With Charlton Heston's Passing, Liberals Parade Inconsistencies

Charlton Heston died on Saturday, April 5. His body hasn't even gotten cold, and his liberal critics are all over the net, praising his death.

Heston, as former president of the National Rifle Association, drew constant criticism of his defense of the right to bear arms, and I don't understand why. Liberals claim to love the Constitution and claim to seek to defend its principles, yet attack Mr. Heston for doing the same thing.

Before I go on a rant, I must ask: why do liberals associate inanimate objects with crime, while viewing the criminals who can use any inanimate object to hurt another person as victims of economics, the system, whitey, and everything else but the crime? It defies rationality.

But to analyze the controversy, we must analyze liberalism. is liberalism for civil rights? No.

Case in point #1: free speech is revokable if you say anything deemed offensive or hate speech. Just look at the censorship that occurred over the whole Mohammed cartoon mess. Just look at Isiah Washington, Don Imus, and many others losing their livelihoods for using simple words others didn't like. Just look at Europe where people are actually scheduled to go on criminal trial, punishable by imprisonment for criticizing Islam's violent spread.

Case in point #2: Freedom of public assembly and freedom of expression can be revoked on public land if you are Christian because of "separation of church and state," which does not even exist in the constitution. "Separation of Church and state" originates in a letter by Thomas Jefferson. The constitution says that CONGRESS cannot support nor deny free expression of religion, and says nothing about how anyone with a religious view can be excluded from constitutional public property rights. But liberals argue that's IMPLIED, so revoking equal public speech, assembly, and expression rights of Christians is justified.

Case in point #3: Liberals routinely throw out the constitutional right to vote and democracy itself in court, where they have a judge decide what is law. An example is Farmer's Branch near Dallas, in which citizens legally passed a law requiring proof of citizenship for renters. Liberal pro-illegal groups didn't like it, even though the voters legally passed it, so they went to court where one single judge threw out democracy and decided what the laws are. I am not taking a side on illegal immigration here, but I do see a problem where the public's vote is deemed worthless by the courts.

The Constitution has a process for adding new provisions through adding new amendments, but liberals cringe at this idea. That means talking to people, negotiating, compromising, and working out a deal. Instead of adding new amendments for things like gay marriages, or even to revoke previous amendments (like the right to bear arms, which would be legal to do if done through the adding of a new amendment), liberals instead have a judge (usually San Francisco's nut-job 9th district court) re-interpret what's already there to make it fit their agendas.

What Heston did with his career was to defend the basics of the basics when it comes to our constitution, and that's not a bad thing. He never once condoned criminals nor condoned the use of weapons by criminals. His concern was the rights of the law-abiding citizens who never hurt anyone. But somewhere along the way, liberals associate inanimate objects with crime, and not the criminals. I suppose Hitler's pen is responsible for the Holocaust since it was his words that did it? I suppose Boeing was responsible for 9/11 since Al Qaeda used their planes? Just ideas to blame inanimate objects for the actions of evil men.