I must read a dozen or more blogs by anti-government GOPers and libertarians howling about how the liberals are taking away their freedoms almost on a daily basis.
Meanwhile, the GOPers try to impose invasive transvaginal probes on women; try to limit or deny a woman the right to a legal medical procedure that is none of their business--IOW do all they can to promote state-enforced pregnancies for girls and women, try to block legislation that would allow people who love each other the freedom to marry; and now come the crazies in Arizona--[Is there some sort of terrestrial magnet that attracts these sorts there?]--who are proposing this bit of government interference in the lives of freedom loving Americans--especially freedom-loving atheist Americans:
"Arizona Republicans Propose Bill That Would Not Allow Atheists To Graduate High School
January 25, 2013 By Hemant Mehta
A group of Arizona politicians — all Republicans, of course — have proposed a law (House Bill 2467) requiring public high school students to recite the following oath in order to graduate:
I, _______, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge these duties; So help me God.
To quote Comedy Central’s Ilya Gerner: “Nothing says ‘I take this obligation freely’ quite like a state law that withholds your diploma unless you swear an oath.”
Kevin Bondelli adds:
… graduating high school is not the same thing as voluntarily accepting the responsibility of a public office or admission to the legal bar. A high school diploma is, with extremely few exceptions, required to have a chance to live above the poverty level. It is the culmination of an education that up until that point was compulsory.
It’s bad enough the Republicans are demanding loyalty of the kind normally reserved for members of Congress and beyond — but there’s also no way I would say those last four words, and the current text of the legislation does not allow for any alternatives.
In other words, if this bill were to become a law, atheists would either not be allowed to graduate… or they would be forced to lie so they could graduate. Neither option is acceptable."
But...but...liberals want a NANNY STATE!
CAPT. FOGG over at The Swash Zone has more to say on this shameful and unconstitutional proposed legislation.
MORE STUPIDITY FROM THE ANTI-CONSTITUTION PARTY:
"The chairman of the Senate education committee, who last year unsuccessfully sought the teaching of creationism in schools, now wants public schools to have the option of beginning each day with the Lord’s Prayer.
Sen. Dennis Kruse, R-Auburn, Indiana, has filed a bill that would allow school districts to require the recitation of the Lord’s Prayer, though individual students could opt out if they or their parents preferred.
With Republicans holding overwhelming majorities in both the Indiana House and Senate and former U.S. Rep. Mike Pence preparing to take office as governor, some critics have anticipated an easy path for certain socially conservative issues in this year’s legislature. "
That should read "for certain UNCONSTITUTIONAL socially conservative issues..." Obviously these nuts believe our Constitution is flawed, and they mean to amend it.
.
UPDATE on the Benghazi hearings and Secretary Clinton from GOP pundit Peggy Noonan:
"Lesson two came from Republicans on Capitol Hill. Conservatives on the ground are angry with them after the Benghazi hearings. Members of the Senate and the House have huffed and puffed for months: "It's worse than Watergate, Americans died." Just wait till they question the secretary of state, they'll get to the bottom of it.
Wednesday they questioned Hillary Clinton. It was a dud."
To all the vultures who were hoping to pick Secy. Clinton's carcass clean over this tragedy: Na ga happen. There was no cover-up; there is no scandal. Now go back to what you excel at: harassing women, girls, gays, and atheists.
Of course none of these laws the state GOPPERS are proposing are likely to be held up in court but they're certainly a great diversionary tactic to get people's minds off the real issues of the day. And anyway, the taxpayers will pick up the attorney and court fees.
ReplyDeleteWhere do they come up with that stuff? Oh, yeah...
ReplyDelete"I swear: I will be faithful and obedient to the leader of the German empire and people, Adolf Hitler, to observe the law, and to conscientiously fulfil my official duties, so help me God!" -1934
But...but...BB-Idaho, Obummer is Hitler/Stalin/Nazi/Commie!
ReplyDeleteI've never understood why free people need a forced recitation of allegiance to their country.
Certain Americans seem not to be able to grasp the idea that free people shouldn't feel so insecure!
Why is it that people of your political persuasion, Ms. Shaw, are virtually addicted to making a Tempest in a Teapot over every little thing you can imagine?
ReplyDeleteYou may not think of it in these terms, but it seems to me you've been infected with The Critical Theory Virus spawned in the laboratories of The Frankfurt School.
There ALWAYS has to be something deemed "wrong" that must be righted when you adopt this mentality.
I find it an exhausting spectacle just to observe. It might put me under the sod were I to feel motivated to participate in the endless "crusades" [I knew you'd appreciate that term, which is why I chose to use it ;-] over itty-bitty nitty-picky concepts that very few people care anything about one way or the other.
Wouldn't you rather work on a piece of sculpture, write a new poem, or further perfect one of your glorious recipes? I know I would!
Be of good cheer. That's not an order, but it really is good sound advice.
There's so much to love and admire in this world -- and so little time to do it. Why waste precious time with complaints and recriminations?
Best,
FreeThinke
FreeThinke
ReplyDeleteReally.... you seem to be saying that us progressives are the only ones that make tempests in teapots.
Coming from a regular contributer at conservative sites that openly disdain accepted facts that don't agree with preconceived ideas and where liberals are not allowed to be critical but have to endure daily taunts and insults, you are rich.
These aren't tempests in teapots. They are legislative attempts by elected GOP officials across the country and the national party refuses to openly be critical of these extreme movements.
As the GOP national party has pointed out in the past, and for which I've never heard a conservative explain otherwise, failure to denounce offensive behavior by your followers, is acceptance of that behavior.
Why should liberals not understand that the extremism we see from some in the GOP is official policy based on their own words?
Come here and participate with facts Free...
Mr. Free Thinke,
ReplyDeleteDave answered your question beautifully. I'll add that I post these on these subjects that show what the GOP is up to in the states where they control the governorship and the legislature to illustrate what the GOP would do should they control all three branches of our federal government.
I post on these subjects, also, to illustrate that when certain elements in the GOP label our president as a Marxist/Fascist/Commie, who wants to take away their freedoms, they need to look within their own houses and examine their actions-- what some people would recognize as anti-freedom legislation.
May I also gently point out that when you publish blog posts on the president and his family, referring to his mother as a whore and his father as an African savage, and when you publish blog posts comparing President Obama to the worst genocidal murderers in world history, some people would call that an addiction to shameful hyperbole.
I wish you good cheer as well.
"shameful hyperbole"
ReplyDeleteI'd use stronger words, like racist.
Comme tu veux, as the French would say.
ReplyDeleteI remember ever calling Stanley Ann Dunham a "whore". I know I called her "a lunatic, Communist bitch," and that, I firmly believe, is an unequivocal statement of fact. The influences that shaped her mentality I regard as perverse, unwholesome, destructive, and decidedly un-American. Her behavior by any standards of decency, and common sense I'd be able to recognize, certainly bears out my admittedly unflattering assessment of her character
F you try to deny that the president is in fact a crypto-Marxist, you are simply deluding yourselves -- or trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the as-yet-unindoctrinated. I suspect the former.
The Truth rarely flatters anyone. Stating it -- as far as one is able to see it -- is bound to be undiplomatic, disturbing or infuriating to many. That doesn't mean that it should be suppressed.
The Truth makes us free -- IF we have the courage to look at it with curiosity, instead of reflexive prejudice.
"If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought – not free thought for those that agree with us, but freedom for the thought that we hate."
~ Oliver W. Holmes (1841-1935)
Justice Holmes, as I'm sure you know, was regarded as a great liberal in his day.
Enjoy the day. We'll ever get it back once it's gone.
~ FreeThinke
"Her behavior by any standards of decency, and common sense I'd be able to recognize, certainly bears out my admittedly unflattering assessment of her character."
ReplyDeleteif free thinke is referring to the fact that mr. obama's mother was pregnant when she married his father, i wonder if ft would say the same about 'decency' regarding nancy reagan, who was three months gone when ronnie married her...
free thinke..as my dear departed f-i-l would say...if full of blivet...10 pounds of horseshit in a 5 pound bag...
Dunham was a PhD anthropologist, a liberal and a free thinker. Glenn
ReplyDeleteBeck, Joe the Plumber and Free Thinke take that to mean lunatic
communist bitch. "the truth rarely flatters anyone" ...especially
Mr. "Free Thinke".
And meanwhile, the president received an embarrassing post-inaugural slapdown by the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit for his blatantly unconstitutional "recess" appointments when the Senate wasn't really in recess.
ReplyDeleteAs a famous Democrat once observed, the fish rots from the head.
"This cannot be the law,” said Sentelle, an appointee of President Reagan. He was joined by Judges Karen Henderson and Thomas Griffith, who are also Republican appointees." 240 Reagan recess appointments, 32 Obama appointments. There seems to be a difference between when congress is in session or gone (but in pro forma session). Speaking of rotting fish, John Bolton was a recess appointment...
ReplyDelete"Speaking of rotting fish, John Bolton was a recess appointment..."
ReplyDeleteBut unlike Obama's most recent strong man gambit, Bolton's appointment was legitimate.
What people need to realize is that when you cheer on a big, powerful, activist government, it can turn on you.
Build it, and the dictators of all parties will come...
Speaking of rotten fish:
ReplyDelete"When Obama filled the vacancies on Jan. 4, 2012, Congress was on an extended holiday break. But GOP lawmakers gaveled in for a few minutes every three days just to prevent Obama from making recess appointments. The White House argued that the pro forma sessions – some lasting less than a minute – were a sham.
Of course they were. They were a slimey way to deny the president his appointments. That's where the real rot comes from, not Mr. Obama.
Everyone with any sense knows that the GOP Senators have used this to obstruct the president.
What President Obama did has nothing to do with anything as rotten as what the GOP Senators have done to obstruct this president.
I hope Mr. Obama brings this to the highest court.
Careful what you're arguing there, Shaw. From The Washington Post:
ReplyDeleteObama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, made 105, and it was during his term that Senate Democrats began holding pro-forma sessions, some lasting less than a minute, when the Senate went on break. They contended that that kept the Senate in session and did not allow Bush to make recess appointments.
Republicans took up the practice when Obama was elected.
But at least we can agree that government is a rotten fish.
Source:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/court-says-obama-exceeded-authority-in-making-appointments/2013/01/25/b7e1b692-6713-11e2-9e1b-07db1d2ccd5b_story.html
This is an argument put forward by Edwin Meese last year, and he is correct on the constitutional question. The Senate cannot just adjourn whenever it wants to:
ReplyDeleteThe House of Representatives did not consent to a Senate recess of more than three days at the end of last year, and so the Senate, consistent with the requirements of the Constitution, must have some sort of session every few days.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/01/25/two-wins-against-unchecked-power-and-two-lefty-losses/
All of this aside, I am heartened to see progressives lament the state poking its snout into people's private lives, and your interest in the constitution is refreshing as well.
Finally, please do not impugn the character of libertarians by conflating them with republican politicians.
If someone want to know what mainstream libertarians believe, please take some time to read reason.com.
I hate to spoil the ending for you, but they dislike the big government GOP just as much as they do the progressive statists in the Democratic party.
ThreeFinke: Being forced to submit to having a foreign object jammed in one's vagina to enforce humiliation for political / religious (definitely not valid medical) reasons is not a "little thing". Being forced to swear to a deity you don't believe in to receive a diploma you already earned is not a "little thing" (if you think it is, imagine a devout Christian being required to swear to Allah or Wotan or whatever).
ReplyDeleteShaw has it exactly right. The Republican party is egregiously attacking fundamental, personal, intimate freedoms. It is the real anti-freedom party.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteViolino d'argento [e gli altre],
ReplyDeletePer favore, stia sul soggetto.
Grazie.
We are talking about overreaching governments, right?
ReplyDeleteAnd you wrongly lumped in libertarians with Republicans, so my comments are on-topic.
Libertarians have supported the fiscal policies of the Republicans for decades and are part of the mistake that built our debt.
ReplyDeleteAnon: I assume you are referring to Chicago School economist Milton Friedman?
ReplyDeleteIf so, you incorrectly associate him with libertarian thought. Chicago School is Monetarist, which libertarians reject. Hayek did teach at the University of Chicago, but he is not a Chicago School econonomist.
So, could you clarify your remarks?
"Wednesday they questioned Hillary Clinton. It was a dud."
ReplyDeleteAnother right wing conspiracy against the Clintons.
Meanwhile in New Mexico a rethug proposed legislation that would make having an abortion after a rape a felony for destroying evidence.
ReplyDeleteIt may be theater just to play to the knuckle dragging base but the fact they have to stoop to this level reminds us what's out there.
You keep bringing that up, Silverfiddle.
ReplyDeleteWhy not take the opportunity to explain your conception of Hayek?
I don't accept that he felt the market was omnipotent and infallible but sometimes I think you do.
Why not set the record straight?
@Silverfiddle --- They contended that that kept the Senate in session and did not allow Bush to make recess appointments.
ReplyDelete----
You mean John Bolton got an up and down vote?
The humanity!!
I'm referring to the reality of what happened, not some ideology, or philosophy.
ReplyDeleteAnon: No. It's clear you were just parroting something you heard from your favorite leftwing propaganda font.
ReplyDeleteDucky: My understanding of Hayek probably tracks yours pretty well.
To hardcore libertarians, he is a heretic because he believed there is a proper place and proper roles for government, as do I.
Markets omnipotent and infallible? Besides your flaming strawmen, I don't know who would make such an outlandish claim.
Markets are a reflection of the people who participate in them, and as such, are much better at serving people and reacting to them than government poobahs and politburos, which people like you appear to favor.
Health care, housing and higher education suffer the greatest government penetration, and they are our most inflated and screwed up markets. Yeah, let's have more of that in the other parts of our lives!
It's only clear in your mind, those were my words. It's clear you have no clue who Libertarians have been voting for.
ReplyDeleteAnon: Show us some polling data. I'm open to considering whatever you have.
ReplyDeleteGo to Reason.com or Mises.org (two libertarian sites) and you will find little praise of Ronald Reagan. You will find some pro-Reagan articles, but only because of what he was contrasted against.
Here is what libertarian thinkers say about Reagan:
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=488
http://mises.org/daily/1544
And don't even try to look up Bush. They hated him.
There are many conservatives out there who are becoming receptive to some libertarian ideas. Maybe that is what you are thinking of?
Anon:
ReplyDeleteHere is some help for you:
A Beginner's Guide to Libertarianism
And here's one more:
Western Hero: Libertarianism
Don't need the help of someone who has no clue
ReplyDelete