"The liberal onslaught of malicious attacks against Carrie Prejean for expressing her opinion is despicable. Carrie and I spoke soon after the attacks started; I can relate as a liberal target myself. What I find so remarkable is that these politically-motivated attacks fail to show that what Carrie and I believe is also what President Obama and Secretary Clinton believe - marriage is between a man and a woman. I applaud Donald Trump for standing with Carrie during this time. And I respect Carrie for standing strong and staying true to herself, and for not letting those who disagree with her deny her protection under the nation's First Amendment Rights. Our Constitution protects us all - not just those who agree with the far left."oy. where to begin. for starters, let me say that i think it is wrong for pagent judges to punish someone for their personal views. she was asked a question about gay marriage and she answered truthfully. there is nothing wrong with that. i don't really know how these things are judged, but it would seem to me that the context of a statement is not the criteria under which it should be judged.
-Governor Sarah Palin
now on with the palin bashing. its amazing that this woman was a heartbeat of a heartbeat from being a heartbeat away from the presidency. she clearly has no idea what the first amendment means. to help her out, allow me to reprint the text of the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." i would like to invite the erstwhile governor of the great state of alaska to please explain how miss california is being denied her first amendment rights to freedom of speech.
it seems to me that she got herself into hot water because of her first amendment protections, not in spite of it. the first amendment has to do with congress restricting the freedom of speech, not perez hilton. this is the twisted logic of the republican party these days. they clearly have absolutely NO IDEA what the constitution says or means. those parts about due process and protection against cruel and unusual punishment? optional. equal protection of the laws? for everyone but the gays. that part in the preamble that talks about providing for the general welfare? clearly not universal health care, but the part in the preamble about providing for the common defense? that part is all that matters.
this isn't the first time palin has used some weak-ass first amendment defense to shed some crocodile tears. even though i am loathe to help the republicans with anything, my advice to her before 2012 is this: please read the constitution at least once. it might help.
someone needs to buy these people a clue.
No comments:
Post a Comment