Guest Columnist: V. Rubashov
The reason America's politicians are so dishonest is because establishment opinion DEMANDS that they be dishonest. Look at what happened to Congressman Scott Garrett when he raised the question as to why a party that opposes same-sex marriage actively recruits candidates who support same-sex marriage. You can read for yourself here the official position of the Republican Party of the United States of America:
"Congressional Republicans took the lead in enacting the Defense of Marriage Act, affirming the right of States and the federal government not to recognize same-sex relationships licensed in other jurisdictions. The current Administration's open defiance of this constitutional principle--in its handling of immigration cases, in federal personnel benefits, in allowing a same-sex marriage at a military base, and in refusing to defend DOMA in the courts--makes a mockery of the President's inaugural oath. We commend the United States House of Representatives and State Attorneys General who have defended these laws when they have been attacked in the courts. We reaffirm our support for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. We applaud the citizens of the majority of States which have enshrined in their constitutions the traditional concept of marriage, and we support the campaigns underway in several other States to do so."
2012 Republican Party Platform , Aug 27, 2012
As we can see, it wasn't really out of line for an inquiring mind to ask why a political party that adopted the position above would be activity recruiting candidates who opposed that position. The Defense of Marriage Act, around which the Republican Party organized its position was passed in the United States House of Representatives with 342 members of congress -- 224 Republicans and 118 Democrats -- voting yes. Only 65 Democrats and 1 Republican voted against it. In the Senate it passed with the support of 84 Senators. 32 Democrats joined every Republican in voting for it. Only 14 Democrats opposed it. Bernie Sanders, then an Independent Socialist member of Congress voted against the Defense of Marriage Act. President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, proudly signed it into law.
First Lady Hillary Clinton stood by her man. A few years later, when she was an elected official herself, the beautifully coiffed United States Senator from New York took an unmistakably conservative position on same-sex marriage.
We wonder which Clinton speechwriter wrote those words? Was it the one who is now running for Congress against Scott Garrett? The one filling his campaign coffers with money from what Vermont's Senator Bernie Sanders calls "corrupt Wall Street operators"?
If you are a supporter of this Clinton speechwriter or of Clinton for President don't think that you are going to get away with criticizing Congressman Scott Garrett for holding the same position you held until you collected millions in contributions from pro-LGBT corporations and lobbyists who commissioned polling to show that you could safely execute a flip-flop on the issue. That's not being a statesman. That's just allowing yourself to be bribed. Think Steve Sweeney: New Jersey's Senate President, south Jersey political machine apparatchik, sometime lobbyist for the Ironworkers Union (also known as "the church burners"), and flip-flopper extraordinaire -- when the price is right.
The ONLY people who have the intellectual honesty to criticize Congressman Garrett are those who support the United States Senator from the great State of Vermont, the former Mayor of Burlington and Chairman of the Liberty Union Party, Bernie Sanders. THEY have the standing to criticize Congressman Garrett -- not the imperial Clintons or their paid mouthpiece.
The hypocrisy of those who support the imperial Clintons and their speechwriter is beginning to show signs of wear. Supporters of the Clinton speechwriter recently went on line to criticize Congressman Garrett's attempt to make nice to the LGBT community. One such creature claimed to be a college professor and advanced an argument both illogical and illiberal. He says that because Garrett holds today the same view that Bill and Hillary and Barack and most elected Democrats held yesterday, he has no right to even hold office and should resign immediately and not run again. Who would want to be in his class? You know this so-called "educator" would likely fail you if you disagreed with him, even if he was disagreeing with the position he held only yesterday.
The imperial Clintons and their lackeys must not be allowed to advance their hypocritical line of attack against an honorable public servant like Congressman Scott Garrett. Hold them to account.