The Sound of Breaking Laws
April 8th, 2005 | by Dr. Forbush |It seems quite strange how the Radical Right is so hypocritical about the law. They seem to believe that they are above the law while they believe that those who they disagree with must be held to the highest standards of the law. In a free society I would hope to believe that we could come together and agree that every American should be held to the same standard of the law.
In the 1990s the radical right was just finding its legs and it reached for every weapon it could find to club and maim those it opposed. They claimed the house ethics rules were not strict enough and they managed to shame Democrats into passing stricter rules that were later used against the Democratic leadership at the time. Of course, the strict conservative stance came full circle and Newt Gingrich was forced to resign from the House because of his questionable but legal behavior. The Conservatives continued to play the ethics card through out the 1990s by accusing Bill Clinton of the never proven illegal Whitewater land deals in which an overreaching investigation climaxed with the revelation that Bill had received a BJ at the White House and lied about it.
Now that the Republicans have used both legal and illegal power moves to secure both houses of the legislature and the White House they have suddenly become much less concerned with the ethics of the lawmakers. In fact the Speaker of the House, Tom DeLay has allegedly participated in quite a few inappropriate financial deals, but the Attorney General doesn’t seem to be very interested in even launching an investigation into these activities. Compared to the accusation of Bill Clinton’s land deals these financial activities actually effect how people in our government have actually been elected. They concern how Texas government officials acquired power and obtained election funding. But, our government remains silent.
Conservatives pride themselves on how they support the defense of both our government and our country. They place patriotism next to religion on their priority list. They believe that extraordinary measures including the limitation of our own liberty need to be taken to protect the American way of life. They believe that the simple act of burning an American flag in protest should not be an act protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution. So, when the Speaker of the House threatens a Federal Judge shouldn’t the Conservatives put their collective feet down and reprimand Speaker DeLay? By not even mentioning this, the Congress has sent a message in the form of an example. If you are with the ruling party, the rules don’t matter.
The Conservatives are saying: “Join us and break the law, because we are above the law.”
8 Responses to “The Sound of Breaking Laws”
By pia on Apr 8, 2005 | Reply
Wait a second. You’re saying that they’re above the law, but we have to obey both the laws of this country, and their god’s law?
From the comments that I get I would have never guessed that. Especially the religious laws of a god not mine
By sally on Apr 8, 2005 | Reply
Why are you surprised? What did you expect?
By pia on Apr 8, 2005 | Reply
Honestly, Sally, I thought that the United States of America was a democracy where we were free to worship or not worship the God of our choice.
I thought that there was this little thing called The First Amendment which mandated (oh bad word choice) seperation of church and state.
I truly thought that we were free to state and debate our political views without being harrassed over them
But me thinks I was wrong.
By dhunley on Apr 10, 2005 | Reply
yet…
Not a single one in here can name a single “right” that has been infringed upon that wasn’t already being infringed upon. You bunch of whiners can’t even find where it says “separation of church and state” in the constitution.
And before you try foisting all your petty hatreds onto your favorite bogeyman the religious right…know that I’m not a Christian. You talk out your whazoo about which you know nothing.
There are 6 billion people in this world…half of them are under the thumb of some tin-pot religious freak, two thirds of the rest don’t understand freedom and rights…and you guys are demonstrating no great knowledge in that regard either.
Man!! Does mankind want freedom or not?
By The Cranky Liberal on Apr 10, 2005 | Reply
Hey Hunley I cant see where ist says Jesus or God in it either. And actually seperation of C&S was first stated by Jefferson at the Danbury meeting I believe.
And intersting you should say what you said about what rights are being abused. Would you honestly say that the current climate has not adversly affected our Civil Rights? That even simple things like indecency fines are not striking at the heart of the 1’st amendment? That the Patriot Act, and the currect vigourous defense of renewing it doesn’t violate some of our basic civil rights? What about protection from illegal search and seizure or sue process? Would you like a list of how our Consitutional Rights were violated? I’d be happy to prepare a post, but you know Hunley, since I doubt I could get GWBto sign off on it and admit it, I’m not sure what burden of proof you look for. You keep talkign about knocking off our “straw man” arguements - but you know, I still haven’t seen a succesful refutaion of a single point. I’ve seen some mental gymnastics trying to justify the Islamic threat (which as you said was an opionion) and “strong arm tactics” but I haven’t seen anything that provided evidence to the contrary. Now of course you don’t need to - your opionion is welcome and has certainly provided a nice bit of exchange, but we have tried to back our position up with at least some supporting informatin if not evidence. It’s up for people to decide whether that information is credible. So far nothing I’ve heard from anyone on the other side has even made me think 2x about it.
By dhunley on Apr 11, 2005 | Reply
Cranky Liberal,
Actually, I don’t believe you’ve been able to support a single point you’ve made in here…as in:
“Ok pick apart the fact he was admonished 3 times by the ethics committee, or that he strong armed DH to change the chair!”
I picked apart both of these points…
“But lets say I’m willing to give you the “he paid for his crime” rationale. You lose all credibility when you say that about the strong arm tactic.”
And they’re the only ones I’ve been able to get you to clarify enough to address…the rest of your points have been opinions–which we’re all free to express. The invitation to pick one (although you can wiggle another in there again if you’d like) still stands…and I’m waiting.
Lots of things were “stated” at various meetings during the drafting of our constitution…but they didn’t get put in the constitution did they? There is NOTHING in there that says an official can’t run on whatever religious platform they want…and then enacting laws that further their religion. I used to THINK the constitution protected us from the more onerous possibilities…but with the state sanctioned starvation of Terri Schiavo that ignored the most basic right accorded in the 5th amendment, I now know better. And you betcha I’d like to see a list of those constitutional rights that have been violated. I don’t believe one will be forthcoming THAT INCLUDES ANYTHING THAT WASN’T THERE IN THE 90’s! Protection against search and seizure? Not affected by the Patriot Act…same procedures that allowed them before are in there now. Although I’d sure hate to stake my welfare on someone’s definition of “due process” (look where it got Terri Schiavo)…those same “due process” mechanisms are in there. Indecency fines? No different than “hate” crimes.
So I ask again…what rights are being abused? Just list them anyway you please. If we’re talking about climate—I can say the weather from where I sit looks like we just allowed the state-sanctioned death by starvation of one of our citizens…but many in here are actually supporting that “climate”.
I’ve not seen ONE of your positions supported by facts. I’ve just looked again and nothing has changed. Sure…you’ve provided information (not evidence) that have been your opinions. Do you want information to support my opinions concerning the islamic threat? Do you want me to start with the Khobar tower bombing…work my way through all the attacks? Do you want me to give you information about the countries that have fallen victim to islamic control? Do you want me to list the things that have happened in the Netherlands? In France? Want me to provide you with quotes from the koran that advocate subjugation by force if necessary? Seen any of those videos of the beheading of helpless people? I don’t know what burden of proof you’d need…but if those don’t suffice, I doubt I could provide it. So…yes, it is my opinion…and if could arrange it to where you and I could specifically determine where our tax dollars went as you generously offered, my tax dollars would be going toward efforts that would allow both your and my opinions to be expressed.
By The Cranky Liberal on Apr 11, 2005 | Reply
Hunley, if thats what you call picking apart my arguements, then for god sakes please tell me your not a defense attorney.
By Dr. Forbush on Apr 11, 2005 | Reply
Hey Duh Hunley,
Maybe you think that DeLay is an angel, but not everyone agrees. There is quite a bit more evidence that DeLay may have at least used the wrong “type” of money for his campaign, and he spent campaign money on inapropriate things. Maybe he can justify everything. If this is the case, then he should call for an investigation to prove himself inocent. He doesn’t have anything to loose if he is an angel. The fact that he is afraid of an investigation shows that he must be hiding something. Perhaps its even more serious. Perhaps he gave a blow job to Dick Cheney.