We are the only site on the web devoted exclusively to intellectual conservatism. We find the most intriguing information and bring it together on one page for you.

Home
Articles
Headlines
Links we recommend
Feedback
Link to us
Free email update
About us
What's New & Interesting
Mailing Lists
Intellectual Icons
Submissions












 

Revisiting An Old Dispute
Repunk.com
by Kim Inganamort
14 November 2002

Should mentally retarded murderers like Daryl Renard Atkins be exempt from the death penalty, or does this fail to take into account the rights of others who may have been hurt?

If I were to pick one statement that best describes the foundation of
American government and law it would be "freedom to the point that it
doesn't infringe on another's freedom". This is ideal as it allows for the
maximum amount of freedom for each individual. However, from my impression
of american liberals it appears that they believe the statement should be
changed to "maximum freedom for everyone regardless of infringing on others'
freedoms". This can be reflected in almost all of their issues, but let me
give you a couple examples.

When it is proven that a person has commited a crime, then very few reasons
should allow a lack of punishment for the crime. Of course self defense
should be covered and such, but the extent to which people can get away with
murder is ridiculous. I can understand why it could be a point of discussion
for someone who is mentally insane could get away without proper punishment,
though I dont agree that they should. However, the recent matter brought to
the table by liberals is if there should be an IQ level under which one
would not be held accountable. This is ridiculous. If I commit a crime I
expect to be fully held accountable, regardless of my mental status or
intellectual level.

It was the Supreme Court that ruled in this way on a death penalty case of
Daryl Renard Atkins after he murdered a member of the military after
becoming intoxicated and robbing him. After the Supreme Court used his lack
of intense intellectual capability to free him from his due, Scalia stated,
"Seldom has an opinion of this court rested so obviously upon nothing but
the personal views of its members".

So apparently the liberals are under the illusion that Mr. Atkins freedom to
be dumb enough to kill, and let me mention this was not his first crime,
should be absolute. Mr. Atkins freedom should be so absolute, in fact, that
the victim's life should just be waived. Many liberals also seem to be of
the mindframe that muslims terrorists can kill because their koran tells
them to, and we cannot say our religeon or morals are better than their's.
Though their absolute freedom to kill for their allah takes other's freedom
of living.

So lets take this fact that the liberals of America appear to want absolute
freedom and apply it to a old dispute that will soon be arising from the
dust. As Senate Majority Leader, Trent Lott, promises to bring up the
Partial Birth Abortion bill, we are coming to a period of conservatism.

Abortion really comes back to this same foundation statement in the reality
of it. Liberals want people to have absolute freedom regardless of the
freedom of other's affected. They have men afraid of saying anything but
"its the woman's decision" and woman convinced the baby inside is just
flesh.

The truth of the matter is the only scientific point when there is nothing
and then there is something is at conception. This something may be
dehumanized by calling him/her a fetus, but the fetus in reference is also a
baby. If we want to follow this irrational liberal thought of absolute
freedom and disregard freedom of other's killing this baby is ok. After all,
Atkins got away with killing a military man, and heck babies aren't any more
special or productive are they?

On the other hand, we can follow the slightly more rational conservative
viewpoint and realize that personal freedom can not exceed the amount that
would then decrease the personal freedom of another's, and abortion,
especially partial birth abortion, must equal lack of freedom, or
inequality.

So the Republican party has come full circle in its fight for equality. When
it came into existence in the early 1850's, in Ripon, Milwaukee it was
composed of anti-slavery activists. Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican
President, was the one who signed the Emancipation Proclomation that freed
the slaves, after all. Despite the propoganda that tells minorities that
they are not good enough to pull their own weight and we should give them a
"helping hand" and that the Republicans are trying to hold them down, the
truth remains that Republicans have always been fighters for freedom.

Email Kim Inganamort
www.repunk.com

Al Gore advisor Mark Fabiani later explained the Democrats' attacks on
Harris, glibly telling the New York Times, "We needed an enemy." He said
attacking Harris was "the right thing to do, and it worked".

(Slander, Ann Coulter, page 21)