Update: Media reports suggest Obama raised $1.4 million in Orange County today. The event amount of Obama supporters to Obama protestors is a victory for OC Democrats.
Hat tip to OC Weekly for this story about the “evenly split” crowd of 500 protesting the President’s visit to Newport Beach this morning and supporting the President’s visit to Southern California.
For conservatives, this event, during an election year of all times, and the best they can do is muster a split decision with liberals, Democrats and other left0wing socialists means you can no longer call OC a “Red County.”
Our hat is off to Nick Anas and the volunteers with the DPOC who organized a rally to counter the right wing protests with less than 24 hours notice. Our side had about the same number as theirs.
Moxley didn’t miss the birthers, hypocrites and whack jobs in his coverage. From his story:
“…an evenly split crowd of perhaps 500 protesters and fans of Barack Obama have lined up on the sidewalks of swank, oceanfront Corona del Mar in anticipation of the president’s arrival for a fund-raising event at a private residence.
Obama’s fans are holding signs that thank him for his policies against “hate” and “warmongering,” while his critics are blasting him as pro-abortion, pro-socialism, pro-debt and pro-wealth redistribution.
“Obama is a socialist,” one elderly, white-haired woman told reporters. “I want him to stop taking our hard-earned money and giving to other people. We work hard for what we have. It’s not fair.”
But Alice Apkarian, 55, is happy the president is coming to OC.
“We just want to show that Orange County isn’t the monolith everybody thinks it is,” she told the Weekly.
Laura Dietz believes Obama needs to be removed from power because she supports “freedom from government interference–interference with my personal life. It’s unconstitutional.”
Dietz added, “My rights do not come from the government. According to the Founding Fathers, they come from the Almighty.”
I love when right wingers quot ethe Fouding Fathers out of context. Here’s what NOBelief’s.com wrote about Thomas Jefferson’s contributioon to the Constitution:
Although the Constitution does not include the phrase “Separation of Church & State,” neither does it say “Freedom of religion.” However, the Constitution implies both in the 1st Amendment. As to our freedoms, the 1st Amendment provides exclusionary wording:
Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the 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.
Thomas Jefferson made an interpretation of the 1st Amendment to his January 1st, 1802 letter to the Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association calling it a “wall of separation between church and State.” Madison had also written that “Strongly guarded. . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States.” There existed little controversy about this interpretation from our Founding Fathers.
If religionists better understood the concept of separation of Church & State, they would realize that the wall of separation actually protects their religion. Our secular government allows the free expression of religion and non-religion. Today, religions flourish in America; we have more churches than Seven-Elevens.
And since there is a reference to a Creator in the Declaration of Independence, this notation:
“…the Declaration of Independence does not represent any law of the United States. It came beforethe establishment of our lawful government (the Constitution). The Declaration aimed at announcing the separation of America from Great Britain and it listed the various grievances with them. The Declaration includes the words, “The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America.” The grievances against Great Britain no longer hold today, and we have more than thirteen states.
Although the Declaration may have influential power, it may inspire the lofty thoughts of poets and believers, and judges may mention it in their summations, it holds no legal power today. It represents a historical document about rebellious intentions against Great Britain at a time before the formation of our government.
Of course the Declaration stands as a great political document. Its author aimed at a future government designed and upheld by people and not based on a superstitious god or religious monarchy. It observed that all men “are created equal” meaning that we all have the natural ability of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That “to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.” Please note that the Declaration says nothing about our rights secured by Christianity. It bears repeating: “Governments are instituted among men.”
The pursuit of happiness does not mean a guarantee of happiness, only that we have the freedom to pursue it. Our Law of the Land incorporates this freedom of pursuit in the Constitution. We can believe or not believe as we wish. We may succeed or fail in our pursuit, but our Constitution (and not the Declaration) protects our unalienable rights in our attempt at happiness.
Moreover, the mentioning of God in the Declaration does not describe the personal God of Christianity. Thomas Jefferson who held deist beliefs, wrote the majority of the Declaration. The Declaration describes “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” This nature’s view of God agrees with deist philosophy and might even appeal to those of pantheistical beliefs, but any attempt to use the Declaration as a support for Christianity will fail for this reason alone.
Let’s review the Bill of Rights for a moment:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
So if the freedom to puursue happiness is a right bestowed upon man by their Creator, why are most Republicans opposed to Gay Marriage? By opposing Gay Marriage, aren’t they denying a right of men (and women) to pursue happiness by marrying the person they love?
Dietz can come here and explain this one to us.
Photo credit: USAToday.