ELDER PATRIOT – For years the Democratic Party was referred to as the “mommy party” because of their emotional response to the issues of the day while the Republicans were called the “daddy party” because of their hard line on fiscal and social issues. As the nation has lurched to the left those labels are no longer accurate. Today, the Republican Party more resembles the “mommy party” while the Democrats would best be described as the party of the “petulant child” because of their large number of supporters who willingly disregard Constitutional precedent and process to get what they want now.
This shift has left no responsible leadership in Washington to stand guard on our values or our money.
Now comes an anarchist from Wisconsin playing the role of a Senator, devoid of any understanding or historical context of the Constitution or the liberties that it protects. Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) says that First Amendment protections don’t apply to individuals.
In its entirety, the First Amendment states:
“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.”
So simple and straightforward is this text that even the Supreme Court had to acknowledge its protective veil over the individual’s right to worship.
Yet the people of Wisconsin have presented us with this intellectually dishonest imperator who has been so kind as to bless us with her own, contrary version of the Amendment’s meaning:
“Certainly the First Amendment says that in institutions of faith that there is absolute power to, you know, to observe deeply held religious beliefs. But I don’t think it extends far beyond that. . . . [I]n this context, they’re talking about expanding this far beyond our churches and synagogues to businesses and individuals across this country. I think there are clear limits that have been set in other contexts and we ought to abide by those in this new context across America.”
The inconsistency of her thinking is astounding to any sober listener. Three years ago the senator campaigned on overturning the Citizens United case because she claimed that in this First Amendment case, corporations should not be afforded the same freedoms as individuals. Which is it Senator, does the First Amendment apply to individuals or to corporations? For her it applies where her progressive agenda is best benefitted. For the Supreme Court it applies to both.
This is always a chance that the Senator is not ignorant of the Constitution’s restrictions protecting the government’s infringement on the individual’s religious freedom, but that she is actually a soldier on the frontline of the Progressive Movement. Perhaps she is opening a new front against religion in America that her secular followers will rally behind.
This technique has been used successfully by the Left to influence their followers even when there exists no basis in law. As an example, Hillary Clinton proposed national healthcare during her husband’s first term as president. It cost President Clinton control of the House of Representatives at the next mid-term elections. But, it ignited a great debate over healthcare as a right and, after a decade and a half of mainstream media influence over the discourse, public opinion had shifted enough that Obamacare was shoved down our throats. After the legislative functions were complete, it only required influencing the vote of single Supreme Court Justice, on a court evenly divided along ideological lines, to make it “legal.”
Senator Baldwin is just the latest member of Washington’s ruling elite who was sworn into office by repeating these words:
“I do solemly swear, or affirm, that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and I will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States,”
and, then violated their oath.