Wednesday, October 25, 2006

Real Threat vs. Shameful Fear Mongering

It has become crystal clear that the Democratic Party of Arkansas is building it's election campaign on the solid rock of ignorance and irrational fear. The Republicans are also hitting the alarm, but in their case the threat they are warning people about is real.

The Democrats are trying to terrorize old people over a non-existent threat to social security in, of all things, the Lt. Governor's race. The Republicans, especially in the Attorney General and Lt. Governor's races, are sounding a warning about homosexual "civil unions" and "foster parenting". The threat to "social security" is void of substance. It's shameful fear mongering. The threat to marriage and children is very real and is happening right in front of us. Just today, New Jersey Judges imposed homosexual civil unions that are identical to marriage in every respect but name on the citizens of that state. Since there is no residency requirement in New Jersey, "partners" there will be down here challenging our laws in no time.

Courts in this state have already overturned Department of Health and Human Services policy that formerly protected children from homosexual "couples" that wanted to acquire them through foster parenting or adoption.

Compare: The Democrats are trying to use the strictly federal issue of "social security" in the Lt. Governor's race. This is a bogyman created by lies and half-truths that the Halter campaign has thrown out concerning Jim Holt. The goal is to put fear and disgust in the minds of senior citizens over a non-issue. In 04, Jim Holt said he looked favorably on Bush's plan to privatize a portion of social security for those who wanted to do that. Nothing ever came of it. There was never even a vote on it. Even if it had passed, Social Security would not have been less solvent, but more solvent. And the portion of the contributions that had been privatized were the only part that would truly belong to you. For the rest of it, you have only the promise of your government to give you an unspecified amount of money at an unknown point in time.

The Democrats are running phony "issue advocacy" ads, which skirt the law on a political party's restrictions on donations to a campaign. They are really designed to beat the drums of irrational fear and demonization over a simple expression of support for Bush's long-defunct plan to privatize a portion of one's SS contributions in order to enhance the solvency of the system. This is something they know is a non-issue in any race on the ballot in 06, much less the Lt. Governor's race.

When the Republicans try to sound the alarm on an issue that is a real threat, the homosexual agenda, the establishment media in this state howls with protest. Yet they can't even work up a "tsk, tsk" for the Democrat's blatant demagougery. These are the same people in 04 who demanded to see Jim Holt's high school report cards, and printed in the newspaper what classes he made bad grades in! Bill Halter defends making money from distributing teen porn, and it passes without comment!

33 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

If the Social Security issue is strictly a federal issue, then why did Republican State Rep. Eric Harris in 2005 sponsor a state House Resolution asking the Arkansas House to support the privatization of Social Security?

http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/ftproot/bills/2005/public/HR1020.pdf

It's interesting to that all the Republicans voted for this Resolution (and only one Democrat voted for it) and most Democrats opposed it. The results are clear -- Republicans in Arkansas want to privatize Social Security. Democrats do not. Let's let the voters decide which party has the better position on this vital issue.

And, after all, a Republican state representative made it a state issue. Jim Holt's position is fair game, especially given that he's a former US Senate candidate and it's widely believed that he'll use the Lt Gov position as a stepping stone to federal office.

7:07 AM, October 26, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's another interesting House resolution on the privatization of social security:

http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/ftproot/bills/2005/public/HR1006.pdf

Again, the House Republicans voted for privatizing it. House Dems voted against it (except for one). Bill Halter has consistently said he's against gay marriage. So what's Holt's position on privatizing social security -- for it or against it?

7:11 AM, October 26, 2006  
Blogger rob_star said...

This may be the MOST ridiculous post among many ridiculous posts that Mark has made. I think crunch time has eaten away at his thought process. Social Security affects everyone. Gay marriage in general and gay marriage in New Jersey, specifically, affects absolutely nobody in Arkansas.

8:32 AM, October 26, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The reason Harris put forth a RESOLUTION instead of a BILL is that the STATE has no jurisdiction on the issue. And the issue is a dead one anyway. And the plan to "privatize" it applies to only a tiny sliver of it.


Social Security does have a looming problem coming, but Democrats demagouge the issue every time someone tries to fix it.

10:09 AM, October 26, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The reason Harris put forth a RESOLUTION instead of a BILL is that the STATE has no jurisdiction on the issue. And the issue is a dead one anyway. And the plan to "privatize" it applies to only a tiny sliver of it.


Social Security does have a looming problem coming, but Democrats demagouge the issue every time someone tries to fix it.

10:09 AM, October 26, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Gay marriage in general and gay marriage in New Jersey, specifically, affects absolutely nobody in Arkansas."


Hey chrome dome,

Once again you portray your utter ignorance. Abortion was "legalized" across the nation because it was legal in a select few liberal states and the liberal Supreme Court said that since it was legal in a few states that it must be legalized in all states.

"Gay marriage in general and gay marriage in New Jersey, specifically, affects absolutely nobody in Arkansas."

Are you really that ignorant or is it stupidity?

11:21 AM, October 26, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

GAY PEOPLE GOT MARRIED!! I'M LESS FREE!! MY MARRIAGE TO A WOMAN MEANS LESS!! OH MY, WHAT AM I TO DO!?!?!

1:38 PM, October 26, 2006  
Blogger rob_star said...

Anon 11:21 shows his lack of education for not realizing, that picture is not of me but of the late great Hunter S. Thompson. I assure you that all of my faculties as well as my hair are perfectly intact.

4:07 PM, October 26, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't know about your hair, but from other posts of yours that I've read, I can definitely say that all of your faculties are definitely NOT intact.

4:09 PM, October 26, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

fear mongering is all you do. you're on the wrong side of history. you should be ashamed of yourself.

7:57 PM, October 26, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My "lack of education" for not recognizing the "great" Hunter S. Thompson does not excuse your IGNORANCE for not realizing that what happens in the NJ Supreme Court may very well have a direct impact here in AR.

Seriously, is it ignorance or stupidity?

5:28 AM, October 27, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The NJ decision will have no impact on Arkansas, unless a gay Arkansan decides to move to NJ for a civil union. States are not required to recognize marriages from other states if it violates that state's public policy. The Defense of Marriage Act confirmed that, and no federal judge has ever said differently. Also, federal law does not recognize federal marriage benefits (e.g., tax deductions, spousal SS benefits) for gay couples.

So -- who's ignorant and/or stupid?

6:19 AM, October 27, 2006  
Anonymous Mark M said...

The militant homos should be ashamed of themselves, I'm not. I'm not trying to force a change on 5,000 years of Western Civilization against the wishes of the majorty of my neighbors. They are, through elitist courts.

No one is talking about killing them, or enslaving them, or anything like that. We just do not want public acceptance of the arrangements they have made. And we should have the right of disapproval. It is our, as a society's, choice.

6:50 AM, October 27, 2006  
Anonymous Mark Moore said...

6:19, you simply don't know what you are talking about.

The Constitution has a clause which says that states will honor the contracts and compacts of the other states. That has always included marriage. NJ has no residency requirement. One homosexual couple could AND WILL visit NJ, get a "civil union", and then come back here demanding all the rights in Arkansas that gave them in NJ, which is to say, 100% of the recognition of marriage. It is marriage by another name.

A federal judge will then throw out both our Constitutional Amendment AND the so-called "Defense of Marriage" act, on the grounds that the violate this clause of the constitution. Heck, even a strict constructionist judge could make this ruling. The evidence is so clear even I might rule that way.

This WILL happen, unless we put a stop to it with a Federal Marriage Amendment that is tougher than the one Bush pretended to support when he needed Christian votes. It must include Civil Unions.

6:57 AM, October 27, 2006  
Blogger rob_star said...

So why hasn't this happened yet with the Mass. law that has been in effect for some time now? The answer is simple: It is not going to happen. You guys are fear mongering over homosexuals. If your people are actually afraid of homosexuals or what their relationships might do to you or your family then you have much bigger problems than Mark and Scott next door.

7:18 AM, October 27, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hunter S. Thompson-- how appropriate that you use for your id the picture of a perpetually enraged rambler who eventually took his own life.

7:22 AM, October 27, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The fact that it happened in Massachusetts is proof that it isn't fear mongering! Did the militant queers there start a ballot initiative to see if the public wanted to pervert the definition of marriage? Noooooo. Did they get a legislator to pass a law to accomplish the same thing? Noooooo. Instead, they used the ACLU and the liberal Mass. Supreme Judicial (state) Court to strike down an outright ban that the people there DID pass.

The liberal perverts can never get their agenda by the people without dirty tricks and lies. Your constant homosexual propaganda on this blog is more proof of that.

7:37 AM, October 27, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

mark moore -- I most certainly do know what I'm talking about. The "clause" you're talking is Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States of America -- the Full Faith and Credit Clause. FFCC has always had a public policy exception that has been broadly applied from state to state -- a state is not required to recognize the laws of another state if it violates a state's public policy:

"[W]e think the conclusion is unavoidable that the full faith and credit clause does not require one state to substitute for its own statute, applicable to persons and events within it, the conflicting statute of another state, even though that statute is of controlling force in the courts of the state of its enactment with respect to the same persons and events." Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm'n, 306 U.S. 493, 502 (1939).

DOMA only reiterates the public-policy exception to FFCC.

New Jersey will probably pass a statute allowing gay marriage. Arkansas, by statute and by constitutional amendment, has prohibited recognition of same-sex marriage. Arkansas will not have to recognize NJ's same-sex marriage law. Under CURRENT LAW, Arkansas courts will not have to recognize gay marriage. We don't need to amend the US Constitution to ensure that.

Here's what I think about the Federal Marriage Amendment -- it's not about preventing gay marriage in Arkansas, or Texas, or some other state that has a constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage. It's about preventing it in Massachusetts, a state where the legislature and the people have basically accepted gay marriage. Otherwise, why not draft an amendment that says "no state has to recognize the marriage laws of another state"? Why does the FMA say "no gay marriage, anywhere"? In other words, why take away the right of a state to define marriage within its own borders? Not because you don't want Arkansas to be forced to recognize gay marriage (which it wouldn't have to, anyway) but because you want to prevent gay marriage anywhere in the US, even if people in a particular state want it. You want to federalize marriage -- and take away state's rights. Not in keeping with historical ideas about federalism, in my opinion.

If you disagree with my analysis, please don't say "you don't know what you're talking about." Please give me a reported court decision, or some sort of evidence, to back up your argument. Otherwise, I think it's clear who's either "stupid or ignorant." Also, here's a suggestion -- when you really want to study this stuff, don't go to right-wing websites, or partisan scare literature. Take a course on constitutional law from a college or university. Pick up a legal hornbook. If you do, you'll see that all this storm and strife over gay marriage is just a way to try to turn out the GOP base. It has nothing to do with real policy issues.

7:50 AM, October 27, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 established legal precedent that sodomy was "constitutionally protected" under the absurd definition of "privacy" established (as a supposed Constitutional right) in the Griswold decision of the 1960's (legalizing birth control, I believe).

The same "privacy" right which supposedly resides in the penumbras of the Constition (Roe v Wade) established the right to abortion.

Therefore by advancing this doctrine of privacy (found nowhere in the Constitution, not even in the penumbras)the Supreme Court is poised to thrust gay marriage onto the rest of the nation. After all, if sodomy is (supposedly) Constitutionally protected then why not (so called) gay marriage.

The recent replacement of Justice Alito for O'Conner (no matter your opinion of the motives of Bush) has in all likelihood (we may soon find out for sure) staved off gay marriage, at least temporarily.

Now, you seem to be astute and learned. Are you intentionally ignorant of this perversion of the Constitution (so called privacy doctrine establishing new liberal "Constitutional" rights)? Or are you STUPID? Do you not know of this "privacy" doctrine? I would assume that you are beholden to it and embrace it. That being the case then use your liberal head for something productive and recognize (from your perspective) the opportunity to impose Adam and Steve on the rest of us. Wake up man, opportunities are sliding by you.

Actually, I think you are being intentionally ignorant on this one. Ole' Rob on the other hand...well...let's just agree that he's not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

10:48 AM, October 27, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The leap from Lawrence v. Texas to a right to gay marriage under the Constitution is a huge one. Lawrence v. Texas was "the right to be let alone" -- the right to engage in private consensual activity (a right, interestingly enough, we also have under the Arkansas constitution). Lawrence v. Texas didn't just address homosexual sex -- it addresses all those things you do with your wife or your girlfriend (and the things I do with mine) when the kids are in bed and the bedroom door's closed. Maybe you think the government has an interest in regulating that sort of thing -- I don't, and I doubt many people do anymore. Or maybe you disagree with me -- why don't you make a list of what sort of sexual activity between consensual adults should be legal and shouldn't be, and post your ideas on this blog. Whips? Chains? Oral sex between husbands and wives? Is any of that the state legislature's business?

Keep this in mind, young scholar -- no federal court, anywhere, has recognized a right to gay marriage under the U.S. Constitution. New Jersey, Hawaii, Massachusetts -- those were state constitutional decisions.

Interesting you don't think there's a right to privacy under the Constitution. Did you watch the confirmation hearings for Justice Alito and Justice Roberts? I did. Both were asked by Republican and Democratic senators whether they believe there is a right to privacy under the Constitution. And both answered "yes." You may not like the idea of a privacy right under the Constitution, but most people, liberal and conservative, believe there is one.

You may disagree with me, but I'm not being willfully ignorant. And I still haven't heard any meaningful response to my post about the Full Faith and Credit Clause. I assume that's because you have no meaningful response.

BTW -- don't confuse the issue of a right to privacy with Full Faith and Credit -- they are completely different issues. One -- FFCC -- involves the requirement that one state adhere to the laws of another. That's a federalism issue, and it's pretty well decided. The other issue, privacy, is an individual rights issue. There seems little likelihood, now or ever, that the U.S. Supreme Court would find a right to gay marriage under the U.S. Constitution. And there is even less likelihood that the U.S. Supreme Court would require Arkansas to adopt New Jersey's marriage laws.

11:24 AM, October 27, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The leap from Lawrence v. Texas to a right to gay marriage under the Constitution is a huge one"

The leap from legalizing birth control to killing babies and allowing sodomy is also a huge one, but it happened didn't it? The leap from making sodomy a Constitutional right protected by a privacy right not found in the Constitution to gay marriage is not near as far of a leap as you pretend. By the way, can you offer a legal argument that allows for Constitutionally protected sodomy (due to the unconsitutional privacy doctrine)but not gay marriage. What logic would you use to allow one and not the other? What Constitutional principle would allow one and not the other?

You're setting up a straw man with your reference to whips and chains and so forth. Personally I don't care what consenting adults do behind closed doors. But homofascists are trying to take what they do behind closed doors and bring it out into the streets for all to see and make me endorse their lifestyle with governmental recognition of their perversion.


"Keep this in mind, young scholar -- no federal court, anywhere, has recognized a right to gay marriage under the U.S. Constitution"

Brilliant point. I guess you would have argued the same thing in January of 1973 before Roe v. Wade was decided (inserting abortion for gay marriage).


"Interesting you don't think there's a right to privacy under the Constitution"

I do believe that there is a Constitutional protected right to privacy, the same right Alito and Roberts referenced. The right to privacy from illegal searches and seizures. You know, the one in the Bill of Rights that is actually found in the text of the Constitution. The one that doesn't eminate from the penumbras.

Concerning the FFCC, you stated "FFCC has always had a public policy exception that has been broadly applied from state to state."

Let me ask you, was the FFCC violated by Roe v. Wade? It absolutely was. Abortion was legal in California and other places but not Texas. The Supreme Court violated the FFCC by inventing a Constitutional right. It happened then and it very possibly could (and would with liberal judges) happen again.

By the way, I don't consider myself a scholar, but thank you for the complement.

11:58 AM, October 27, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You're all a bunch of fear and war mongerers! Do you actually believe the crap you post. You're worse than the pres w/ his blinders on. Most narrow minded people I've ever met. If you're so damn perfect, try walking on water! A liberal Christian? That can't be. There are more of us than you think.

2:44 PM, October 27, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Roe v. Wade involved a constitutional right to privacy. The Full Faith and Credit Clause involves the constitutional requirement that the courts of one state enforce the laws of another (and contains the public policy exception). I haven't read the text of Roe v. Wade in a while, but I don't remember anything about Full Faith and Credit in there. You're once again confusing two broad topics of constitutional law: federalism (relationship of states to one another, and the federal government to the states) and civil rights (freedoms protected by the constitution).

You might be surprised to learn that I've never thought Roe v. Wade to be on particularly solid constitutional ground, less so than Griswold, Lawrence v. Texas, etc. But the idea that over 30 years ago the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, therefore today we need a constitutional amendment prohibiting any state from recognizing gay marriage within its own borders, is weak, especially given that no federal court has recognized a federal right to same-sex marriage. Maybe that's why it will never pass Congress.

Tell me this -- if Massachusetts wants to recognize gay marriage within its own borders, why prohibit that? Don't tell me "because Arkansas will too" -- because it won't have to. And if it might, why not enact an amendment that says "Full Faith and Credit doesn't apply to marriage laws." Why does the FMA says "no gay marriage, anywhere"?

Admit it -- You want to prohibit civil unions in other states, not because of what might happen in Arkansas, but because you don't want homosexuals, anywhere, to enjoy the right to marriage. Screw federalism. Forget state constitutions.

Am I right?

2:47 PM, October 27, 2006  
Anonymous Mark M said...

Here is the clause:
"Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."

Today's judges use "precedent" when it advances liberalism. When precedent does NOT advance liberalism, they construct a new ruling, which then becomes "precedent".

The Lawrence vs/ Texas sodomy case does apply here, not because it invokes the clause in question, but because it shows clearly how the court is even willing to over-rule itself from 17 years earlier as soon as it thinks it is safe to push the liberal envelope further.

Any honest person could look at the words in the "Full Faith and Credit" clause, and look at the history of the courts selective use/disuse of precedents, and conclude that the courts will impose homosexual marriage /civil union on America the next chance it gets.

As for why it has not happened yet when MA has such a law, they also have a RESIDENCY requirement. It is not like someone who lives in Arkansas can hop up there, get hitched, then fly back down and file a suit.

You liberals are scoffing at us for crying "wolf" even as packs of them circle our very homes.

3:06 PM, October 27, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mark, I think you are gay. It's okay...just realize and accept your feelings. Come out of the closet girl! Just like Mark Foley.
Wait, are you a pedophile too?

7:45 PM, October 27, 2006  
Anonymous Mark M said...

Come back when you can refute my points with logical arguement child, until then - go do your homework.

7:31 AM, October 28, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tell me this -- if Massachusetts wants to recognize gay marriage within its own borders, why prohibit that?

Hello-- that point has already been addressed. "Massachusetts" doesn't wan't gay (so-called) marriage. It was forced upon the people by the ACLU, militant queers, and the liberal courts. The people are busy trying to overturn the judicial activism.

11:17 AM, October 28, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Like any of this has anything to do with anything. Stick to the real problems...unfair tax advantage for the wealthy, the illegal war in Iraq, and education. This is NOT a real crisis facing the USA. And you know it.

12:22 PM, October 28, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You mean, it's not a threat to perverts. The rest of us do consider it a serious attack at the very foundations of this nation.

4:47 PM, October 28, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Mark. You really have a fertile imaginiation and a penchant for making things up. Do yourself a favor, step away frm the computer and get a life.

5:50 PM, October 28, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ha ha, it's always amusing to see how quickly the liberal intellect runs dry. Now you've resorted to attacking Mark (Moore?).

7:03 PM, October 28, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Step away from the computer" Why? 'cause you are tired of losing the arguement?

4:43 AM, October 29, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Roe v. Wade involved a constitutional right to privacy. The Full Faith and Credit Clause involves the constitutional requirement that the courts of one state enforce the laws of another (and contains the public policy exception). I haven't read the text of Roe v. Wade in a while, but I don't remember anything about Full Faith and Credit in there."

You are correct, there is very little (barely any) analysis in the Roe decision on why abortion is indeed "Constitutional." Likewise if/when the Supreme Court mandates gay marriage there will be no reference to the FFCC nor will there be any substantive Constitutional analysis. The analysis will all be based on case law from the 1960 forward, nothing from the text of the Constitution.

The liberal judges got around the FFCC in Roe by declaring that abortion was Constitutionally protected by the Griswold (farce) privacy right which lurks and eminates in the penumbras (i.e. shadows) of the Constitution. You don't have to deal with the FFCC if you can "find" an abortion right elsewhere in the Constitution (such as the so called penumbras). Likewise, a liberal court will easily find its way around the FFCC concerning gay marriage by finding a "Constitutional" right to gay marriage under the same farce privacy doctrine (and I bet they will also find it in the shadows of the Constitution because they certainly won't find it in the text).

"You might be surprised to learn that I've never thought Roe v. Wade to be on particularly solid constitutional ground, less so than Griswold, Lawrence v. Texas, etc."

Your argument above does not make sense. The Roe and Lawrence decisions were based on Griswold. If not then please tell me how they weren't. Griswold established the "right to privacy" not found in the text of the Constitution and both decision flowed from Griswold. If you don't like Roe then you shouldn't like Griswold or Lawrence either. And if you think Griswold and Lawrence are on "solid" Constitutional grounds then please elaborate what CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES they protect (and where are those principles found) that Roe does not. I challenge you to answer that question. I don't think you can.

7:45 AM, October 29, 2006  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home