Thursday, February 26, 2004
George W. Bush has come a long way from being the candidate who, like his father, couldn’t seem to string words into a coherent sentence. It’s hard to decide if he’s truly a deeply moral person or if he’s really a Machiavellian conniver. Either he’s still the simpleton some liberals think he is, or he’s the dangerously slick right-wing version of Bill Clinton that other liberals think he is. To them, he’s either George Rove or Karl Bush.
His latest pronouncement of support for a Constitutional Amendment banning homosexual “marriages” raises the question again. Has he announced his support because he honestly believes that this will pass and solve a national moral issue, or is he truly ignorant of the purpose of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that he took an oath to support and defend?
Does he believe deep down that the Amendment Process should be used to limit the rights of some people (like the failed Prohibition Amendment), or has he cunningly calculated that the process will still not have come to fruition through 67% Senate passage and 75% State passage by the end of his anticipated second term, if at all (like the failed Equal Rights Amendment)?
Is this a red herring to divert attention away from his inability to manage government spending that’s wildly out of control (other than an annual admonition to Congress buried in the State of the Union address) during an election year? How many spending bills has he vetoed? How many bills has he even threatened to veto? (I can think of only two: any financial assistance to the general aviation industry harmed by his administration’s over-reaction and continued hostility since 9-11, and the $87 billion Iraqi reconstruction bill when it was proposed that $20 billion should be in the form of loans, not tax dollar giveaways.) How much additional spending has he proposed?
Or is this a diversion from the fact that his own Frankenstein bureaucracy, the Department of Homeland Security, having proposed a plan to abdicate control of our borders, is wasting time and tax resources approving a whole new class of asylum entrance to the US based on gender?
Or is this truly a naive attempt to legislate morality?
There are many greater threats to our national morality and culture than that of homosexual “marriage.” One of them is more government intrusion into our lives, and disregard for our liberties.
Let’s face it. Liberals and conservatives are both being disingenuous about the whole issue of homosexual “marriage.”
Liberals claim that this is a human right, based on the Ninth Amendment clause regarding unenumerated rights. But, rights by definition cannot be licensed. To grant a license is to grant permission, and rights need no permission. And every state has claimed the power to license marriages under the Tenth Amendment. Even San Francisco recognizes the licensing requirement: the city has been (illegally) issuing licenses to allow homosexuals to “marry.” So marriage has never been considered a “right.”
Conservatives claim that, unless stopped by a Constitutional amendment, liberals are going to use the “full faith and credit” clause of the Constitution to expand homosexual marriages sanctioned by one state into forcible recognition by other states that don’t internally recognize them now. But “full faith and credit” doesn’t apply to licensed requirements, it only applies to rights. If a person possesses a driver’s license issued by one state, it becomes invalid when residency is taken up in a different state, and a new license is required under the laws of the resident state. The same limitation would restrict recognition of homosexual “marriages” to states that allow it.
Neither side can claim purity or nobility of purpose when turning to the Constitution or the Bill of Rights for support of their respective positions. Liberals routinely ignore the explicitly enumerated Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms and have passed more than 20,000 laws to restrict that right. Conservatives routinely deny the existence of the unenumerated Ninth Amendment guarantee of the Right of Women to Choose whether or not to carry a fetus to term, while claiming that non-existent humans have greater rights than living citizens!
And this adminstration’s dismal record of ignoring the Constitutional guarantees of free speech and right to due process demonstrate more of a passion for control and power than it does the securing of liberties. Didn’t George Bush have an obligation to veto the Campaign Finance Reform bill passed narrowly by Congress that explicitly abridged freedom of speech in violation of the First Amendment? What parts of the Sixth Amendment guarantees of due process, the phrases “right to a speedy and public trial”, “informed of the nature and cause of the accusation”, and “have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence” don’t apply to a US citizen held by the Bush administration without charge or access to a lawyer for more than two years?
So the question must be raised about the real purpose of proposing any amendment to the Constitution by George Rove or Karl Bush.
If, as the simple George Bush hopes, that the XXVIII Amendment defining marriage as being only between a man and a woman passes, it will be routinely ignored or circumvented by liberal judges and politicians whenever and wherever the issue comes up. And if, as the Machiavellian George Bush plans, the XXVIII Amendment fails, it will have served it’s purpose of deflecting scrutiny from the real issues confronting the voters in 2004.
And perhaps enough voters may decide they really don’t know or like either George Rove or Karl Bush and vote for somebody else, or not vote at all.
His latest pronouncement of support for a Constitutional Amendment banning homosexual “marriages” raises the question again. Has he announced his support because he honestly believes that this will pass and solve a national moral issue, or is he truly ignorant of the purpose of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that he took an oath to support and defend?
Does he believe deep down that the Amendment Process should be used to limit the rights of some people (like the failed Prohibition Amendment), or has he cunningly calculated that the process will still not have come to fruition through 67% Senate passage and 75% State passage by the end of his anticipated second term, if at all (like the failed Equal Rights Amendment)?
Is this a red herring to divert attention away from his inability to manage government spending that’s wildly out of control (other than an annual admonition to Congress buried in the State of the Union address) during an election year? How many spending bills has he vetoed? How many bills has he even threatened to veto? (I can think of only two: any financial assistance to the general aviation industry harmed by his administration’s over-reaction and continued hostility since 9-11, and the $87 billion Iraqi reconstruction bill when it was proposed that $20 billion should be in the form of loans, not tax dollar giveaways.) How much additional spending has he proposed?
Or is this a diversion from the fact that his own Frankenstein bureaucracy, the Department of Homeland Security, having proposed a plan to abdicate control of our borders, is wasting time and tax resources approving a whole new class of asylum entrance to the US based on gender?
Or is this truly a naive attempt to legislate morality?
There are many greater threats to our national morality and culture than that of homosexual “marriage.” One of them is more government intrusion into our lives, and disregard for our liberties.
Let’s face it. Liberals and conservatives are both being disingenuous about the whole issue of homosexual “marriage.”
Liberals claim that this is a human right, based on the Ninth Amendment clause regarding unenumerated rights. But, rights by definition cannot be licensed. To grant a license is to grant permission, and rights need no permission. And every state has claimed the power to license marriages under the Tenth Amendment. Even San Francisco recognizes the licensing requirement: the city has been (illegally) issuing licenses to allow homosexuals to “marry.” So marriage has never been considered a “right.”
Conservatives claim that, unless stopped by a Constitutional amendment, liberals are going to use the “full faith and credit” clause of the Constitution to expand homosexual marriages sanctioned by one state into forcible recognition by other states that don’t internally recognize them now. But “full faith and credit” doesn’t apply to licensed requirements, it only applies to rights. If a person possesses a driver’s license issued by one state, it becomes invalid when residency is taken up in a different state, and a new license is required under the laws of the resident state. The same limitation would restrict recognition of homosexual “marriages” to states that allow it.
Neither side can claim purity or nobility of purpose when turning to the Constitution or the Bill of Rights for support of their respective positions. Liberals routinely ignore the explicitly enumerated Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms and have passed more than 20,000 laws to restrict that right. Conservatives routinely deny the existence of the unenumerated Ninth Amendment guarantee of the Right of Women to Choose whether or not to carry a fetus to term, while claiming that non-existent humans have greater rights than living citizens!
And this adminstration’s dismal record of ignoring the Constitutional guarantees of free speech and right to due process demonstrate more of a passion for control and power than it does the securing of liberties. Didn’t George Bush have an obligation to veto the Campaign Finance Reform bill passed narrowly by Congress that explicitly abridged freedom of speech in violation of the First Amendment? What parts of the Sixth Amendment guarantees of due process, the phrases “right to a speedy and public trial”, “informed of the nature and cause of the accusation”, and “have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence” don’t apply to a US citizen held by the Bush administration without charge or access to a lawyer for more than two years?
So the question must be raised about the real purpose of proposing any amendment to the Constitution by George Rove or Karl Bush.
If, as the simple George Bush hopes, that the XXVIII Amendment defining marriage as being only between a man and a woman passes, it will be routinely ignored or circumvented by liberal judges and politicians whenever and wherever the issue comes up. And if, as the Machiavellian George Bush plans, the XXVIII Amendment fails, it will have served it’s purpose of deflecting scrutiny from the real issues confronting the voters in 2004.
And perhaps enough voters may decide they really don’t know or like either George Rove or Karl Bush and vote for somebody else, or not vote at all.
Wednesday, February 04, 2004
“There you go again!” - Ronald Reagan’s classic debate response to the opposition's wildly inaccurate statements.
Once again, the left wing of the Democratic Party is doing everything it can to torpedo it’s own favorite candidates by making them and themselves look foolish.
As noted here before, Howard Dean’s ratings in the Iowa caucuses dropped precipitously when Rob Reiner and Martin Sheen went to Iowa to “help” his campaign.
Now, Michael Moore has damaged Wesley Clark’s credibility. Moore, while campaigning in support of Clark made the wild statement that George Bush was a “deserter,” and Clark fumbled by not correcting him. Clark knows, as Moore apparently does not, that one doesn’t receive an Honorable Discharge from the military for desertion. George Bush received an Honorable Discharge.
Moore’s web site bio states “while Moore was briefly a student at University of Michigan-Flint, he dropped out to focus on activism. . . .” Apparently he’s had success with that rule of activism that if you repeat a lie often enough it will begin to take on credibility. Moore’s bio is also significant in that there is no mention of his having served in the military. Perhaps, since he never served, he speaks from ignorance; but on the other hand, this couldn’t be the case, since he feels he’s so much brighter than the rest of us.
I’m wondering. Do you suppose that if an in-depth look at Moore’s background were made, it would be found that, having been issued a high draft-eligibility number, he no longer felt the need for the safety of a college deferment, and dropped out to pursue his anti-American agenda?
Then, Terry McAuliffe weighed in, presumably on behalf of all the Democratic candidates, by saying that Mr Bush was AWOL (absent without leave) from his military service. McAuliffe’s DNC web page bio also indicates no military service performed by him. It merely sums up his entire pre-DNC career as having “been a successful entrepreneur since he started his first business, McAuliffe Driveway Maintenance, when he was only 14 years old,” and it doesn't even mention how he made millions from Global Crossing while others lost millions when it went bankrupt. But since McAuliffe apparently never served in the military, by what qualification does he make such pronouncements on somebody else’s service?
Many of our nation's military members and former members are Democrats, or vote for Democrats. Their ties to each other, despite inter-service rivalries, are stronger through their common military experience, than they are to political parties. To hear accusations such as these coming from those who never served could alienate those who served, and is at best counter-productive. On the other hand, perhaps the left is attempting to "purify" the Democratic party by driving away military constituencies.
Surely there are more important issues to be debated and plans and policiies to be discussed in the national debate. But the Democratic left and the DNC leadership seem to prefer making shrill, unfounded, wild-eyed accusations over something that may or may not have occurred more than thirty years ago. Perhaps they are attempting to divert attention away from their policies and platforms so they WON'T be debated or looked at by the voting public.
Once again, the left wing of the Democratic Party is doing everything it can to torpedo it’s own favorite candidates by making them and themselves look foolish.
As noted here before, Howard Dean’s ratings in the Iowa caucuses dropped precipitously when Rob Reiner and Martin Sheen went to Iowa to “help” his campaign.
Now, Michael Moore has damaged Wesley Clark’s credibility. Moore, while campaigning in support of Clark made the wild statement that George Bush was a “deserter,” and Clark fumbled by not correcting him. Clark knows, as Moore apparently does not, that one doesn’t receive an Honorable Discharge from the military for desertion. George Bush received an Honorable Discharge.
Moore’s web site bio states “while Moore was briefly a student at University of Michigan-Flint, he dropped out to focus on activism. . . .” Apparently he’s had success with that rule of activism that if you repeat a lie often enough it will begin to take on credibility. Moore’s bio is also significant in that there is no mention of his having served in the military. Perhaps, since he never served, he speaks from ignorance; but on the other hand, this couldn’t be the case, since he feels he’s so much brighter than the rest of us.
I’m wondering. Do you suppose that if an in-depth look at Moore’s background were made, it would be found that, having been issued a high draft-eligibility number, he no longer felt the need for the safety of a college deferment, and dropped out to pursue his anti-American agenda?
Then, Terry McAuliffe weighed in, presumably on behalf of all the Democratic candidates, by saying that Mr Bush was AWOL (absent without leave) from his military service. McAuliffe’s DNC web page bio also indicates no military service performed by him. It merely sums up his entire pre-DNC career as having “been a successful entrepreneur since he started his first business, McAuliffe Driveway Maintenance, when he was only 14 years old,” and it doesn't even mention how he made millions from Global Crossing while others lost millions when it went bankrupt. But since McAuliffe apparently never served in the military, by what qualification does he make such pronouncements on somebody else’s service?
Many of our nation's military members and former members are Democrats, or vote for Democrats. Their ties to each other, despite inter-service rivalries, are stronger through their common military experience, than they are to political parties. To hear accusations such as these coming from those who never served could alienate those who served, and is at best counter-productive. On the other hand, perhaps the left is attempting to "purify" the Democratic party by driving away military constituencies.
Surely there are more important issues to be debated and plans and policiies to be discussed in the national debate. But the Democratic left and the DNC leadership seem to prefer making shrill, unfounded, wild-eyed accusations over something that may or may not have occurred more than thirty years ago. Perhaps they are attempting to divert attention away from their policies and platforms so they WON'T be debated or looked at by the voting public.
