Dateline December 12th, 2010
This issue is simple. Julian Assange is not a terrorist. He is also not guilty of traitor and cannot be legally convicted of treason against the United States because he’s not a US citizen! The Conservative reaction in the USA was filled with some very anti-American and clearly Unconstitutional ideas. Rather than repeat what has already been said, here’s a video clip from Cenk Ungyar of The Young Turks that lays it down simply and logically.
Image via Wikipedia
Earlier, I covered the facts regarding “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and the Federal Judge’s ruling. Now let’s review what the predictable Conservative reaction will be. This one is too easy. The primary vector the Republican Tea Party and it’s associated talking heads will use will be nothing more than two words – “judicial activism”. This very statement gives light to their sad and obvious irrational misunderstanding of how our Federal Government is structured.
As anyone who passed high school history (and/or government) class should have learned, there are three branches to our government. The Legislative Branch is comprised of the House of Representatives and the Senate. This body writes bills and votes on them. The Executive Branch – The President, Vice President and their respective cabinets and staff. Once Congress passes a bill, it’s sent to the President to be signed. Once the President signs the document, it is considered officially law.
Here’s where the Conservatives that constantly throw around the idea of “judicial activism”. The next branch of our government is the Judicial Branch. Their job is to review bills passed into law by the other two branches and decide based on the Constitution (and precedent set by previous rulings) if the items in question are legal! So when Conservatives whinge about “judicial activism”, they are protesting the fact that the Judicial Branch is doing it’s Constitutionally appointed duty!
So, despite that reality, individual Americans who subscribe to the Republican Tea Party mantra are under educated in matters of civics, political science will still echo the cries of “judicial activism” coming from the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, et al. What excuse do those individuals have? Do they not understand the function of the Judicial Branch any better, or are they intentionally ignoring the reality of their job for the purpose of making people afraid and angry? Has anyone else noticed that Conservatives only cry “judicial activism” when it’s a decision they don’t agree with, but they seem to have no complaints or concerns about the Citizen’s United decision?
– “Left of Center”
Image by hodag via Flickr
Since the last post was running long, I’ve decided to split this entry into two parts. Below is the second portion of the exchange on Facebook regarding the immigration history of President Obama’s aunt (see: Part I)
The Conservative’s Second Comment:
Wow, so because I stated my opinion, my statement is “borderline arrogant and Unchristian”? 1 question, do you want to be the pot or the kettle? You said – She stayed in this country despite her illegal status because she said she could not …afford to leave. Here I go sounding “arrogant and Unchristian” again, but her not being able to afford to leave really isn’t my problem. It’s hers. This country is drowning as is, and still, we’re out trying to save everyone else and fix their problems.
Much like being on an airplane, we need to put on our oxygen mask first, before we help someone else with theirs.
I’m not saying she shouldn’t be allowed to appeal her case. I’m saying she should have to do it from her own country while she appeals it. This country has a HUGE immigration problem. I get the whole tired, poor, hungry bit, I really do. But this country has spent generations robbing Peter in order to pay Paul, and now Peter and the future generations after him are BROKE, hence why if someone wants to come to this country, get permission first. You want asylum? Get it before hand. It is not our responsibility to save, and then pay for, the entire world to seek refuge here.
People in other countries are never going to learn to stand on their own 2 feet, and make their country better if we keep bailing them out, taking them in and/or rescuing them. You know, the whole – give a man a fish or teach a man to fish??
If you want to rescue the world, by all means, have at it. But do it on YOUR dime, because I’m tired of paying for people who don’t contribute a damn thing to live here.
My Response To This:
Your comment shows you’re not grasping the concept of asylum. It’s not like standard immigration. A person cannot be made to argue for this from their own country because they are asking for asylum here because they are *in fear of their li…fe* !!
As for the arrogance, my comment pointed out facts that were ignored (willfully or otherwise) by both the article you posted and by your statements. Therein lies the difference in my opinion. Facts are facts and if you perceive them arrogant, that is your concern not mine. The same cannot be said for opinion.
Do you know the full political and factual history of why this country is in such bad debt problems? If you’re truly concerned about not paying for people that don’t contribute their fair share you should be far far more concerned about the rich people who claim to argue for our interests while taking advantage of every loophole imaginable to not carry their weight rather than the far lesser problem of helping poor people have the chance to avoid being homeless and starving.
I stand by my statement that your viewpoint is Unchristian. Your recent comment only furthers that conclusion and it illustrates an apparent misunderstanding of why this country is facing the problems it is.
– “Left of Center”
Truth Not Fear 