated Speculation Masquerading as "News"

In reply to No More Mister Nice Blog: I DON'T BELIEVE THE AURORA MASSACRE WAS POLITICAL

The "poor me" whiny wingnut victimization is getting entirely too thick. Brian Ross's problem wasn't a hatred of the Tea party types, but unsubstantiated speculation masquerading as news. (Same goes for the asshole(s) at the Breitbart sites speculating that the shooter may've been registered to vote as a Democrat...as though one's voter registration is somehow relevant. And no, their childish pleas that "they--that is, Brian Ross--did it first" in no way absolves them. If it's wrong to speculate, it's wrong to speculate, no matter who's "side" your speculation helps or hurts.) Michelle Malkin has a piece up crying about what a victim she is in all this, and the lower--tier bloggers are all following suit. (I even saw one ass blaming Steve (the "No More Mister Nice Blog" blogger)for his quote of the Breitbart piece above and blaming Steve, not the Breitbart author or Brian Ross, for the speculation about Tea Party involvement. Even after the facts were pointed out to him, the same blogger repeats the lie a second time. UPDATE: Same blogger goes for the threepeat of that same lie. Steve M. searched the guy's name--just like Brian Ross, and just like John Hawkins at Right Wing News. Steve did not restrict his search to Tea Party members, nor did he report that the shooter was a tea party member--though he did quote a Breitbart blog post, which in turn quoted the Brian Ross piece, when THEY discussed the Tea Party angle. Donald Douglas is lying--and at this point, there is no doubt that he is aware of it, which calls his credibility--if not his sanity--into question.)

I can understand discussion of relevant issues like US gun policy--whether one believes that there ought to be stricter laws for the purchase of guns or that if everyone was armed, shootings like this wouldn't happen or would result in fewer innocent casualties--but linking a particular shooter to one political party based on voter registration, especially in the absence of any obvious political motive, is evidence that the speaker is awful desperate to shill for his/her own political point of view, regardless of the facts.

(I'm more torn when there is a possible political motive. On one hand, I agree that crazy folks can just as easily be "inspired" by partisan political rhetoric as by "talking dogs" or the shapes they see in their mashed potatoes, but on the other, why is it considered any more crazy to kill folks over ones political beliefs than it is to kill in the name of greed or vengeance? At some level, there has to be something wrong with folks willing to murder others, no matter their reason, but I'm not so sure that folks who kill others in the name of their political or social beliefs are any more or less crazy than folks who kill their spouses lover out of jealousy or murder innocent people while committing a bank robbery. YMMV...)

Posted 7/20/12, 8:52 PM
---

More unsubstantiated speculation:
Shooter as...
...tea party member
...Registered Democrat (Breitbart)
...Occupy Black Bloc Member
...Enemy of Judeo-Christian Beliefs'
and--perhaps most dangerous of all--
...Medical Student
---

Searching for "James" (or "Jim") Holmes" on the internet (and in some cases, irresponsibly publicizing what they found without verifying that the James (Jim) they found was the one who did the shooting.):
Colorado shooting: ABC News draws possible James Holmes tea party connection - POLITICO.com
No More Mister Nice Blog: I DON'T BELIEVE THE AURORA MASSACRE WAS POLITICAL
Is This James Holmes’ Facebook Page? | John Hawkins, Right Wing News (Hawkins wisely removed the link to the wrong guy's Facebook page, but issued no apology for pointing the finger at the wrong James Holmes in the first place.)
---

The Dishonest Donald Douglas posts, and related material:
#1) "And Steve at No More Mr. Nice Guy was out of the gate looking for a tea party perp..."

Twitterer @kathykattenburg tries to steer Dr. Douglas toward honesty: "@AmPowerBlog And I think u should read Steve's piece again because he does not "search for a tea party perp." That is a complete misreading."

Needless to say, the facts had no effect:

#2) "Recall that Steve M. also searched James Holmes' name to find tea party ties, only to find out he was too young to be the "James Holmes" he'd found at the boards."

#3) "The decent, human thing to do would to be to gather facts, and especially not go looking around the Internet to see "what party is this insane person in?", or what tea party organization, as did No More Mr. Nice Blog did. That is, the decent, human thing would not be going all gonzo trying to score partisan points to destroy your enemies." (Talk about irony...)

And the title of the blog post about which Dishonest Don complains?:
I DON'T BELIEVE THE AURORA MASSACRE WAS POLITICAL

Yeah... really.
---

Also: Half-Assed Media Speculation About the Batman Shooter - Hit & Run: Reason.com

In Reply: "The next AZ or VA Tech shooter shouldn't be using firearms he purchased legally..."

In reply to the following comment at the post After Shooting, Dems Will Introduce Gun And Speech Control Bills | Right Wing News:

"I could go right now to the bad side of town and and buy an illegal gun with little problem. (well, perhaps not me specificly...I look too much like a cop, or so I've been told, to be trusted by the street thug class. But you get my meaning.)
The existing laws are more than enough.

Also, you do realise that the two biggest mass murders and terrorist incidents in US history (the OKC bombing and 9/11) were carried out without any involvment with firearms, be they legal or illegal? So access to firearms is not the problem....it's criminals and terrorists.

Finally, 'reasonable'? What do you define as 'reasonable'? I'm all for bans on the ownership of guns by felons, the mentally ill, and those under 18. But beyond that I consider most anti-gun laws to be unreasonable. Self defence is a human right after all, and anything that harms that right is simply wrong."

I would like to see some of the rapid fire weaponry more restricted, but for the most part, I was talking about current law. Both this guy and the VA Tech shooter bought their guns legally. Both had incidents in their pasts that should've prevented them from doing so. Whether that was a failure of law or of enforcement, it needs to change, so that the next VA Tech/AZ shooter isn't using a gun they purchased legally. Even though we can't stop all of 'em, it doesn't follow that we therefore shouldn't try to stop any of 'em.

As I said, the fact that some terrorists/crazies can and will go buy illegal firearms is no reason not to prevent them from buying legal firearms. People without licenses also drive, but that's not a reason to stop the work of one's local department of motor vehicles. If forcing crazies/felons/terrorists to find an illegal dealer only prevents a quarter of the murder and mayhem those folks commit, that's still one quarter better than now.

The fact that the two biggest mass murders were accomplished without guns is kinda beside the point. The number of folks murdered by criminals/crazies/terrorists using guns is pretty high up there, as well. Whether or not we should limit access to planes, explosives, box cutters, etc. are separate questions to answer, and our choosing to limit access to one tool used by terrorists/crazies/criminals has little bearing on whether or not we also limit access to another. As far as I'm concerned anyway, access to the tools criminals/crazies/terrorists use to commit their acts, and specifically, doing what we can to prevent them from having such access, is definitely an issue worth discussing.

What you or I personally define as reasonable isn't really the issue, is it? What we as Americans, by virtue of the folks we elect, define as reasonable is the real question. Some of us will think we need to be more restrictive than you (or even I) do. Some will think I (and maybe even you, as well) am/(are) being too restrictive. But together, I'm sure we can some to some consensus, and if necessary, create new law. At the very least, we can demand better enforcement of current law, and oversight to see that it happens.
---

Posted 01/10/2011 04:03 PM

In Reply: "Anyone trying to sell the notion that either party is to blame, is exploiting the tragedy for political gain..."

In reply to 2nd Suspect Sought in Tucson Shooting – No Proof of Political Motive | Right Wing News, and in particular, the following comment:

Let me ask a question. These people on the right you're referring to, are they doing so directly or in the context of the claim of Ms. Palin's or the Tea Parties' culpability in this matter. To the extent its the former, please see my comment above. To the extent it's the latter, I just haven't encountered too many conservatives making this claim.

Your overall point, though, is accurate. This guy did it because he was plain-out batsh*t crazy. That oughtn't be a matter of political debate. Batsh*t crazy is independent of politics and batsh*t crazy isn't going to be appeased by a more pleasant tone of politics.

I don't really know how many of 'em are "in response," vs how many were posted subsequently because the "favorite book" list came out subsequently, but I'm not so sure how much that even matters. Whether or not these folks on the right are making ridiculous suggestions about the guy being a leftist in response to ridiculous suggestions from folks on the left claiming he was a rightist, or the tea party made him do it, or... well, whatever else they're claiming, they're still making ridiculous suggestions, that don't hold up under scrutiny.

I mean, if they were saying "If you can blame the tea party rhetoric (or the Ayn Rand book on the list, or the gold standard bullshit in his rants), why can't we blame "The Communist Manifesto, and thus call him a leftist" I'd be with you. But I don't agree that it is acceptable or in any way logical to answer one kind of foolishness (he's a product of the Tea Party/rightwing rhetoric) with different foolishness (He's obviously a leftist.)

Neither the left or the right (neither individual people, or the political philosophies of either camp) are responsible for what this guy did.

Anyone trying to sell the notion that the party they ain't a member of or the political philosophy they don't subscribe to is to blame, is exploiting the tragedy for partisan gain, and should be ashamed of themselves.
---

Posted 01/10/2011 02:31 PM

In reply: Profiling Terrorists and Potential Mass Murderers

In reply this post After Shooting, Dems Will Introduce Gun And Speech Control Bills | Right Wing News, and in particular, folks critical of the following comment, with whom I agree... to a point, anyway...:

"Does anyone know if he purchased his gun legally? This of course is the big question when it comes to gun control isn't it? If I buy a gun from my friend on the corner or a gun show then gun legislation is about as meaningless as a national gun registry (which doesn't exist) - or gun stores keeping paper records (which does exist). Perhaps we should look at the better solutions like profiling people more likely to start shooting in crowds. You know- white men."

I have to agree, Ezra... I was all ready to "like" that comment, until you mentioned the white men.

And yes, I did get your meaning, and agree that profiling (racial, sexual, religious, political, etc., though preferably all of 'em together, in one neat package) is a useful tool. It also can be misused, pretty easily. On the whole, though, I'm still in favor of it... We can deal with the ones who slide down that slippery slope as they tumble...

When you're looking for terrorists these days, some folks are more likely than others to be the ones you're lookin' for. When you're looking for serial killers and/or some kinds of mass murderers, folks with different demographics become the more likely perps.

The real question is, whether it'd be worth providing extra checks on some folks in some situations, in the name of preventing (or even just slowing, because nothing is 100%) terrorist acts... or for that matter, those proverbial lone gunmen, in their proverbial bell towers.
---

Posted 01/10/2011 02:02 PM

In Reply: The fact that no law will be 100% effective is not a reason to eschew having laws, at all

In reply to the following comment at the post After Shooting, Dems Will Introduce Gun And Speech Control Bills | Right Wing News

"Because everyone knows that a guy who plans on committing mass murder, including that of a Congresswoman, is going to be completely deterred by a law requiring gun registration.

/rolls eyes"

Slowed by reasonable gun laws and their enforcement, would be a step in the right direction, Bill. Sure, some crazies and terrorist types will still get through, and use a legally purchased guns to commit their crimes... But the fact that no law will be 100% effective is not a reason to fail to even try to stop (or even just slow) some crazies or terrorists in their quest to obtain legal firearms.
---

Posted 01/10/2011 01:43 PM

In Reply: There will always be crazy people... ...but we don't have to make it easy for 'em.

In reply to the following comment at Enough With The Political Blame Game When Things Like The Giffords Shooting Happen! | Right Wing News:

"Would it make you feel better if he had stabbed all those people?"
---

If he had a knife, he never would've been able to stab all those people, wound them as mortally, or kill as many as he did, before being taken down.

My argument isn't that no one should have guns, but that there should be more restrictions to prevent (or at least slow) crazy people from getting ahold of them... even if they end up trying to use knives or bats to commit their massacres, instead. When these things happen, and there is a documented history of crime or craziness, the people involved shouldn't have firearms they purchased legally. Even if it only stops half of the mass killings that occur in this country, it'd be worth it.

Knife? Hell, I'd've been happier if the guy had a musket, or one of them old-time two-shot Derringers, rather than the Glock with the extended clip he had. Even a revolver would've been a step in the right direction.

It'd make me feel better if it didn't happen at all. But there will always be crazy people, and there will always be weapons that they can use. That doesn't mean we have to make it easy for 'em by not sufficiently checking the background of the folks buying guns, or permitting guns that fire this rapidly and this often before reloading. As I said elsewhere, neither gun control or the second amendment are all or nothing propositions.
---

1/10/11, 12:50 PM

In Reply: Neither gun control (or the second amendment) is an all or nothing proposition

In reply to the following comment at Enough With The Political Blame Game When Things Like The Giffords Shooting Happen! | Right Wing News, against some else who argued that ""This violent act was caused because this individual had access to a firearm." While the commenter below chose to focus on "access to a firearm" portion, I'm more interested in the "this individual" part of the argument:

"And b/c muslims have access to bombs and airplanes, they kill people."
---

So, are you arguing that terrorists (the folks you call muslims) should therefore have access to bombs and airplanes, the way madmen here seem to have access to guns? Or might it be prudent to restrict some items from some people, so that they cannot use them to commit bad acts...

Gun control (or for that matter, the second amendment) isn't an all or nothing proposition. Some arms should be available; some shouldn't. Some people should be permitted to have them; some shouldn't. Once we agree that terrorists and madmen should not have access to rocket launchers, no matter what the second amendment says (are they not arms?), all that's left is to argue about who should/should not be permitted to have arms, and what arms they should/should not be permitted to have.

To suggest that there can be no restriction whatsoever, either in who can legally own arms, or what arms a person can legally own, is a pretty extreme position. (And yes, suggesting that no one can legally own any weapon is pretty extreme, as well.)
---

Posted 1/10/11, 12:10 PM

In Reply: If the guy is a madman, his politics cease to be significant

In reply to the following comment at Even As Arizona Shooting Story Unfolds, Some Media Already Blaming Tea Party/Sarah Palin | Right Wing News:

"'His own words were those of a madman.'

So your contention is that leftist and madman are mutually exclusive?

Lee Harvey Oswald was insane, and a leftist, and a murderer. I disagree with your notion that being crazy prevents him from being on the left.

I've known many a crazy leftist."
---

Leftist (or rightist) and madman are not mutually exclusive, but as being used here, they imply a causation between the two terms that just doesn't exist.

Madman is very likely the cause. Leftist (or rightist) is no more significant as a motivation for the the crime than "dark-haired," "male," "t-shirt-wearing," "college student," "saxophone-playing," "Arizonan" or any of the other words and phrases that describe some aspect of the guy. Pretending that any/every book on his reading list, his politics, or any aspect of his ramblings is somehow significant as a motivation for the crime--or as "proof" that some segment of the American population (whether "leftists," "rightists," or "saxophone players") is in any way culpable for the crime because this guy can be counted among them--is just pure foolishness.
---

Posted 1/10/11, 11:08 AM

In Reply: Crazy makes the politics of the AZ shooter kinda insignificant

In reply to the following comment, posted at 2nd Suspect Sought in Tucson Shooting – No Proof of Political Motive | Right Wing News:

"But, I don't see conservatives doing the same, with or without gusto. What I see is conservatives pointing out that the very opposite of the accusation is true. Think about it this way, imagine someone here started screaming that this was evidence that illegal immigration had gotten out of control, that the illegals had killed a U.S. Congresswoman. You respond that that's silly, the culprit wasn't an illegal alien. He was a native-born American. They in turn respond that clearly, you're attacking native-born Americans, by trying to tie them in with the killer. You'd conclude that's pretty silly, wouldn't you? That's kind of how your argument comes across."
---

Bill... If you haven't seen the folks on the right latching on to "The Communist Manifesto" in the guy's reading list as clear proof that he was a liberal (while conveniently ignoring the Ayn Rand book that doesn't fit their chosen meme), you haven't been paying enough attention. Sure, these folks on the right are a minority (just as the folks on the left claiming Palin was responsible are a minority of the left), but in both cases they're out there, exploiting the dead and injured in the name of striking a blow against the political partisans they believe to be eeeeevil.

The guy was crazy. Crazy make his politics, left or right, kinda insignificant, either as an explanation or motivation for his actions, or as some kinda evidence that ..."all (liberals/conservatives/Democrats/Republicans/???) are therefore evil, or wrong, or ...well, anything..., just like this guy." I mean, the Son of Sam says he did it because a dog told him to... but precious few reasonable people actually placed the blame on dogs for the murders, despite Berkowitz's claims.
---

Posted 1/10/11, 10:12 AM

In Reply: Using tragedy as partisan political attack

In reply to Rep. Gabrielle Giffords Shot by Gunman: Breaking Updates | Right Wing News, and in particular, those partisans who are trying to tie this nut to a particular political point of view in an effort to use this tragedy as a political attack.
---

The political rhetoric of both Sarah Palin's scope sights and "blueboy's" post at Daily Kos are both sadly over the top.

Are either of 'em responsible for this particular violence (or any violence, at all)? Almost certainly not. The coarsening of the culture, including violent or hateful political rhetoric like these examples are surely not good for any society, and yes, nutbags like this guy can perhaps be influenced by them. (To be clear, I'm not saying that there's any evidence that this guy WAS, only that it's possible that nutbags, including this guy, CAN BE.) But even without being a direct or indirect factor in violent acts, such rhetoric does divide us and set the stage for more (more quantity, and more over the top nasty) rhetoric. And that's just sad.

From what we know at present anyway, anyone trying to tie this guy or this massacre to any political party or point of view is talking out of their ass. Nuts are just nuts. (And I don't think that anyone can watch/read his three UTube "manifestos" and not come away thinking that this guy was fully in control of his faculties.) Blaming "the left" because he listed "The Communist Manifesto" as one of his favorite books (or blaming "the right" because he had a thing about gold-backed currency) is like blaming English teachers because he seemed to be obsessed with grammar. (Perhaps even moreso... He actually discussed grammar in his videos.)

The guy's nuts, so whether he says he did it because he's opposed to one political party or point of view or another, or because the butter dish on his breakfast table told him to, one would have to be a pretty desperate partisan to take the guy seriously and believe that he represents or proves anything about any political point of view.

That's not to say that there haven't been folks who've killed in the name of some sociopolitical cause or another, left and right, but this ain't one of 'em. (And really, ANYONE who kills in the name of a sociopolitical cause is pretty much on the fringe of American society, and not representative of or "proof of the inherent eeeeevil of") Republicans, Democrats, liberals or conservatives, and anyone who says different is again, pretty desperate to promote their own way of thinkin' and/or discredit everyone else's.)

In Reply: "...everyone in the US, legal or otherwise, is subject to US law..."

In reply to Steve King (R-Iowa) Submits Bill To Stop Anchor Babies | Right Wing News, and in particular, the following comment:

"Rep, we're basically on the same page with the point. the key being OUR current interpretation of the 14th is not what was intended by the Authors at the time, and the anchor baby provision of the current immigration law should be repealed. Because babies born to illegals are 'not subject to the jurisdiction' of US citizenship law."
---

B, the 14th says what it says. Whatever they intended it to mean --and there was debate about this topic at the time regarding the unwanted of their day, the Chinese in CA, so to say that they had no idea that in passing the 14th amendment, they would be granting citizenship to the children of non-citizens, seems a little disingenuous-- what they wrote gives citizenship to anyone born on US soil.

I don't know what you mean by the "anchor baby" provision of current immigration law, but if there is a provision that says illegal parents can stay because they have a citizen child, I agree with you... We should repeal that. Illegal mothers and fathers should be deported. And if they have minor children who are citizens, the kids should either go with their illegal parents (as US citizens, with the right to return to the US and live here as citizens when they're old enough to care for themselves) or stay and be raised by relatives who are here legally.

But B... Babies born to illegals are subject to the jurisdiction of US citizenship law. Except for diplomats (and in some cases, native Americans), everyone in the US, legal or otherwise, is subject to US law. (By which I mean, the law applies to them. They have to live according to it, and can be prosecuted (tried, convicted, locked up, deported) if they do not.) It is US citizenship law--in the form of the 14 amendment--that makes babies born to illegal aliens on US soil citizens. And it is US citizenship law that makes their parents illegal. Both parent and child is under the jurisdiction of US law, just in different ways...

In Reply: "Illegal immigrants, because they are illegal, are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US..."

In reply to Steve King (R-Iowa) Submits Bill To Stop Anchor Babies | Right Wing News, and the following comment, in particular:

"Illegals are not subject to 'citizenship' laws therefor can be jailed and deported for violations of other laws, your interpretation is incorrect, nor is it accepted by the courts. The law was written that way to exclude children born to LEGAL foreigners such as diplomats and dignitaries."
---

I'd reply to this, but I don't understand your argument. Please explain more clearly...
---

EDIT: Wait... I think I get it, and if so, I think you're misunderstanding what I wrote, again...

*I'M* saying that everyone in the US (except perhaps diplomats) IS and SHOULD BE subject to the jurisdiction of US law. Illegal aliens SHOULD be deported, because they ARE subject to the jurisdiction of US immigration and citizenship laws. Same goes for murderers, drunk drivers, petty thieves, and on and on... If you are in the US, regardless of your citizenship status, you SHOULD be subject to the jurisdiction of US law, and SHOULD be tried and if convicted, subject to the penalties of US law.

The 14th amendment says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." To "simply further define those who are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," and thus declare that "[i]llegal immigrants, since they are i-lle-gal, are actually not subject to the jurisdiction of the USA, but of their home countries" would be a DISASTER, because it would say that illegal aliens are no longer subject to the jurisdiction of US laws regarding murder, drunk driving, petty theft, and perhaps even immigration...

This isn't what US law currently is, but the "simple redefinition" in US law the OP is suggesting...

In Reply: "Here in the US, we define US citizenship according to US law..."

In reply to Steve King (R-Iowa) Submits Bill To Stop Anchor Babies | Right Wing News, and in particular, the following comment:

"rep You're wrong! Citizenship laws apply to their parents and the children. Even Mexico's laws state that. I doubt you'd find any nation that would willingly abdicate the citizenship of children born to it's citizens just because they were born of foreign soil.

But if you can find laws that prove you are correct I'll gladly review them and concede the point."
---

I think you're misunderstanding what I said, B... Yes, "citizenship laws" apply to everyone, whatever they say, and whoever they grant citizenship to or withhold it from. But each country's citizenship laws only apply to those who they deem to be under their jurisdiction.

Mexico's citizenship laws are different than ours. That's fine for them, but Mexico's citizenship laws are not binding on us (US citizens, and/or US law,) except to the extent that we in the US determine they should be, under US law.

Here in the US, according to current US citizenship law, we have defined who a citizen is, and what the requirements are to be/become one. Among these, is the fact that those born on US soil--whatever their parentage, except for diplomats, I believe (see diplomatic immunity, above)--are American citizens. Mexico is also welcome to say that, because the child was born to Mexican parents, s/he is a Mexican citizen, according to Mexico's citizenship laws, but that has no bearing on US citizenship law or the 14th amendment.

Foreign law is no more or less binding on the US than US law allows it to be. In all cases, US law is what governs, at least here in the US, and for US citizens.

If you're arguing that US citizenship law should more closely resemble Mexican citizenship law, that's fine. (There are some parts of US law I would change to more closely resemble foreign laws, as well.) But US law prevails, and currently, US citizenship law says that those born on US soil--whatever the citizenship of their parents, apart from foreign diplomats--are US citizens, according to US law, and regardless of what the citizenship laws of other countries say about that same child.

In Reply: ""Children are subject the citizenship laws of their parents..."

Revised and extended, in reply to Steve King (R-Iowa) Submits Bill To Stop Anchor Babies | Right Wing News, and the following comment in particular:

"Children are subject the citizenship laws of their parents, DV. If you are a citizen of a country A and give birth to a child in country B, the child is a citizen of country A. That's what Mexico's law says about Mexican citizens, and what US law says about children born to US citizens abroad.

Any other interpretation is a clear mis-reading of the intent of the 14th."
---

I'm pretty sure that children (and their parents, as well) are subject to the citizenship laws of the country they're in, and that the citizenship laws of one country are not automatically binding on the citizenship laws of another (though of course, country "A" can legislate that the citizenship laws of country "B" have a little/some/full weight, according to the laws of country "A"--in effect adopting portions of the foreign law into their own law, if that's what country "A" decides to do.) In cases where a child is born to one or more US citizens outside of the US, it is the US that gets to decide whether that child is/is not a US citizen, and to do so regardless of what the citizenship laws are in the country of that child's birth, or the home country of his non-US parent. That is according to US law. The country in which the child is born, as well as the home country of the non-US parent also has jurisdiction, however, and can grant or withhold citizenship in those countries, according to their own laws. Where the citizenship laws of the foreign country conflict with the citizenship laws of the US, there is generally more law to deal with the conflict, often by allowing the child dual citizenship as a minor, and giving him the responsibility of deciding his/her final citizenship at the age of maturity. (Where all else fails, physical presence in the US rather than the foreign country counts for a whole lot.)

Mexico (and all other countries) can do what they wish (including offering /withholding citizenship to whomever they believe to be under their jurisdiction (either by birthright, or by physical presence), and even by offering citizenship to a child that we in the US also offer citizenship to, if that's what they wish). Here in the US--for US citizens and their progeny here and abroad, as well as for children born here on US soil--because that's what US law says----US citizenship law is the only law that matters.

In Reply: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..."

In reply to: Steve King (R-Iowa) Submits Bill To Stop Anchor Babies | Right Wing News (also posted here: Steve King (R-Iowa) Submits Bill To Stop Anchor Babies - Pirate's Cove, and here: Steve King (R-Iowa) Submits Bill To Stop Anchor Babies : Stop The ACLU)
---

If illegal immigrants are not subject to the laws of the US, they cannot be tried for any US crime or statute. It even calls into question whether the US government has the right to deport them, seeing as how we would be doing so subject to their breaking US law (which of course, they would not be subject to the jurisdiction of, anymore...) Saying they are not subject to US law essentially gives every illegal "diplomatic immunity." Think it through...

As for the intent of the 14th amendment... I'm pretty sure the actual words of the amendment (or for that matter, any law) are legally binding, even if the amendment/law has unintended consequences. I'm not saying intent doesn't matter, but "what they meant" does not supercede "what they wrote" in any court or case of which I am aware...

In Reply: "The thing about the Bible is, different denominations of Christianity read, understand, and emphasize passages within it differently"

In reply to: Hate Mail | Right Wing News, and in particular, the following comment from mightysamurai:

"Well you see, a long time ago there was this guy named 'Jesus' and he wrote this book...

And yes, that was sarcastic. Seriously man, do you even understand Christianity at all? I don't have to 'believe' that I am qualified to judge who is and is not a Christian. All I have to do is look in the Bible and compare the rules, standards, and commandments laid down there with the beliefs and actions of people who claim to be Christians. If their beliefs and actions conform to what the Bible says, they are Christian. If not, then they are not Christian (or at least poor Christians).

This is not hard to figure out. I don't know why so many people persist with this ridiculous argument that no one can say what a true Christian is when there exists a millennia-old text that clearly defines what a true Christian is."

In reply:

@mightysamurai Today 06:57 AM

"I don't have to "believe" that I am qualified to judge who is and is not a Christian. All I have to do is look in the Bible and compare the rules, standards, and commandments laid down there with the beliefs and actions of people who claim to be Christians. If their beliefs and actions conform to what the Bible says, they are Christian. If not, then they are not Christian (or at least poor Christians)."

The only conclusion I can come to, is you're being willfully obtuse for the sake of argument... I'm not talking about some weird street preacher who wants to baptize people with his own urine, or the Wesboro Baptist folks here, as my previous comments made clear. Kingfisher sounds as though he believes that those denominations who do not go out and evangelize are not "true Christians." To me, that's nuts, just as it would be if he said the opposite, condemning those who do evangelize to non-Christian status.

The thing about the Bible is, different denominations of Christianity read, understand, and emphasize passages within it differently. So who among them would you declare lesser or un-Christian? Is it the Protestants or the evangelicals who are mistaken? What about the Jehovah's Witnesses? What about anti-Trinitarian denominations, like the Unitarians?

Even on the very subject you're talking about, there is disagreement among Christian individuals and denominations. Some agree with you, believing theirs is the only "true" Christianity, attacking those who don't worship Jesus just as they do. (Though he seldom speaks of his exact denomination, Donald Douglas, who wrote the original post, falls into this category, judging by the things he said about Elizabeth Edwards, and her final public words.) Others believe that the big picture--worshiping Jesus--offsets the smaller differences between denominations, and sees all Christianity as a spiritual good.

So yes... If someone talks about committing murder or rape as the one true way to get closer to God, that ain't a real Christian, and I'll join you in passing judgement. But I'm not going to attack or denounce those individuals and sects of Christianity who don't pray in public or evangelize to others--or those who do--as being lesser or not "truly" Christian. You do as you will, Mighty Sam...

--
Revised and extended from a comment posted at Right Wing News 12/10/10, 2:42 PM (or thereabouts)

In Reply: "I'll leave the judging of "real" Christians and "real" Christianity to God, thanks."

In reply to Hate Mail | Right Wing News, and in particular, the following comment from Kingfisher:

Your statement is illogical. Christians are taught to live their lives like Christ. Those who seek a personal, private relationship with God without a Christ-like attitude in their everyday lives isn't a real Christian. For example, Obama loves telling us that his Christian beliefs don't belong in politics but he has no problem professing his socialistic beliefs on the American people. Actions originate from beliefs no matter what those beliefs might be.

From a secular standpoint, people professing God in public is really no different than people professing other beliefs. You don't like visits from Jehova's Witnesses (like me) but I'm also visited frequently at home by environmental radicals and other secular liberal nutjobs trying to sell me their lies. Why not tell them to keep their beliefs to themselves and leave us alone? Because your statements are a pathetic attempt to try to suppress Christian beliefs. You know you cannot eliminate them altogether so you'll try to limit them within church walls.

What you refer as demeaning is what Christians receive all the time for professing our faith so don't lecture us about "proper relationships.' This is the price we are willing to pay.

I would never force anybody to accept Christ because that is against God's wishes. However, I also don't like people trying to suppress my right to speak out.

---
My reply:

"Those who seek a personal, private relationship with God without a Christ-like attitude in their everyday lives isn't a real Christian."

I'm sorry you feel that way, or that you believe yourself qualified to differentiate "real" Christians from (what? fake ones?). You're welcome to believe as you will, but I think you're giving yourself medals you didn't earn. I'll leave the judging of "real" Christians and "real" Christianity to God, thanks.

"Why not tell them to keep their beliefs to themselves and leave us alone?"

Mr fisher, You must be confusing me with someone else, because I didn't tell much of anyone to keep their beliefs to themselves, Christian, or otherwise... (If you disagree, I'll thank you to quote the part where you believe I did so.) What *I* said was, I think it's kinda creepy for any person to attack a dying/very recently deceased woman for not living up to that guy's standards of faith. I can see where you might not agree with me there, being able to divine "real" Christians from the rest of us'n'all, but that was the opinion I was offering, regardless.

"What you refer as demeaning is what Christians receive all the time for professing our faith..."

I'm not sure what it is you're talking about... What specifically do you believe I was referring to when I talked about folks not having their faith demeaned and denigrated, and how is it that the folks I was referring to--the ones who prefer not to pray in public and evangelize to others--became not Christian? (Oh, wait... I forgot for a sec that you believe you're fit to judge.)

"However, I also don't like people trying to suppress my right to speak out."

And as soon as you quote whatever it was I said that leads you to believe I'm doing any such thing--as opposed to say, responding to the speech of someone else with speech of my own (and not suppressing his, mine, or your speech, as far as I'm concerned)--we can discuss it.
--
Posted to Right Wing News 12/9/10, 04:53 PM (or thereabouts)

In reply: Demeaning and Denigrating One's Personal Relationship with God

In reply to Hate Mail | Right Wing News
---

"So why should Christians who are called (but do often fail) to try to be like Christ, hide their faith from public view?"

They shouldn't, necessarily, but they can if they choose... Do you not agree?

Perhaps I spoke less clearly than I might've. (That, or you're choosing not to understand my point, in order to make your own.)

Yes, it is ok to express your faith in public if you choose. Requiring it of those who don't choose to, however--as in the case of Elizabeth Edwards, who did not express her faith as Donald Douglas thought she should have--is another matter.

No, you certainly don't have to hide your faith, if you choose not to, and I'm sorry I left you with the impression that that's what I was saying. Plenty of folks wish to minister to others and bring them to whatever Good News they believe in. But you don't have to express your faith friends and strangers alike, if you choose not to, either. Many believe that prayer and other expressions of one's faith should remain private, and all I'm saying is, just like those who want to broadcast their faith, those who wish to maintain a more personal relationship with God ought to have their wishes respected, and not demeaned and denigrated.

It's ok to show it, and it's just as ok to maintain a personal, private, and yes, hidden relationship between you and your God.

If folks come down on one side more than they do the other, it's only because those who maintain a more personal relationship stand less chance of irritating others, whereas those who choose to evangelize inappropriately, (and sometimes appropriately too, if the person to whom they're witnessing is particularly sensitive to folks suggesting that the beliefs they already have are not sufficient for salvation, or whatever) can piss folks off, as anyone who's received too many unwanted visits from Jehovah's Witnesses (probably the most grievous example, for most) can attest.

I hope that clears up any misconception I may've created by being in any way less than clear, the first time.

In Reply: "public displays of expression of faith - crass, phony, and wholly unnecessary"

In reply to: Hate Mail | Right Wing News, both post and current comments, which seem to've devolved into believer vs atheist, as though that was ever the issue with Elizabeth Edwards...
---

It just ain't right to question or demean the religious beliefs of others, particularly those on their deathbed. It makes no difference whether you're a believer questioning a non-believer (or as in the case of Elizabeth Edwards v. Donald Douglas, a believer with a faith not just exactly like your own) or a non-believer questioning a believer. It's just kinda heartless and hateful, and not particularly Christian, either.

A whole lotta folks believe one's relationship with the divine is a private matter, and "public displays of expression" of faith--essentially wearing one's God on one's sleeve--are crass, phony, and wholly (holy?) unnecessary. (For the Biblical, Matthew 6 speaks to this, as well.)

America was in part founded so that folks could worship as they saw fit... So while I understand that there is no government action in the words of those who would condemn others for their religious (or atheistic) beliefs and actions, it nevertheless strikes me as being against the spirit of the founders, and thus, of America, itself... YMMV...

Anonymous/Pseudononymous Blogging and Commenting: Cowardly?

In reply to: American Power: Update on Blogging Anonymity and Blogging Ethics and Cowardly Blogging | Right Wing News (Comment replies to the first link, but appears as a comment at the second--a teaser crosspost of the first, posted at a site where my comments are not moderated away for content... (at least, not so far...) There will likely be a yet more in-depth and fully linked/cited response, at American Nihilist. In fact, I may even pop back here and paste in the portions of Dr Douglas' post to which I'm replying--which is difficult to do over at RWN, given it's limits...)
*****
UPDATE: Rather than allow this comment to continue to appear at the post at Right Wing News, Professor Donald Douglas deleted the entire post. I find that ironic, given the name he had given the piece at that site. He seemed very proud of his "accomplishment," even going so far as to announce his "triumph" over me in a comment to one of my blog posts (which is itself pretty ironic, if ya think about it...)

"Oh, and, I don't welcome your comments at RWN. In other words, don't comment there as you are not welcomed. If you comment on my RWN posts, I'll delete them, as I have today to your stupid double standards."

Well there you are... He really showed me... ...I think. (All I know is that it'll take some extra willpower not to play Pavlov... Must...not...ring...that...:::ding,ding,ding::: ...oops, there goes another rubber tree plant... It was just my keys that time, I swear... I'm pretty sure the doorbell, that time...)
---

I've been thinking a lot about anonymous blogging since E.D. Kain launched his campaign of workplace intimidation last year. For one thing, I no longer think anonymous blogging is automatically cowardly. Oh sure, mostly I'd prefer to have someone put their name behind their words. And of course at this point I still probably wouldn't have started blogging anonymously even today, given the knowledge that I have about the depths of evil on the web. No, it's more that I'm not going to be critical of those who do continue to blog anonymously.

I'm glad you've come to this new position Of course, I still maintain that there's a difference between blogging or commenting anonymously and using a regular online screen name.

I think the main thing, as Dan points out, is whether the blogger in question is really a serious writer with critical things to say, and would rather speak freely and often harshly without fear of retribution, or whether you have bloggers whose sole existence online is to demonize and destroy those whom they hate. American Nihilist, for example, exists for the sole purpose of attacking me personally with the most demented bile imaginable, and that blog has gotten more perverted over time, eventually devolving into a Satanic hate outlet for workplace intimidation and non-stop vicious personal diatribes. It's a hate blog. It exists for no other purpose but to spew invective and evil. And I've repeatedly challenged the authors to put or up shut up by posting their full personal identification and contact information, but they have not done so. And that's cowardly.

As far as your allegations about me personally, I invite you to back them with more than your words.

Yes I run a blog where folks are mean to you, in some cases personally, rather than on point. I'd prefer that folks wouldn't do that, but I don't intend to substitute my blogging ethics for that of one of my fellow authors. While I may not personally like or agree with everything every author writes, I put a higher value on their ethical right to post according to their morals rather than mine, though I'm welcome to revisit that decision where circumstances (such as the writer who voluntarily resigned his authorship, and left the rest of us with a post containing ideas that no one felt comfortable defending) or the law are concerned. Further, I don't accept the notion that *every* writer at a group blog is responsible for the words or ideas that *any* writer posts. You have a problem with me, fine. But if I didn't write the post or comment with which you're taking issue, you're talking to the wrong guy. Authors and blog owners at other group blogs are free to make their own decisions as to how to handle such questions, and they certainly needn't agree with mine.

American Nihilist (blog) exists for the purpose of giving those who wish to avail themselves of it a place to respond to you, whether it be to a personal attack or an ideological difference of opinion. It's authorship and blogroll is entirely made up of folks you've picked a fight with on American Power. You can view it as a hate site or a personal attack on you if you like, but I maintain that a good number of posted responses deal primarily with issues you've raised on your blog.

It's a little incongruous for you to say "For one thing, I no longer think anonymous blogging is automatically cowardly." and "No, it's more that I'm not going to be critical of those who do continue to blog anonymously." in the same post where you say "And I've repeatedly challenged the authors to put or up shut up by posting their full personal identification and contact information, but they have not done so. And that's cowardly." especially when at least some of the info you seek (all of our names, I believe) is available, and not especially hard to find, online.

Either it's cowardly or it isn't. Either you're demanding names and whatnot or you aren't. Make up your mind--being consistent across the board, for friend and foe alike--and get back to us.

As I've said before, when you require as a condition of participation that the folks at your blog and at the blogs where you comment release their personal/contact info--and you release your info, of course--I will match you, datapoint for datapoint. This is at least the second time I'm making the offer, so it'd be kinda silly to keep repeating the demand, and pretending you haven't seen the counter-offer. As you said, put up or shut up.

Finally, a quick word about one of the concepts in the videoas it relates to our situation. I believe it was Kyra who said that the best thing a blogger can do is be as above board as possible and speak "face to face." While I may be misinterpreting what she meant, I'll point out that very little (if any) of what I say as regards you or your ideas is hidden. Until you banned me and started moderating your comments, the majority of my responses were offered right there on your blog, right below the piece to which I was replying. American Nihilist would have fewer posts if you were more willing to engage me on your blog. You are always welcome on mine, whether you wish to discuss a post or create odd plays on my screen name. (RepMasterSpinelessDenialist, freak-nozzle denial master, HateMasterRepLoserDenialist, RepHateMasterFail, BirdBrainRepHaterBilgeMaster, BeetleJuiceMasterHateMongerSlimeBallFail) ((Yes, they're all real, and all created by LBCC associate professor of political science Donald Douglas. Links on request.)) In short, I am speaking to you, as face to face as the internet will allow.

If you want to allege something about me or a post I've written, come on back with quotes or other evidence of the thing you're alleging, or don't bother. In short, put up or shut up.