Arkansas GOP: Against Abortion and For Child Murder

[jimmy olsen]

Seriously Fireblade, what the fuck!?   

http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2012/10/08/republican-candidate-fuqua-endorses-death-penalty-for-rebellious-children

UPDATES: Republican candidate Fuqua endorses death penalty for rebellious children

Remember former Republican legislator Charlie Fuqua, running again for legislature with financial support from the Arkansas Republican Party and U.S. Reps. Tim Griffin and Steve Womack, among others? We've mentioned some excerpts from his book, "God's Law: The Only Political Solution."

I have more for you today. To save space, I've omitted the Biblical citation for Fuqua's endorsement of the death penalty for rebellious children. Fuqua doesn't think execution would have to be used often on children who defied their parents, but suggests the deterrent effect of its legality would be beneficial. Verbatim, from the writing of Charlie Fuqua, a former lawyer for the Arkansas Department of Human Services:

The maintenance of civil order in society rests on the foundation of family discipline. Therefore, a child who disrespects his parents must be permanently removed from society in a way that gives an example to all other children of the importance of respect for parents. The death penalty for rebellioius children is not something to be taken lightly. The guidelines for administering the death penalty to rebellious children are given in Deut 21:18-21:
...

This passage does not give parents blanket authority to kill their children. They must follow the proper procedure in order to have the death penalty executed against their children. I cannot think of one instance in the Scripture where parents had their child put to death. Why is this so? Other than the love Christ has for us, there is no greater love then [sic] that of a parent for their child. The last people who would want to see a child put to death would be the parents of the child. Even so, the Scrpture provides a safe guard to protect children from parents who would wrongly exercise the death penalty against them. Parents are required to bring their children to the gate of the city. The gate of the city was the place where the elders of the city met and made judicial pronouncements. In other words, the parents were required to take their children to a court of law and lay out their case before the proper judicial authority, and let the judicial authority determine if the child should be put to death. I know of many cases of rebellious children, however, I cannot think of one case where I believe that a parent had given up on their child to the point that they would have taken their child to a court of law and asked the court to rule that the child be put to death. Even though this procedure would rarely be used, if it were the law of land, it would give parents authority. Children would know that their parents had authority and it would be a tremendous incentive for children to give proper respect to their parents.


To date, Congressman Griffin and Republican Party Chair Doyle Webb have criticized some of the things Fuqua has said. Womack has said nothing. But no party official has demanded money back or urged Fuqua to withdraw from the race. Majority control of the legislature is far too important for Republicans to abandon a candidate, no matter how extreme. Which tells you a little something about Republican majority governance.

Still waiting for Republican leadership, too, on the question of endorsement of sitting Republican Rep. Loy Mauch of Bismarck, who we've quoted repeatedly in defense of slavery and harshly critical of GOP patron saint Abraham Lincoln. Mauch scorns Lincoln as a Nazi and Marxist. The Republican representative is a follower of the neo-Confederate League of the South.

Republican officials also haven't pulled endorsements and financial support for slavery apologist Republican Rep. Jon Hubbard of Jonesboro.

UPDATE: Columnist John Brummett asked U.S. Rep. Tim Griffin if he'd like to add Loy Mauch to his list of regretted campaign contributions (to be distinguished from withdrawal of party endorsement). He got this response (pay wall; apparently it isn't pay feature):

The congressman wrote back, "I read a sample of Rep. Mauch's statements, and they range from outrageous to historically inaccurate and anachronistic to downright odd. As we all know, both parties have folks that say ridiculous things, but I would not have financially supported Mauch had I known about these statements. And yes I am requesting that he give the money to charity."

Note the weasel words "financially supported." Griffin presumably would vote for Mauch over Jesus, were Jesus to run in the party to which his philosophy is most naturally inclined these days, the Democrats. Of course, as Mauch tells us, Jesus condoned slavery, too.

UPDATE II: U.S. Rep. Steve Womack's staff, which normally ignores requests for information from the Arkansas Times, hastened to volunteer that they HAD made a statement about Hubbard and Fuqua, but not Mauch:

I am disheartened by Jon Hubbard and Charlie Fuqua's recent statements and do not support or agree with their views. Offering donations to their campaigns—and to all other Republican candidates seeking office in the Arkansas Legislature this fall—should not suggest otherwise.
In light of their new agreeability I've asked two followups: 1) what about Loy Mauch? and 2) does the congressman urge votes for these candidates despite their pronouncements? A campaign spokesman responded to Question 1, but not Question 2 (which is an answer in itself):

The congressman does not support the comments made by Mr. Mauch in the least.
UPDATE III: Congressmen Griffin and Womack, this is the more appropriate statement, Twittered this morning by Republican Sen. Davy Carter:

I am proud to endorse Rep. James McLean for State Rep. Dist. #63. It has been an honor to work with James the past four years, and I look...
McLean is Fuqua's Democratic opponent. Carter would earn Hall of Fame status if he endorsed Harold Copenhaver, who's opposing Hubbard, or David Kizzia, who's opposing Mauch. Neither of them are legislative colleagues, but a stump would be better in either case.

UPDATE IV: When I did my rundown early Saturday morning of Republican Party contributions to extremist candidates, Fuqua had not filed his latest campaign report. It came on-line yesterday. Add as financial supporters:

* House Republican Leadership PAC — $2,000.

* Independence County Republican Party — $500

* Michelle and former Republican legislator Jim Bob Duggar — $250. (Fine thing for the reality TV family show stars).

Does Republican Rep. Terry Rice really want to be House speaker bad enough that he'll send $2,000, the maximum, to a total nut rather than let a proven, conservative Democrat hold the seat?

[Phillip V]

Ban abortions.
Ban the death penalty.

[Eddie Teach]

Ban abortions.
Ban the death penalty.

[Martinus]

Apparently, the guy also advocated death penalty for gays. Not sure if serious or troll.

[Martinus]

Ban abortions.
Ban the death penalty.

How idiotic.

[Zoupa]

How about you join us in the 21st century america.

Jesus fucking Christ.

Abortion legal, ban the death penalty and grow the fuck up.

[Viking]

Ban abortions.
Ban the death penalty.

Allow abortions -  because banning abortions just means desperate girls have their insides scraped with clothes hangers. Real sex ed and family planning is the way to reduce abortions as close as possible to nil. I am against abortion; it's just that the alternatives are not no abortion and legal abortion, the alternatives are back alley abortions or safe legal abortion

Allow the death penalty - because sometimes the mother fuckers deserve it. Just set the criteria for the death penalty very high and include rarity as a pre-requisite (e.g. once per generation per 5 million inhabitants)

[CountDeMoney]

Ban abortions.
Ban the death penalty.

Keep abortions, keep the death penalty.  Whatever it takes to get traffic moving.

[Eddie Teach]

Keep abortions, keep the death penalty.  Whatever it takes to get traffic moving.

Ban abortion, have unwanted children and orphans earn their keep working on road building crews.

[Darth Wagtaros]

Are there no workhouses?!

[The Minsky Moment]

There is a long discussion of this rule in the Babylonian Talmud.

The scholars interpreted the law such that it could only apply during a period of a couple months in the child's life.  Moreoever, in order to be deemed "rebellious", the child had to - at a single sitting - consume a large amount of raw meat and 2.5 gallons of wine; moreoever, this repast had to be conducted at "a society of reckless persons;" it couldn't take place at certain periods of the month; fowl and non-kosher meat did not count against the required quantity of meat.  Both parents had to agree to to charge the son, but the mother would not be deemed to have agreed unless she is "alike to his father in her voice, in her appearance, and her height."

Near the end the commentary states: ""The case of a stubborn and rebellious son never existed and never shall occur, and it was written only for the purpose of studying [the Law] and the reward for it."

That was back in the 6th century or so.  Fuqua and his crowd should catch up a few thousand more years.

[Martinus]

There is a long discussion of this rule in the Babylonian Talmud.

The scholars interpreted the law such that it could only apply during a period of a couple months in the child's life.  Moreoever, in order to be deemed "rebellious", the child had to - at a single sitting - consume a large amount of raw meat and 2.5 gallons of wine; moreoever, this repast had to be conducted at "a society of reckless persons;" it couldn't take place at certain periods of the month; fowl and non-kosher meat did not count against the required quantity of meat.  Both parents had to agree to to charge the son, but the mother would not be deemed to have agreed unless she is "alike to his father in her voice, in her appearance, and her height."

Near the end the commentary states: ""The case of a stubborn and rebellious son never existed and never shall occur, and it was written only for the purpose of studying [the Law] and the reward for it."

That was back in the 6th century or so.  Fuqua and his crowd should catch up a few thousand more years.

Someone must have had an axe to grind against steak tartare.

[garbon]

Hmm, if that's the case - wouldn't the child have put themselves to death by consuming 2.5 gallons of wine?

[Valmy]

Hmm, if that's the case - wouldn't the child have put themselves to death by consuming 2.5 gallons of wine?

That is probably the idea yes.

[garbon]

Hmm, if that's the case - wouldn't the child have put themselves to death by consuming 2.5 gallons of wine?

That is probably the idea yes.

He said that's how a child got labeled rebellious. Wouldn't need to mention putting such a child to death if they've already offed themselves.