Friday, June 20, 2008

Blue-belly Democrats- Support the Rule of Law

The time has come for Democrats to actually stand for something. Jim Matheson has that opportunity. Blue-belly Democrats who refer to themselves as "blue dogs" are primed to surrender our Constitutional freedoms under the fourth amendment and grant a corrupt and imperial President, unprecedented powers. They are also primed to grant immunity to telecoms whose complicity in our executive branch's lawbreaking has created a serious Constitutional crisis.

I have no doubt, that Utah's authoritarian conservatives, namely, Hatch, Bennett, Bishop and Cannon will support telecom amnesty and a statutory rape of our freedom from unlawful surveillance. All of them are partisan hacks and respect the constitution as much as they respect the bacon they had for breakfast and just defecated prior to dinner. Bush asks them to jump, and they say how high on their way up. But Matheson, has the freedom to show principle and resolve. He has the truth, and he has the basic and fundamental intent of our founders on his side. If he wishes to oppose the tragic surrender of our civil rights under the Bush Administration's grasping for a FISA bill which grants retro-active immunity for law-breakers, he will show the sort of resolve that Wayne Owens showed when he voted for impeachment of a law-breaking President in Richard M. Nixon.

This issue is so fundamental to our Republic. Will our Congress decide to legitimize law-breaking by statute? Congress, which has oversight responsibilities on the actions of the executive branch cannot abrogate that responsibility without diminishing our Republic to imperial precedent. Will Jim Matheson have the courage and wherewithal to stand for fundamental constitutional principles. Or will he sell out to a fear-mongering executive which uses our fear of terrorism to grant to Al Qaeda further victories by surrendering our collective soul out of basic fear?

The law is the law. If you disagree with the law, change the law. But retro-actively legalizing illegal actions is reprehensible to the principles of the rule of law. What would Scott Matheson jr., a law professor think, of his brother enabling illegal actions by retroactively making them legal? What would his father think? Surrendering to the worst enabling of illegality out of political prudence?

Jim, grow some stones, and Scott, call your brother and set him straight. We are a nation of laws, not of men. Jim can show whether he supports the constitution and the rule of law. Or he can surrender to pragmatic politics.

I'm not a fan of the late Gordon B. Hinckley, but I agree that each of us, must "Stand for Something." Jim Matheson. Stand for the rule of law and oppose the evil and unprecedented FISA law that will come before the U.S. Congress. Show the resolve your predecessor, Wayne Owens showed when he voted for impeachment and probably doomed his ambitions to replace Wallace Bennett in the U.S. Senate. The time has come to show whether a future replica of John F. Kennedy will write of you in their 21st Century version of "Profiles of Courage."

If you read this, please forward this post to Matheson's office.



JM Bell said...

don't forget about:

Obi wan liberali said...

JM, thanks for the link. I didn't know they existed. I'm so pissed right now. It's like the federals holding little round top decided to surrender rather than fight. When you have the high ground, "defend it to the last."

rmwarnick said...

I guess you know by now that today Rep. Matheson voted for yet another unconstitutional law, along with 104 other House Democrats. They all took an oath to support and defend the Constitution.

Obi wan liberali said...

Yep, Richard, I just read the roll call vote and saw that our two fine Utah congressmen (and I use the term men a bit tongue in cheek) Bishop and Matheson voted to eviscerate the Fourth Amendment and retro-actively legalize illegal activity.

Matheson isn't getting a dime from me any more. The Matheson's are old family friends, but I can't in conscience donate my scant resources for this kind of unconstitutional behavior.