Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Newspapers calculated tyranny and their attack on democracy.

We have two ongoing examples of newspapers, who are SUPPOSED to be the Guardians of Democracy (tm) who are now busy trashing it.

The first, more locally, is the democratian, who despises votes when the outcome can interfere with their agenda.  Think ballparks; unneeded, unwanted and unaffordable bridges and loot rail and the like.

The Seattle TimesThe second is the Seattle Times, who believe the people are too stupid to vote on the garbage heap that is gay marriage.


The rights of minorities should not be subject to whims of majorities, which is what happens when such choices are offered to voters. The Washington Legislature should vote for same-sex marriage without a referendum requiring a public vote.
THE idea of requiring a public vote on a bill legalizing same-sex marriage has surfaced in Olympia. This is the halfhearted approach. Lawmakers should vote for a clean bill.
Slapping a referendum on the legislation is another way of saying, "We should probably legalize gay marriage, but maybe the public should cover us in case we are making a mistake."
Gay marriage is about fairness and equality for all Washington's families. It is the civil-rights issue of our time and requires persistence and unfail-ing courage.
Rights of minorities should not be subject to whims of majorities, which is what happens when this is offered to voters.
Last week, state Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen, D-Camano Island, took a bold stance and said, while she preferred a public vote, she would vote for same-sex marriage in Olympia. If she has second thoughts about a referendum, she should go with the decision to support a bill without a public vote. We elect leaders to make tough decisions, not turn to voters every time legislation is challenging.
Yet, because the vote is so close — Haugen is the 25th and final vote needed in the Senate — others representing districts that favor gay marriage should join the majority.
It's difficult to point out all of the lies and exaggerations in such a small amount of text, but rabid support of a position such as that of the Time's effort here frequently results in lies and exaggerations precisely like those shilled here.

The first lie is the headline: Legislature should vote for same-sex marriage, not leave question up to voters.

Decoded, what this headline really says is this:

"Democrat-controlled legislature is a sure thing; the will of the people shouldn't be allowed to screw that up, since we support the issue."

At a minimum, the moron who wrote this editorial is disingenuous at best.

But then, coming out and just telling the truth would lead to just the tiniest bit of drama deflecting from their campaign intent.

And where's the democracy in all of this?

For those who might happen to see it the Times' way, I offer up Article One, Section One of the Washington State Constitution, the most ignored document on the face of the planet:
SECTION 1 POLITICAL POWER. All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.
The rag's position on this is clear: It's an agenda from people who see their judgement as superior to that of the people, not unlike their fellow practitioner's of "Third Reich-style democracy".

But the fact is that their is no "right" to "gay marriage," if gay marriage" were a "right" then the government or the Constitution would have addressed it... "enumerated" it... two centuries ago.

I know it, they know it, and the Goebbelian premise that it IS a right is just that: a lie wrapped around social engineering that this rag wants to impose on the people instead of allowing the people to have a say.  repeat it long enough and loud enough and it becomes a truth... in their minds.

Gays also don't constitute a "minority."  While it's true that there are so few of them as to be insignificant, sexual practices do not result in the "gift" of minority status.

Again, the rag knows this.  For those disagreeing, by all means, please show in any hiring law where gays are afforded the protection of affirmative action.

Tick tock.... tick tock.

Cricket chirp.

The next lie is this nonsense:
Slapping a referendum on the legislation is another way of saying, "We should probably legalize gay marriage, but maybe the public should cover us in case we are making a mistake."
So, taking that bizarre perspective to its zenith, we should have no referendum or initiative votes of any kind.  Period.  Forget about bonds and levies.  In fact, forget about elections at all.  Because obviously the unpleasantness of democracy just has no appeal to these slime... and we should just do away with it altogether.

But you've got to wonder: what would their position be if the shoe were on the other foot?

Would would these same hypocrites be writing if the vote was to do away with gay marriage?

Would these same slime want the people excluded from THAT vote? 

Of course not.  And it's the stench of their rank hypocrisy on the issue that overwhelms all of the many other smells emanating from this crock pot of tyranny.

In Balter's bizarro world, the Legislature should unilaterally remove the bond, levy and election clauses from our state's constitution in their entirety because, well, after all, this despicable rag and this rag alone is the sole arbiter of what a referendum clause means and why they do it.

And this gets to the heart of the matter.

Going back top Article One, Section One of the state constitution:

ALL POLITICAL POWER IS INHERENT IN THE PEOPLE.

ALL. 

Not "some."

Not "a little bit."

Not "except when we fear the people might disagree with us."

ALL.

The situational ethics is, of course, despicable: it always is.

Clearly, those of the Nazi-like tendencies expressed in theTimes' editorial FEAR the will of the people while I embrace it.  And ramming this down our throats without our say will solve nothing and accomplish nothing, save to cement opposition and REAL discrimination because we weren't asked.

Imagine how much better off this entire situation would be if, for once, THE PEOPLE actually voted this in?

It would be a first, of course, because the gays have lost EVERY statewide vote on the issue... even Prop 8 in California.

Which goes to the REAL reason the Times doesn't want us to have a say in all of this: they don't want to run the risk that we'd disagree with them.  And then what?  What if the people of this state sent a message to the Times and every other leftist rag about their agenda?

That's what's driving this crap.

That a newspaper... particularly one seeking yet another tax break... should fear the will of the people?

What is that if it isn't an advocacy for tyranny?

There are more lies, labels and exaggerations in this horrific editorial.  They lionize sellouts like Sen Haugen, who knows damned well this should go to a vote... said as much... and then became the 25th sell out to keep that from happening.

She's carrying their water like Gunga Din, so their drowning her in barrels of ink.  I wonder what her re-election chances are?

It's a column of lies, the type spewed out by uber-fringe-leftist Seattle Times' columnist Joni Balter, who would be thrilled, no doubt, to be able to marry her girlfriend; given her stark alternative.

But in the end, what matters the most in this garbage heap is that when it mattered... when it really counted... the Seattle Times didn't want the will of the people to clutter their landscape.

And they are despised for it.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Human rights is not a political issue. Period.

Just a guy said...

Swell. Which has precisely what to do with this issue or what I wrote?

Anonymous said...

This.

"Rights of minorities should not be subject to whims of majorities, which is what happens when this is offered to voters"

Just a guy said...

except, of course, gays are not a minority. so, we're back to square one, your (and the Times') histrionics notwithstanding.

Martin Hash said...

I wonder if "Anonymous" also supports the "rights of minorities" for the rich (which are a definite minority)? Or perhaps s/he only selectively supports "minority rights"?

Anonymous, dude, if you're going to promote "Gay rights," do it with the law, man.

Just a guy said...

Werd.