Running on the Republican party platform of small government, fewer intrusive regulations, and strict constitutional interpretations, he also believes that abortion clinics should have more regulations, that the government should spend hundreds of thousands of dollars overseeing science and persecuting....er prosecuting scientists whose work is threatening to business, and that the constitutional mandate to promote the general welfare means nothing.
How is it that someone who professes to believe in individual freedoms, can support laws such as the infamous Arizona immigration laws requiring every person to have proof of citizenship on them at all times? How can someone believing in small government say that personal sexual preferences should be monitored and regulated by the government? How can he justify forcing women to endure unwanted pregnancies? And does he really believe that elected politicians are best qualified to evaluate scientific research? The clear pattern is that government regulations and control of private lives are fine and even desirable as long as they support the "conservative" agenda. Doesn't he know that the founders were political liberals?
What a bloody hypocrite. If the second amendment means that no local government anywhere can regulate guns in any manner (despite the clear mandate for regulation in the introductory clause) then surely the preamble of the constitution means that the federal government CAN in fact collect taxes to promote the general welfare.
No comments:
Post a Comment