The focus in the coming days will be all about Rep. Ryan's budget blueprint and Medicare proposal. Let's hope the American people also get a debate about his blueprint for LGBT equality, immigration, voting rights, reproductive freedom and other constitutional issues. Indeed, it's just as abysmal as Romney's.
On LGBT equality, opposed allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military and supported enshrining anti-gay discrimination into the U.S. Constitution twice and the Wisconsin Constitution as well.
Forget about Ryan joining the bi-partisan ranks in Congress who are trying to move our nation to a more humane immigration policy. He opposes the DREAM Act and voted for building a fence across the U.S.-Mexico border.
He's also in lock-step with the decades-old assault on women's reproductive freedom. He voted against Planned Parenthood funding and repeatedly voted to roll back abortion rights.
He also supports voter ID laws that would disenfranchise thousands of citizens in his home state.
There's no constitutional daylight between Ryan's civil liberties positions and Romney's and that means a pall of darkness over our Constitution and the rights it guarantees.
In the coming months, we need a vigorous debate about civil liberties, including a safe and free national security policy, for which President Obama and Vice President Biden as well as Romney and Ryan have less than stellar records.
Paul Ryan may end up a heartbeat from the presidency, but he'll be light years from civil liberties.
Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm: Not Voting? The Koch Brothers Thank You
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
It would be nice if folks everywhere remembered this.
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
In Ryan's America, only wealthy white men would be welcomed.
Any other can enter through the servants' door. And survive in the shadows.
You had comments related to all the other subjects, but nothing on immigration. Fact is, supporters of immigration law are not big fans of Ryan and would have preferred Pawlenty. But I'm guessing you were going to complain about any person Romney chose because the ACLU is partisan and for some reason open borders even though open borders has nothing to do with what the ACLU claims to stand for.
Maybe you just "skimmed" the article and missed the fact that he references the stance on immigration. :\
I want to be part of the generation that took a good hard look into the darkness, didn't flinch, said a prayer, wasn't afraid, or, more afraid of losing than doing nothing.
A civil liberty denied to one, will ultimately be a liberty denied to all.
Freedom of religion, to practice your faith without fear, or, to be free of a religion, and practice none at all.
Heresy? Depends on who you ask. But it makes sense.
Trouble is that the ACLU is incapable of bringing anything to the table - only to try to claim the moral high ground and throw rocks. They are undeniably partisan, bigoted and working on an agenda, which means they will never be part of any practical solution. Sort of like that whiny cousin that nobody actually likes.
on whether they've helped an individual or not.
I have also heard where the ACLU took up a case, that was on the web
site "Justia" regarding a known sex offender who wanted access to the
library. My argument is: where is the right of children to be safe in
a library. The ACLU has it's place, I
just question their choice sometimes. I
believe a child's right to be safe in a public library trumps a predator's
right to be in a public library. So, I
kind of agree with you.
It amounts to us doing without so someone else gets a free ride.
The others I do not agree with.
AND ... more laws regulating personal behavior, more laws regulating what you can say, do, and who you can love... they would put cameras on every street corner and drug test everyone on demand... they would have everyone carry "citizenship papers" on their person and be able to produce them on demand...