Monday, June 25, 2007

Just who is repealing our rights?

According to the cries of liberal-minded Americans, George Bush is without question the most evil and blatantly destructive person in America today. You need to look no further than the most popular blogs of the Left to understand just how deep the disgust towards Bush is.

Not since the 1970's, when Richard Nixon was sitting in the Oval office has a President been hated as much. However, in 1972, Nixon was coming off an election where he won a landslide over George McGovern. Although today there are "academics" who insist McGovern would have won had Nixon not cheated (presumably by orchestrating the Watergate burglary). Of course this is nonsense. The terrible irony of Watergate was that it was an unnecessary crime, as no one really felt the Democratic nominee stood a snowball's chance in Hell in getting elected.

But I have a question.

One of the main criticisms of the Left - maybe the most repeated of all - is that under Bush, civil liberties have been pushed aside in favor of the Bush doctrine. According to the Left, Bush's record against our freedom has been abysmal.

But is it true? I mean, who are we kidding here?

To wit, I wonder who is really attempting to repeal our civil rights. My argument is that it's not really President Bush and the GOP, but instead it's the American Left. And here are some examples:

Feinstein might push for fairness doctrine

the mark of a truly free society is allowing for Freedom of the Press. How many times have we heard the saying, "I hate what he/she/they are saying, but I will fight for their right to say it?" Once you introduce legislation to force "fairness" on the airwaves, you seek to destroy this freedom. Who, for example, is to decide what "fair" is? The "Fairness Doctrine" is a thinly-veiled attack on talk-radio, where the majority of listeners and shows appeal to conservatives. The purpose of the "Fairness Doctrine" is clearly to silence opposing (to the liberals) views. It reeks of censorship.

New York City passes trans fat ban

Mike Bloomberg was never really a Republican and has finally admitted as such this past week when he officially became an Independent. Prior to running for Mayor of New York, Bloomberg was a registered Democratic and only ran as Republican in order to seek office - which he did, successfully.

However, his draconian anti-smoking campaign and now, his trans-fat ban smack of zealotry. Instead of allowing Americans (or at least New Yorkers) the freedom to choose what they wish to eat (or smoke), Bloomberg has instead decided that only he can make that choice. While it's still okay to kill an unborn baby as long as the mother wants to, it's definitely NOT okay to eat extra-fried chicken. Yeah, that makes sense.

In city after city, where the local governments are run by nannies, er, I mean, Democrats (think Chicago and San Francisco), a businessperson is forbidden from allowing anyone to smoke a cigarette, even though smoking is not an illegal practice. Is second-hand smoke harmful? Maybe so. But no one is pointing a gun at the head of the patrons who wish to frequent the establishment. Once again, our individual rights are being withheld by the government for the "greater good". And again, I ask you - who decides what was best for me? That should be MY choice.

Massachusetts court rules ban on gay marriage unconstitutional

This example could have been used regarding any one of a thousand lower rulings by renegade courts. By a 4-3 ruling, the Massachusetts Supreme Court has decided that regardless of the voice of the people, regardless of the fact that Gay Marriage has no precedent in law and regardless of the fact that they have absolutely no right whatsoever to decide this, they are going to decide what is right and what is wrong. The court, overwhelmingly liberal, came to the conclusion that just because they accept same-sex marriage, everyone else has to accept it as well.

I'm not bashing homosexuals or their individual rights. I don't believe it's anyone's business what people do behind closed doors, as long as it is mentally or physically hurtful. But I also don't believe it's any of the court's business, either. Since this ruling, many states have introduced ballot initiatives to ban the "marriage" between two members of the same sex. Unfortunately for the homosexual crowd, this has caused much more stress and anger, whereby polarizing a significant section of society.

The court violates the rights of heterosexuals by forcing a certain lifestyle - one that a majority of the country believe to be repugnant - upon the rest of us. Now don't start comparing this with slavery (which some in the Gay community have). The differences are obvious and frankly, insulting to the descendants of true slaves. No one is keeping gay couples from living together and in many of these same states, legislation has been passed to allow spousal benefits and survivorship rights to gay partners.

But again, who is "limiting" our civil rights? Who is destroying our basic freedoms?

It's bad enough to accuse Bush of repealing our civil liberties. But when the accuser is the actual violator? Well, what would you call that?

No comments: