The tea party is all about small government, and honoring the constitution, right?
Well, I might not understand what their definition of that is then. Take gubernatorial candidate NY Carl Paladino. He’s backed by the tea party. He advocates smaller government. How does he show it? His official position is that the day he takes office, he’s going to use eminent domain to prevent the legal and rightful owners and developers of the property from exercising their Constitutional rights to practice their religion, free of government interference.
Am I the only one that sees a tiny little bit of hypocrisy in that? I'm pretty sure that a small government that has private industry and the public's rights in mind does NOT use eminent domain. Once again, the tea party (and those who stand with them) have made it clear that they stand for the rights of their own, but anybody who’s not like them doesn’t deserve rights.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Sunday, September 5, 2010
The Constitution
Dr. Laura uses the n word several times in a radio broadcast. She was obviously criticized heavily for it. And while reports of the incident took her use of the word completely out of context and didn’t focus on the racially horrid message that she actual gave to her caller, what happened later is even more sad and frightening. Dr. Laura quit her show (that’s not the sad part) to try and “regain her First Amendment rights” (that’s the sad part). Which first amendment right was taken away from her? Was she prosecuted for what she said? Was she jailed? Did the government intervene? No. She was criticized, yes. Her dim witted supporters (Sarah Palin – I’m looking at you!) raced to her defense with such nuggets of logic as “Dr.Laura:don't retreat...reload! (Steps aside bc her 1st Amend.rights ceased 2exist thx 2activists trying 2silence ‘isn't American,not fair’)” and “Dr.Laura=even more powerful & effective w/out the shackles, so watch out Constitutional obstructionists. And b thankful 4 her voice,America!".
I understand that I’m not a constitutional scholar. But I’ve read it a few times, and I think I get the gist of it. I want to know exactly what first amendment right “ceased 2 exist.” Surely Dr. Laura and Sarah Palin aren’t suggesting that included in a person’s first amendment rights to free speech is something that protects them from criticism of what they’ve said. Because, see, that would be a violation of the critics first amendment rights. Is that ok? Is Dr. Laura’s first amendment right to spew racially charged, rude and hurtful statements more important than the rights of the people that would stand up and tell her that what she said was over the top and she shouldn’t say crazy offensive sh*t like that? I hope not, because that would be hypocrisy.
And on the subject of hypocrisy and Ms. Palin, why is ok for Dr. Laura to say a bunch of offensive stuff with intent on her public radio show and she should “reload”, while Rahm Emanuel chose some stupid and offensive words and called some liberals “f*cking retarded” at a private meeting and Ms. Palin calls for his immediate resignation? How is that fair, Ms. Palin?
One more thought on the right’s total misunderstanding of the constitution is Tony Perkins’ (of the “Family Research Council”) views on religious freedoms in this country. Perkins has rallied against the recent ruling to overturn Proposition 8 in California (the proposition that banned same sex marriage), saying that allowing same sex marriage diminished the legal rights of religious people opposed to gay marriage. Says Perkins, "If (the ruling) stands, in one generation we will have gone from banning the Bible in public schools to banning religious beliefs in society." Tell me, Mr. Perkins. How does somebody else’s civil right to marriage, which you think is counter to your religion, affect your ability to practice your religion in your life? Your first amendment right to practice your religion doesn’t allow you to impose your religious beliefs on others. That violates my first amendment rights to NOT practice your religion. Again, the constitution works both ways – it protects you and your religion as much as it protects me from your religion. Thanks for playing, but please find a better argument for your cause, and until you do, have a seat.
I understand that I’m not a constitutional scholar. But I’ve read it a few times, and I think I get the gist of it. I want to know exactly what first amendment right “ceased 2 exist.” Surely Dr. Laura and Sarah Palin aren’t suggesting that included in a person’s first amendment rights to free speech is something that protects them from criticism of what they’ve said. Because, see, that would be a violation of the critics first amendment rights. Is that ok? Is Dr. Laura’s first amendment right to spew racially charged, rude and hurtful statements more important than the rights of the people that would stand up and tell her that what she said was over the top and she shouldn’t say crazy offensive sh*t like that? I hope not, because that would be hypocrisy.
And on the subject of hypocrisy and Ms. Palin, why is ok for Dr. Laura to say a bunch of offensive stuff with intent on her public radio show and she should “reload”, while Rahm Emanuel chose some stupid and offensive words and called some liberals “f*cking retarded” at a private meeting and Ms. Palin calls for his immediate resignation? How is that fair, Ms. Palin?
One more thought on the right’s total misunderstanding of the constitution is Tony Perkins’ (of the “Family Research Council”) views on religious freedoms in this country. Perkins has rallied against the recent ruling to overturn Proposition 8 in California (the proposition that banned same sex marriage), saying that allowing same sex marriage diminished the legal rights of religious people opposed to gay marriage. Says Perkins, "If (the ruling) stands, in one generation we will have gone from banning the Bible in public schools to banning religious beliefs in society." Tell me, Mr. Perkins. How does somebody else’s civil right to marriage, which you think is counter to your religion, affect your ability to practice your religion in your life? Your first amendment right to practice your religion doesn’t allow you to impose your religious beliefs on others. That violates my first amendment rights to NOT practice your religion. Again, the constitution works both ways – it protects you and your religion as much as it protects me from your religion. Thanks for playing, but please find a better argument for your cause, and until you do, have a seat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
