We have, written in clear language within our Constitution, the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." A quick glimpse of our current laws (be they legislated or passed down through the judiciary) will show that Americans no longer have these rights. Instead, they have the right to "viable, useful life" and "attainment of happiness through the pilfering of those more fortunate than themselves." Forget liberty - it's overrated.
The State of California has gone the way of Massachusetts - with the courts decreeing a State Constitutional right to homosexual "marriage." Never mind the fact that there isn't even a constitutional right to heterosexual marriage written in there. It appears that a claim of, "hey, no fair" goes a long way these days.
Way back in 1973, the United States Supreme Court declared that a woman had a constitutional right to end the life of her unborn baby. This is, of course, found in the constitution under the "right to privacy." Of course, even those words don't appear in there, but HEY! We're just splitting hairs, now! Since then, any attempt to legislate anything having to do with abortion is attacked as unconstitutional (regardless of any actual wording within said document). Even trying to pass a law requiring a minor to have the permission of her parents in order to undergo the surgical procedure is declared an horrifying infringements on women's rights. But should the public school give that same girl an aspirin without parental permission?? Sue, sue, sue... of course, in order to completely protect themselves from any such lawsuits, the schools won't even give an aspirin WITH the parent's permission now unless it's administered by the school nurse. So... surgical procedures - good. Tiny pill to help a headache - bad.
At the NYT, there was an article published called, "At Supreme Court, 5-4 Rulings Fade, But Why?" In this article (trying to pass itself off as an actual news item rather than an editorial) the writer bemoans the loss of the 5-4 rulings of the past. They talk about a "clear pattern" in the cases decided this term. The upholding of Kentucky's capital punishment methods, the upholding of Indiana's law requiring photo ID to vote, and the upholding a federal law against child pornography are all mentioned. The article then goes on to say, "All were government victories, hardly surprising coming from a conservative court... The surprise was that the government side won each so handily." Of course, not a mention of the "school integration" case that was decided on the side of the parents. That was a 5-4 decision in which the conservatives on the court decided against the government.
But how upside down is this?? The court ruled that the state has the right to pass a law requiring one to prove who they are when the go to the polls to vote. And, according to some, this is BAD. A ruling in favor of the government here was BAD.
A ruling that says the state of Kentucky can impose the death penalty the same way they have been? Again, ruling in favor of the government is BAD!!
Oh -- and the court upheld a law restricting child pornography!! Woe is us. This is BAD. Any ruling in favor of the government is clearly bad, right?? "Restricting free speech," they cry! Ah, yes... but these same criers are in favor of the Fairness Doctrine in broadcasting. Because the conservative viewpoint is too prevalent in radio. So, child pornography = good healthy free speech, protected by the Constitution. Conservative radio = a need for regulation and balance.
But when government was forcing students to be bussed clear across town simply because they were the wrong skin color to go to their local school, the conservative Supreme Court members said, "Nu-uh. You can't do that." I believe a more accurate quote was, "In order to stop discriminating on the basis of race, you have to stop discriminating on the basis of race." Certainly, since coming down on the side of government is BAD, the conservatives got this one right, right? WRONG. Race is everything and needs to be taken into consideration in order for people to learn to live with one another - therefore the bussing needed to take place. Ruling in favor of the people - BAD.
Talk about an upside down world!
Barack Obama has friends such as Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, and Tony Resco. None of these men would be considered fine, upstanding citizens by the majority of the American population. However, questioning his associations is clearly dirty politics and racism - and has no place in our country's political dialogue.
Israel is a teeny, tiny country surrounded by people who hate them. The United States professes to be one of Israel's few allies. And yet our usual advice to them is to stop defending themselves already. Nice ally.
The United States needs energy. Energy is mostly supplied by oil. We have our own oil, but we would rather fund the terrorists who want to kill us than dirty up our own territory by digging for our own supplies.
The United States has been walking backwards for a while now. And recently, it seems to me that we've kicked it down into a backwards sprint. The thing is, eventually, when you're going backwards like that, you end up hitting something. And I'm afraid our time to crash is coming soon.