Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

ELECTION: O’Ban would support Constitution

Letter by Gerald R. Ogden, Tacoma on July 30, 2010 at 1:55 pm with 76 Comments »
August 2, 2010 9:27 am

With the recent Arizona judicial decision , we should all concentrate on supporting political candidates who will make decisions with the intent of the U.S. Constitution in mind.

Such a candidate is Steve O’Ban, running for state representative in the 28th district. He is a constitutional attorney who has argued and won before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Election integrity, immigration, border protection and fiscal restraint are a few issues that can be properly resolved if our elected representatives abide by the tenets of the Constitution. A vote for O’Ban will be a step to right the path from which we have strayed.

Leave a comment Comments → 76
  1. He sounds good so far!

  2. I am glad to hear that O’Ban would follow the Constitutional requirements for separation of powers, the responsibility of the Federal government, not the states to protect borders and enforce immigration laws and stand up against people in his own party that would violate such Constitutional principles.

  3. Talk is cheap, Gerald !

  4. artsandcrafts says:

    Yep, talk is cheap, look at the occupant of the oval office… and house for that matter. Lots-o-talk.

    Sure wish Barry would take care of the border instead of suing Arizona for doing what he refuses to do.

  5. TonyCrago says:

    Constitution? Since when are the right wing nut jobs concerned about the Constitution? When their boy AWOL George was in the Oval Office he used the Constitution as toilet paper! The right wants to destroy the Constitution. All those pesky rights like – oh the right to be free FROM religion, and the right to not be subject to racists like the republican governor of Arizona. The right hates the Constitution because they truly hate freedom. They only support the Constitution when it suits them – and that’s usually when they want to bomb something so Halliburton can make more money.

  6. artsandcrafts, you do know that since Obama got in the White House, deportations have increased about 35% over the highest years of Bush, don’t you? Bush’s highest year was 261,000+ and Obama is on track to deport over 400,000 illegals in 2010. Republicans and Fox are just talk, and most of itis lies and false insinuations.

  7. artsandcrafts says:

    By golly I did not know that. Where did you here that?

    What does fox have to do with this?

  8. artsandcrafts says:

    Tony tony Tony… don’t git yer shorts in such a wad. Good grief man!

  9. Yo Tuddo,
    Could it be that Arizona has to defend itself due to the fact that a idiot and a coward now lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave?
    So are you trying to say that dimocrats abide by the law? I have one name for you, Chuck Rangel! How many counts of ethics is he being charged with? Thirteen last I heard but that was a few days ago. That number has been going up about as fast as the Obamanations poll numbers have been going down.
    Maybe Rangel should go on the view. In fact maybe he and Obama could join the cast of the View. We have to find something these bonehead can do without screwing things up.
    By the way, I live in the 28th and have his sign in the yard. Do you live in the 28th or are you just another glue sniffing misinformed liberal. I think the latter.
    “For those that have fought for it, Freedom has a sweeter taste.” Bet it taste like chicken to you!

  10. Tuddo,
    The reason that deportation is up is due to that fences and video security that was started back in 2005 that has a tag of over 5 billion have been put in place.That construction was halted by your boy the Obamanation last year.
    Fences and surveillance put up in the most crossed areas are why they are being caught. Not due to anything your “community organizer” has done.
    The laws against hiring illegal at American companies was also started under Bush 43.
    Why is it that coward boy, Obama has taken credit for everything that has gone positive but blames Bush for all that has gone wrong. He even takes credit for Iraq and that had been settled before his worthless rectum even got into office. Correct me if I am wrong but didn’t the “Messiah” vote against the surge?
    So, are all liberals stupid or is it just a act? If you are acting , your pretty good and Hollywood calls. If not, Hollywood also calls since they are a bunch of stupid liberals anyway.
    In the words of that steaming pile of dog crap Alec Baldwin after making the movie Pearl Harbor, “I know war, I have been in war movies.”
    Maybe you and Alec could share a house.
    Anytime, anyplace and bring your friend. You need all the brain power you can muster!

  11. TonyCrago says:

    Hey Fake Marine I have a DD214 – go look that up on Google to find out what it is. Oh and we made the marines clean our latrines so get busy girl.

    As for chickenhawk pals of yours?

    Former Speaker Newt Gingrich – avoided the draft, did not serve
    Lush Flimbaugh had a boil on his read end and did not serve
    Trent Lot avoided draft did not serve
    Dennis Hastert avoided draft did not serve
    Dick Armey avoided draft did not serve
    Dick Cheney several deferments in his own words, “had other priorities than military service” avoided draft did not serve
    And of course the hugely AWOL coward Baby Bush

    I could go on and on and on and on and on and on and on but we get the point. Republicans are big on wars that they can send African American and Hispanic soldiers to fight in their place.

    Cowards that’s who you look up Fake Marine and I am not surprised. As for the any time any place….since you’re no doubt locked up in a sex offender unit you can’t back that up!

  12. Crapo:
    Don’t think for a second that I will go away and forget. Unlike you liberals, lifelong drug use hasn’t effected my memory.
    I know from your last paragraph that you won’t show because you already made a excuse. Or at least in your mind it was. In reality you were admitting that you are only a man sitting behind your CPU. I don’t suffer from your illness.
    You can tell me Craphead. You were one of those guys that got locked in his wall locker in school weren’t you? But then the internet came along and you could talk all your smack since no one knows who you are as you are safely tucked away in your moms basement doing what you libs do best. Talk the talk but won’t walk the walk.
    Maybe Al Gore did invent the internet as a means for liberals to talk smack and not be held accountable for it.
    Well, until tomorrow Crapcake! Let me know ASAP where you want to meet tomorrow. Unlike you, I do have a life and other things to do tomorrow but I can fit you in at noon!
    Hell, you won’t even be awake by then. Why should you? You all want the government to take care of you anyway so why even get out of bed.
    How are those legs feeling froggy? I’ve taken scarier dumps then you!

  13. arts andcrafts, AP had a story out after the Washington Post ran an investigation. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/25/AR2010072501790.html?hpid=topnews. Compare that to the lead story on Fox on July 10, 2010, that said that the new policies of Obama meant that deportations were not being conducted. The Fox story made the claim without any statistics or facts to back it up (as usual).

    Fox, tea partiers and right wing pundits have been attacking the Obama administration, saying he was not enforcing the border and laws against businesses hiring immigrants, and was not deporting illegals, so I thought you were just quoting those sources of misinformation. The Post found that Obama has ramped up audits of businesses 4 times over the Bush administration and is deporting many more illegals than Bush did. Bush did increase the numbers deported during his last term from those in his first term, but Obama is definitely enforcing the laws to a greater extent. Obama is targeting those who have criminal records, outstanding warrants and other law breakers much more than Bush did who used the tactics of big disruptive raids on businesses that Fox claimed was more effective.

    If people want to give their opinion and say what Obama or Bush or what the US has done in the past is not enough, well, I agree. Obama also agrees. He wants more funds for enforcement, more funds to hire more border and ICE officers and a comprehensive plan for guest workers. Obama and the Dems tried to bring up immigration reform in Congress, and Lindsey Graham was working with the Dems on a joint bill, but the Republican leadership refused to allow any discussion of immigration reform to come up until after the election and Graham had to back off his support. Could it be that the R’s really don’t want reform, but they just want a wedge issue for the upcoming elections knowing that Fox would spout off and that people who only watch Fox would believe that Obama was not enforcing the laws?

    Marine, I would agree if you said the reason the number of illegals crossing into the US is down is because of the fences and border security, but they have nothing to do with deportations of people who are already in the US.

    I get tired of Fox and far right commenters attacking anything and everything about Obama without any facts or perspective.

  14. Sumner401 says:

    The little fake marine is all wound up isn’t she?!
    Threats, lies, insults, finger pointing, childish party line rambling and not one single fact in all of that!
    It was amusing though, I will say that.

    I think little marine represents the republican mind very well, empty, hollow and funny.

  15. TonyCrago says:

    Well Fake Marine being 13 years old and such are you sure you can get your mommy to let you out of the house? Do you often come to forums to talk smack while reading Soldier of Fortune Magazine and pretending you’re a war hero? You are just like every other lilly livered republican I’ve ever met. You’re 10 feet tall as long as you’re posting from your mom’s basement. I note you quickly changed the subject when I posted the list of all your heros who like you – are just cowardly chickenhawks.

    Get some mental health counseling Fake Marine. You need it.

  16. marine says:
    July 30, 2010 at 11:23 pm

    ………….”lifelong drug use hasn’t effected my memory.”

    What did it effect, marine?

  17. marine, I found a few statements in your last post that I guess you think are the “facts are facts,” but I really don’t think I would classify them as such. Here’s one nugget:

    “Biden’s gaffs (sic) are being ignored at this point” – no, he gets fact checked and pilloried by Fox all the time, sort of like MSNBC did with Bush. Most are amusing and give people a chuckle. Most people have a life and did not dwell on Bush’s funnier moments and do not dwell on Biden’s like Limbaugh seems to do.

    Here’s another nugget: “Bush stopped playing during the war …” I think you are talking about golf in this one. Bush said he stopped playing golf in 2003 out of respect for those killed in Iraq. I am not sure how that shows respect, but pundits did like to show funny pictures of Bush clowning on the fairways. Bush could have given up clowning around and had a better public image, in my opinion. Bush had 490 vacation days at his ranch, 487 days at Camp David and scores of other vacation trips. He passed Ronald Reagan’s amazing vacation record in 2007 and did not stop taking vacations.

    You said that a president has never gone against the will of the American people. For that, I need more info. I am not sure what the topic is, but that seems to be the kind of unfounded claim without any facts to back it up that I get a little riled about. If you mean the “will of the American people” about health care, well, if it had had a public option it would have had a huge majority for it, and now, it seems a big majority has now realized it is in the best interest of the US to have a national health care law. If you mean the will of the 10% of tea partiers or the 1% that think like you, well, yes anything Obama does is against their “will” and will get him roasted by people who cannot look at real issues or facts, but call people they disagree with cowards.

  18. donjames says:

    Say what you want about marine. I believe he actually did meet with witchiwoman. He is real. That’s more than I can say for zip code and his clone, TC.

  19. What on earth does O’Ban, running for state representative, have to do with the interpretation of the Constitution? Is he backing out of the race to run for Supreme Court justice? I’m pretty sure that all of our state legislators take an oath to uphold it, but they don’t interpret it as Mr. Ogden states.

    Another thing: I haven’t seen Mr. O’Ban in my neighborhood (Precinct 435 off of Hipkins); in fact, the only place I have seen him is at the Steilacoom parade and on a street corner in Lakewood waving a yard sign. I haven’t received a mailer from him. I have not received a phone call. If you ask me, the GOP powers-that-be are holding him back because they know he is a whacko! He’s got nothing to offer for the 28th District and is hoping that he can just skate into office this year. If you see him, ask him the tough questions and see what you get. More than likely, it will be the typical Evergreen Freedom Foundation banter.

    This guys is just a litigation attorney! To heck with the Constitution! All he does is sue people and take home a huge paycheck!!!

  20. If my comments were as abusive as his, I would have been unplugged long ago, don.

    Real or not, the TNT seems to have turned a blind eye.

  21. Javison, I agree with your thoughts. O’Ban, to his credit, did come up to me while I was in my front yard weeding very near my Kelley sign while he was canvassing my neighborhood. We had a good conversation. On many issues I agree with him. When he veered into unfounded claims, I could steer him to facts, and he did not flinch, but acknowledged my points. I can tell he must be a very successful attorney. He listens and knows how to have a debate without calling people names, and when he realized I had some factual knowledge on my side he would politely change the subject. My impression is that he is not a right wing zealot, but pretty close to the middle on most issues, just like Kelley is. We disagreed strongly on the income tax and taxes in general and the role of government as a catalyst for business. He is much more anti-union than I am, and I see myself as neither pro- nor anti- on that subject. I will vote for Kelley because Kelley has been effective and his record shows that he is very independent of both right and left ideologues. I also know Kelley and his family, and they are grounded, honest and real, with middle class family values all the way. I am not sure about Republicans anymore. They can talk a good game and claim to be independent and representative of all the people, but then the far right seems to drag them into the cess pool.

  22. Since the letter is about Mr. O’Ban I’ll limit my comments to his lack of qualifications. He is anti-gay and anti-choice. He is a right wing, super religious zealot whose ideas about what is correct constantly gets people like him into trouble because they cannot live by those requirements. It is called hypocrisy and while he can easily set limits for everyone else he cannot abide by the rules himself or enforce them for his friends. The last thing we need is another lawyer in Olympia whose outlook is that he knows better than anyone how the rest of us should lead our lives. I’m afraid that is what you will get if you elect him.
    I’ll stick with a known moderate in Troy Kelley even though I don’t agree with him all the time.
    It is discouraging to see comments like those from marine. If anything, they illustrate failings in our mental health capabilities.

  23. dewilson says:

    Can we assume that Mr. O’ban is a “Constitutional Conservative” who demands that SCOTUS interpret law according to the “original intent” of our founders and do not legislate from the bench. If so, I don’t see how he can support the Arizona law with that stance.

    I would also be curious to know his stance on the SCOTUS decision that gives pre-eminent rights of “free speech” to those entities with the most money, e.g., corporations. These are not even voting persons, but they can easily drown out the voices of ex-Marines and citizens alike to put in those lawmakers that will be most favorable towards their profitability. So forget about your hard-fought liberties, Patriots, unless you can find a way that your precious rights somehow contribute to the bottom line, they will mean nothing to the new Corporate-State that your “conservative court” has handed us. But then, wasn’t that the ‘original intent’ of our founders?

  24. Publico, yes there’s that, too. He did change the subject on me quickly when we talked about his leadership for the repeal of Washington’s partnership law and his leadership of the anti-gay marriage crowd. He has made some pretty wild claims about the effect of the partnership laws, none of which have come to pass. He was one talking about how it would lead to marriage with animals, two sisters getting married, etc.

  25. dewilson says:

    Tuddo, you raise a good point on the gay marriage issue. How can a strict “Constitutionalist” deny that gay marriage should be protected under the “equal protection” clause of the 14th Amendment?

  26. Sumner401 says:

    “Constitutional Conservative” = Hypocrite.
    They only support the Constitution if it supports their myopic and hate filled agenda.

  27. donjames says:

    P, not agreeing with anyone here. Just laughing at the irony of the biggest multi-personality on this site accusing someone else of being a phony.

    Note to marine:
    While I generally agree with you message, and your right to put it forward in this forum, I am not so sure about your delivery. And you should forget about meeting Summy and TC – it is physically impossible for them both to be in one place at the same time.


  28. dewilson says:

    Sadly, Sumner, you are all too right.
    These right-wingers, Tea-Partiers, and self-annoited “patriots” wave the flag about and scream out demands for “Constitutional Rights”, but they have no allegiance to the Constitution except how they perceive it meets their agenda. They certainly don’t much care about the rights of ‘others’ (people of color or non-Christian faiths, gays, etc.) And they turn a blind eye to the constitutional tramplings by Bush, Cheney, et al, while demanding their rights to brandish weapons of any kind and to ignore laws they deem “non-righteous”.

    But then, these same folks believe Rush Limbaugh has wisdom to offer, FOX “News” is fair and balanced, and Sarah Palin has Presidential gravitas.

  29. dewilson says:

    Mr. Marine,
    Actually I agree that President Obama has not done enough to repeal the Patriot Act nor has he acted fast enough on ridding ourselves of Gitmo and rescinding ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’. In fact many of us progressives/liberals are dissappointed in him for these and other reasons, even those of us who don’t sniff glue or use drugs.

    If I can assume that, being a black man, you are supportive of the civil rights act and other efforts to secure civil rights for all, then we are in agreement. Would you therefore agree that these rights should also be extended to sexual minorities?

    BTW, when you raise such points, you actually provide real ammo to your arguments. But when you go off on full-automatic with your name-calling rants, you’re just shooting blanks at imaginary targets and they become meaningless. – Just as a friendly word from a fellow comrade-in-arms.

  30. Our Constitution is a human guarantee reiterating the protection of God given
    (that Name and several other descriptions of the like are found all over preambles, letters and Declarations) rights as in life which is scientifically proven to begin at conception, liberty meaning that one can decide to set one’s course and follow it barring the destruction of another, and the pursuit (not the guarantee of ) happiness (or prior to the Scott case-property).
    These enumerations are granted to “Individuals”
    Not “groups”
    A “group” is an entity or collective of Two or More. A “group” is never just “One”.
    If homosexuality or sodomy is the relative completion of an act(s) which identifies itself with its own definition, and by its definition requires the activity of TWO individuals (group), then how is our constitution to be linguistically manipulated to somehow now include “groups” at the expense of the “Individual”.
    still waiting…

  31. larsman, what a twisted post, but let’s talk about some of your comments. “Groups”, including “pairs” are made up of individuals with similar interests, attributes, etc, so right there, your rant falls apart. The right wing SCOTUS has granted corporations the rights of individuals.

    If you have any scientific proof that “life” begins at conception then please point it out. There is a lot of “life” on this planet that does not even require conception to exist. Now, if you are talking about what makes a human a human, that is more a philosophical discussion at this point. Most people now define it as when the fetus is able to live independently from the host. In the past, it ranged from self-awareness (the test that the Roman Catholic Church used for centuries) to birth. In most cases we now use the last trimester based on science as we know it.

    And, to cap it off, you presented part of the pro-gay marriage and gay rights points, perfectly: “one can decide to set one’s course and follow it barring the destruction of another”. Since no other individual’s liberty or rights are infringed upon by gays, individually or collectively, opposition to gay rights is just a mean-spirited exercise in power and denial of liberty to other individuals.

  32. dewilson says:

    Sorry to keep you waiting, Iarsman.
    First off, I am suspicious of your reference to God and the Constitution. “God” is not mentioned in the Constitution, and it is always my fear that those who want to cite those two words together (or suggest the Constitution is based on “Judeo-Chrisitanity” precepts) are cleverly trying to imply that the Constitution is subordinate to THEIR particular god, and therefore subordinate to their scriptures, e.g., the Bible. Of course that means that our Constitutional laws, precepts, rights, etc. are subject to the devine interpretation of religious leaders above that of our governmental heirarchy. Hence people like Joseph Smith or Pat Roberts would, like Ayatollahs, determine the ‘legitmacy’ of our laws and polcies, not the Supreme Court, This would, of course, be the antithesis of the intent of our founders.

    I also disagree that, at the moment of conception, a “human being” is produced. It is a multi-celled organism, but that does not constitute “human being” under any “scientific measure” that I’m aware of.

    As to “groups”, I think your reference is irrelavent to the question. The only question is whether on not the rights and privileges extend to every INDIVIDUAL equally under the law REGARDLESS of any “group” affiliation such as race, sex, religion, creed, sexual orientation, military service, etc.

    It is our conservative friends who want to identify GROUPS (homosexuals, iMuslims, Latino immigrants, etc.) as persons to be discriminated against by virtue of their affiliation.

  33. So, tuddo, we meet again re the question of when a fetus is officially a human being.

    You say: “Most people now define it as when the fetus is able to live independently from the host. In the past, it ranged from self-awarenes…to birth.”

    Interesting thing, language, as calling a baby a fetus and a mother a host sort of helps keep one’s distance from what we intuitively know to be true. Probably why we don’t through “fetus showers.”

    And if it’s not a baby till it can live independent of the host, it should be okay by you if we go in and terminate IT’s life right up to the due date. Is that right?

    And Marine, your personal taunts are pretty nasty, BUT I know how posters like sumner and TC can bring out the nasties. For the record, I’m going to agree that meeting “them” will actually just mean meeting “him” or “her” — clearly suffering from what they once called Multiple Personality Disorder but now call something else. That’s always how it is in the field of medicine, fetus one day, baby the next.

  34. dewilson says:

    Actually, Sozo, your are the one playing “word” games. Larsman cited “science” to support his contention that “life begins at conception”. The terms “fetus”, “host’ and the like are, indeed scientific terms and totally applicable to the discussion. (You might want to check out “blastocyst” as well.) It is our anti-Choice group who want to suggest that at the moment of conception something equivalent ot a “baby” is instantly formed because it suits there meme that expel that tiny organism is to expunge the life of a child. It is a very emotional and effective argument, but not scientific.

    By the way, since Larsman also cited “God” in his discussion, it’s useful to note that the Bible usually described life (as in having a soul) has taking place with it’s first breath, e.g., “God has breathed life into it.”

    Of course, the “viability” notion is the basis that the Supreme Court used in Roe v. Wade.

    Bottom line – neither science nor the Bible support the “human life begins at conception” notion, but it remains the battle cry of those who would have government insert itself into the most personal of decisions by a woman. Her right to choose to carry or not to carry a fetus to term before viability should be inalienable.

  35. sozo, since larsman made a claim about what science says, not religion, I was using scientific terms. Some women are hosts to the embryo and fetus, but are not the legal or biological (egg producer) “mother” in this day of medical wonders, and one can be a mother without ever having carried a fetus to term. As I’ve said before, I personally do not support an abortion unless the life or health of the host is in danger.

    Some people believe it is OK to terminate a pregnancy if the fetus is not a human being by their own concience and beliefs. I think that is supportable by the constitution, but I would argue my philosophical opinion with them, if they wanted to debate, But, I would never make the decision for them. In my mind, those who would make the choice for a woman and kill or maim her based on their own religious or philosophical views and not hers is subjecting her to cruel and unusual (and unconstitutional) punishment. Just my opinion.

  36. Sumner401 says:

    larsman, what a twisted post

    Consider the source.

  37. Sumner401 says:

    For the record, I’m going to agree that meeting “them” will actually just mean meeting “him” or “her”

    I was thinking the same of you and little marine, I mean you have the same personality, vulgar and always attacking in the most childish of ways.
    Make way more sense than trying to connect myself and LC.

  38. larsman: life begins at conception is a true statement. When does that mass of cells become a person is the real question. To my knowledge there is no defined point and my guess is that there will never be one. I prefer to think of a person as one who is a living breathing example of humankind. Anything short of that is still a fetus or an embryo. The development of an embryo into a fetus and then into a baby is a complex series of steps for which there are a multitude of serious hurdles to overcome. None of them are automatic and there are no guarantees. A life that begins at conception has a long way to go to become a person with all the faculties and capabilities we take for granted.
    To be guilty of killing, by definition a person must be on the receiving end. It is semantics, I agree, but so is everything else when there are no absolutes.

  39. Mr. O’Ban would be a poor choice for anyone who is capable of more than a passing thought.

  40. patriot62 says:

    Thank you for your service. You will not win this battle with these dumb-on-crack people. They will hide in the shadows as they always do. They are truly the reason our country is in such a sad state. I believe our only hope is when states will leave the union of states and form a new country. Racist, Bible thumpers, Homophobes, or whatever they wish to call people is just the way they work. These people have no morals or values.

  41. TonyCrago says:

    FakeMarine what would you know about sayings in the military? While the lowest tadpole on the planet can become a jarhead – you’re not even that smart. And while the marines have very, very low standards, they do in fact have standards. And you don’t meet the grade. You see REAL soldiers don’t puff up like a Ruffed Grouse and yell and scream like a woman – i.e., the way you do. Real soldiers just fight. You think by yelling you can drown out reason but being inbred you don’t seem to realize that all you do is call attention to just exactly how stupid you are. Anyone who would take you seriously is as mentally ill as you. Now go back to cleaning my toilet okay? And make sure to do it right this time! And rec time for those of you in the sex offender unit is restricted on weekends so don’t waste time.

  42. dewilson says:

    Patriot62 – You (and sadly, Marine) are prime examples of FAKE patriots. Your notion of “patriotism” is jingoism – blind allegiance to some notion of “American” exceptionalism and declaring anyone who disagrees with you an ‘enemy of the state’, e.g., dumb-on-crack people, glue sniffers, libruls, socialists, etc. It’s the old “My country – take it or leave it”. Of course, if YOU don’t like what YOUR America is doing, then you get to incite succession. Sorry Sir, but that is sedition and treason, Mr. Patriot.

    Real patriotism, in case you were wondering, is allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and its precepts, e.g., all men are created equal, one-man-one-vote, and the guarantees of the bill of rights. I believe that all of those who serve and those in elected office, even swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

    Your Constitutional enemies are NOT liberals who want to advance human rights, but the so-called conservatives (especially the Supreme Court conservatives) who want to reduce or eliminate laws that protect the rights of minorities and individuals, but want to advance the power of corporations over that of the citizen. We are all on a slippery slope of being subjugated to the oppressive powers of a corporate state, but the phony flag wavers have got you so fixated on the decoy targets of “socialism”, the President’s birthplace and gay marriage that you can’t see the main attack at your front door.

    Remember, patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels and the right wing is full of scoundrels (and yes, racists).

  43. tuddo, you said: By the way, since Larsman also cited “God” in his discussion, it’s useful to note that the Bible usually described life (as in having a soul) has taking place with it’s first breath, e.g., “God has breathed life into it.”

    You should probably avoid using the Bible to support your position here. Just my opnion.

    The Bible also says that the Lord “formed my inward parts; covered me in my mother’s womb. … I am fearfully and wonderfully made…my frame was not hidden . when I was made in secret and skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth your [God's] eyes saw my unformed body….”

    He probably thought the safest place for the baby would be mom’s womb.
    Who knew??

    But of course God himself is pro-choice; it doesn’t mean he doesn’t grieve over many of our choices.

    As for the law, if your are so crippled that you can only focus on the mother who wants to rid herself of the baby she helped to create, of course it seems wrong in your mind. On the other hand, if you focus on the child’s right to be delivered into the world, laws protecting that right seem quite reasonable.

    And please, don’t repeat the argument that pro-lifer advocates don’t care what happens to the child after he’s been delivered. It’s a specious argument and blatantly untrue.

  44. dewilson says:

    Sozo, actually that was my citation. I don’t claim to be a bibical expert, but it’s my understanding that the frequent description of when life begins is when the child takes if first breath. I realize there are other references, such as which you cite. But that just underscores the fact that you can pretty well draw almost any rationale from the scriptures to support almost any argument. It is also quite irrelavent, because while there may well be some good philosophy to draw from in the Bible, it is a relgious text written by men and therefore carries no weight from a legal standpoint. I don’t go to religious texts to find science. Nor do I seek philosophy in science books.

    The simple fact remains, that the moment of conception does not constitute the instantaneous formation of a “human being”. That is a frame work that anti-choice people want so they can inflame the discussion by saying an act of aborting an embryo is equivelent to taking the life of a “baby”, i.e., a human being. Therefore, even a woman using a ‘morning after” pill is guilty of infanticide.

    It’s all very emotional and stirs the passions, but it is not science. I don’t think it’s even bibical, and I submit it’s not even moral. It always seemed to me that the “viability” test was a reasoned approach to the question, but that does not suit the abortion-obsessed or those who want to use it for a poltical wedge issue to draw out the base at election time.

  45. Well put, dewilson.

    People like Patriot62 and marine say they love our country, all-the-while showing their hatred for their countrymen.

  46. All these planted letters of endorsement/ condemnation are strictly phony and a voter “turn off.” A mesage to candidates: “Cut It out!” Only makes you look like you have no appreciation of the voters intelligence. We truly are smart enough to make decisions without all the fake fanfare.

  47. dewilson says:

    Interesting take, Olemag.
    I’m curious as to what great wisdom allows you to discern which posts are “planted” and which are the honest opinions of the writer. It seems you are weilding a rather broad brush. But I wonder, if maybe you’ve already made up your mind about YOUR candidate, and don’t want to be confused by a free-wheeling debate on his stance relative to issues under discussion.

    My suggestion – read all the posts (they’re all just opinions anyway) and use your own good intelligence to decide which merit your consideration.

  48. dewilson, thanks for clarifying with sozo. She loves to put words in my mouth. Since her religious views and her interpretation of the Bible are the basis for being against gay marriage and being anti-choice, it is interesting that she would want someone else to refrain from bringing up their interpretation of the Bible.

    She should take her own advice: “You should probably avoid using the Bible to support your position here.”

  49. Steven T. O’Ban, Member
    Office: Seattle, Washington
    Practice Areas: State Government Law; Campaign Finance; Civil Litigation; Employment Law; Personal Injury; Religious Institutions; Religious Liberty

    Although, having perused the law firm’s web site and seeing references to the WA Supreme Court, Montana Supreme Court and the Ninth District Court of Appeals, I did not see reference to any cases tried before the U. S. Supreme Court. His areas of practice are listed above. Google him and look beyond the first page and you can read more about this candidate.

    Now, could we please STAY ON MESSAGE on these threads?

  50. dewilson says:

    Point taken, Mytake.

    I did look at Mr. O’ban’s website and there are the usual platitudes about jobs, reducing taxes, etc., but there is a glaring lack of specifics to the “Constitutional” issues cited by the letter writer, i.e, election integrity, immigration, border protection and fiscal restraint.

    I would be curious to know how he applies Constitutional principles to these issues, and whether or not he holds that a woman’s right to choose is upheld by the Constitution. I would also like to know if, in his view, the SCOTUS decision to grant corporations unlimited rights to make political statements aligns with the ‘original intent’ of our founders.

  51. Perhaps I should have said you shouldn’t “misuse” the Bible to support your opinion. Sorry for the mix-up as to who posted what.

    dewilson, for many, including me, the authority of scripture trumps current scientific thinking on thesubject. If you do not see the Bible as authoritative, it’s not surprising that it holds little meaning for you in this discussion.

  52. dewilson says:

    You underscore my problem with the whole discussion, i.e., the desire for some to demand our government impose laws on the general public based on their particular religious interpretations. I wonder, would you have a problem if there was a movement in the US to institute laws based on the Koran, the Book of Moroni, or Scientology?

    The “authority” of scripture only arises from the relative “truth” that its followers devine in it. Obviously, it has no authority to those who don’t share that “faith”.

    Insofar as the Bible is concerned, it is hardly a source for science (e.g., the creation of the universe and earth in 6 days.) Given that our Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, as a citizen I demand that our laws be based on science, not some one’s notion of what their particular faith might tell them.

    Again, in the case of the Bible, the scriptures were written in ancient tongue, translated to more modern verse, re-interpreted, and reformulated (e.g., the King James “version”), all by fallible human beings, and still much of it conflicts with other portions. Even within Christian denominations, their is a broad range of interpretation. Some take every word literally, others see metaphors for life, and others reject the so-called miracles. It’s pretty much up for grabs as to how one wants to apply bronze-age views of the world to contemporary issues.

  53. Publico says:

    I wonder what it would take to get native american marine really, really mad.

  54. Publico says:

    “ELECTION: O’Ban would support Constitution”
    Thus, we have the title for the letter.
    I submit that Mr. Troy Kelley already does support the Constitution. Why should we change something that does not need to be changed?

  55. dewilson, you asked: “would you have a problem if there was a movement in the US to institute laws based on the Koran, the Book of Moroni, or Scientology? ”

    Despite the conclusion that you (and many others) leap to, that Christians like myself want a theocracy, it couldn’t be farther from the truth.

    You quoted the Bible in support of your position, and I countered with something from the Bible that underscores the beliefs of pro-life folks.
    As lawyers love to say, “you opened the door, I just walked through it.”

    To be loud and clear, of course I do NOT support the idea of laws taken from these other religions. I am a CHRISTian, and I take it seriously…the mandates of Christ I mean, so I cannot with integrity also embrace a second religion, though it seems to me that’s what may liberals and progressives suggest that we do…just sort of toss them all into a blender and create our very own brand new smoothie.

    That said, I hasten to point out regarding morality, most religions share a common moral framework when it comes to such things as murder, for instance — and many of them take similar posiltions regarding sexual conduct, the need to help the helpless, etc.

    I believe our constitution and our courts proudly reflect God-inspired laws. Until the current hubris in America flared, “In God We Trust” — displayed in most courtrooms, made perfect sense to most people, save the Madeline Murrays of the world.

    Note that I said “reflect.” Included in that reflection is an image of acceptance…the acceptance of all people regardless of race OR religion.
    I have friends and acquaintances of other faiths, and while we share those basic notions of right and wrong, we accept the reality that when it comes time to make personal choices, each of us is guided by the tenets of our own faith.

    If this does not make sense to you, I don’t know how else to explain what it means for an INDIVIDUAL to accept the authority of scripture and use it as a guideline for life, including one’s voting life.

  56. Sumner401 says:

    If you do not see the Bible as authoritative

    In this country the bible has no ‘authority’ and it should never have any.
    We are fighting 2 wars to stop the destructive influence of religion in matters of state.
    why would anyone wish to bring more religion into our own Govt, when it’s clear there is already far too much?

  57. Publico says:

    New sign seen today in several places. “Ban O’Ban”
    I would have chosen “Oh, Oh, O’Ban”
    Both work and send the correct message.

  58. dewilson says:

    You say Christians don’t want a theocracy, but it is clear that many of the loudest voices from the Christian right clearly believe that the Bible should have pre-eminence over our secular laws, which quite obviously would make us a de facto theocracy. I have no problem with the INDIVIDUAL (as you suggest) freely exercising his/her religion in making their own moral choices. What I totally reject is the notion that some grouping of religious types (even a majority) should be able to impose their version of morality onto others through public policy, e.g., laws, specifically denying a woman’s right to choose, denying gays the right to civil marriages, or even prohibiting commerce or the sale of alcohol on THEIR particular Sabbath day.

    Bottom line, there can be no freedom of religion if the government is not 100% secular and takes a neutral stance towards all religions, so long as they abide by the laws of our nation and respect the rights of all citizens, regardless of their faith or non-faith. And yes, I believe that “In God We Trust” should not be on our coinage.

    I also reject the notion that our laws are somehow “God-based”. Even pre-historic civilizations and societies that existed long before Judaism and Christianity all developed reasoned norms of conduct among their members. Our religious friends, or course, want to claim that their particular god is the ultimate source for truth and morality and therefore the basis of “law”, and thereby insinuate themselves into governmental affairs. I just wish they would adhere to Christ’s admonition to “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and render unto God that which is God’s.”

  59. larsman says:

    dewilson sez -” What I totally reject is the notion that some grouping of religious types (even a majority) should be able to impose their version of morality onto others through public policy, e.g., laws,”

    Meaning? It IS o.k. for a “non-religious grouping”? It IS o.k. for a minority, but not a majority?
    Meaning that you do not want a democracy or representative republic anymore?
    Question: On the front of the Supreme Court building, Who is top, front and center? What is he carrying? All law is legislated morality. The only question is:
    Miss Zip Code is awkwardly stumbling through the absurd notion of moral equivalency among any, all or no religions again. Try paying $ 1 for something that takes a $ 20…it’s all just paper, right Miss Zip Code?
    relativists are so shifty…

  60. dewilson says:

    We are of course, a democratic republic (although quickly becoming a corporate-controlled state) in which laws (many of which are moral-based) are passed by a majority. However, no majority can deny the rights of minorities, and I was specifically referring to the rights of sexual minorities and a woman’s right to choose, two areas of rights that many religious groups are determined to deny.

    Furthermore, laws should be crafted through enlightened and reasoned debate and based on science and good logic. Faith-based scripture may offer some philosophical insights, but it can hardly substitute for science or logic and should not claim any “authority” in a secular government.

    I believe Moses is on the front of the Supreme Court building and carrying the Ten Commandments, symbolic of pre-Christian development of law. I don’t really have a strong objection to such generic representations, but if people are going to use them as justification for insinuating their religious tenets into secular law, then I would have them removed.

  61. dwilson, you say “What I totally reject is the notion that some grouping of religious types (even a majority) should be able to impose their version of morality onto others through public policy, e.g., laws…”

    You mean like you can’t commit murder, you can’t steal (even if you’re poor) and you can’t lie in court without fear of punishment.

    Where does THAT morality come from.

    Further, you confuse God with religion with your “God-based” comment.
    God is outside of time, history. Where do you think humans acquire their sense of moral justice…the thing that sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom? I’m truly curious.

    Religion wears many different robes also dewilson. If you don’t think that “Environmentalism” isn’t a religion at this point, you don’t understand the word very well. Eco-Nazis are zealous, legalistic and have NO problem with THEIR religion being the impetus behind law-making.

  62. dewilson says:

    Sozo –
    You are a master at twisting straightforward statements and taking them to illogical extremes. I certainly don’t condone murder, theft, and of course we need laws against such things. But, as I said, the most primitive societies develop norms for conduct and even animals have a cooperative social structure.

    My point is, we don’t need a super-intelligent deity for humans to divine basic norms of conduct or even ethics. But of course, it is necessary for religions to claim to have a monopoly on “morality” so they can dictate to their followers how to think and act.

    I actually think I understand the word ‘religion’ better than you do, as you bandy the term about rather liberally to suit your arguments. I define religion as a “faith-based” concept in which the “faithful” accept some inexplicable phenomena (e.g., the existence of God), miracles, etc. that are illogical and unfounded by science. In other words, they suspend rationality and accept these concepts as “truth” solely on ‘faith’. Of course, the innate problem with ‘faith’ is that once you accept its basic precepts, how much more are you bound to accept without question, e.g., if I accept God as the creator of the universe must I also accept that he literally did it in 6 days? Faith allows no logical debate on its precepts, but yet the faithful try to draw rational conclusions from irrational concepts (e.g., compliance with religious canons brings one salvation and immortality; the earth is only 6,000 years old; it is a sin to wear garments of mixed materials, etc.).

    Your equating “environmentalism” with religion is absurd, because there is vast and proven science supporting environmental concerns, including so-called global warming. It is interesting, however that you use “religion” in a negative context in that respect. Do you you grant “zealot environmentalists” the right to freely and fully exercise their right to practice their “religion”.

    I note that you also throw out “Nazi” in reference to environmentalism; an emotion-laden term that has no logical relationship to the subject and does nothing to support your argument.

  63. dewilson says:

    P.S. to Larsman –
    By your logic, can I assume that if the US was to impose laws restricting the rights of sexual minorities (which the Nazi’s certainly did) that would be OK with you because it’s a “moral” issue. However, if the US imposed caps on carbon emissions on industry (which I don’t think the Nazi’s were inclined to do), the later would be a Nazi-esque action and the former would not?

  64. sozo, you ask where the laws that reflect morality come from: Maybe from EA, one of many deities in Babylonia and the god of righteousness and given credit in King Hammurabi’s code? Or, from one of the various codes of law written even before that one, like the Codex of Ur? Or from laws passed down from the Pharaohs in Egypt that had been codified at least by the time of Menes 2,000 years before Moses? Moses was taught law at Pharaoh’s court, so presumably he would have been familiar with these, since they were known to the Egyptians. To think that God handed Moses the law makes for a nice mythical tale, like much of the Bible. To think that the Bible is inerrant and unchanging, is also a myth, as shown by even the most ardent Biblical supporters’ actual practice of oits tenets. I happen to believe that man evolved to a point that allowed him to think rationally about how best to control behavior so that individuals and society could prosper. We continue to evolve in our thinking about that, and that is why we do not follow much of the law as written by Moses, and we have decided that divorce makes sense in many circumstances and we need not stone women to death for it, slavery is not a good thing, and we do not need to pluck one another’s eyes out, all things God, in His infinite wisdon, told us to do.

  65. dewilson says:

    Well spoke, Tuddo.

  66. larsman says:

    and evolution is not a “faith”? Where did your first Hydrogen atom originate?
    Ideas may ‘evolve’ but you didn’t have fins.
    “Religion” is man’s idea based on his own little works. Jesus is not a man-made “religion”.
    Your “scientific” Pythagorean Hypothetical Postulations have been reduced to limited sampling of editorialized information which is molded into an incomplete hypothetically incomplete exponential computer MODEL. The money won’t continue unless the “results” match the agenda. The Millions-of-years crowd Proved” through Carbon14 and radiometric dating that the age of the test subject was millions of years old…..problem…..the subject(a snail) was still alive and crawling across the desk.
    I don’t have enough faith for the religion of evolution…

  67. larsman says:

    and what salvation was there for any semi, almost, proto-sub-human before Adam? You evolutionists seem to believe that humans will gravitate from ‘good’ to ‘better’, especially without acknowledging a Creator? You base this idea on your own ego, calling your opinions ‘scientific’, yet refusing evidence that is all around you. Interesting…

  68. Again, you can’t seem to separarate God from religion. No wonder you can’t grasp the idea that man has a “knowing” that has nothing to do with information. How is that we “know” what is right and what is wrong?

    And about evolution as it pertains to human behavior, there’s little, actually nothing, to distinguish us from all who have gone before us. All you have to do is look at “man’s inhumanity to man” and how consistently it remains a part of our world to know that.

  69. sozo, what is it that makes you think that man has always “known” what was right and what was wrong? Do you actually believe that slavery is a good thing and that stoning women to death is a good thing and is right? Do you think that was just religion telling people and that the concept of God is something different than a philosophical and religious construct that has evolved throughout time? Your idea of God is certainly different than the many ideas of God that existed for millenia. Our ideas of right and wrong have changed considerably, too. We didn’t even think that humans of other races were even humans for a long time. Most of our ideas on right or wrong sprung up during the Enlightenment, which was actually a philosophical movement that was definitely anti-religious, and msot would have said at the time, anti-God. Many of the philkosophers were even atheists who expounded on right and wrong, and from the Enlightenment, we get our ideas of governing so that right and wrong can be described in terms of a society. There is considerable evidence that the brain has evolved a great deal over the last several thousands of years, especially, the development of the corpus collosum. The right and left brain interact and talk to each other much more nowadays than in the past. Some scholars have used the timeline of the development of the size of that part of the brain to show the corresponding laws and punishments set forth in various legal and religious texts. The concept of God moves from that of a fairly uncomplicated, but vengeful, strict father exacting retribution from enemies and an eye-for-an-eye punishment on law breakers through various stages in the Bible to that of a loving, forgiving, very complicated entity on the same timeline that the corpus collosum increases in size. Non-judaeic societies have similar experiences with their concepts of God during that time, and out justice system shows the same sort of development. Interestingly enough, women have a much larger corpus collsoum than do men, and it is theorized that the more loving, compassionate nature of women, along with more complicated and thoughtful judgement by women in general might be due to this evolution.

    And, larsman, thankfully we have some better sicientific knowledge of dating methodology and what carbon 14 dating is useful for than that old 1981 chestnut that the creationists like to haul out about that snail story.

  70. Yes, I do believe that humans are wired to know the difference between right and wrong…Imago Dei. I didn’t say they acted accordingly; in fact I said that man’s inhumanity to man has always been with us (perhaps I should have said since “the fall” which I’m sure you do not believe in) and will always be with us. We’re broken, thus the need for redemption.

    You religiously adhere to science, which morphs from one generation to the next depending on discovery. One notion is replaced by the latest information.

    As I said, knowledge and information are not the same thing.

    No point in dragging this out, is there tuddo? We’ve done it before and wind up in the same dance.

  71. sozo, now I understand why the right wing still wants to treat Blacks like slaves, they are hard-wired by God to know what is right and wrong. I know why people want to kill Christians or anyone different from themselves. They are hardwired to know right from wrong. Sorry, I don’t think even you believe that those who act in God’s name and follow his teachings to the letter, whether they are Christian or not are hard wired to know right from wrong. They learned it, just like we all do from teachings and by examples of others. I think Christianity has some wonderful teachings and is a truly inspired group of morality stories (inspired with a small I). Christians just can’t tell me in one breath that the Bible is the inerrant word of God and then say they don’t believe half of it because it really is the work of broken mankind. Either divorced women need to be stoned to death, like Jesus agreed with, or the meaning of God’s word changes just as much as science does.

  72. dewilson says:

    Sozo – The reason I don’t separate God from religion is because God, gods, Jesus, Allah, Zeus, Yaweh, and other greater or lessor gods or images that are given the status of deities are attributed that status on the basis of faith, i.e., religion. No person can affirm the existence of any deity; they can only accept that existence on faith. They may claim to “know in their heart” that so-and-so exists, but they can not know on a first-person basis (although many have made that claim, e.g., Moses and Joseph Smith.)

    Likewise, many claim to know ultimate “truth” but there are millions of others who are just a devoted to other “truths”. When it comes to ultimate truth, pick your poison.

    But regardless of how you define your faith, religion, or obsession, or how you devine “truth”, those of us who do not share your faith or “truth” do not want your warped sense of morality forced onto us. That is the whole basis of freedom of religion. You are welcome to practice yours as you see fit, but don’t come to me and tell me the Earth was formed in 6 days, and expect me to find any validity in your arguments as to what constitutes a human being or whether or not global warming exists. If you deny science, you deny knowledge.

  73. Sumner401 says:

    How is that we “know” what is right and what is wrong?

    We are taught it. It’s not a mystery, it’s not something we are born with, we have to be taught what is right and what is wrong.
    Thats why right and wrong have changed though out history and from one culture to the next.
    Your elitism is showing again, can you see it?

  74. “Either divorced women need to be stoned to death, like Jesus agreed with”

    If Jesus was this much of a moron, perhaps folks around here should stop pointing to him in making their arguments re health care and immigration.

    You don’t get to use Jesus when you want to and stuff him in a gunny sack when you don’t.

    As CS Lewis wrote, Jesus was either a lunatic or a liar, or he was as he indicated, the Son of God.

  75. sozo, I agree that we should not use God’s word as a basis for secular laws. Or were you saying Jesus was a moron for supporting the punishments of women who married after a divorce?. Its hard to tell from your last post. My point was about those hypocritical Christians who do pick and choose portions of the Bible and ignore the rest while stating that the word of God is inerrant and cannot change. Its just too easy to show that it has changed because the humans that interpret it have changed their minds and grown and evolved in their thinking about what it is to be a human in a relationship with God. The ones who say they are strict Bible believers are the ones hiding Jesus and the Bible in a gunny sack whenever it suits their purposes. I would like all of the Bible brought out all the time, – all the truths, errors, inconsistencies and historical fiction – so that people can see that it is a wonderful grouping of morality plays, laws, (many of which that have no meaning in today’s world), health advice, history based on myths and legends passed down orally for generations, secular and sexual poetry, raving lunacies by mad prophets and world-changing philosophy by Jesus.

    I am right there with the judge in California that said people’s religious beliefs have no merit when talking about Constitutional rights.

  76. dewilson says:

    Tuddo – You’ve given an excellend desription of the Bible. As you point out, it has many authors from disparate periods, some loonier that others. But there are also some nuggets that mankind should ponder, e.g., Christ’s Sermon on the Mount and the tale of the good Samaritan. Sadly, those who feel compelled to take every word of the Bibical text to heart as proof of their piety want to claim the entire book is pure gold. As result, their credibility is undercut as any reasonable person who see much ‘fools gold’ in there.

    Let us add the Bible, the Koran, all other religious texts, the books of the great philosphers, Shakespeare, and all the rest to the vast library of knowledge that mankind has gathered and talk intelligently about which portions of each have meaningful messages for us all.

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0