Society, in general, appears to be circling the drain with ever increasing velocity. Given the state of society and the apparently overt attempts to expedite its collapse, this seems an appropriate time to question those bastions of freedom and superior intellect, the civil libertarians. Perhaps understanding the motivations of those who swing sledgehammers at the societal moorings will enable us to discover new ways to preserve it. At the very least, we may enjoy an epiphany and realize why the civil libertarian ideology should take priority over the preservation of society.
The succeeding questions are not presented in any meaningful order. I do hope civil libertarians will enlighten us (and by enlighten, I don't mean spewing legal interpretation or precedent).
Regarding Dzokhar Tsarnaev (you know, the subject of your #FreeJahar Twitter hashtag), I will not inquire about his constitutional rights, as you have gotten your way and he was granted U.S. citizenship. There are questions related to his citizenship, however:
1. How do you justify even considering giving someone like Tsarnaev citizenship? Perhaps political correctness doesn't allow you to profile, but why shouldn't his brother's activities have been taken into consideration before he was granted citizenship?
2. To whom would you assign blame for his involvement in the bombings? Was he a victim of the American "gun culture" (glorified by Hollywood hypocrites who complain about an important component of their riches)? Was he bullied by his brother, who in turn was bullied by nasty Americans and driven to radical Islam?
3. What kind of person will defend Tsarnaev? I know that you have granted him the right to a defense. I also know that some might make the ridiculous claim that someone has to do it. If this is the case, who will hold the gun to the head of the defense attorney (or the heads of the team of attorneys)? If someone has to do it, what about the civil liberty of he who is forced to defend the indefensible? Do you civil libertarians care about the civil liberties of everyone or do you simply have a soft spot in your hearts for the most vile?
Of course, I do not think an attorney will have to be forced to take his case. therefore, I ask again, what kind of person defends such a monster? Will the motivation be fame? Perhaps a cable news television show? Maybe the defense attorney will be a fan of Infowars.com and believe the thing never happened at all, other than as an elaborate production with actors and special effects.
Regarding the rape and murder of children:
1. Do you have any concern, whatsoever about the victims or their families? It could very well be that you civil libertarians believe that the perpetrators of the crimes are the real victims. If so, please explain.
2. Do you believe the death penalty is ever appropriate? The Supreme Court has decided that states cannot execute child rapists unless they killed and intended to kill their victims. See this ABC News story on the Supreme court siding with a man who raped his eight year old stepdaughter. Did the liberals on the court make the correct call? Does the U.S. Constitution preclude states from executing rapists? If so, please tell me you aren't going to say its in the "commerce clause."
3. Are you on the side of Steven Smith? Will you march to save him? Did his girlfriend's 6 month old daughter deserve what he did? Does it matter that, although the infant died as a result of his rape of her, he claims to have only meant to rape her, but not kill her? Are you civil libertarians really going to claim that if his intent wasn't to kill, he should be spared? Are you going to rationalize his actions by pointing to alcohol or his childhood?
Regarding the grotesque entity that is the ACLU:
1. Should police be expected to attend ceremonies thanking them for their actual service or be sued for religious discrimination? From the aclu.org:
Police Captain was Reprimanded for Ignoring Order to Attend Community Policing Event at Islamic Center
April 23, 2013
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; [email protected]
TULSA, Okla. – The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Oklahoma filed a friend-of-the-court brief yesterday with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, arguing that a police officer does not have a religious right to refuse assignments simply because they require him to serve people who do not share his faith.
The Islamic Society of Tulsa held a Law Enforcement Appreciation Day in 2011 to thank local police for protecting the center after it received threats during the previous year. As part of the department's community policing initiative, Capt. Paul Fields was directed to attend, or send officers from his division to attend the event. Fields refused, claiming that to attend or to send officers to the event would violate his religious beliefs, which require him to proselytize anyone who does not share his Christian faith.
"As a police officer, Capt. Fields is bound to serve the entire community, regardless of whether or not they share his beliefs," said Ryan Kiesel, executive director of the ACLU of Oklahoma. "His refusal to attend an event hosted by members of the community because they happen to be Muslims is discrimination, pure and simple."
The brief states that the First Amendment requires public servants to serve all individuals and groups of every religious tradition without discriminating against or favoring any particular faith.
So the police should have to attend an "appreciation day?" Are you progressive... I mean, civil libertarians crazy?
Regarding the ACLU and the legal murder of children:
1. Do you agree with the ACLU of PA (http://www.aclu.org/reproductive-freedom/aclu-pa-responds-pa-senate-and-house-committee-action-abortion-clinics) and its response to the PA Senate and PA House regarding the heinous butcher Kermit Gosnell and his fellow (although not viewed the same baby killers)?
The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania responded to the week’s activities by noting the vast differences between the approaches taken by the House and Senate.
“Everyone agrees that patient safety is the endgame for this legislation,” said Andy Hoover, legislative director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania. “The Senate bills need to include protections of patient privacy that those bills currently lack, but no clinics will close if any of the Senate bills pass.
“HB 574, on the other hand, would effectively close most and maybe all of the independent abortion clinics in Pennsylvania. The requirements of this House bill will cost abortion providers hundreds of thousands of dollars in building renovations and staff increases.
“If HB 574 becomes law,” Hoover added, “women will still seek abortion care, but with reputable clinics closed, the chances increase that women will seek abortions from doctors like Gosnell.”
Are regulations important and necessary, but only when they do not impose on the ideals of the left and the civil libertarian? It seems that abortion is already legal and the PA House bill isn't in place, yet women still sought abortions from Gosnell. How could that be? Is any criticism of Gosnell really just based on racism? Do you think Gosnell is the real victim here?
More on the Planned Parenthood vultures and the ACLU enablers in the aftermath of someone finally noticing Gosnell's atrocities here.
I suppose all the questions posed above can be combined into one simple question for civil libertarians:
Whose side are you on?
It seems that you expend a great deal of energy to defend the most vile and heinous excuses for human beings. Would you have decent people believe that your advocacy is intended to protect their rights as well as those of the vermin you champion? Are you protecting us all from some tyranny of morality? Is it that we do not know what is best for ourselves and if we would just lighten up and perhaps enjoy some "medical" marijuana, we might see the folly of prosecuting criminal behavior?