No, not that he has thinner skin and is more easily offended and triggered than the most delicate of liberal snowflakes, though that is patently true. Conservatives who love to think of their leader as "tough" should do some serious re-evaluating on that one, though of course they will not.
And it's not even the issue about how immature and childish he is in general, both in what he tweets on twitter and how he responds when it's ever dished back.
No, it's a Constitutional issue and a real one. It's about his violation of the 1st amendment rights of various citizens, of which this model who hurt his wittle itty-bitty feelings was just the latest to be so deprived of her inalienable rights.
What violation? What right? Deprived of what?
Oh, my dear conservatives, you who are so able and willing to quote the 2nd amendment in full (and I'm pro-2nd amendment, so don't go there!) don't remember the 1st amendment?
Here you go:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I would draw your particular attention to the "or of the press" and the "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".
You see, just like the 2nd amendment is not a right to a musket, but to whatever gun exists nowadays, so the right to a free press and to petition your government is not speaking of a quill and ink on parchment, or the ability to hitch up your wagon to a mule and visit the White House.
If a President - say Barack Obama - had set a policy that said that any of the press could see his press releases, but not Rush Limbaugh, you'd have been furious. And if a President - say Barack Obama, still y'all's favorite boogeyman - had said that any could call up the White House and petition him for a redress of grievances, except Glenn Beck, you'd have been furious again!
And if any one said, "But hey, Rush can just learn of what the President is saying second hand, so no biggie!" you'd justly be against that, and cry out the louder! And if anyone said, "Well, Glenn can't call, but he can still email, so he's still okay!" you'd be whining your bottoms off about discrimination and undue burden!
Well, conservatives, it works both ways. The Whiner-in-Chief has shut out a citizen of the United States from reading of his pronouncements. Everyone else - save a select few others that frighten him and wound his wittle feelings - can see what he tweets each day at three or four in the morning, but these ones cannot.
And everyone who wants can tweet a complaint against the President and have at least there be some chance of him seeing it, but not this model. Nor any of those in general that triggered or offended the Donald.
And that not only is unfair, that not only is childish, but it is a bona-fide violation of the First amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.
And it needs to stop.
The President of the United States needs to learn what the least Mayor of the least village already learned. That if you're going for public office, if you're then holding public office, you must be there for the public. ALL the public, not just those who praise your name to the skies, but those who dislike you, your policies and any and all that you might stand for.
That's the deal, that's the rule, and it's been in place since Democritus and Republicus duked it out for who'd be Mayor of Athens back in whatever century BC! You're elected by the majority of the people, but you serve the totality of the people. That obvious fact is obvious.
So. Our President now needs to use his tiny hands to wipe away his wittle tears and unblock those citizens who wounded him in his buttocks. If there are some from other nations, he may Constitutionally leave them blocked, though maturity would dictate otherwise.
Or he may resign to the private sector, where you're allowed to ignore others who say things that frighten or upset you. Yeah. Really. And I doubt I'm the only person to have this occur to them, I fully expect some legal scholars to write on this at some point.
No comments:
Post a Comment