jump to navigation

Texas Should Ignore Supreme Court and Enforce HB2 against abortion mills, anyway June 28, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, Basics, contraception, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, persecution, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society.
trackback

I find myself agreeing with awesome Catholic convert Matt Walsh below.  He argues (and I see that Rod Dreher does, too, at least  to some degree) that the time is long past for state governments – especially those in conservative states – to start standing up to the 9 unelected god-lawyers in black robes and calling out their radical social engineering and attacks on decency for what they are: unconstitutional power grabs by a tyrannical oligarchy.

There is tons of good in this post, read it all, I excerpt some portions below (with my emphasis and comments):

Texas should ignore the Supreme Court.

The time for civil disobedience is now. On Tenth Amendment grounds, on the grounds of justice, on the grounds of human decency, on the grounds of saving lives, on the grounds of truth, of morality, of righteousness, Texas should tell the Court to go to Hell. In those words, preferably. The governor should come out tonight and declare his intention to enforce the state’s law regardless. [Well, he hasn’t done so yet, to my knowledge.  All too predictably, they’ll simply knuckle under]

There isn’t even a pretense of constitutional interpretation anymore. Justices Thomas and Alito said themselves that the Court is operating by fiat, conjuring decisions out of thin air based entirely on the political preferences of the majority…….The Supreme Court is empowered to read the Constitution, not to unilaterally rewrite it. Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor don’t have the authority to tell Texas, “Get rid of that law because we five liberals find it personally objectionable.” [That’s pretty much it.  As Walsh notes below, the left desires intense and ever-increasing regulation on virtually every other industry or facet of life imaginable, except for those areas related to their perceived sexual freedom.  Abortion is their most sacrosanct “right,” as it serves as backstop for the entire sexular pagan ethos, to take care of the “problems” that inevitably result from a hedonistic lifestyle]

When will someone stand up to them, for God’s sake? Conservatives all agree that they’re acting outside the law and have been for some time. [Heck, at least a century, but especially since the 60s]We agree that they’re rogue tyrants imposing their perverse will on the country. We agree they have no actual legal authority to pass down royal decrees. What, then, are we going to do about it? [Indeed. I’m not entirely certain.  Buying more ammo is a good place to start.]

Tyrants only have power if you submit to them. Why, then, do we keep submitting? It’s about time that someone calls their bluff. We knew it would come to this, didn’t we? We knew that eventually some state would have to stand up and say, “Oh yeah? Make me.” If now is not that time, with lives very much at stake, then the time will never come. [Well, it didn’t come in 1973, or in 1992, or in 2013 or 15, so why now?  Have we become so accustomed to submitting to the diktats of a self-serving elite that we no longer possess the ability to resist?]  

…….And if worse comes to worse, Texas should take a look across the pond and perhaps take a cue from recent events. If protecting an abortionist’s right to kill children is a non-negotiable condition of membership in our Union, then maybe Texas should cancel its membership. The Old America was built upon liberty and Natural Law. The New America is built upon the dead bodies of our murdered children. To secede from such a country could be a heroic and virtuous act……… [As the situation in the US becomes increasingly desperate, many find options like secession more and more attractive.  I totally get that, and support the idea to a degree. While the idea is gaining some traction, it’s still pretty far from becoming a real political force to be reckoned with, meaning we’re still pretty far from enough support to start acting out this idea. I know polls show a healthy level of support, but that support is probably quite weak. Are millions of Texans ready to fight and die for their independence, at this point?  I strongly doubt it.]  

………Media outlets will say that the Supreme Court struck down an “anti-abortion law” in Texas, but that makes as much sense as saying its regulations on dentists are “anti-dental” or that its laws governing podiatrists are “anti-podiatry.”

It might be true that many of the lawmakers in Texas would prefer to shut down every abortion clinic, but nevertheless that’s not what the law said. The law simply required that abortion clinics meet many of the same regulatory standards other medical facilities are forced to meet. If that would have the effect of closing half the clinics in the state, that says more about the clinics than it does about the law……..[And it also reveals that pro-abort supposed concern for women was the lie we always knew it was, if they don’t even want a very dangerous and involved surgical procedure to be performed under conditions similar to any other outpatient surgery.]

……..I could go on. The contradictions are endless. Leftists demand that abortion clinics be allowed to operate entirely outside of the regulatory laws that govern everything else, and they argue the point using logic that falls entirely outside of the logic they use when discussing everything else. To call this mere hypocrisy would not even begin to describe it……..[Will to power.  That’s all they care about, I want what I want and I want it now.  And I want you to pay for it. Indeed, the democrat party in this country right now, has in its platform for the 2016 presidential election a call for abortion at any time with absolutely zero restrictions at taxpayer expense.  Not only that, they call on the US to fund abortions in foreign countries!

………This is really an argument about abortion itself. That’s where all of our motivations are rooted. Leftists are motivated by a desire to live in a country where parents are allowed to kill their children with impunity, and pro-lifers are motivated by a desire to live in a country where babies are allowed to live and grow. We are biased by our love of children, they are biased by their worship of self. [Booyah!  That’s a phrase worth remembering]

I guess that’s why I’m willing to admit to my bias. And it’s probably why they aren’t willing to admit to theirs.

Dang skippy.  So who will lead the great Texas Revolution of 2017?  Don’t look at me.  Mama wants me home nights.  But I’d be willing to participate, from time to time.

Regarding civil disobedience against unjust, immoral laws: I’m all for it.  Let’s get started.

Comments

1. NickD - June 29, 2016

Despite what progressives will claim, Texas is a net tax giver in the Union. Our residents have money confiscated, skimmed by bureaucrats, and sent to other lands for evil ends which we oppose. That is nothing more than theft. There is no equal protection for Texas.

The Supreme Court overturns countless laws passed with the consent and will of the people, for little more reason than personal political will.

The President endangers our safety, attacks our God-given rights, and mocks everything we hold dear.

The Congress, many of whom are entitled cry-babies who are so removed from the people that they do precisely the opposite of what the people insist upon, do not represent us.

Given the usurpations, oppression, and exploitation of the people of Texas, we can point to the original 13 colonies, and simply express that we are, and of right ought to be a state free of the greed and malice of the wicked, dying Union. If we were to declare our independence, the despots in DC would do well to let us go peacefully, rather than follow in the footsteps of the tyrant King George.

However, that peaceful departure would never happen. The Union is too dependent on Texas, both as a cash cow and as a whipping boy.

As young, Catholic, Texan man, I would be willing to go to arms to defend this state and her people were the Union to declare open war as a first aggression. I further believe that withdrawal from the Union voluntarily entered may be the only way to secure liberty, property, and particularly rights to religion, bear arms, and the sovereignty of the people itself, so much having already been snatched away from us.

The Union rules without consent of the governed. Having borne decades of government without consent and with no end in sight

2. NickD - June 29, 2016

Test

NickD - June 29, 2016

Is there a length limit on comments? I’ve attempted to reply with a long comment, but it won’t go through. Could it be going into spam? Or is it just disappearing?

harvardisbumbling - June 29, 2016

It probably is disappearing. There is an automatic blocker that can be restrictive.

NickD - June 29, 2016

Ah well. The thrust of my argument is that I think Texas ought to leave the Union, given the many usurpations the national judiciary and executives have seized upon, and that Texas is a net tax-giver. She voluntarily entered, so she can voluntarily leave. If the Union despots war on Texas for doing so, they will have blood on their hands for initiating war, and end up becoming tyrant Kings. And, that I, as a Texan, would be willing to defend this land and people in such a case. I said it all more eloquently, of course

Tantumblogo - June 29, 2016

NickD – Sorry, I haven’t found any comments in spam or in the moderation queue. I don’t know why your attempt(s) did not go through. I know its an annoyance. It was not anything I did.

Tantumblogo - June 29, 2016

If it’s being blocked, it’s being REALLY blocked, because I can’t find anything in either spam or moderation. Those are where blocked comments usually show up. I’m at a loss.

NickD - June 29, 2016

Maybe c matt (be) is right ;-P sadly, I can’t discount it as a possibility

Tantumblogo - June 29, 2016

Well, I apologize for the frustrating experience. I can’t think of anything I can do to find your comments or publish them.

c matt - June 29, 2016

I think the post is too subversive for the federales’ liking, so Microsoft has been ordered to disrupt it.

3. Manny - June 29, 2016

1) Walsh is usually knock your socks off great. I wish I was 1/10th as articulate as he is.

2) Irrelevant side point, but are you sure he is a convert? I thought I remember him making a joke on one of his podcasts about getting a cheap plastic rosary as his Confirmation gift while his Jewish friends had big expensive parties for their bar mitzvahs. It’s really not import, I’m just curious.

Tantumblogo - June 29, 2016

Maybe I’m wrong, I thought he was. I’ll update the post.

4. harvardisbumbling - June 29, 2016

This is not a good idea because it would lose the PR fight in Washington for our side immediately. The Army would immediately be called in, and we would be compared to the segregationists of 1957 in Arkansas, when the army was also called in. The Democrats fight dirty, but that doesn’t mean we can ever fight dirty too. That’s just not the way democracy works. We’re stymied here.

5. c matt - June 29, 2016

Well, there is one tactic that does not require secession or firing a shot and is very “American.” A tax revolt. Simply do not pay your taxes. Claim exemptions on your W-2 so they don’t steal it up front, and then give them the middle finger on April 15. Be prepared to live off the grid, though.

Now, instead of secession, if the state government simply said it no longer recognized US tax laws, and if the US govt wanted to enforce its tax laws it would have to do so without state support, and the state was going to print its own money (or really, just have to keep the private money going through state banks), it might have a shot. The US would have to pull back troops from other war zones to come hear, it would be a political disaster, we could ask the Russians to help liberate us like the US does for Ukraine, etc. It could create a whole lot of mess. Hagan lio!

6. MFG - June 29, 2016

What would be helpful in this discussion is what moral, natural law and canonical options do we Catholics (and other Christians) have.

Didn’t St. Thomas say the basic duty of a state is to protect the lives of its people? Therefore wouldn’t a Governor be morally free from following this court decision (or Roe v. Wade)?

Likewise don’t Bishops have the right to release their flock from supporting a government or is that just a Pope? (I know…small chance of that happening)

Instead of mentioning “secession” only, like American conservative Protestants do, we should consider Catholic and natural law arguments for why we should disobey or even separate (should it come to that). That moral imperative will be helpful and stronger than secular arguments for leaving.


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: