Liberals embrace the Constitution only when it supports their agenda | Letter

Two obviously liberal letters printed last week in The Courier-Herald excoriated a previous writer’s views as being harsh and advocating unconstitutional treatment of Bowe Bergdahl, the recently-released captured soldier. As stated by Shakespeare “… (they) doth protest too much, methinks.” Their admonishments might bear more weight if they had not been so blatantly hypocritical when considering the liberals’ stands on the U.S. Constitution; perhaps some introspection is due.

First, the writers’ concerns about the “Mr. Patriot(‘s)” inflammatory word choices amuses one. Their voices went AWOL when Sen. Harry Reid referred to the Tea Party as “domestic terrorists.” Or when one of their “bellowing talking heads…ranting demagoguery…” on MSNBC – Chris Matthews – called the Tea Party “Nazis” and “storm troopers.” Were the writers outraged? Was this “hot talk” from the senator and liberal media “…foment(ing) anger and hate,” or is it OK only when it fits the so-called progressive agenda? Also, Bergdahl’s squad members suffered the progressive press ad hominem attacks because they expressed their first-hand experience of the deserter’s letter and desire to leave his post. Since the factual reports didn’t support the liberal template, these soldiers’ statements were so much grist for the liberal media mill accusing of them “swift boating” Bergdahl.

Secondly, does the First Amendment only extend to speech that agrees with me and must all other be regulated or dismissed? Ironically, the liberals drape themselves in the Constitution only when it mirrors their needs. The president referred to the Constitution as a “…230 years old document that needed updating…” Why, because it thwarts his socialist goals? He further bemoaned the electoral college because it didn’t give the heavily populated states more say in elections. The founding fathers meant it that way to give the little guy states equality; hey, the first affirmative action. Hardly a day passes that the president or like-minded people don’t whine about FOX News – basically the only conservative media left, but it is too much for them.

The ink barely dried on the Obamacare law document when the president began redacting it to fit his political needs. As the chief law enforcement officer of the United States, he doesn’t have constitutional right to change enacted statutes. Sadly, a weak Congress (13 percent approval rating) stood by and watched. Last week the Supreme Court found that some of the Obama recess appointments violated the Constitution. Yes, the liberal progressives love the Constitution when it fits their needs but not so much if it stifles them. Yet, as Hillary Clinton said, “What difference does it make?” – hopefully the next elections will provide the difference.

Let the rights ordained by the Constitution be ever available to all and the people ever vigilant in protecting said rights. Work for term limits and contact your federal/state legislators.

George Terhaar