Jen Kuznicki
Andrew McCarthy’s piece in the National Review today puts the past four days in perfect perspective.
In a situation that called for a president who would actually defend the Constitution, Mitt Romney rose to the occasion. The administration’s performance was, as he asserted, “disgraceful.” Further, Romney admonished,
America will not tolerate attacks against our citizens and against our embassies. We’ll defend also our constitutional rights of speech, and assembly, and religion. We have confidence in our cause in America. We respect our Constitution. We stand for the principles our constitution protects. We encourage other nations to understand and respect the principles of our constitution, because we recognize that these principles are the ultimate source of freedom for individuals around the world.
Can you imagine the current incumbent, the guy sworn to defend the Constitution, ever saying such a thing — or, better, saying it and actually meaning it? Me neither. It will be remembered as the moment the race for president finally became about the real job of a president. It will be remembered as the moment Romney won.
Read the whole thing, you can feel his disgust and contempt just under the surface, of a man who knows what the Obama administration’s policies will do, and are doing to America.
H/T Mark Levin
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
3 Responses to McCarthy: Obama vs. the First Amendment
My Tweets
Follow Me On The Web!
The last sentence–"It will be remembered as the moment Romney won."–really says it, all. It was , truly, from Romney's heart as I saw and heard him. Thanks for all the Andrew McCarthys out there! Good on ya, Jen, for sharing this!
Exactly what part of our Constitutional liberty is understood and enjoyed by any individual or any group under the banner of liberalism or progressivism or statism or whatever else they wish to define and defend themselves as?
Freedom of speech is about freedom of political speech. When a religion represents a theocracy, which represents government policy, the concept of protecting it from free speech becomes tyrannous and defeats the concept underlying freedom of both speech and press. And it even goes further. Just what part of Muslim law or Sharia law does not transgress the Establishment Clause and therefore the Constitution itself? And if the Expression Clause can ever be used to justify freedom to practice a theocracy whereby that theocracy supplants and trumps Constitutional liberties then it is no longer about freedom of religious expression but about Constitutional intolerance and therefore represents intolerance for individual freedom.
On an alternative note consider that the smallest group is a group of one. America is about individual liberty and yet most of what Congress does is designed to restrict the individual for the sake of the greater good and the more that the state provides a substitute for individual responsibility the more the state defends its action as part of the greater or collective good. The same goes for any bureaucracy having legislative powers. Hence the recent NYC law designed to restrict the serving of more than 20 ounces of soda is about minimizing the collective costs of obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease because those costs are based upon shared “free” medical care via Medicaid or Medicare. When a central authority has legal power to provide free service and property to others it takes away the liberty of the providers. That is why our Founders saw no virtue in a Constitution that would incorporate powers to provide charity and that is also the reason why so many liberals dislike a Constitution of negative rights. Note especially why sitting Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg prefers an alternative Constitution, such as South Africa’s Constitution, since it empowers that government to provide medical care for all. The word “liberal” is stolen. Early writers used that word to define conservatives since it represented a philosophy of liberty and a plethora of choices for the individual to pursue happiness. Today that word is used to define a more liberal use of government to tell us what some think we must be forced to do for our own betterment.
The question that now arrises asks just how much of our Constitution we will be willing to surrender to Presidential edict? From my perspective… not a bit!