Is there no length to which the Executive Branch will not go to divide the nation, and in particular to pit the cause du jour against both Constitutional freedoms and traditional values?
Biden made a speech last month, pro-LGBT(etc) that seemed pretty banal. It didn’t really seem to get much media traction. But some language in it was directly aimed at one other group whose rights are explicitly protected by the Bill of Rights, which may be setting the stage for the next phase of the Culture war in America.
By now, more than 7 years into their mandate, we have become used to inflammatory rhetoric and hard-left policy positions by the present administration. If there is any way to characterize a special interest group as victimized, they will. (And they will do so because it legitimizes whatever new government action that would “help solve” the alleged problem.)
Likewise, if there is a way to malign, weaken, or de-legitimize any group that stands in the way of their “fundamental transformation” of America, they invariably do so at every opportunity. The NRA and the Church are among their preferred targets. (“Bitter Clingers” ring any bells?) In their playbook, there is no room for winning or losing graciously. Everything is political, and politics are a blood sport.
Biden’s statement sounds like any standard bafflegab political speech. It is the kind where everyone knows words must be spoken, but nothing new will be said. What is important here is not so much the words, but his framing of the narrative. He is indicating who the heroes and villains are (always an important step in their formula for winning the culture war) to be so the heroes/victims can be praised/protected while the villains can be pilloried.
The victims here are the ever-widening LBGT (etc) political activist group. Look how courageous they are. Look how they are oppressed.
And who does Biden say is oppressing them?
“In too many places, LGBT community members face violence with impunity, mistreatment by police, the denial of healthcare, or religious condemnation and social isolation.”
He mentions violence and mistreatment by police, but will not name places like Russia or the Islamic states that sentence homosexuals to death or imprisonment. (I presume he means some other violence in some other place.)
Denial of health care. I have heard this used elsewhere. There is an argument being made that sexual reassignment is a medical necessity and that doctors that are not confident in the scientific studies and refuse to offer this procedure are “denying health care”. This is despite the fact that reassignment does little to change the suicide rate which is still orders of magnitude higher than most other high-risk groups.
Expect to hear: “if you don’t let me have my procedure” (read: sex change) “you are denying me health care”. Expect the next argument after they win that fight to be: “and if I can’t pay for it, you should have to”.
Notice the “religious condemnation” line. It looks like a throwaway line, but it isn’t. It is presenting a rights-versus-rights tension. So long as Religious freedom is an absolute, it is difficult in the American system to take this right away.
But for their cultural takeover fundamental transformation of America to be complete (as they learned from Soviet Russia and elsewhere), they will have to overcome resistance from both the church and the traditional family. A way must be found to strip religious freedoms.
You can expect them to borrow the method used in Canada, the UK and elsewhere. Enshrine a new set of rights (new protected group). In this case, it will be the LGBT (etc) community.
Invent the concept of hate speech, keep the meaning vague, and apply it only to the protected classes. (Use these instead of the more precise libel or slander legislation.) Criminalize hate speech. Now, when you have someone saying “you have no right to tell me to shut up about this issue. It is protected under the Bill of Rights” they will simply respond that it does not extend so far that you are permitted to speak an opinion that offends the protected group.
The tie will naturally go to the victim/hero (and we already know who they are) and voila, your rights have been “legally” destroyed. And who would oppose hate speech laws? They seem like such a reasonable thing, right? They are not. They are a totalitarian tool. We need more liberty, not less.
The LGBT has the right to criticize religion in any way they see fit. Gloves off, bare knuckles and all. They simply do. But we have an equally valid right to give as good as we get. We have precisely zero moral obligation to lie down and take the metaphorical beating.
When Biden or others take sides in this way, they are choosing to support one against the other. We knew this would eventually happen, and this is why the First Amendment exists.
In other countries, including Canada and the UK people have already gone to jail for uttering traditional Christian opinions, or even quoting the Bible. Agitators found a way to call it hate speech, even there.
Given the chance, they will do the same in the US. Â Are you going to let them?
