The Left Comes Out In Support Of Fred Phelps

[MachZer0]

It's really funny (Hmmm funny, not ha ha funny) how some on the left trot out Phelps and his group when they want to bash Christians and the Right, and now they are fervently defending him. Is it because he's pushing an anti-war, anti-Bush message?

 

[Jacey]

It's really funny (Hmmm funny, not ha ha funny) how some on the left trot out Phelps and his group when they want to bash Christians and the Right, and now they are fervently defending him. Is it because he's pushing an anti-war, anti-Bush message?

There are 260 posts in this thread before this one. Please link to one that gives any indication that this is true.

george, still waiting on that link you were asked for two pages about about Phelps run-ins with the law and arrest in 1951

 

[SOAD]

What I find funny (ha ha funny) is that Machzero has posted nearly 67 times in this thread, and absolutely nothing substantial has been proven about the left using Phelps towards their larger goal of bashing Bush, or Christians.

Post #1 is that same as post #261. We have now come full circle. Is this one of those marathon dances?

 

[george78]

Where is the evidence to back this up?

Already posted in this thread.

I don't care what he registers as on an index card just like sometimes it does not matter what political icon posters have...it is their words and actions that reveal their political affections.

Phelps is the Right in every sense of the term and to deny that based on some loosely knit illusion of semantics is just a waste of time.

I believe the 2nd or 3rd post of this thread shows how the ACLU defends the Christian Right as well.

The reason why the ACLU is falsely painted as the "Left" is because it does fight for Constitutional equality and since the Right is in power is appears as though the Right is always being attacked.

Sorry, that just isn't going to fly.

With Phelps you have a guy who absolutely HATES George W. Bush, I mean with an absolute passion. He even goes out and claims that Bush worships the peanut guy as his god.

He LOVES Communist Dictators like Castro and Chavez.

He openly bragged about his liberalism the numerous times he ran for office as a DEMOCRAT.

He's been extremely supportive of Saddam Hussein, going so far as to renounce allegience to the US and swear and oath of Allegience to Iraq.

He had a history as a very LIBERAL civil rights attorney. He won three awards from the very liberal NAACP.

He has said things about Jews and Isreal (Many on the far left are anti-semetic) that I couldn't even repeat here.

He hated one of the most Constitutionalist Supreme Justices of all time, (one who incidently ruled correctly in Lawrence & Bowers) William Rehnquist, and released extremely defamatory fliers after his death that I couldn't cut and paste here without violating CF rules, and protested his funeral.

He hated one of the most Conservative Presidents of all time, Ronald Reagan, and protested at his Funeral.

He HATES the U.S. military with a passion.

He has demonstrated against conservative religious leaders, many of whom are frequent targets of the homosexual agenda, including, James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson.

He has demonstrated against the Southern Baptist Convention. Which incidently also happens to be a favorite target of the homosexual left.

He has tried to have 10 commandments monuments removed.

Many have suggested that Phelps has NAMBLA ties.

I could go on and on and on.

But your assertion that he is "is the Right in every sense of the term" is just patently without basis in reality. Every one of the instances that I mentioned puts Phelps squarely in the camp of the ultra-left.

Phelps is an agent provocateur, and folks on both the LEFT and the right are acknowledging this, and have quit giving attention to this charade.

The only folks who keep dredging him him are the ones who have an agenda to use him to discredit those who really are on the right.

It's a clever game of reverse psychology, but it's been revealed now, and those who keep trying to play the game are only going to end up looking dishonest.

 

[george78]

Show me an instance where anyone from his gang physically assaulted or threatened someone in attendence at one of these funerals.

1995: A Phelps grandson, Benjamin, spits on a passerby during a picket and is convicted of misdemeanor battery.

I think this man is repulsive, but dont you think you should have included a source or link?

Everything that I have said about Phelps is well documented. I don't think that I am supposed to be doing other people's research for them.

I sincerely hope this isn't an attempt to suggest that I am lying in some way about this stuff.

In any case, in an attempt to be civil, I'll point you to some sources.

One of the best books on this subject is

"Fred Phelps versus Topeka." by Rick Musser. University of Press Kansas. 2000.

Your going to have to go to a library to get that one. (Much of the stuff I stated is documented there.)

I can't specifically link you to some of the actual fliers that Phelps put out about Conservative Leaders like Robertson, Falwell, Dobson and Conservative Chief Justice William Rehnquist, without violating forum rules.

Do a quick google search on these topics and you'll find more than enough.

The Southern Poverty Law Center also has a lot of his arrested Documented in a time-line:

http://www.splcenter.org/

There is more on in Rick Musser's book:

------------------------------
Phelps was first arrested in 1951 and found guilty of misdemeanor battery after attacking a Pasadena police officer. He has since been arrested for assault, battery, threats, trespassing, disorderly conduct, contempt of court, and several other charges; each time, he (along with Westboro and its other members) has filed suit against the city, the police, and the arresting officers.

Phelps' 1995 conviction for assault and battery carried a five-year prison sentence, with a mandatory 18 months to be served before he became eligible for parole. Phelps fought to be allowed to remain free until his appeals process went through. Days away from being arrested and sent to prison, a judge ruled that Phelps had been denied a speedy trial and that he was not required to serve any time.

---------------------------------

A limited number of his criminal history is documented on the Noteable Names Database (NNDB.com):

Assault 1951
Defamation 1993
Disorderly Conduct Topeka, KS 27-Mar-1992
Disorderly Conduct Topeka, KS 22-Jun-1993
Disorderly Conduct Topeka, KS 7-Jul-1994, convicted
Disorderly Conduct Topeka, KS 29-Oct-1995, acquitted
Disorderly Conduct Topeka, KS 18-Feb-1998

--------------------

There is more documented in the book: "Addicted to Hate".

Everything that I have said is documented. This type of evidence is what has led even very leftist folks to finally start realizing that Phelps is an agent provocateur.

 

[AirPo]

And some would say that the duress and harm caused by Phelps's message to anyone who is homosexual or has AIDS is so obvious that the individual attention of a restraining order should not be necessary.

Just being homosexual, no. There is no reason to assume a person is under unusal extream emotional duress just because they are homosexual. Someone with AIDS? Not as they are going about their everyday life, but perhaps if they are in a hospice.

By your reasoning, Phelps should be removed completely from the streets.

Not at all. My reasoning does not consider Phelps at all.

Imagine the outrage if that were the case. That is what I find so strange about the calls to have Phelps not be able to publically protest during a funeral. Where were the calls for this when he pickets parades and events with his same hateful and destructive message? Strangely, they weren't coming from the same source of outrage we see now.

If Phelp's message isn't appropiate for outside a cemetary based on its content, then it is not appropriate anywhere where the victims of his message can hear it. Do we ban it from the streets altogether? From TV and the media? Legally, that is a scary and slippery slope. Why just funerals? He has been causing emotional damage for years in other venues. Do we silence all those with a message similar to Phelps in other venues as well?

I would certainly like to see Phelps and his message go away but I'm not willing to approve of sliding down that slope and I'm surprised that social conservatives seem to be.

Singeling out Phelps cetaintly is not justified. But looking at it from higher level, I think the bar as to what constitutes harassment is much lower at a funeral as complared to a parade or rally. So much so that I think be reasonably protected by law.

 

[Nathan Poe]

It's really funny (Hmmm funny, not ha ha funny) how some on the left trot out Phelps and his group when they want to bash Christians and the Right, and now they are fervently defending him. Is it because he's pushing an anti-war, anti-Bush message?

Because the Left supports the Constitution, and understands that even the people we disagree with the most deserve its protection.

Perhaps someday, the "Right" will understand that as well.

 

[MachZer0]

Because many on the Left support rewriting the Constitution to fit their political phiolosophy, and understand that some people they disagree with the most deserve its protection, while others don't

Many of those on the "Right" understand this very well.

My two cents worth

 

[TScott]

Because many on the Left support rewriting the Constitution to fit their political phiolosophy...

No, if we did we would support George Bush and our Shadow President, Dick Cheney. They have actually changed the Constitution in order to give the presidency much more power than the Constitution ever intended for it to have.
We are on the verge of a political civil war between the Executive and Legslative branch of government because Bush and Cheney's slick lawyers have found ways to completely circumvent the will of the people through their representatives in congress. Most congressional republicans want to keep this war in the background until after the elections in November, and I'm sure many would like it just to stop, but others like Arlen Specter are not keeping quiet about it. He will soon introduce a bill in congress that will allow the congress to sue the president in the courts for abusing his power.

Ever hear of signing statements? Do a Google.

And that isn't the half of it. This administration has done everything in it's power to circumvent the Constitution for what it sees as short term gain. The problem is that they have absolutely no sense of history in this administration. What's the Constitution, after all? Just a document that gets in their way to be brushed aside.

The problem is there for the rest of us to see, and that is that they are doing real damage to the Republic, to the Constitution and in the long run to the institution of the presidency itself.

 

[notto]

Just being homosexual, no. There is no reason to assume a person is under unusal extream emotional duress just because they are homosexual. Someone with AIDS? Not as they are going about their everyday life, but perhaps if they are in a hospice.

You might have missed my point. You suggested that because of the psycological duress that Phelps may cause funeral attendees that he should be prevented from voicing his hate close to them. My question was, shouldn't his message of hate then be kept away from homosexuals at parades and those who have AIDS? After all, his message certainly would cause duress to them.

Singeling out Phelps cetaintly is not justified. But looking at it from higher level, I think the bar as to what constitutes harassment is much lower at a funeral as complared to a parade or rally. So much so that I think be reasonably protected by law.

So its okay to tell someone that the disease they may have is a gift from God because it is killing them or that God hates them at a parade or event but not at a funeral? Seems fairly subjective to me. Why not just keep Phelps message away from anybody it might hurt?

 

[AirPo]

You might have missed my point. You suggested that because of the psycological duress that Phelps may cause funeral attendees that he should be prevented from voicing his hate close to them. My question was, shouldn't his message of hate then be kept away from homosexuals at parades and those who have AIDS? After all, his message certainly would cause duress to them.

I think you missed my point. It's a matter of likelihood and degree. I think it is much more likely that the message will cause much more duress at a funeral than at a parade. Futhermore, it's not limited to Phelps message.

So its okay to tell someone that the disease they may have is a gift from God because it is killing them or that God hates them at a parade or event but not at a funeral? Seems fairly subjective to me. Why not just keep Phelps message away from anybody it might hurt?

Again, a funeral is significatly different, IMO. Enough to warrent special protections for the participants.

 

[k]

Already posted in this thread.

Not good enough. When we make a charge it needs to be supported. Either provide the post # or a link.

Sorry, that just isn't going to fly.

With Phelps you have a guy who absolutely HATES George W. Bush, I mean with an absolute passion. He even goes out and claims that Bush worships the peanut guy as his god.

He LOVES Communist Dictators like Castro and Chavez.

He openly bragged about his liberalism the numerous times he ran for office as a DEMOCRAT.

He's been extremely supportive of Saddam Hussein, going so far as to renounce allegience to the US and swear and oath of Allegience to Iraq.

He had a history as a very LIBERAL civil rights attorney. He won three awards from the very liberal NAACP.

He has said things about Jews and Isreal (Many on the far left are anti-semetic) that I couldn't even repeat here.

He hated one of the most Constitutionalist Supreme Justices of all time, (one who incidently ruled correctly in Lawrence & Bowers) William Rehnquist, and released extremely defamatory fliers after his death that I couldn't cut and paste here without violating CF rules, and protested his funeral.

He hated one of the most Conservative Presidents of all time, Ronald Reagan, and protested at his Funeral.

He HATES the U.S. military with a passion.

He has demonstrated against conservative religious leaders, many of whom are frequent targets of the homosexual agenda, including, James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson.

He has demonstrated against the Southern Baptist Convention. Which incidently also happens to be a favorite target of the homosexual left.

He has tried to have 10 commandments monuments removed.

Many have suggested that Phelps has NAMBLA ties.

I could go on and on and on.

But your assertion that he is "is the Right in every sense of the term" is just patently without basis in reality. Every one of the instances that I mentioned puts Phelps squarely in the camp of the ultra-left.

Phelps is an agent provocateur, and folks on both the LEFT and the right are acknowledging this, and have quit giving attention to this charade.

The only folks who keep dredging him him are the ones who have an agenda to use him to discredit those who really are on the right.

It's a clever game of reverse psychology, but it's been revealed now, and those who keep trying to play the game are only going to end up looking dishonest.

The Left has supported Saddam Hussein? That's just beyond absurd....

I've always been against Phelps because of his loveless words and actions but the fact that we both do not like Bush does not mean we are in the same camp.

Right after 9/11 it was the Christian Right (Falwell, etc) that blamed the attacks on homosexuality. Phelps is in the Right but that does not mean the two agree on every issue.

 

[k]

What I find funny (ha ha funny) is that Machzero has posted nearly 67 times in this thread, and absolutely nothing substantial has been proven about the left using Phelps towards their larger goal of bashing Bush, or Christians.

Post #1 is that same as post #261. We have now come full circle. Is this one of those marathon dances?

It's a method of repetition....Fox News does the same thing....facts and evidence become distant foggy memories when something is repeated enough.

 

[64kSim]

So you support Fred Phelps in this case?

Yes I support Phelps’ right to speak what, how, when and where he wants; however I reserve the right to view Phelps for what he really is, a hatemonger. We as people would never be able to see that if we could not let him have said freedoms.

 

[MachZer0]

Yes I support Phelps’ right to speak what, how, when and where he wants; however I reserve the right to view Phelps for what he really is, a hatemonger. We as people would never be able to see that if we could not let him have said freedoms.

Then do you also support the right of abortion protesters to speak what, how when and where they want.

 

[64kSim]

Then do you also support the right of abortion protesters to speak what, how when and where they want.

Yes I do, but they must not physically hinder women from entering the clinic, they must also not threaten or cause harm to employees of the clinics. Many cities and or counties have laws which does not allow abortion protester to demonstrate with in x number of feet from any entrance, this is acceptable as long as the distance does not detract from the intent of the protest.

 

[MachZer0]

Yes I do. The only thing because you are baiting that I have to say it that the must not physically hinder women from entering the clinic, they must also not threaten or cause harm to employees of the clinics. Many cities and or counties have laws which does not allow abortion protester to demonstrate with in x number of feet from any entrance, this is acceptable as long as the distance does not detract from the intent of the protest.

Then why not x number of feet from a funeral as well?

 

[64kSim]

Then why not x number of feet from a funeral as well?

I said I supported his right to do such, the only stipulation is that his activities do not directly interfere with the funeral. I’m not quite sure why you are confused by what I’m saying. I could care less as long as he is not interfering with the activities of the funeral he has a right to do so. People will see him and what he is saying for the utter garbage that it is. The more we let Phelps and the like talk the more people will realize the hate they pronounce then and only then will it not be any legal reason why he is quieted it will be the volume and intensity of the voice that oppose him drowned him out.
On a personal note, I truly hope that is soon.

 

[MachZer0]

I said I supported his right to do such, the only stipulation is that his activities do not directly interfere with the funeral. I’m not quite sure why you are confused by what I’m saying. I could care less as long as he is not interfering with the activities of the funeral he has a right to do so. People will see him and what he is saying for the utter garbage that it is. The more we let Phelps and the like talk the more people will realize the hate they pronounce then and only then will it not be any legal reason why he is quieted it will be the volume and intensity of the voice that oppose him drowned him out.
On a personal note, I truly hope that is soon.

But this thread is about the ACLU fighting to allow him to interfere with funerals.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Then do you also support the right of abortion protesters to speak what, how when and where they want.

Speak, yes; physically obstruct people from receiving medical treatment, no.

As a group, abortion protesters have shown that they will and have resorted to extreme behavior, up to and including physical assault, murder, and arson, to get their message across. Such behaviors are not protected by the Constitution.