Tag Archives: U.S. Constitution
“It will start getting cooler. Just you watch. . . . I don’t think science knows.”
– President Donald Trump, in response to a reporter’s question about climate change causing wildfires in the Western U.S.
“You know, putting a national lockdown, stay at home orders, is like house arrest. Other than slavery, which was a different kind of restraint, this is the greatest intrusion on civil liberties in American history.”
The event’s host asked Barr to explain the “constitutional hurdles for forbidding a church from meeting during Covid-19.” Barr had recently suggested that Sedition Act charges should be carried out against some protestors – even peaceful ones – to maintain the traditional “law and order” status quo conservatives demand every time civil unrest breaks out over civil injustice. It’s ironic he made his comments during Constitution Day, since the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution covers free speech.
“The blue states had tremendous death rates. If you take the blue states deaths out, we are at a level I don’t think anybody in the world would be at.”
– Donald Trump, noting the slow decline of positivity case rates and hospitalizations while touting the overall federal response to the outbreak at a White House press briefing.
The pandemic has taken nearly 200,000 American lives so far. Aside from claiming that “blue states” (those with Democratic governors) are insignificant, I’m equally appalled he ended his sentence with a preposition – more proof he’s an idiot.
“I think he made a mistake when he said that. It’s just incorrect information and I called him and he didn’t tell me that and I think he got the message maybe confused, maybe it was stated incorrectly. We’re ready to go immediately as the vaccine is announced and it could be announced in October, it could be announced a little bit after October but once we go we’re ready.”
No time is right for a health pandemic, but COVID-19 couldn’t have arisen at a more inconvenient period for Americans: at the start of the 2020 presidential election race. Things had been proceeding somewhat normally until March, when concerns about the “novel coronavirus” began altering the social landscape. When I saw that this summer’s Olympics in Tokyo had been postponed – possibly to next year – I knew our world had been capsized by this invisible biological menace. Viruses, like facts, always have a way of sneaking into our lives and making us rethink everything we’ve ever learned. Facts, however, are good things. But, while a crisis of any kind can bring out the best humanity has to offer, it can also bring out the worst.
Right now political conservatives in the U.S. are trying to finagle the COVID-19 miasma into an obstructionist nightmare for the voting populace. Last week thousands of voters in Wisconsin were forced to leave their homes and venture out to designated polling places to cast their votes for a candidate in the Democratic primary. On April 6, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, refused to allow an extension of absentee voting in Wisconsin; thus, forcing the primary to go on as planned on April 7. On April 2, a federal judge had ruled that absentee voting can be extended. But unsurprisingly, the Republican National Committee appealed the ruling, which landed on the docket of the High Court.
In her dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote that “the court’s order, I fear, will result in massive disenfranchisement.” She went on: “Because gathering at the polling place now poses dire health risks, an unprecedented number of Wisconsin voters – at the encouragement of public officials – have turned to voting absentee. About one million more voters have requested absentee ballots in this election than in 2016. Accommodating the surge of absentee ballot requests has heavily burdened election officials, resulting in a severe backlog of ballots requested but not promptly mailed to voters.”
Political conservatives don’t like it when people they consider insignificant actually have the audacity to practice their right to vote. For a good part of American history, they’ve done just about everything they could – including intimidation and violence – to stifle voting rights; which, they’ve obviously forgotten, is one of the fundamentals of a democratic society. The right to vote is clearly mentioned in the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution! Then again, they may not necessarily forget about it, as they just ignore it. And they always seem to skip over to focus attention on the 2nd Amendment, which addresses firearms.
Conservatives established and enforced such obstructionist tactics as “grandfather clauses”, literacy tests, and poll taxes. Voting advocates had to fight for confidential voting. Early feminists had to do the same to get the 19th Amendment ratified. When President Lyndon Johnson signed the 1965 Voting Rights Act into law, he conceded that he and his fellow Democrats had probably handed the South to the Republican Party. And he was right! Slowly, but surely, over the ensuing decade, many White southerners began switching to the GOP. A number of well-known U.S. politicians, such as Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms, also changed their allegiances to the Republican Party.
The election of Barack Obama solidified in the minds of many conservatives the horrors of expanded voting. They then launched a number of efforts – both at the national and state levels – to ensure that would never happen again. A slew of voter identification rules were suddenly enacted.
The COVID-19 scourge has prompted calls across the nation for expanded absentee voting, such as mail-ins, which has been rebuffed by conservatives who holler voter fraud could result. This week Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton opined that fear of catching the virus does not qualify voters to vote by mail.
But State Judge Tim Sulak ruled that Texans afraid of catching COVID-19 should be allowed to vote by mail during the pandemic, using the state’s disability clause in the state’s election code, and said he will issue a temporary injunction. The Texas Democratic Party and several had filed a lawsuit over concerns that voters in this July’s elections, including the primary runoffs, could come in contact with infected people when voting in person.
“Based on the plain language of the relevant statutory text, fear of contracting COVID-19 unaccompanied by a qualifying sickness or physical condition does not constitute a disability under the Election Code,” Deputy Attorney General Ryan M. Vassar wrote in a letter to Fort Worth State Rep. Stephanie Klick, a fellow Republican.
And, of course, Paxton was “disappointed” that Sulak had “ignored the plain text of the Texas election code to allow perfectly healthy voters to take advantage of special protections made available to Texans with actual illness or disabilities.”
The voter fraud claim is the default mantra of right-wing politicians every time they enact legislation that impacts the voting process. Texas Republicans have long opposed the expansion of mail-in voting. In 2017 the GOP-dominated state legislature stiffened penalties for election fraud.
“Our state is better off when more Texans participate in our democracy,” said Gilberto Hinojosa, chair of the Texas Democratic Party. “Voting by mail is safe, secure and accessible. It allows more voters to participate in our democracy, and it’s a common sense way to run an election, especially during a public health crisis.”
Like the Texas Innocence Project, you know the Texas Democratic Party has their work cut out for them!
Currently, residents over age 65, military members, those who will be away from their residence during voting and people with disabilities can request mail-in ballots. Democrats argue that a disability, defined as a “sickness or physical condition that prevents the voter from appearing at the polling place on election day without a likelihood of needing personal assistance or of injuring voters’ health,” covers all Texas voters under the age of 65, including those who are afraid to catch the COVID-19 virus.
In his letter to Klick, Vassar naturally disagreed, stating that fears of catching the virus is neither a sickness nor a physical condition, but an emotional reaction to the pandemic is not “sufficient to meet the definition of disability”.
It’s ironic that Vassar regards concerns of contracting COVID-19 as emotional. Throughout Obama’s presidency, conservatives screamed that his administration would ban all firearms, abandon Israel, and force churches to conduct same-sex weddings. None of that happened. It never has and most likely it never will. Yet, liberals are always justifiably concerned that voter suppression is a real possibility when conservatives are elected to office. Justifiably concerned because many state legislatures, such as Texas, actually have moved to enact legislation to combat the ubiquitous pandemic of voter fraud.
During Black civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s, news cameras captured horrific scenes of police physically assaulting individuals or using water hoses to attack groups of African-Americans. I’ve seen some of that footage – startling black-and-white images of mostly peaceful citizens wanting to vote or be able to enter a restaurant and have a meal. We don’t see that now. Instead, we see elected officials use the power of their position to suppress voting. Firearms have metamorphosed into pens – but they pose no less of a risk.
While I have my own doubts about the effectiveness of the voting process – the fraud-ridden elections of George W. Bush and Donald Trump being the most recent examples – people in any truly democratic society have the right to cast a ballot. And eventually, the obstructionist tactics of those elected (not ordained) politicians will reveal the truth behind their dubious motives.
Recently, Virginia became the 38th of the United States to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment. It’s been a long-fought battle for proponents of dismantling all barriers to women achieving full and complete equality with males. Earlier this month supporters became ecstatic when both chambers of the Virginia state house approved the amendment.
“We must begin to see a world without discrimination of any kind,” declared Virginia State Senator Mamie Locke. “Equality based on sex is not just good for women, it is good for society.”
Ratification of the ERA reached a critical flashpoint in the 1970s, as more women entered the workforce and began seeking higher levels of education than at any time in U.S. history. When Congress submitted the ERA to the states for ratification in 1972, it gave it a March 1979 deadline for 38 states to ratify it. They didn’t make it. In 1979, however, the U.S. Congress gave the ERA three more years to get ratified. Again, it didn’t succeed. By then, most judicial and legislative experts declared the amendment dead. Even the U.S. Supreme Court, the only court to review it, acknowledged that.
Proponents remained undeterred. The slew of legal machinations born of this ongoing effort is astounding, which is understandable. Our education system often discusses our founding fathers, but – outside of Betsy Ross – says little about our founding mothers. Yes, men devised and built much of the infrastructure and technology that has helped the United States become a wealthy, powerful nation. The same is true for most other developed countries. But women have been at the forefront of change and progress as well. To deny their impact is essentially telling only half of the story.
Still, ERA critics state the ratification process has been unnecessarily complicated and even unconstitutional. Others point to the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which includes the term “equal protection of the laws,” and often refers to citizenship matters. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg (undoubtedly the most progressive of all the Court’s judges) opined that any attempt to ratify the ERA would mean starting over again.
But, as the old saying goes, be careful what you wish for; you might just get it. Full gender equality doesn’t just mean equal pay for equal work – which has been the crux of the argument. It could also mean certain employment standards would have to be adjusted or eliminated. For example, one could argue that physical fitness requirements for firefighters could be declared illegal based strictly on gender. Some women may be able to meet those particular goals, while a number of men couldn’t.
A new argument that has arisen is that the ERA will prevent pro-life advocates and groups from protesting abortion, which is generally aimed at women. It’s a dubious claim at best. Perhaps some birth control methods could come under greater scrutiny. Since birth control pills and IUD’s are consumed primarily by women, does that mean they will have to be deregulated and sold over-the-counter like condoms? Or will condoms become available only by prescription? That’s a disaster waiting to happen!
I personally want to see how ERA advocates react to women being compelled to abide by Selective Service. Currently, all able-bodied, able-minded males in the U.S. are required to register for Selective Service within 30 days of their 18th birthday. There’s no penalty for late registration, but there are a slew for non-registration. Men who don’t register usually can’t enter college or get financial aid. In some places, they can’t even graduate from high school, or could have their diploma rescinded. They can’t obtain federal job training, or get jobs within the federal government. All men who immigrate to the U.S. before their 26th birthday must register in order to garner full citizenship. Failure to register is a felonious offense and punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
Selective Service is the most blatant and deliberate form of gender discrimination. The education penalties alone are violations of Title IX, an act passed by Congress in 1972 and directed towards ending gender imbalances in the education system (mainly college). Contemporary feminists had argued that all-male schools, for example, are unconstitutional if they receive federal funding. But, as I see it, Title IX means nothing, since Selective Service permits discrimination against males.
The Selective Service system refers, of course, to a military draft, which has not been in place in the U.S. since 1973. While it basically means all young men must be available for compulsory military service, it actually means that group is expendable. When the concept of women serving in combat positions in military conflicts arose, many people expressed horror at the thought of women coming home critically disabled or in body bags – as if we’ve made our peace with men returning in the same conditions. Selective Service, therefore, makes young males cannon fodder. Even some disabled men have to register for the draft; that is, if they can leave their dwelling under their own power. If disabled men have to register, why shouldn’t able-bodied women be required to do the same?
How will the ERA affect family leave policies in the American workplace? Most health insurance policies require coverage for pregnancy, and most companies allow for X amount of time off to care for a newborn. But very few companies maintain paternity leave, and I don’t believe any insurance policies plans consider such time a medical issue. Will pregnancy no longer be considered a unique medical condition, but rather, something chronic like diabetes?
Will the Violence Against Women Act have to be restructured to include men, or will it be eliminated altogether? First enacted in 1994, the VAWA seeks to improve criminal justice and community responses to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking in the United States. In effect, it’s also a highly sexist piece of legislation because it assumes either that only adult females are the victims of violence or that adult females are the only victims of violence who matter. The law has been amended in recent years to include lesbian and transgender women – as if men, again, aren’t worth the trouble or should just be left to fend for themselves with laws and processes that don’t really help.
Currently in the U.S. vehicle insurance rates are slanted against males. Most companies will lower insurance rates for females when they reach the age of 21, but only for males when they reach 25. Men can earn lower insurance rates if they marry or have children. Years ago women often couldn’t enter into a contractual agreement without a man as cosigner. That’s now illegal, but will the ERA render the insurance rates’ gender disparities invalid?
Aside from forcing women into the military alongside men, one bloodcurdling fear among social conservatives is that the ERA will compel society to establish unisex public lavatories. Early opponents seemed to focus on this in particular. If that happens, will locker rooms fall to gender equality next? Will doctors be forbidden from letting prospective parents know the gender of their baby after a sonogram?
As a writer, I wonder what the ERA might do to language. It’s more common now to use the term humanity instead of mankind. Will gender-specific pronouns fall out of favor or – worst – be outlawed?
How will the transgendered be impacted by the ERA? Growing up there were only two genders: female and male. Now we have such classifications as non-binary and cisgender. Excuse me?
I know some of these issues seem almost comical, but we really have to think about what gender equality means. I fully believe women are just as capable as men, when it comes to professional matters, such as business and law enforcement. But men and women each possess qualities that are generally unique to our respective gender. Neither set of attributes is superior to the other; they’re meant to work in concert with one another. I’ve always said that, if gender and racial oppression hadn’t been in place for so long, we might have made it to the moon 200 or more years ago. Telephones, motor vehicles and television could be ancient equipment by now.
But alas, our world hadn’t become that progressive until recently. Still, aside from restroom signs and military deployments, gender is not always fluid and malleable.
What does gender equality mean to you?
“It seems clear that [Attorney General William Barr] will do or enable anything to keep Trump in office. And Trump will do anything to stay there. Suspension of the election, negation of the results, declaration of martial law are not simply fanciful, alarmist or crazy things to throw out there or to contemplate. Members of Congress, governors and state legislators, leaders in civil society, lawyers, law enforcement figures and the military need to be thinking now about how they might respond.”
– Norm Orenstein, Chair of American Enterprise Institute of Public Policy Research
Donald Trump has joked recently that he might not leave office after a second term, as mandated by the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This particular amendment was ratified in response to the 12-year tenure of Franklin D. Roosevelt. The original authors of the Constitution had never intended for any elected Chief Executive to hold the position as if it were a divinely-inspired monarchy. They certainly didn’t anticipate Roosevelt, but they most likely designed the Constitution with concerns about scandalous characters like Trump. Our 45th Chief Executive made his claim about an extended presidency last month at a conference of the conservative Israeli-American Council in Hollywood, Florida. I’ve always found it oxymoronic – downright hypocritical, actually – that Trump bears such ardor for Israel and the Jewish people, while openly courting White supremacists. But that’s a different subject.
The thought of Trump holding just one term in the White House was frightening enough three years ago. That he could be elected to a second term is deeply unsettling. That he could somehow forcibly remain in the office even one day longer makes the bloodiest horror films look like Hallmark greeting card commercials.
Yet Trump is delusional enough to believe that’s a real possibility, and he has plenty of supporters who would be comfortable with such a scenario. Those of us who live in the real world understand this simply could not be allowed per that pesky 22nd Amendment. Still, even some constitutional experts have surmised Trump might make such an attempt. That would be reality TV at its worst! Richard Nixon quietly left the White House, following an impassioned farewell speech to his staff, in August of 1974. There were no guns blazing or hand grenades exploding. Nixon and his family weren’t spirited out of the White House through a tunnel to avoid angry mobs of detractors. The Nixons simply strolled onto the South Lawn, accompanied by newly-appointed President Gerald Ford and his wife, Betty, to Marine One. The helicopter made the loudest sound of anything. That’s how a peaceful transition of power occurs, even in the most dire and tense of situations.
With Trump, I can almost see him and his wife, Melania, scurrying through that tunnel in a setting reminiscent of Romania’s Nicolae and Elena Ceaușescu. I honestly don’t believe it will ever come to that sanguineous of a climax. Yet, I wouldn’t put it past the infantile Trump to grip onto the door frame of the master bedroom.
But, while Trump’s behavior can’t be taken too lightly, another aspect of the current American experience that definitely shouldn’t be dismissed is the effect Trump’s presidency has had on his faithful minions and the sentiments that put someone like him into office. Decades of socially progressive behavior and legislation gave us Barack Obama and others like him; individuals who didn’t meet the traditional standard of those in position of power. In other words, Obama and others weren’t White males. Just a half century ago it was inconceivable that someone like Obama could ascend to the highest elected office in the land. It was unimaginable that Nancy Pelosi would be the one banging the gavel in the House of Representatives. Only a handful of visionaries thought it possible that Hilary Clinton could be a serious contender for the presidency, or that Pete Buttigieg could live openly gay AND serve in the U.S. military AND talk about having a “husband.” People born, say, since 1990 have no idea what a vastly different world it is today than in the few years before their time.
Now, it seems the nation has digressed with Donald Trump. Decades ago, Ronald Reagan aspired for America to return to a time before the 1960s messed up everything. That was a simpler time for him and others just like him. But it meant Blacks sat at the back of the bus; women sought nothing but marriage and motherhood; queers remained in the closet; and Native Americans languished as comical figures on TV screens. The 1960s may have messed up the world for the likes of Reagan and Nixon, but it opened up the universe for everyone else.
As I marched through my junior year in high school, I began receiving phone calls from a man with the local recruiting office of the U.S. Army. I believe I’d spoken to him at least twice, before my father happened to answer the phone one day; whereupon he politely told the man that I had plans for college and that he and my mother were determined to ensure I get there and graduated. Just a few years later I’d openly stated I had considered joining either the Navy or the Marines. And each time my father talked me out of it. In retrospect, I understand why.
As a naïve high school student in the late 1940s, my father had been convinced NOT to take a drafting course and instead go for something in the blue collar arena. “Most Spanish boys do this,” is how he quoted the female school counselor telling him. My father liked to draw and – much like his own father – had the desire and talent for an architectural profession. But he’d been talked out of it. Because that was what most “Spanish boys do”. College was for White guys. Trade school and the military were for everyone else.
Years of struggle – working twice as hard for half as much – and assertive civil rights action had led America to the early 1980s, when I graduated from high school. And didn’t have to join the military. In the spring of 1983, I was sitting in a government class at a local community college, when the instructor asked, “What do we owe minorities in this country?”
Seated in the row in front of me was a young man who had graduated with me from the same high school. I knew his name, but I didn’t know him personally. Without missing a beat, he muttered, “Nothing.”
Only the few of us nearby heard him. He was White, as was most everyone else seated on either side of him. From my vantage point directly behind him, he looked angry; as if he’d been robbed of something that was rightfully his.
I finally spoke up and informed the class that “this country” owes the same thing to minorities that it does to everyone else: equality and fairness; “the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, as prescribed in the Declaration of Independence. I added, “Nothing more, nothing less.”
That one young man and the others nearby nodded their collective heads and looked at me, as if I’d said something unbelievably profound – which, to them, it may have been.
That level of total fairness and freedom hasn’t been easy. But nothing so monumental as dramatic cultural changes are. The Civil War, for example, ended more than 150 years ago. Yet, some people in the Deep South of the United States still can’t let that go. They still insist it was a war over states’ rights, not slavery. They’ve been fighting that conflict all these years and they still haven’t won!
That’s a little of what Donald Trump’s presidency is all about: a bunch of old-guard folks wanting to maintain things as they were way back when. And it’s just not going to work for them any longer. The old White Republicans dominating the U.S. Senate disrespected Barack Obama as much as they could without making it too glaringly obvious. They did everything they could to undermine his presidency and essentially failed at every step. If anything, they only hurt the country and their reputations.
Social and political conservatives can’t return to an America of the 1940s and 50s any more than liberals can return to an America of the 1990s. Memories are forever, but time marches onward. It always has and it always will. Trump’s presidency may be the final battle cry of the angry White male.
But we can’t go back to whenever. Time continues.
“Never let yourself be persuaded that any one great man, any one leader, is necessary to the salvation of America. When America consists of one leader and 158 million followers, it will no longer be America.”
From a political standpoint, this has not been a good week for the United States. On Wednesday, the 18th, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to impeach President Donald Trump. Trump now holds the dubious distinction of being only the third Chief Executive to be recommended for removal from office. As much as I personally despise our Russian-elected president, I’d rather see him voted out of office next November than be forcibly removed. It would be the single strongest message to Trump and his band of right-wing sycophants that their extremist ideology is of no use to the American populace.
But the impeachment process hints at a failure in our national leadership and puts the institution of voting into question. As the oldest continually-functioning democracy in the world, the U.S. has always been a beacon of freedom; our constitution an enviable guide to how a nation should operate. Our right to vote is a core element of our very national existence. It’s the heart of our democratic soul. The president of the United States is often deemed the leader of the Free World. That other elected officials would seek to oust him from that pinnacle slashes at our democratic heart.
I’m old enough to remember Watergate. Even people who considered themselves staunch conservatives had to concede that President Richard Nixon was as crooked and devious as his detractors made him out to be. On the night Nixon announced his resignation, millions of Americans tuned into the live broadcast. Afterwards there was no sense of real jubilation. As the nation inched closer to its bicentennial, most people – including my parents – felt sad. When Nixon left the White House, the transition of the office occurred at the tip of a pen, instead of the barrel of a gun. After all, we didn’t live in a third-world society. No tanks, no bombs and no bloodshed. Still, Americans asked, how did we get to this point?
I definitely recall the Clinton impeachment fiasco. My brain and body became flush with anger at the self-righteousness of the Republicans Party. They had done everything to undermine Bill Clinton’s presidency – even before he won the Democratic Party’s formal nomination. And they failed. Their bloodthirsty overreach extended shamelessly to the president’s secretary and the mother of the woman who kept that infamous blue dress. They paid the price for their arrogance in the November 1998 midterm elections. They lost their super-majority in both houses of Congress. Conversely, the Democrats gained seats; the first time the same party as the president attained positions in the House and the Senate in a midterm election since 1942.
And now, here we are – for the second time some twenty years – at the threshold of usurping the leader of the Free World. How did we get to this point? As I wrote in an essay two years ago, impeachment should not be taken lightly. Neither politicians nor average citizens should become obsessed with it. A sanguineous mindset traumatizes the national soul.
With the term “impeached” now added to the title of President, Donald Trump’s place in political history has been secured – unpleasantly and distastefully carved into the American psyche. He cannot escape it. Deny it, yes, as his narcissistic persona is already doing. But – like the sky – it’s ubiquitous and unmalleable.
How painful for this nation.
“If the society today allows wrongs to go unchallenged, the impression is created that those wrongs have the approval of the majority.”
“Just read the Transcript. The Justice Department already ruled that the call was good. We don’t have freedom of the press!”
Here’s a much-needed refresher for Trump and other right-wing extremists. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees:
“The actions of the Trump presidency have revealed the dishonorable fact of the president’s betrayal of his oath of office, betrayal of our national security and betrayal of the integrity of our elections. Therefore, today, I am announcing the House of Representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry.”
– Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, initiating impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump
Here in Texas, as well as in other predominantly conservative regions of the United States, the term “liberal” is equal to demonic. Personally, I consider myself a political and social moderate – which, to most conservatives – still means liberal. Anything to the slightest left of the small-minded rhetoric of right-wing, Judeo-Christian ideology is blasphemously liberal. But, as you surely know by now, I deplore being placed in boxes to suit other people’s needs and desires. Those who have dared to always end up with a rectal thermometer-style rebuke from me. Their rules don’t apply to me.
But, for the past 30 years, liberals have allowed themselves to be defined by the opposition. They’ve hidden their true sentiments about politics and social order within the lockboxes of their minds. Outspoken liberals have been relegated to the coastal U.S. and urban America. Thus, they are viewed as elitists and globalists; cretins who dismiss the notion of “American exceptionalism” (whatever the hell that’s supposed to mean).
In truth, liberal means educated and open-minded; compassionate and understanding. I’m steadfast in my own outlook and opinions. Overall, I’m just left of the center, which – again – means extremist, bleeding-heart, bed-wetting liberal to the right-wingers. They can call me whatever name they wish, if it makes them feel empowered in their MINI Cooper of a mind. I’ve endured worst name-calling grade school.
But, if being liberal means…
- I believe true freedom begins with free speech and the right to vote and not with a gun.
- I believe the United States was founded on religious freedom and separation of church and state and not Judeo-Christian beliefs.
- I don’t believe White males have all the answers.
- Europe is not the foundation of civilization.
- I read more than the Christian Bible and a TV guide.
- Men and women possess different attributes, but are still equal
- The human race is really the only race on Earth.
- There is life beyond this planet.
- Industrial enterprises don’t have the right to profitably pollute the environment.
- Queer people aren’t diabolically dangerous.
…then you can call me a liberal. I call myself a human being with my own thoughts and opinions. And I don’t have to run any of these by other folks, just to get their approval.