Scott Brown – Compared to Daniel Webster – Ted Cruz – Heads to Liberty – The Natural Order of Politics and the U.S. Constitution

There is much ado about Scott Brown, former Senator from Massachusetts now living in New Hampshire and potentially seeking the Senate Seat in the Granite State. A piece in the Concord Monitor suggests that this maybe the natural order of all things political in the states that made up the beginnings of the United States – the article entitled “Daniel Webster Scott Brown - Can you tell them apart”? is chock full of Brown’s quotes – and one sees the resemblance in the thought process of a thoughtful Senator . (Concord Monitor) The problem with Brown is the lack of support for anyone in politics who happens to run contrary to the standard Political Party dogma, the left-media dogma, and happens to have a bit of Constitutionalism in mind. Darn, someone is seeking a seat, who believes in doing the will of the people!

Similarly, Ted Cruz, the much maligned by his party, the media, the other party, also a Constitutionalist, is headed for Liberty University – shocking to some who believe that Liberty U, the Christian University in the U.S., is a right-wing bastion of all things socially-morally acceptable to the status quo(Washington Post). With a long history of conservatives of all strips giving speeches, commencement addresses and the like, Liberty is yet another spot on the college trail for politicians doing outreach to the youth vote. In today’s society, however, anything that isn’t secular is obviously odd. This given the interpretation of the 1st amendment as meaning “no religion allowed” rather than its intent, giving citizens freedom to choose any religion they please, without fear of a state religion overruling their religious beliefs. Therefore, the media can now brand Senator Cruz as both a “Tea Party” and Religious Right” individual, who is in no-way qualified (due to the aforementioned) to hold public office.

The problem both of these very different individuals have is that they share a common denominator – a belief in the constitution and the role given to the Citizenry and governing – as it was written, rather than how it is interpreted for convenience of one political school of thought. The same may be said of Rand Paul, the 2016 Presidential front-runner (according to polling at the moment), who is wedded as well to the Constitution but from a Libertarian point of view. In this Commonwealth, those holding the Constitution in the same regard, are considered “Jeffersonian Republican’s” a growing segment of the Party, none too pleasing to those who would prefer – a more moderate approach, let’s say.

Good for these men, and good for anyone holding the same core ideologies and good for the country, overall, were we fortunate enough to have more leaders of the same ilk.

Chick-Fil-A Day – Lines Out the Door Across the U.S. In Support of First Amendment

Chick-Fil-A - Lining up for Chicken and Constitutional Rights - photo: urbangrounds.com

The politically embattled fast food chain, Chick-Fil-A, saw a massive increase in customers yesterday – the day dubbed by Former Arkansas Governor and 2008 Presidential Candidate, Mike Huckabee called for a Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day via email and social media. Huckabee, according to the blog Gawker, saw 600,000 individuals sign-up for Huckabee’s event on Facebook alone. “A counter-protest called "National Same Sex Kiss Day at Chick-fil-A" was planned for this Friday, but the event's Facebook page appears to have been deleted.” (Gawker). Politicians across the nation, from Boston’s Mayor to the Mayor of Chicago and points in-between suggested that the firm be shunned (and denied access to build in these cities) because the CEO Dan Cathy expressed his view that he supported traditional marriage – to a Baptist press. The fact that the company operates on Christian principle, closing on Sundays, and treating customers as they would like to be treated, apparently did not factor into the CEO’s personal belief structure when it came to denouncing the chain as “anti-gay”. This set up both a religious backlash as well as a first amendment backlash – resulting in greater support for the food chain. The new mantra, which if one is “for traditional marriage” means that one is “anti-Gay” is generalizing to the extreme. One might even point out that Barney Frank, the retiring, openly gay Congressional Representative from the MA 4th District, got into a heated debate with MSBNC’s Chris Matthews, on the Democrat Party’s Platform inclusion of Gay Marriage as an issue:

The drafting committee has said that it will include same-sex marriage in the party platform. Matthews wondered if it would support leaving the issue up to the states or creating a federal law to allow same-sex marriage.
He asked Frank, a member of the committee, if the Democratic Party’s platform would support such a law.
"I literally don't understand what that means," Frank answered. "There is a fundamental confusion here. There has never been a practical law saying that's what marriage is."
He say that Democrats' stance on gay marriage was already clear, especially in the recent vote on the Defense of Marriage Act. Frank went on to argue that even after the Civil Rights Act, there was never a federal law passed to allow interracial marriage.
"There are other precedents," Matthews argued. He said that the Civil Rights Act was a federal law that mandated access to public accommodations.
"It says nothing about marriage, Christopher!" Frank shouted. "You are wrong, you are wrong, Christopher!"

(Huffington Post)

More on the subject from Mediate suggests “Frank made it clear he opposes such a federal law and wants to leave the issue to the states” (Video on site). Frank’s views on the subject are more centrist, which is how one would imagine that the majority of the public might be.

The extreme over-reaction to an individual (who also happens to be a large and growing employer with restaurants across the country – that might lose business, and as a result cut or not create needed jobs, apparently did not enter into the equation, specifically since there have been no charges on record for bias by this company – had there been, that would have at least lent credence to the Politician’s stance. (Making it less politically opportunistic).

The backlash by politicians and the press over the rights of Dan Cathy to hold his religious beliefs and be public about those beliefs in an interview with a religious (Baptist) press service, was seen by those standing in long-lines and in 100 degree heat, as an attack on religious freedom and perhaps more so, freedom of speech. Huckabee’s involvement can be seen from both perspectives, given the fact that he was a Baptist Minister at one point in his multi-faceted career history.
How “successful” was the day for Chick-Fil-A? – Photo’s on Huckabee’s Facebook Page, with comments, suggest it might have been more than the company could handle – just about. From Huckabee’s Fan page at www.facebook.com/mikehuckabee, one finds that the general public ate a lot of chicken in places such as: St. Augustine FL, Boone, NC, North Palm Beach, FL, Pataskala, OH, Hamilton, OH, Albuquerque, NM (where it was.100 degrees with individuals standing in a long line outside of the building), Indianapolis, IN, San Marcos, CA, State College, PA, points in-between – especially interesting were the locations in Washington, DC and The Chick-Fil-A at the University of Minnesota – all with lines out the door. (One can view the photos by visiting the link provided to Mike Huckabee’s Fan Page).

The politicizing of this event, by both major political party’s (on the Democrat Side re: Gay Marriage and on the GOP side – Individual Rights) somehow does not begin to actually do justice to any side of the argument. For starters, both those who support Gay Marriage as well as those, who for Religious or traditional reasons (that being tradition of marriage – secular), both have a right to say, in this nation, what they choose. If either group cares to protest, there is that right to assemble. The “group identity”, which academics and politician’s neatly place one, in a category (Black, White, Gay, Straight, Woman, Asian, ad nauseum) may make those individuals who strongly believe in the Progressive “class system” (that of elites and then the masses), a bit horrified when one “group” (i.e. “right-wing-religious-zealots” (or to the point, those who, for reasons either First Amendment or Religious (both protected by the Constitution), stands up and protests. The act of buying chicken is not anti-anyone - t – the point is Freedom from Politician’s and over-reach by the Government (and possibly freedom from fund-raising off the issue by any politician regardless of Party) It also doubtful those who are firmly hold the belief that to disagree is to “hate”, will ever understand that there are issues that are multi-faceted, and related to personal liberty – including the rights of those who believe in Traditional Marriage, as well as those who believe in Gay Marriage. Both sides of the debate should be able to stand for and support – by protest, in print, or by what-ever means their point of view.

Catholic Priests Opposition to Pro-Abortion Candidates Intensifies

A Catholic Priest in Modesto California has urged his parishioners who voted for Obama to take confession – a Catholic sacrament of admission of sin. The priest did note that those who knew Obama was pro-abortion and still voted for him were in need of this sacrament. The Bishop in control of that particular parish cried foul – stating parishioners were under no such obligation. This most likely came after the usual hue and cry went out from those who feel that the Catholic Church (rich in Democrat voters) is off limits when it comes to Christian denominations decrying pro-abortion candidates. They draw on the question of “separation of church and state” as applied to the Constitution – which is ludicrous to say the least. However, the Church has every right, under the same clause, to follow its own doctrine, and as such, denounce political candidates who would uphold practices contrary to the Church.

The problem arises when the leadership within the Church (in the United States), has strong affiliations with politicians, most notably Democrats. This results in the chastisement of priests who are merely following established doctrine, by those Bishops who are choosing a political party over the pulpit. In November, at a semi-annual Bishops meeting, Frances George of Chicago noted:

"If the election is misinterpreted ideologically as a referendum on abortion," said Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, "the unity desired by President-elect Obama and all Americans at this moment of crisis would be impossible to achieve."

"Aggressively pro-abortion policies, legislation and executive orders will permanently alienate tens of millions of Americans, and would be seen by many as an attack on the free exercise of their religion," George said.

These statements may be seen as unusual considering the Catholic Church has, for years, been supported by and supporters of Democrat Candidates (Massachusetts: Notrious Cardinal Law received support from Ted Kennedy (D-MA) when petitioned to step down after the child molestation scandal hit the US Catholic Churches )

Why the sudden change of heart towards the tie-in between pro-abortion Catholic candidates and their role in the church? Perhaps it comes to rest on the media itself – with the last two elections (2006 and 2008), high-profile Democrats such as Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden, were touted by the media as “Catholics”, they campaigned as “Catholics”, and yet are decidedly following anti-Catholic doctrine. This “advertising of religious affiliations” which is, by the way, OK for some politicians’, but not for others (Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, to name but two), woke the Church from a long apathetic sleep. Therefore, kudos should go to those priests that will stand up to the Bishops - as well as those Bishops who will support the doctrine and follow their religion before politics, practicing their rights under the First Amendment.