Montana Politics

Entirely Mainstream Candidate Derek Skees Endorses Radical Nullification Doctrine

Shares

Entirely mainstream candidate for State Auditor gave a media-ignored speech to the radicalUSAcalhoun John Birch Society last summer. While I certainly don’t suggest (for fear of irreparable harm being done) that you watch the entire speech, it’s worth noting that Skees:

  • asserted that the Supreme Court wrongly decided the Marbury v. Madison decision which gave the Court judicial review;
  • argued that states, counties, and cities have the right to nullify federal laws;
  • endorsed John Calhoun’s threat to secede in the 1832;
  • defended his idiotic House Bill 382, which would have created an “11 man” panel in Montana to nullify federal laws.

 

To be clear, the Republican candidate for State Auditor repeatedly asserted the right to nullify federal laws, something voters ought to know.

Skees  defended his ideas in the context of something he called the “Lesser Magistrate” theory. What Skees presents as English law doctrine is rooted in radical Christian groups who argue like this:

For example, if Congress or the President makes an unjust or immoral edict, a state legislature or the governor could stand in defiance of their unjust edict and refuse to obey or implement it. They could in fact actively oppose it. Or for that matter, a city council or mayor could act in defiance or opposition of an unjust edict by a higher authority.

If ever this nation needs to understand the lesser-magistrate doctrine, it is now. Immoral and unjust edicts are commonplace. The preborn are being murdered, and sodomy is being proliferated. The assault upon our freedom and liberties is a daily undertaking by those in high office. The attacks upon the law of God are ferocious and relentless.

Skees acknowledges in this video that endorses a view of the Constitution which would permit any form of government below the federal government to resist any law they decide is immoral. A governor could refuse to follow a federal law because he though it conflicted with his moral vision.

This is not only entirely unworkable, but a recipe for disaster. If personal morality gives governors the power to ignore the rule of law, the decisions of the Supreme Court, and the decisions of the federal government, liberty will most certainly not be the result. It’s a recipe for disunion, chaos, and government control resting in the hands of those who believe their morality trumps the law.

Just as I said this June, Montana voters should be told that Mr. Skees not only spoke at a meeting of a hate group, but that he endorses a radical view of government not seen since 1865 in this country.

Since they are his own words, wouldn’t that justify the media covering them?

(Written overnight on 10/3; posted automatically on 10/4)

About the author

Don Pogreba

Don Pogreba is a seventeen-year teacher of English, former debate coach, and loyal, if often sad, fan of the San Diego Padres and Portland Timbers. He spends far too many hours of his life working at school and on his small business, Big Sky Debate.

His work has appeared in Politico and Rewire.

In the past few years, travel has become a priority, whether it's a road trip to some little town in Montana or a museum of culture in Ísafjörður, Iceland.

44 Comments

  • Point of correction.
    You assert that Mr. Skees “endorses a radical view of government not seen since 1865 in this country.”, referring to his support of Nullification.

    Actually, nullification was seen in Montana just a few years ago. The 2005 Real ID Act, passed by U.S. Congress and signed by President Bush, was met with widespread nullification, starting with 12 states (including Montana), and eventually a total of 28 states.

    Yes, Montana State Legislature passed a nullification of the Real ID Act, and it was signed by Governor Brian Schweitzer.

    Pretty radical.

    • Politicians will vote to nullify laws they don’t agree with. Every Democrat in the House last session that voted for nullification of RealID, voted against Skees bill.

    • Just read some of what Skees endorses here. There’s probably a fair debate to be had about REAL ID and nullification, but it’s a far cry from giving every governor and mayor the power to invalidate any law she finds immoral.

      Radical, radical.

      • Don,
        Yes, it would be radical to nullify a law simply because you dislike it. Elected officials at every level are required to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

        The Constitution itself declares in Article VI, that “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof … shall be the supreme Law of the Land”.

        Any Federal Law, no matter how much you dislike that law, is the supreme law of the land, when “made in pursuance thereof”. That means, when made in following the Constitution. It is part of the oath of every elected official to uphold all federal laws that are made by authority specifically granted by the Constitution.

        However, that same oath also means that every federal law, no matter how much you like the law, must be blocked (nullified), if it was not “made in pursuance thereof”.

        As Madison declared in Federalist #45, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.”

        The power to legislate was reserved only to Congress, and their legislative power is enumerated in a rather short list that comprises Article 1, Section 8. The 10th amendment declares any legislative powers not on the list “are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

        What is and what is not authorized by the Constitution is easy to discern, simply by studying the Constitution and the writings of those who authored it. It is the duty of every elected official to uphold it. Therefore, it is as radical to uphold unconstitutional laws as it is to nullify laws which are constitutionally authorized.

  • Just another piece of crap Denny Rehberg voted for as well. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/109-2005/h31

    But I seem to remember it differently then Robert. As of April 2, 2008, all 50 states have either applied for extensions of the original May 11, 2008 compliance deadline or received unsolicited extensions. Nobody in the states wants this piece of Republican crap…. just saying!

    • Norma,
      Yes, as far as I’ve seen, you are correct. “… all 50 states have either applied for extensions of the original May 11, 2008 compliance deadline or received unsolicited extensions.” I was only referring to the 28 who passed nullification legislation.

      And yes, it is Republican Neoconservative crap. I have no qualms about calling out the rotten legislation that comes from either party.

  • Can anyone look at Citizens United and then claim the Marbury led us down the right path? I agree with jefferson:

    “[Marbury places the Supreme Court] as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. … Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.”

    Prescient, I think. Our final nine are, in effect, Mullahs. We can only hope that they, like Mormon bishops, are hard-wired to God.

    • “Our final nine are, in effect, Mullahs.”

      Bit of a difference, Mark, in this regard: we elect the men who choose our ‘Mullahs’, even if you don’t like who We The People elect. Moreover, what is your alternative to the Marbury ruling? How do you propose we enforce a constitution if the Court system is not allowed to enforce it? Vote on it? If our laws are written, enforced, and interpreted by directly elected lawmakers, I think you’ll not like the outcome – what’s the point of having a constitution of it is to be interpreted by the majority, any how?

      The Supreme court has given us some bad rulings, but for every Dred Scott, there’s a Brown v. Board, for every Korematsu, there’s a Roe v. Wade. Indeed, I would say the moment our nation slipped most thoroughly into despotism is when Jackson elected to IGNORE the Supreme Court in his treatment of the Indians. Sure, he stood up to those unelected tyrants and in favor of the common (white) man, but in the meantime he directly caused the deaths of thousands of people and quite nearly destroyed a half dozen nations. I honestly wonder how your world without constitutional oversight is intended to run.

      • You’ve jumped to the other extreme, no constitutional oversight. You are saying that without Marbury, we cannot have it. You must ask yourself, since judicial review was not specifically in the constitution, how did they intend to interpret it? Hamilton thought that appointment for life was essential but ease of removal also essential – for misconduct. But they failed in writing a document that prevented the judges from usurping the power they have now. The Constitution is an extremely flawed document, and our form of government imitated hardly anywhere else for good reason. no more obvious anywhere than here. Roberts, for instance, likely perjured himself in his hearings before his appointment, but the power to punish that crime is long gone. All he or either of Obama’s appointments has to do is lie about intentions, and they sit for life against our will. Not a good system.

        So in answer to your question, Hamilton thought that the judges would be arbiters between “the people” and the legislature, but that the judicial branch would be the far weaker of the two, and removal of judges for misconduct (as BvG and CU surely were) was the remedy. He was wrong. We have Mullahs. You’ll find in Iran that the big M’s do not appoint themselves, but are as rigid in lawmaking as our own nine.

        • Marbury v Madison didn’t prevent the removal of Supreme Court Justices. The House and Senate still have the capacity to impeach and remove those Justices for their positions. Just because it hasn’t been done, doesn’t mean it’s not possible. It’s totally permissible for the House and Senate to remove a Supreme Court Justice for whatever they consider to be an impeachable offense, and that is one action whose constitutionality is not subject to judicial review.

            • Nope. The system, as in, the set of rules, is fine. The people elected to operate within that system are not functioning the way you would like them to within the system, and I would argue that your quarrel here is really with the American people for not electing people who will exercise their constitutional responsibilities the way Mark Tokarski thinks they should be exercised.

              • I missed this earlier. We accountants, the sweater-vest set, deal in matters of “internal control,” which merely means that we understand the nature of people. If you leave a door open, someone will go through it. That’s a certainty.

                You continually return to this idea that the American people are exercising control over our system, and that my quarrel is with them. That is both sorta right and wholly wrong at once – theoretically they have the power to control the system, but in reality neither have that power nor the ability to exercise it. That is, if we had a better system of education, if people could leave their TV’s and football, exercise critical thought, we would have a standoff, and people in power would probably use the steel fist behind the frayed velvet gloves. War you imagine exists is not allowed to exist. If democratic rule were to emerge, we’d have insurrection. We are no longer able to vote the oligarchy out of power.

                In my view, the door was left open in the immediate aftermath of World War II with creation of the NSA, CIA, PentagonWar Department … Since that time we’ve seen journalism disappear along with history and civics in the schools. The last true democratic exercise we saw was in the period 65-75, aka ‘the sixties.’ It was a frightening time for our oligarchy, and since that time they have clamped down, dumbing down education, eliminating free speech, prostituting elections and criminalizing people who seek redress of grievances.

                My argument is not with the American people, diffracted and distracted and uneducated. It is with you. Every time I point out something wrong with the picture on our screen, you blame them. I say that the system of internal control, democracy, ended in the early sixties, and since then the American people have not had much say or oversight. If it were truly up to them we’d be OK.

                • “In my view, the door was left open in the immediate aftermath of World War II with creation of the NSA, CIA, PentagonWar Department … Since that time we’ve seen journalism disappear along with history and civics in the schools. The last true democratic exercise we saw was in the period 65-75, aka ‘the sixties.’ It was a frightening time for our oligarchy, and since that time they have clamped down, dumbing down education, eliminating free speech, prostituting elections and criminalizing people who seek redress of grievances.”

                  Marky Buttinski

                  You’re welcome, grasshopper! Your education is now complete. Go out into the world, and no longer be a dipshit. bwahahahahahahaa!

                  Bout TIME you saw things my way! The CIA/Big Kockh hit on Kennedy was our first coup, and the beginning of the end of the dream of democracy in this country. It basically started in Guatemala in ’54. It worked there easily enough, so they perfected their techniques elsewhere, until ’63 and the Kennedy hit brought it all home. Not many people saw the evil in all its glory, but Che did. He knew what was coming, and reacted. And he was right of course. The evil had taken over America, and it’s still here!

                  I would LOVE to get the Kockh brothers on a lie detector and ask them about the Kennedy hit. The oldest one would have been twenty or so at the time, and probably privvy to his daddy’s connections. All were in Dallas, and all in the oil biz!

                • “In my view, the door was left open in the immediate aftermath of World War II with creation of the NSA, CIA, Pentagon War Department ”

                  Yes, I wish we were back in the good old days before that, the days of Korematsu and the KKK, when Plessy v. Ferguson was still on force, when we still militarily occupied the Phillipines and Nicaragua? Or do we want to go further back, when we threw black people on plantations under vagrancy laws, or passing the Dawes act to dispossess the tribes of their land? Your entire worldview is based on two falsehoods: That there was a time when things were better, and that there are countries whose foreign policy is fundamentally bigger than ours.

                • WHOOSH! Right over your head, dude. Buttinski is quite right. Things went REAL awry with the creation of the CIA. NEVER before had there been anything like that that threatened our entire governmental strcuture. They took control of the government. That was NOT the case prior to that time. You’re quite lost in your “argument”.

                • Larry (or Mark, for that matter)

                  Where have things gotten worse? I mean, on the ground? Are we more corrupt than we were in the 1920’s, or the 1880’s? Hardly. Is the wealth disparity greater than in the 1920’s? It’s quite comparable, while overall wealth is much greater. Is our foreign policy more cruel? You talk about Guatemala in ’54, which is appropriate. But what about Nicaragua, all the way until 1933? Or the Philippines until after the war? I don’t see a huge policy change here. Ask to repression of domestic dissent and censorship, actual censorship, you know, by the government, ask Eugene Debs or Charles Schenck we need the CIA or Pentagon to be submitted to that. Fred Korematsu correctly noted the parallels between Guantanamo and the Japanese interment camps – though of course, there is the question of scale. Pretty compelling evidence that it wasn’t the post-war period were things ‘really got bad’.

                • Easy answer. For starters, never before had there been anything like the unaccountable CIA headed by some real psycopaths like the Dulles brothers and co. They are wholey repsonsible for nearly every foreign intervention since WW II. Did I mention that they are wholey unaccountable, so much so that they were able to murder a sitting U.S. president with impunity. And with Kennedy’s murder, they quickly elevated Nixon, who brought in the REAL criminal element into the government. I don’t use this term criminal lightly. These guys were NOT ordinary corrupt politicos, but real criminals. And that must be understood.

                  And things have never been the same since. Also, after WW II began the real rise of the military industrial complex. The country never stood down. And the collusion between the military and the CIA became pernicious and insidious. Truman warned us about the CIA, and Ike tried to warn us about the military industrial complex. And Smedly Butler nailed it.

                  You see, we had a brief moment in this country when we were finally on the right path after WW II, when we were finally starting to get things right, and they destroyed it. Now, the criminal element is so firmly entrenched within the government and political process itself that it will be nearly impossible to get back. I doubt it can be done.

                  I think that we are all aware of the history you mentioned, but with the creation of the CIA, that was a game changer. Not sure if you were there, but Buttinski and I both lived through those times. We were observers. It was terrible to watch. The murders of the Kennedy’s, and Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcom X, is something you never forget. In fact, as I watch our current “political” process in action, it makes me furious to realize that it didn’t have to be this way. Our future was STOLEN from us and you and ALL Americans by the most criminal bastards out there. And their legacy continues.

                  One other note. There was NEVER anything like the Kockh brothers propaganda empire that has taken over the country. When I was a kid, we actually did have real newspapers. That’s all gone now, so that now, when I see John Birch crap being mainstreamed, I simply can’t believe it. There was no such thing as think tanks back then. But now, they can make Americans believe anything they want.

                  Believe me, take it from me, things are VERY different.

                • It’s kind of hard to see your point here, whether you’re doing your usual dance or making a valid point. The dance is to proclaim the general good intentions with the arrival of Obama, and when pressed with facts on the ground about barbaric behavior, disappear into the corn stalks while saying that things have always been this way.
                  None of us lived through the Creel Committee and the first truly effective agitprop campaign under Wilson. It’s hard to debate a guy who merely says hey, it’s always been this way. Propaganda was a new phenomenon at that time, studied and honed over the decades to the present. I do see around me a generally uneducated population, and remarkable ease by which public opinion is controlled, as if the population has been debrained and deballed. It is interesting you cite income disparity numbers from the pre-depression era, but I wonder if you see any causal link between that era and the one that followed?

                  Anyway, if Romney WMD’s, will you again be an opponent of the Guantanamo torture facility?

                • Turkey is acting as a US proxy here, and the shooting incident was most likely false flag. CIA, MI6, NATO Intelligence are running amok. Unmentioned here (in LOTF media) is Russian involvement – as things stand now, they might come out on top. Huge gas field in Syria, pipelines in play. Any notion that this was a popular uprising have long faded, as the initial unrest was played by the West to its advantage, and most there are fully aware of that. US not well liked there either. Go figure.

                  Outcome unknown. Your link does not work, by the way.

                • Mark – I’m sorry that it’s a hard position to argue with, but it’s the truth. The US has suspended citizen’s rights every couple of decades since its inception. If anything, the corruption and criminality has simply gotten more sophisticated as the nation itself has grown more sophisticated. It took very little ‘agitprop’, as Mark calls it, to drag the US into the war of 1812, or the Mexican-American war, because the wealthy officially controlled the government. As the middle class and eventually the working class started to get official votes, a bit more propaganda (in the form of a sensationalist, profit-driven press) was needed, first to justify incessant wars against the tribes, then to justify the Spanish American war. Nationalism and ethnocentrism alone sufficed to justify our military enforcement of the Roosevelt Corollary, but as those waned in power it took real propaganda to get us in WWI, into the Russian civil war, etc. But the actions themselves are the same – it has merely taken more cleverness to convince Americans to back them.

                  If there has been a big change in American actions, and indeed a big difference between American and Russian foreign policy, it is that America has ceased to become self-sufficient in resources, and therefore has little choice but to get more involved throughout the world. Russia is largely self sufficient, though probably not for long. But your assumption that China, equally reliant on foreign resources, will be fundamentally different in behavior than the US when and if it achieves a comparable force projection capability, is very silly indeed.

                  All that said, I still support Obama over Romney or any potential challenger, because he has shown that while he can’t change the nature of international policy (it is really impossible to do say – nations behave as they do for a reason), he can at lest implement it more intelligently and humanely than his immediate predecessor. There is a difference between the realism required to survive in anarchic global relations, and the sort of foolhardy jingoism and militarism exhibited by George W. Bush and praised by Romney, Ryan, and the like.

                  As to Guantanamo – I have always opposed its continued functioning, but as I stated before, I don’t know how to close it. Look at a list of current detainees – most of them cannot legally or morally be transferred to their home countries, as their home countries are known to practice torture or lack a reliable court system or simply don’t want them. We could maybe send back a Kenyan and a couple Kuwaitis, but the rest of them really have little hope of going home and being treated humanely or getting a fair trial (though the Afghan detainees could legally be held as POWs by the government of Afghanistan). And I doubt their lives would be improved by moving to US prisons, even if the states running those prisons could be persuaded to take them.

                • I don’t recall having illusions about China. I merely say that I prefer a bipolar or tripolar world, and if 1991 forward has taught us anything, it is that an unrestrained US is quite a nasty beast.

                  You are in perpetual dysfunction regarding the executive, in my opinion. It’s nice to imagine him in charge, but that notion butts right up against the fact that the voting public is uninformed and emotional, uneducated and unorganized. By definition, those who want power accede to power, and are everything that voters are not. Since we have a virtually useless news media, to think that unorganized and uninformed voters have anything but illusions is, in my view, nonsensical. Of course the executive is a creature of private power, and ergo is a puppet. Some have had to be disciplined while in office, like Clinton via Monica, for example. Two were dispatched from office in my life, one violently, but most have been like Obama – happy to pretend and enjoy the perks and follow orders. Bush is a stupid and vile man who was deluded about the office and played by those around him. That needed to be said.

                  If Guantanamo were, as you imagine it, a prison, then the prisoners could easily be rolled into the statutory system. If the prisoners were “terrorists” they could be dispatched by the extrajudicial system, far more normal than you might think. That they put them in an extrajudicial concentration camp instead of merely killing them means that they are serving some other purpose. I wll guess: One, it is used for torture, and perhaps the population is rolling stock. Two, the mere fact that it exists sets legal precedent and nullifies important constitutional rights. Three, by definition, anyone who makes it out alive has been turned, and is likely a double agent, and so is useful in covert ops. Of course, there’s much more going on there than we know, so I am speculating. No doubt it is far worse than even I imagine.

                  We are talking by one another regarding propaganda. You mentioned the Mex/Am War, the Warof 1812, and were probably referring to deceit and tricks or false flag operations to fool people not supporting a war. That’s as old as the written word. Propaganda, as I view it, is more a science, and it didn’t become an organized body of knowledge and techniques until the late 19th century. LeBon in France noticed that groups of people behave quite differently than the individuals within, and so speculated that the group mind could be controlled even as individuals were unaware of the manipulation. Creel was the first scientific experiment in propaganda, and it was so successful that it was frightening. It gave people who knew the secrets of the science amazing power. The Germans expanded on the Creel model and made great advances. Today the science is so refined that even though Americans are deeply thought-controlled from cradle to grave, they are the last to know. That’s why outsiders often look askance at us, knowing we are decent people, but allowing such horrible governance.

                  “Agitprop”, or agitation propaganda, which seeks immediate action, is a part of the whole of the science, but is different in that it is highly visible to the trained eye. I can spot it easily. It’s the easiest to derail, but I’ve never seen American agitprop undermined in my life. It always works, and that is very disheartening to witness.

                  There’s a bit of a breakthrough now regarding sociopathy, and a new science called “Ponerology” that JC introduced me to. It’s a study of the rise and fall of psychopaths, present in large numbers n every cou try, and what happens to societies top when they fall under “pathocracy” as did Germany and Russia last century. The US is headed down that path. The author of the book on that subject, Andrzej ?obaczewski, claims that those forces, always present to a degree (dropping nukes, murdere g presidents and the like) became deeply embedded here in the 1980’s, and have virtual hold on us at this time. We are headed down the tunnel, so to speak.

                  More of an answer than you bargained for I know. I do go on, don’t I.

                • Well, Larry, there went my morning! Yes, that is the book. And that is an amazing link. The book itself is dense-packed, so if you waded through that entire interview, you’ve gotten an excellent synopsis. But I’d be happy to lend you my copy. Just contact me via POM.

                • Thanks for the offer. I got about three books going right now, as soon as I finish those, I’ll contact you, for I would like to read that.

                • Mark –

                  You continue to harbor strong illusions about a bi-polar world system. 1991 Iraq was nothing particularly unusual, except that it heralded the beginning of the beginning of a unipolar world system. The USSR invading Afghanistan, the proxy wars in Korea and Vietnam, the democidal behavior of our or their allies in Indonesia, Guatemala, Ethiopia, China, etc. all compare to or surpass the death toll in Iraq. Statistically speaking, bipolar and multipolar world systems have been more prone to violence and have resulted in less even human development results.

                  As to Guantanamo – if it is in fact a torture complex, and they can move people in and out of it unnoticed, why keep it open? Guantanamo is in the news, it is public knowledge. We have, or at least had, prisons for torturing people throughout the world that were secret. Why conduct torture in an international infamous facility when we have secret, or at least off-the-radar, facilities?

                  Hundreds of prisoners have been released from Guantanamo. Hundreds! All of them have been so thoroughly broken that the truth about Guantanamo, as you see it, hasn’t gotten out?

                  Again, I agree that the methods of propaganda have changed as powerful people start to understand better how to manipulate people, and are forced to manipulate larger and larger groups of people. But the results have not been substantially different, at least not from the point of view of the Indians, or the Filipinos, or the Iraqis. Similarly, behavior that seems psychopathic is nothing new, and it’s hard to say it has expanded.

                  Read the observations of the military officials who watched the trail of tears. As individuals, they were horrified at what they saw. But they didn’t stop it, and the powers that were still ordered it to continue (in direct defiance of the Supreme Court), knowing full well that many of the people they were forcing out of their homes were never going to arrive at their destinations. The most powerful, and ironically most philanthropic, individuals of the 19th century thought nothing of ordering the deaths of other human beings to protect their profit margins. Again, I don’t see things getting worse than that now.

                • I harbor no illusions. In a bipolar world MY country is restrained in it’s pathological behavior. I realized that we slaughtered 3 million Vietnamese as the Soviets and Chinese looked on. But we were at least restrained in slaughtering Iraqis untl the Soviets receded, then all bets were off.

                  If we are democratic, as you claim, then we can work to restrain our Stalins, our bad seeds. It’s really our only healthy contribution to a crazy world, to rein in our own monsters.

                  You’ve done your thing again, faded into the corn stalks. Your next post will likely be something about Obama’s accomplishments in bringing about a kinder gentler world, and when called out on it, you’ll claim again that shit goes anyway.

                  I’ve written some stuff about Gitmo spurred by this exchange that will surface later today. It is indeed complex and hard to understand, and I don’t claim to understand it. I only now that your adorable sentiments about the quandary they are in, you know, fearing these men will be Tortured if sent home, are nowhere near anything vaguely resembling reality.

        • I would say that we at least elected the men who chose those ‘Mullahs’, but given that there one of them was appointed by the father of the man they decided in favor of, I think you have a point.

  • Isn’t it the State’s responsibility to regulate federal involvement in decisions regarding a states’ taxes and governing. As for historical societies and bad decisions the US is rife with them. Good groups today that had sordid policies that embraced things like slavery. (including the democrat party) So judging something today by it’s ties to it’s history over 100 years ago is a flawed argument.

    As for the issue of morality trumping law. That philosophy is basic of our governing system. The law is the line of demarcation for legal and illegal. It is not the standard of right and wrong. If it was we would not see things like generosity because the law does not reward such acts.

    I’m concerned with the term “hate group” used in this article. If what you are saying is that groups that are non violent express views that differ from political correctness are “hate groups” then you have just listed the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Christian churches, Kiwanis Clubs, Rotary Clubs, all Military branches (for example boot camp language), and many more. If you combine a group’s history as whether they are a hate group or not then you have to include the Democratic party (pro slavery history), the state of Delaware (supported pedophilia until 1895 as the legal consent age was 7), and any place where people have gathered and someone was called a derogatory name (ie schools, locker rooms, sporting events, concerts, etc).

    Lastly, everyone uses morals to make decisions, even ones that go against a personal moral because that person has a higher value than that particular moral. Let’s debate issues and repercussions of intended decisions, not concealing a disdain for conservative Christianity in general. Thank you for your time.

    • “The attacks upon the law of God are ferocious and relentless.”
      Gen. Robert E. Skees

      Eric, would you mind, for us lesser mortals out here, listing some of the “laws of god” that the general talks about? And for the record, just HOW are we to distinguish between a law of god and a law of men? Is there a law book of these laws of god? What might that be? And really. God??? Kinda hard to believe that if even the most intelligent men who ever lived could not prove the existence of such a being, how is a moron like Skees gonna do it?

      Sad, so sad.

    • A hate group is a group who believes they are correct regarding the inherent inferiority of of another group to the extent that they wish to eliminate or segregate them them from society. Good enough definition for you?

        • No, it does not. If the USA wanted to keep Muslims out of our society, it could have done so. The majority of Muslim American families arrived in the last hundred years; it would not have been difficult to keep them out, but instead they were welcomed.

          However, a great many Americans do belong to or sympathize with anti-Muslim hate groups.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: