Friday, February 25, 2011

The Emperor and the Bigot

People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. Or call the Kettle black.


I often listen to talk radio in the car when I am driving more than a short distance. This is probably more dangerous for me than texting because I often start screaming at the radio, which might be distracting - if not to me, to other drivers.


Last night on my way home to Sacramento I was listening to a left-wing host on KGO, San Francisco. Her discussion centered around the news that Obama and Holder would no longer defend DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act), signed into law by the Republican legislature and Democratic President (Bill Clinton) in 1996 because, in their view, it is unconstitutional. Her topic question of the evening was why there was not a lot of hoopla from Republicans about it. She speculated it might be because they saw the writing on the wall that gay marriage was becoming more favorable amongst the general population and they didn’t want to lose votes, and she invited people to call in with their theories. Surprising to me was her complete and total acceptance of O/H’s actions, without even questioning what they did from a procedural standpoint. She brushed off one caller who questioned the legality of O/H’s actions by saying DOMA was deemed unconsitutional by one appeals court judge, and was, therefore, unconstitutional. Quite a leap. In fact, at the current moment, it is only “unconstitutional” in that particular district. Also in fact, since congress and the legialsture passed DOMA into law, it is probably O/H’s obligation to fight the appeals court ruling at the Supreme Court level.


Don’t get me wrong; I am not questioning whether the legislation is good or bad. And O/H may very well be correct be correct in their constitutionality assessment. What I am questioning is the ever-increasing attitude of O/H that they have the right to decide for us what is right and wrong and what is constitutional without regard to constitutional procedure and the law.


As stated, DOMA was passed into law in 1996 in the appropriate manner; the legislature drafted the bill, approved it, and it was signed by the president. Therefore it is the law. Nowhere in the constitution does it state, hint, or imply that subsequent presidents have the right to unilaterally determine that a law is unconstitutional and therefore they won’t enforce it. Sorry - the president’s job is to enforce the laws of the United States.


I did not listen to the entire program, but I did listen to enough to generalize her viewpoint from the show - what O/H did was the right thing to do and anyone who doesn’t think so is a bigot (I’ll get to that later).


I eventually switched stations and found a different talk show featuring a “debate” from two lawyers on different sides of the political spectrum concerning, not DOMA itself, but whether the action taken by O/H was proper or not. The conservative lawyer posed this question to the Liberal one-


What if the next president decides unilaterally that the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965 are unconstitutional, and therefore will not defend them or prosecute incidents that would be covered by them?


She laughed, and said it was a question of reasonableness. In her view, DOMA was not reasonable, so it was okay. Not defending the Civil Rights Acts would not be reasonable, so it would not be okay.


Whether one sees DOMA as right or wrong or “reasonable” is irrelevant. What is relevant and astonishing is that a president feels he has the right to decide which laws are constitutional and which ones are not. Constitutional Law Professor? I think even Harvard, the bastion of liberal law where Obama got his law degree in 1991, should be stunned by this. As far as I know, the Pres has no more right to determine constitutionality of a law than I do. Do I have the right to choose which laws I want to live by and which laws do not apply to me?


Also astonishing is that another liberal lawyer believed these actions were proper. Do all liberals think this way? Really? I am beginning to think they do. The rule of law definitely applies - unless you don’t approve of it, in which case it doesn’t.


Yes, presidents have taken similar actions before on rare occasions. But that does not make it right; and certainly not by a “Constitutional Law Professor.” And, given Obama’s appointments of numerous czars and his EPA and FCC actions to bypass congressional approvals, I think this is something to be worried about. At a minimum, it is a clue as to who Obama thinks he is. The Emperor.


Now the bigot part. Back to the first talk show, the host agreed with a caller who had tabbed a previous caller a bigot because he did not believe gay marriage was okay for religious reasons. Did this man ever take any actual discriminatory actions because of his beliefs? Who knows. But what we do know is that the host and her other caller think this man is a bigot for what he thinks.


I looked up the word bigot. It means an “intolerant” person. Was the caller opposed to gay marriage a bigot? Maybe. But I can tell you for certain who the real bigot was; the talk show host. Her intolerance of people who don’t agree with her is of epic proportion. Of course, she would not agree with this assessment because she, as is the case with a good number of radical liberals, cannot allow others to have opinions that are different from hers without tabbing them a bigot, racist, or something that seeks to defeat the other person immediately, without reason or cause. The “bigot” who called in to the show believed what he believed for religious reasons. Does this make him a bigot? Does his having an opinion for any reason make him a bigot? Could you classify this treatment by the host as bigotry on her part for being intolerant of his religious beliefs? By the very definition, absolutely.


I know I am making an assumption here, but having listened to this talk-show host more than a few times, I expect she would dub me a bigot just for questioning the procedure, because by questioning the procedure, she would see me as being anti-gay.


I try not to do what I decry by classifying all liberals in the same manner. However, it is increasingly difficult not to when virtually every discussion with a liberal contains at least one charge of bigotry, racism, homophobia, not caring about children, or families, or something else. I have only one strongly liberal friend who does not do this, and sticks to the point. He and I have great discussions. Sadly, it rarely occurs with others. I wish it would.



MercerTyson StraightThinker.com

1 comment:

  1. Well, foist, labeling is a poor method of discussion. By doing that, the host decided that holding a belief that diverges from their belief, constitutes bigotry. Hmmm....? Seems to me that intolerance is the key issue here.I defend "liberal" in that no group has 100% buy-in. People who share a "liberal" agenda in one area, do not necessarily share the same agenda in all areas. Again, the casting of aspertions is the problem. It is just far too easy to label people, and, In my experience, that turns out to be a poor discussion tool and technique. TWISTY THINKER

    ReplyDelete