Saturday, September 01, 2007

Benjamin Hearts Women

That's "kash" with a kapital "k" you know. From the morning sorry excuse to pulverize perfectly good trees:

"The letter writer's retort on Alberto Gonzales' legacy is typical of the leftists and liberals.

The so-called intelligent left worries about wiretapping our enemies but guts the Constitution otherwise. With the liberals so-called "protection" of the Constitution, we the people have huge, wasteful and bloated government under the perversion of the "general welfare clause," are unable to utter the name of the Christian deity anywhere near a government building and will be utterly defenseless against our enemies because they want to limit guns and are afraid to wiretap our enemies."

Bush has created the biggest government debt ever seen in recorded history.

He's fashioned a way to bypass habeus corpus, neatly decimating about 700 years of common law. Gonzales himself said notoriously "The Constitution doesn't say every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas."

Of course John is just mouthing a pure, unadulterated, and above all stupid lie when he claims with boastful exaggeration that liberals disallow religious freedom of expression near certain kinds of buildings.

"ABC News video on September 8 showed National Guard troops going house-to-house, smashing down doors, searching for residents, and confiscating guns. Every victim of disarmament was clearly not a thug or looter, but a decent resident wanting to defend his or her home." Hopefully John would not berate this source for liberal bias. Here's news for you, John-boy: Liberals do not want to take away your guns. Deputy Chief Warren Riley and the National Guard were not acting on behalf of progressive political activists when they did this.

No liberal/progressive has ever come out against legally wiretapping possible terrorist communications. There has, however, been some concern about the Bush Administration's illegal monitoring of others. Why can't Bush just follow the FISA laws? These are very liberal.

Not that much good would arise if Bush had such information. A few years ago he held in his very hands a memo indicating pending attacks on American targets using airliners and he went on vacation.

"Liberals gutting the Constitution." That's a vicious, defective, and spiteful lie. The Constitution was written by liberals.

I'm fairly convinced that the kinds of personalities beholden to rightwing crap like this have been fashioned into such ugly deformity by childhood trauma.

They can't help it. They had this nonsense beaten into them. At their own expense they must, without fail, support malignant authority figures; male ones, that is, or their world-view heaps in upon itself like a house of playing cards blown over by the breath of a child.


Becca said...

What writers such as John forget--or fail to recognize--is that the primary problem is not that the government is wiretapping terrorists, but that they are wiretapping anyone in an illegal fashion. FISA is a deliberately open and permissive statute to permit law enforcement and intelligence agencies the necessary leeway to keep up with shifting strategies of "the evildoers."

I have not yet heard a single, specific instance or set of circumstances uttered by the current administration that could not be addressed within the bounds of FISA as it existed 2 months ago. The opposition to Bush's illegal wiretapping program is that they are conducting it outside the bounds of something as permissive as FISA. And therein lies the problem.

When the Bush administration has stepped outside the bounds of the U.S. Constitution and the FISA law, they have gone after "terrorist organizations," such as gay & lesbian civil rights groups, secular advocacy groups, and unions--organizations that have nothing to do with terrorism, per se, but fail to support the ideological line of the hyper-conservative GOP.

If the Founding Fathers are spinning in their graves over anything, it is the Executive branch's violation of the most basic tenets of our constitutional guarantees, and the utter spinelessness of Congress to do anything to keep the Executive branch in check.

Dirk Gently said...

another thing john would certainly is that the greatest supporter of his rights to invoke the xian deity is the ACLU.

The American Constitution and Bill of Rights introduced a new relationship between religion and government. Prior to 1789, almost every European country maintained a close relationship between church and state. James Madison, the principal drafter of the First Amendment, proposed that, unlike European states, the government should not tax its citizens to support religious activities, nor should it promote religious beliefs, and that all religious beliefs should be treated equally and fairly. He believed that religion would thrive best when the government did not promote some religious beliefs to the exclusion of others.

Madison’s ideals, now embodied in the Constitution, were exactly right. Americans enjoy more religious freedom than do people in any other country in the world.

Unfortunately, some people are now trying to use government power to promote religion in exactly the way the Constitution wisely rejected. The ACLU works to ensure that people remain free to choose which religious beliefs (or none) they wish to express and that governments, school boards, and legislatures do not become involved in deciding which religious beliefs should be promoted or in spending taxpayer dollars to support religious activities and symbols.

but, of course, anyone who claims that liberals want to circumvent the constitution does not understand either.

Eli Blake said...

The thing is not that liberals don't have religious faith-- many of us do-- but rather that we have the faith to believe that people should have the choice of whether to allow God into their life without the dubious 'assistance' of laws which force them to pray, abstain from anything considered 'sinful' and lead a more 'moral' life.

Which contrasts to conservatives who (like the Pharisees and the Taliban) see themselves as the upholders of moral values and think that therefore they have to legislate to force others to do as they believe is right. In other words, Conservatives have little or no faith that people, left alone by the Government, will on their own choose a lifestyle which conservatives might approve of.