Sounds more like religious tyranny to me.
So when did forcing your religious beliefs on your employees, or on society as a whole through legislation, become the definition of "religious liberty"?
Sounds more like religious tyranny to me.
0 Comments
I usually don't read Cal Thomas, a leading conservative columnist. In fact according to the Chicago Tribune he is "America's number one nationally syndicated political columnist". They couldn't post it if it wasn't true.
But when I saw from the title that the subject of his latest column was retiring Representative Michelle Bachmann, well I had to look. It's like a pile-up at a NASCAR race. You're obligated to look, heck you're almost not human if you don't. So curiosity piqued I waded into the column. And I came away with a totally different picture of Mr. Thomas. It turns out Cal Thomas may just be his generation's greatest political comic. Follow me below for further explanation. The humor began ever so subtly. He started off by noting that Rep. Bachmann has less than a year to go in her final term. Too early for an exit interview, but never too early to get the views of Ms. Bachmann on the issues of the day, including "how to beat Hillary Clinton in 2016". And he delivered that with a straight face! Pure comic genius right there. Because who else do you turn to for deep political thoughts or winning "strategery" than the founder of the John Wayne Gacy Fan Club? Or the woman who relies on scientific advice from some woman who comes up to her at an event? But wait Cal wasn't done. He asked her if she was disappointed the conservative cause has not gotten further during her time in Washington. Her response was that the conservative agenda requires voters electing people with "a biblical world view". Now some people might get the joke right there, but Cal missed an opportunity with this one. It required some more setup, some mention of how Rep. Bachmann and others are all up in arms about Muslims and Sharia Law. Then hit them with the biblical world view quote. Sometimes Cal you do need to hit the audience between the eyes with a 2 by 4. Cal quickly redeemed himself however when the topic turned to getting Ms. Bachmann's advice on how a presumptive male Republican nominee goes about beating Hillary Clinton in 2016. And of course you already know what's coming next, but that doesn't make it any less hilarious. Or should I say "Hillary-ous"? Two words: "Benghazi" and "Obamacare". Pow! Bam! Sure you see it coming but it still leaves you rolling on the floor laughing your you know what off. And again Cal was the master of restraint, transcribing these lines from Bachmann like they were to be taken seriously. Comic gold. First up in the one-two punch Bachmann advises for taking out Hillary: "Remind people (Clinton) is seeking to become commander in chief (and look at) how she has operated in the past with these types of responsibilities. She was in charge during the Benghazi debacle." Yes. Yes. Benghazi. It really took Obama out in 2012. But wait, catch your breath for the second in the combination from the dear departing Representative: She says to label Hillary as the "the godmother of Obamacare", who worked "behind closed doors" to enact a similar program when her husband was president. That one is the absolute best right there. How Cal kept from laughing out loud in Michelle's face and wrote it in his column as if it was something worthy of serious consideration is beyond me. I mean sure, what is now Obamacare was devised by the conservative Heritage Foundation as the market based answer to what the Clintons had proposed for health care reform. And sure, what is now Obamacare was pushed for a while by Senate Republicans at the time, again as the market based solution to counter the Clinton plan. But make believe that the Clinton plan was like Obamacare and pin it on her. And Cal plays along like this is a great strategy! But wait, Bachmann is still not finished. Cal sets her up beautifully at this point. Despite the obvious and proven appeal of the twin Benghazi-Obamacare attacks, how, he asks Ms. Bachmann, does the GOP candidate overcome the "lure" some voters might feel to elect our first female president. Don't you worry, Michelle's answer does not disappoint. "Effectively she would be Obama's third and fourth term in office." That one still cracks me up every time I read it. Yes, you can overcome the "female" angle by hanging Obama around Hillary's neck. You know with Benghazi and Obamacare. Because those issues weren't tried before. And that's where Cal Thomas has shown himself to be a true artist. Surely he knows the joke is that the GOP tried Benghazi and Obamacare as two of their main issues in 2012. Heck they flogged them to death. How many times did Mitt Romney promise he was going to repeal Obamacare, "day one"? Presumably by executive order. And we all know how he tried to make Benghazi a center piece of the presidential debates. And he lost in 2012 by something like 5 million votes to Obama. But Cal just keeps feeding Bachmann the rope and plays the straight man while she hangs herself by seriously proposing that Benghazi and Obamacare are the keys to beating Hillary in 2016. I'm still wiping the tears from my eyes. Just in case your ribs weren't already sore from all the laughing, Cal delivers another punch line stating that those issues and the prospect of Hillary being a continuation of Obama "might scare enough people to vote for the Republican nominee". Just like they did in 2012. I get the joke,Cal, I get it! My sides hurt, please stop! And as a final gift, Cal shares one more Bachmann gem concerning the possibility of the first female president. She believes "a lot of people 'aren't ready' for a female president". You didn't even have to say it Cal. We know what you were thinking. We can insert our own joke here. I'll have to begin checking out his columns more often. It's always good to start your day with a good belly laugh - or several. I keep hearing this rumor that the Republicans are the party of small government. The party of getting government off your back. The party of getting the government out of the way so businesses, entrepreneurs, and the wonderful, all-knowing free market can work their magic.
At least that's what I keep hearing them say. The markets pick winners and losers, not government. Local and state governments know better, not Washington. People can be trusted with decisions over their own lives, their own health, their own money, not politicians or bureaucrats. But then they do stuff, and I get really confused as to what this party really does believe. Take Tennessee for example. Please. [Rimshot]. Volkswagen has a plant in Chattanooga. This week the workers at the plant are voting on whether or not to join a union, specifically the United Auto Workers. And the company is taking a neutral, hands-off approach to the vote. In fact at times the corporation has sounded supportive of the idea. You see they want to institute a works council at the plant, which is a committee that includes management and workers. They have one at every other VW plant in the world. To have one here requires a union. So they will not be upset to see a pro-union vote. But you know who will be upset and is doing everything they can to stop a 'yes' vote? Yes the Tennessee Republican party. The Governor, U. S. Senator Bob Corker, various GOP members of the Tennessee legislature have weighed in. They have threatened to withdraw the tax breaks VW was given to open the factory in Chattanooga should a union be brought in. Billboards have been taken out about the invasion from the "union" for "up north". I mean, really? And as I said this is not coming from the corporate management. It's those damned politicians butting in. Sen. Corker has even gone so far as to say if the vote goes pro-union VW will probably take the jobs for the SUV's built there to other plants. Or that he has been assured, by people unnamed, that a "no" vote assures expansion and more jobs at the Chattanooga plant. Of course a VW executive denied this. He said the decision of whether to expand in Chattanooga or instead to expand an existing factory in Mexico would hinge on other factors, not the union vote. After all that plant in Mexico? Wait for it - it's unionized. So suddenly we see the "trust the people" Republicans jumping into an issue that you would think does not concern government. It's an issue between the company and its workers and the decision is up to the workers. I thought that's what Republicans were all about, people making their own decisions without interference from the big, bad "gummint"? Instead it looks like they're trying to interfere with the market. But this is just another example of the divergence between what the GOP says and what they actually do. They rail against Obamacare as government intrusion and scream how medical decisions should be up to you and be between you and your doctor. Unless of course you're a woman and the decision is to use birth control, or for whatever reason make the gut-wrenching decision to terminate a pregnancy. Then you can't be trusted apparently and the government must stop you. It must tell your doctor what he or she can or can't tell you about your healthcare options. The government in some states must even mandate medically unnecessary procedures and threaten the doctor with penalties if he or she fails to perform them. Or if you're a state that has decided to allow same sex marriages. Then apparently Washington knows best and there should be federal laws or Constitutional amendments to override the wishes and laws of the individual states. So it looks like all the Republican talk about individual freedom, freedom from government interference and intrusion is just that - talk. They trust you to make your own decisions, until those decisions run counter to their ideology or their religion. Then they are all too happy to have the government jump into your bedroom, your boardroom, your doctor's office as quickly as possible. They are very eager and willing to have the government intrude to enforce their ideology and religion on you and make you abide by it. While perusing the internets tubes today I came across the following quote:
The median male worker is doing worse today than he was before 1980 when America adopted Reagan's conservative economic ideology. Conservatism has enriched the rich, stolen from the commons and deprived America of the public investments needed to compete successfully with China, Germany and other world economies. - blogger Fish Out of Water on Daily Kos site Now why can't we get a liberal Democratic politician to say that? Democrats should be repeating this every chance they get. Instead they spend more time kissing Reagan's ass than kicking it. I suppose to be appear reasonable and let everyone know how bipartisan they can be. And if a Democrat did say this would he or she immediately be branded by the traditional media as an out of the mainstream extreme ideologue? Of course they would, even though we get an endless parade of just plain batshit nuts pronouncements from right wing Republicans, many of which are easily debunked by fact checking. But they are reported with a straight face by the media with no hint of how extreme or crazy some of the statements are. And every conservative politician or pundit is treated with respect and an underlying assumption that we should at least consider seriously whatever it is they are saying. Liberals on the other hand, and their positions, can be treated dismissively. Why should Louis Gohmert be taken seriously but everyone feel free to laugh at Dennis Kucinich? Just sayin'. |