The ongoing mosque controversy has conservatives focusing on President Obama's backtracking and "clarification" of remarks about the mosque.
As mealy-mouthed as these remarks are, and as deaf-toned to the 9-11 victims his positioning on the matter is, the commentary should focus on the president's articulation and defense of constitutional protections of fundamental freedoms.
How many times do we hear partisan progressives defend religious freedom, private property, and property rights?:
And during the "clarification" of his remarks, the president defended equal protection under the law and the rights that "date back to our founding:
Now that we've heard the president, the elected leader of our nation and leader of the Democrat Party, clearly articulate and defend these constitutionally protected freedoms and give a nod to the founding era that recognized the necessity of limiting the power of government to protect these rights, the task for critics and supporters of the president should be to remind him and his party of this unambiguous defense of freedom.
Now, the question becomes: Are these rights reserved solely for the exercise of religion and the building of mosques, or do they apply elsewhere? Does private property include the fruits of our labor, income, and property rights include protection from confiscation of that property?
Speaking of equal protection under the law, does a progressive income tax and a 68,000 page and growing tax code applied unequally to the tax-paying public offend the president as much as an unequal protection of our religious freedoms?
Will the president make similar remarks in January when we are scheduled for a tax increase?
Will the most private of property, our physical well being, be protected from government interference under the new health care law, with myriad new bureaucracy and powers added to the government? Is the private exercise of our conscience via religion more to be protected by limitations on the state than the private exercise of our health?
Oh, that the president would clarify those 2,700+ pages and reassure us he is as concerned about all our constitutionally protected rights and freedoms as he is concerned about the exercise of religion in lower Manhattan.
|
|
|
|
|
