Today the Democrats are concerned about a rule they changed for political expediency. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, M/P-Nev., pushed through a controversial change to Senate rules that made it easier to approve Obama's nominees but that threatened to further divide an already polarized Congress.
Fifty-two Senate Marxist/Progressives and independents voted to weaken the power of the filibuster. The change reduces the threshold from 60 votes to 51 votes for Senate approval of executive and judicial nominees against unanimous GOP opposition. Three Democrats — Sens. Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Carl Levin of Michigan — opposed the change.
Today, the Republicans have fifty-two Senators. Today the Republicans will not have to contend with the filibuster rule for all executive nominees except for Supreme Court nominees which were not included. Already we are hearing from certain segments of the Marxist/Progressive Party how unfair this change in rules was. Reid pushed it through for political expediency.
Now we are hearing from the Republican side how foolish the Marxist/Progressives are for calling for a recount in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, which by all rational reasoning is correct. Under the law, however, Jill Stien has every legal right to ask for a recount. Trump and many of the Republicans are denigrating Jill Stien, Hillary Clinton, and the other Marxist/Progressives for exercising their legal right. The rule of law says that all laws apply equally to all citizens, even those who oppose the newly elected party. The Republicans, who proclaim to be the party who believes in the Constitution and the principles of the founding fathers should support the right to a recount. The Republicans have no obligation to praise the actions of the Marxist/Progressives or assist them with the recount, but they certainly have the obligation to recognize their legal right.
Many on the right are calling for the outlawing of Sharia law, because it is the law of the Muslim movement. Remember, if Sharia law is outlawed because it is the law of the Muslim movement, then the precedence has been set that any law for any movement or religion could be outlawed simply because it is the law of that movement. Jews were prohibited from owning property in Nazi Germany simply because they were Jews.
Many aspects of Sharia law violate the laws of the United States. For instance, in the United States it is illegal to kill another simply because they do not believe in your religion. In the United States, it is illegal for a family to punish or murder a girl because she dated somebody from outside the Muslim faith. In the United States a woman’s voice in a rape trial counts as an equal voice to a man’s voice. There are many more examples. In the United States, these aspects of Sharia law do not and should not supersede the laws of the United States. As opposed to outlawing Sharia law, the laws of the United States should be enforced regardless of the faith of the individual.
We now have many on the right calling for a law that would terminate the citizenship of anybody burning the American flag or to imprison the culprit. The denigration of the symbol of freedom and hope, the American Flag, in any way is repugnant. It is that symbol of freedom and hope, the American Flag, that insures the right of people to denigrate it in the name of political protest. When we vote to suppress that political speech in any way, we have violated the first amendment. We on the right have expressed outrage, and rightly so, at the efforts of the Marxist/Progressives to suppress our speech. We should not suppress others speech, even though we disagree.
If we truly believe in freedom, we must support freedom for all. When we restrict the freedom of those with whom we disagree, we have in fact endorsed the restriction of our freedom. The beauty of a tyranny, like the one Castro imposed on the Cuban people, is that the ruling people can restrict the freedom of their opponents without being concerned about their freedoms being restricted. In a free society, the restriction of the freedoms of your opponent’s means that you understand you have agreed to having your freedoms restricted when you are no longer a member of the ruling party.
This is what our founders knew and understood. That is why they instituted the principles of rule of law, limited government, divided government, and rule by the people. The founders wanted to preserve freedom for all for themselves and their posterity. Now we have the responsibility to preserve that same freedom for all citizens now and for our posterity.