Elton John: Most annoying out performer

Elton John

Am I the only one who finds Elton John getting more and more annoying by the day?

First of all — and maybe this is more of an argument with American media than with John — why do I see him referred to as “Sir” Elton so often? I thought we fought a war against the tyranny of a monarchy and as Americans we do not recognize the inequality of those silly titles. The Queen is nothing more than the world’s wealthiest welfare recipient. I do not recognize nobility and I’m won’t call anyone by a title of inequality.

But here’s my real beef:

Two years ago, John was criticizing the LGBT community for pushing for marriage equality rather than civil unions in the Prop 8 debate. Now he’s complaining he can’t get married.

—  David Taffet

Constitutional Tyranny

In the wake of the Prop 8 decision, many people are talking about judicial tyranny and the will of the people. Since there appears to be a general lack of understanding about how our system of government actually works, consider the subject from a different direction: guns.

I hate the fact that private citizens in this country are legally entitled to own firearms.  As part of a frequently murdered minority group, gun ownership terrifies me.  I consider guns a serious threat to my personal safety and to the safety of my family.  I suppose I could tolerate gun ownership if people kept their guns at home behind closed doors, but I shouldn't have to be near them in public, and I certainly don't want schools teaching my children that having a gun is acceptable.

I would be perfectly happy if the right to private gun ownership was completely eliminated, but that won't happen.  No matter how repulsive I find the idea of gun ownership, no matter how many of my neighbors agree with me and no matter how many of us vote to ban them, any attempt to make gun ownership illegal will be overturned faster thanyou can pull a trigger.

That is the power of the United States Constitution.
We the people have the right to make a dizzying array of decisions (wise or foolish) about our government, but the document that spells out that right – the very foundation of our nation – says that there are a few things we simply cannot do.  We cannot deny people the right to bear arms.  We cannot prohibit people from speaking their mind, no matter how hateful their words may be.  We cannot dictate people's religious beliefs, nor may we pass laws that deny rights to women, ethnic groups, veterans, the elderly or any minority group that happens to be unpopular at the moment.

There has been much hue and cry lately about alleged tyranny from the judicial bench, and gnashing of teeth over how one man can override the will of 7 million people.  But as anyone who took US Government in high school should know, federal judges have one job: enforcing the Constitution.  If there is a tyrant in our government, you won't find it in the federal judiciary, but rather in the National Archives in Washington, D.C.

That tyrannical document ensures that 7 million Californians can't make gun ownership illegal in our state.  It viciously ensures that women get to vote, and don't become disenfranchised chattel if they marry men.  It even has the nerve to prohibit home sellers from discriminating against potential buyers based on their race (which is another little “will of the people” gem that a majority of Californians tried to make legal).

The Constitution provides all sorts of guarantees, and any given individual is likely to find at least one of them distasteful, if not downright repulsive.  For me, that happens to be gun ownership.  For others, it might be marriage equality for same-sex couples.  But no matter how much we may dislike those things, and no matter how vigorously we may seek to keep them outside of our homes and our families, we cannot prohibit them in the law.  Our tyrannical Constitution forbids it.

If you believe legal marriage equality violates your religious freedom, consider this: the Constitution that says people around me can own guns also ensures that you have a right to your religious beliefs.   Just like a gun, however, you can't point them at me and pull the trigger.  Your religious freedom applies only to your own life, and cannot be used to deprive me of the pursuit of happiness and freedom from government intrusion in mine.

Unlike another well-known piece of literature, the Constitution is an all-or-nothing deal.  Unless you can get it amended, you must either live by the entire document – including the parts you dislike – or find a new country to call home.

Tyranny, indeed.
Pam’s House Blend – Front Page

—  John Wright

Bigot Pat Buchanan: ‘judicial tyranny’ on Prop 8 a ‘perversion’ of the Constitution

Fortunately, I haven’t seen Pat Buchanan on the air talking about Prop 8 recently, but this article gives every bit of the insight of this man’s view that civil rights should be up for a vote and Judge Walker is part of the judicial tyranny destroying American society.

Walker declared Proposition 8, by which 5.5 million Californians voted to prohibit state recognition of gay marriage, null and void. What the people of California voted for is irrelevant, said Walker; you cannot vote to take away constitutional rights.

If the Walker decision is upheld by the Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court, homosexual marriage will be imposed on a nation where, in 31 out of 31 state referenda, the people have rejected it as an absurdity.

This is not just judicial activism. This is judicial tyranny.

This is a perversion of what the authors of the Constitution wrote and what the states approved. Through such anti-democratic means, the left has imposed a social and moral revolution on America with only the feeblest of protests from the people or their elected leaders.

…Walker says the only motivations behind Proposition 8 had been “biases” and “moral disapproval,” and “moral disapproval … has never been a rational basis for legislation.”

But what else is the basis for laws against polygamy and incest? What else was the basis for the Mann Act, which prevented a man from taking his girlfriend across the state line to a motel?

What is the basis for prohibiting prostitution, a free exchange of money for sexual favors, if not “moral disapproval”?

What the judge is saying with this opinion is that the majority cannot define morality, and, even if it does, it cannot impose it. We are defenseless against what we believe to be moral decadence.

But not even a judge can change the meaning of words. In every language known to man, marriage is defined as a union of a man and a woman. Same-sex marriage is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms.

Walker may call such pairings marriages, but that does not make it so. As Lincoln said, “How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.”

Oh god, it goes on and on…special bonus points for referencing the Declaration of Independence and what Thomas Jefferson thought about homosexuality. Is this a prescription, Pat?

The author of that declaration, Thomas Jefferson, equated homosexual acts with rape and wrote that male homosexuals (they used the term sodomites in that time) should be castrated and lesbians should have a hole cut into their noses.

Also see:
* Pat Buchanan’s latest bigot eruption: ‘Losing White America’
* Uncle Pat on MSNBC: America is “a country built basically by white folks”
* Why does Nazi apologist Pat Buchanan still have a job at MSNBC?
* Pat Buchanan explains White Resentment
* MSNBC’s Pat Buchanan: Powell Endorsement Of Obama Due To Race
* Exhibit A: Pat Buchanan – why we desperately need to discuss race  
Pam’s House Blend – Front Page

—  John Wright