Ewwwww....

I must say, I really do enjoy the back and forth with FreeAmerica. I think she's very genuine in her beliefs. Quite often she's horribly misinformed...in a humorous way. But every once in a while she's just plain disturbing. Here's one of those times:

The Constitution could not cover every single issue that could or had come up. It gave us the guidelines to be a free and independent people and freedom to live life and prosper as free human beings is very evident. Just like the Bible you can pick and choose ideas out of context to make it say anything you want it to. But the truth lies in the reason for the publication and no where in the constitution can I find anything to tell us that killing preborn children and torturing people to death unless they had committed a crime, was ok.

We'd probably both agree that The Constitution is quite clear about torture. So why did she feel the need to qualify here statement. I thought that deserved further explanation:

I'd appreciate it if you could clarify something. Let me quote you, please: "But the truth lies in the reason for the publication and no where in the constitution can I find anything to tell us that killing preborn children and torturing people to death unless they had committed a crime, was ok."

Why did you feel the need for that caveat [in bold]?

I admit that it's quite possible, given her writing "style" that I'm misunderstanding her. If she had left "unless they had committed a crime" out of that statement, it might have made sense. But...is she saying that she can find someplace in the constitution where it is ok to torture a a person to death if they "committed a crime"?