It really does not matter what President Barack Obama says, or if he says anything at all. When he does say something, the GOP deliberately misinterprets it or puts words in his mouth; if he says nothing they accuse him of saying something anyway. Quite often, they complain about laws they haven’t read, briefings they haven’t attended, or Obama remarks they have neither watched nor listened to.
Like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), who admitted he hadn’t watched Obama’s remarks about Trayvon Martin and Stand Your Ground laws, but complained that Obama was going after white folks’ guns again.
What President Obama actually said was that this ALEC law must be should be reexamined in light of what happened to Trayvon Martin:
I think it would be useful for us to examine some state and local laws to see if they are designed in such a way that they may encourage the kinds of altercations and confrontations and tragedies that we saw in the Florida case, rather than diffuse potential altercations.
To get more stories like this, subscribe to our newsletter The Daily.
But on Friday, Cruz told reporters that Obama had said something very different – again – without actually knowing what Obama had said:
It is not surprising that the president uses, it seems, every opportunity that he can to go after our Second Amendment right to bear arms,” the Texas Republican said. “This president and this administration has a consistent disregard for the Bill of Rights.
Not only did Cruz display ignorance of what Obama said, but he displayed ignorance of what the Second Amendment says.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
If you read it, you see that the Second Amendment does not give people the right to murder people they don’t like, to confront them on the street, pick a fight with them, and then, using the excuse of feeling threatened, gun them down in cold blood.
Like George Zimmerman did to Trayvon Martin in 2012.
Cruz, Christian Nationalist that he is, also complained that Obama violates the First Amendment by “restricting the rights of our servicemen and women to share their faith and not be gagged.”
What Cruz means by this, clearly, is the imagined right of religious fanatics in our military to browbeat and bully servicemen and women who do not share their beliefs. The only violations of the First Amendment taking place in our military is at the hands of people like Ted Cruz.
They’re even passing laws in the House to protect and sanctify religious bullying in the military. In other words, it’s okay to be a Christian in the military. But it’s not okay to be something else.
Yet Cruz, determined to violate the Bill of Rights when it comes to the First Amendment’s guarantee of our religious freedom, complained, “This is an administration that has undermined the Bill of Rights, and I think that’s unfortunate.”
It is significant that Ted Cruz made these remarks in Iowa, a state very important to him if he is considering a run for president. He is going to have his chance, being the headliner of the GOP Summer Picnic yesterday in Des Moines.
“I think there were some in the political sphere who tried to take a tragic encounter between George Zimmerman, a Hispanic man who was defending his neighborhood, and Trayvon Martin and to turn it into a racially polarized battled,” said Cruz, in an obvious reference to Obama.
Cruz calls Obama’s remarks “corrosive.” Who knew that promoting an imagined right to gun people down in the street was not corrosive?
Somehow, he also managed to say with a straight face, that “I think we ought to have far more passion for improving the hope and opportunity of young African Americans, young Hispanics, and young people throughout the country.”
What? Opportunities to get shot by white folks with guns when you walk through their neighborhoods on the excuse that they are only defending their neighborhoods? That kind of opportunity?
Remarks like those he made to Iowa Republicans, and later, to reporters, are designed to endear him to the Michele Bachmann fanboys and girls. After all, what is a Christian Nationalist without religious extremists to support him?
There are other Christian Nationalists to consider, like Marco Rubio (R-FL) – and who knows what Michele Bachmann will do – so it’s best to get an early start on the hate and bigotry and fear that forms the backbone of Republican politics these days.
Hrafnkell Haraldsson, a social liberal with leanings toward centrist politics has degrees in history and philosophy. His interests include, besides history and philosophy, human rights issues, freedom of choice, religion, and the precarious dichotomy of freedom of speech and intolerance. He brings a slightly different perspective to his writing, being that he is neither a follower of an Abrahamic faith nor an atheist but a polytheist, a modern-day Heathen who follows the customs and traditions of his Norse ancestors. He maintains his own blog, A Heathen’s Day, which deals with Heathen and Pagan matters, and Mos Maiorum Foundation www.mosmaiorum.org, dedicated to ethnic religion. He has also contributed to NewsJunkiePost, GodsOwnParty and Pagan+Politics.
