Bill Thomas a Social Liberal?

Bill and the Boss Lady with latest Great Grand Daughter

Beautiful Child Obviously Takes After Her Great Grandpa

          Both sides of our political arena have accused me on more than one occasion of being a “Social Liberal”.  My political foes on the left have been elated to find a perceived kink in my professed conservative armor in that I do indeed defend gay rights.  However, to the donkey faithful’s chagrin while I do champion the rights of all Americans I habitually challenge those who turn a civil rights cause into civil privilege.  At the same time my liberal friends feel they have found a conservative ally regarding gay rights they are confused when they find the same guy attacking gay privilege.  The applause of the left for Bill Thomas rapidly turns to boos at my take on policies and laws that favor any specific group.  It matters not that the liberal’s choice of groups they select for deserving special treatment is based on economic status, sexual preference, religious affiliation or something as ludicrously ridiculous as the color pigmentation of their skin.  Like the Republican Party as a whole I had a better record on Civil Rights than the Democrat side of the fence until the left created Affirmative Action.  Astonishingly this clearly racist program was created by the left to give them a political advantage under the banner of Civil Rights.  The liberals today simply can not grasp the idea of a former Freedom Rider being opposed to what is today their definition of Civil Rights.  Indeed I bled for my belief in the core American principle of equality long before I earned any of my Purple Hearts wearing a uniform.  I have an ugly scar on my scalp today from a Klansman’s brick thrown in the streets of Alabama.  I stood in those days prepared to give my life to oppose laws that favored white Americans.  I shall not shirk from that core principle of America today and support laws that favor black Americans.  The concept that Democrat orchestrated Jim Crow laws that favored white Americans should not be challenged by all America was true then.  The concept that Democrat orchestrated Affirmative Action laws that favor a black Americans should not be challenged by all Americans is just as valid today.  A political party’s choice of color is of no consequence regarding the fact that any choice of color is racism.    

           While I absolutely believe in a small federal government and strongly advocate more power to the states and local government I am not a “States Rights” guy by the contemporary political definition.  Yes Dr. Paul I have read the 10^th Amendment and like virtually all your slanted interpretations of my Constitution it does not remotely suggest that states have any rights not subject to federal law.  The Constitution does not mandate absolute rights to the states over the people’s federal government.  Frankly one of the powers of the federal government specifically granted to the people though their duly elected Congress is the absolute power of the people to make their own federal laws.  The Constitution’s Article one specifically grants the people the power to pass laws that are superior in strength and authority of any state’s laws or state judges.  Like his Libertarian Party cohorts, Dr. Paul is prone to twist the Constitution to fit his own political agenda.  He and most of those who attempt to limit the power of the federal government based on the Constitution’s 10^th Amendment are actually attempting to limit the power of the people.  We must at all times remember that in a truly free society where the government governs only by the will of the governed the government and the people are one.  To tell the people they should not give the power they give to the federal government is a position I support.  To deny the people's authority to rule their own nation through federal laws I and any American capable of reading the Constitution will challenge.  While the Libertarians are wearing out the text that says those things the federal government is not authorized to do will be left to the states they are prone to overlook one specific right granted the people's Congress.  In our free society based on our Constitution the people write the federal laws through their representatives on Capital Hill.  The Constitution is crystal clear regarding the fact that these laws passed on a federal basis are superior to any state law.   The people have the absolute right to pass laws on a federal level that take jurisdiction out to the hands of the state and gives that jurisdiction to their government on a federal basis.  Should they do this?  I think not.  Do they have the right to do it?  You bet your last sack of deer corn they do.  The bottom line here is that indeed the states have the authority to do anything the Federal government elects not to do.  However, there can be no rational person who doesn’t clearly understand that the people are constitutionally allowed to assign the level of government to any governmental task.  Constitutionally speaking this is the people’s option.  While I know that the state’s right folks are not happy with leftovers, this is in fact the clear meaning of the Constitution on the subject.  I suggest an exercise for my Libertarian and conservative Republican brethren regarding their take on the federal government’s authority and states rights.  In America the word “federal government” may be substituted with the term “people’s government”.  A core principle of our society is that the words people and government are indeed truly synonymous.  When speaking of limiting the authority of the federal government if one accurately substitutes the word people for the word government the states rights argument seems to loose a great deal of its Americanism.  As well it should.  Saying that Ron Paul types wish to limit the people’s power is absolutely a more honest way of understanding their real positition than saying they wish to limit some government's power.  Dr. Paul, the evil federal government that you are fond of attacking is the people, sir.   In our nation the people are the boss.  While the boss may not always be right they are always the boss.  The people own their federal government and right or wrong they have the freedom to do with it as they please.  

            Am I a Social Liberal?  If one is using the term in today’s current political text, yes.  If one uses the term in it’s literal context, no.  I am more of a Social Conservative than an overwhelming majority of conservative pundits and politicians who attempt to anoint themselves with that label.  Unlike my intellectually superior conservative bedfellows who feel themselves capable of picking and choosing Scripture to meet their personal agenda I take my Scripture literally.  I submit that a true Christian Conservative does just that.  Only the Christian Liberal takes a liberal view of God’s Word that allows his mortal intellect to trump God’s clear meaning.  I submit that by definition the liberal interpretation of man or God’s law is one that allows latitude.  Likewise the truly conservative view of the rule of law, be that God’s or man’s law, believes in a more literal interpretation giving little or no latitude.  In short I don’t have to agree with God’s word to obey it.  I do not need to understand why God chooses to give man made in His image the free will to disobey His word I just have to understand that He does.   God is crystal clear regarding the “Wages of sin is death”.  However, unlike those who would take His place He gives man the clear freedom to earn those wages if he cares to.  God tells us that those who believe in Him shall have everlasting life but He elects not to force anyone to believe in Him.  The rock upon which America was built was the absolute belief in the individual freedom of every man.  This was clearly a Biblical principle long before our founders eloquently declared that, “All men were created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights”. 

          Among the rights that stand at the very core of Americanism 101 are the rights our founders alluded to as the very reason America declared itself to be an independent nation.  The rock upon which our beloved country was built is the concept that men are equally endowed with inalienable God given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  The word liberty is of course synonymous with the word freedom.  The inalienable description of that right refers to the individual freedom enjoyed by every citizen that can never be challenged.  Even the majority can not take these rights from a single citizen.  It matters not that three hundred million of my fellow countrymen think its wrong for me to paint myself blue and dance on the roof of my house everyday at noon.  I have the individual right to look ridiculous if I care to.  Frankly given my infamous lack of rhythm I am capable of looking ridiculous dancing under the best of circumstances.   It matters not if hundreds of millions of us Christian types believe that calling a marriage between Fred and Bruce is absolutely wrong.  Fred and Bruce are not required to follow my Christian doctrine based on Scripture.  They have the right to define their relationship as a marriage and should of course enjoy equal benefits under the rule of law.  Are they correct in calling a gay relationship a marriage?  I think not.  Do they have the equal right under God’s word and the Constitution to be wrong?  Of course they do.   According to the greatest group of men ever assembled for a common purpose since the Lord’s Supper all men are created equal.  As a conservative I take those hallowed words literally.  The term “all” men means “all” men, not all good men but all men.  Many of my fellow conservative Christian brothers would have us believe those words need to be revised to say all straight, moral good Christian men are created equal.  You will not find this American championing this revision of our founders’ definition of equality for all.  I am frankly revolted and appalled by the travesty of same sex marriages and the gay life style in general.   I have the absolute right to be appalled.  I have the right as an American and the duty as a Christian to speak out against such a union.   Do I have the right to force others to abide by my Christian inspired belief?  I do not.   I shall be happy to preach anyone who will stand still long enough to hear it a sermon on the sins of a gay life style.  Again this is not only my right as an American who possesses the cherished birth right of the freedom of speech; it is my sacred duty as a Christian to witness for God’s word.  On a personal basis I have no question that the only marriage is that of a union before God of a man and a woman.  It should be noted here that I personally know of marriages between practicing Christians that do not follow my definition of marriage and I know of marriages between non Christians that while not based on Scripture should be defined by any Christian as a marriage.  While I personally challenge the marriage definition of a union between a gay couple, in the next breath I will fight to the last drop of my blood to defend the right of an American who believes I and my Bible are wrong.  The Constitution and the Bible are my personal guide posts in life.  Both dictate my literal obedience to God’s and man’s law.  I bled in the streets of Alabama for the equal rights as a young man.  I swore to defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies both foreign and domestic, “so help me God”.  I shed blood on more than one occasion as a personal testament to my devotion to that sacred oath.  This old man will do the same today.  It is crystal clear to any good Christian who is truly conservative regarding their faith in God that to legislate our Christian doctrine is to give unto Caesar what is God’s.  The term “God fearing Christian” comes to mind on the subject of forcing folks to do God’s will when He does not.  I hold four Bronze Stars and three Purple Hearts.  No man has ever called this old paratrooper a coward.  Well not and walked out the same way he walked in anyway.  That said, I have neither the desire nor the courage to play God and violate His word.  I pride myself on having been a debater in school and regard my debate training as invaluable.  However, I am totally lacking in the courage to debate God regarding the wisdom of His word.  To quote a great American Oliver North, “That’s above my pay grade.”  I am a man who knows his limitations.

          One of the major problems I have regarding my personal stand on the Scriptural and Constitutional rights of gay Americans is the distain I have for most of my allies on the subject and the admiration I have for most of my opponents on the issue.  I have no question that while the gay American is entitled to the freedom granted him under the laws of God and man the organized gay movement today over reaches to the point of infringing on the rights of others.  It has been my experience that many causes while technically correct have a tendency to over correct.  Indeed it can be fairly and I believe correctly argued that in an attempt to champion the rights of gay Americans many advocate privileges for that group.  Equal means that no one is discriminated against but it also clearly forbids discrimination for any group.  The gay activists are in line with the folks who champion, as I do, the separation of church and state.  This group, under the veil of championing the freedom of religion for non-Christians, often specifically profiles the Christian faith in their professed opposition to religious profiling.  The same hypocrisy is clearly evident regarding the contemporary left wing’s concept of racial justice.  The term civil rights has become color coded to the point of becoming civil privilege.  Racial profiling and discrimination are accepted under the banner of the left wing’s civil rights movement provided one’s color preference is politically correct. The only thing different from the 60’s brand of Democrat sponsored Jim Crow laws and our current Democrat championed Affirmative Action laws is the Democrat’s new choice of color has changed based on political expediency.    

            I believe much can be learned from the great classic movie, “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner”.  If I had my way this incredible lesson in basic Americanism 101 would be mandatory study in our public school systems across the country.  Sidney Poitier’s classic line to Spencer Tracy regarding Spencer’s white daughter (played by Katharine Houghton) being in love with a black man was a dead on lesson in true American core principle. Sidney said to the white father, “It wasn’t that my color didn’t make a difference to your daughter.  It was that she didn’t think there was a difference.”  In a word the young white girl was raised to believe in the single greatest word in the American vocabulary, “Equality”.  I am now and will die being a disciple of the late Dr. Martin Luther King.  I did not hear Dr. King’s “I have a dream” speech on the radio.  I was sitting on the grass in front of the Lincoln Monument when this American Gandhi stirred the soul of America and the world.  I have no question that had we lived in a nation that discriminated against American’s with white skin this incredible American would have fought such an attack of the Constitution and the Scripture with the same zeal as he opposed inequality for black Americans.  In that light I shall oppose any law that benefits any man based on the color of his skin regardless of the political correctness of that color.

              It is a family tradition with my clan to actually give every issue focused attention based on the perceived merit of the specific issue.  We are not as a group prone to follow the heard.  If one were to walk up behind the Republican Bill Thomas or his Democrat Cousin Harold Huff at a Texas Bar-B-Q and ease drop on their political rhetoric one might tag either man with the stereotype conservative or liberal label depending entirely on the subject at hand.  While the Republican journalist and the Democrat County Chair are faithful to our political parties neither of us are prone to subscribe lock step to a partisan rule book for thinking.  Unlike me, Cousin Harold is generally incorrect in his political take.  Nonetheless it would be a serious error in judgment to assume his concept is based on mandated party policy and not well thought out by an intelligent American.  Confronting Mr. Huff expecting his position to loose credence based on the origin of that opinion being unfounded or unsupported will cause you a great deal of embarrassment.  On the same note should you decide to confront his conservative cousin Bill regarding his dedication to the equality of man based on your unsupported Christian values you will loose based on the clear teaching of the Bible.  W.H. Davis’s Republican grandson who supports gay rights and his Democrat grandson who supports the right of to bear arms share a couple of common denominators.  While it can be fairly argued that we may or may not be correct regarding our political concepts we support our position with solid data and rational individual thinking.  We are also both fierce defenders of not only our inalienable right to our views, we both feel it is our obligation to express those views. 

          It is unfortunately the nature of our current American political rhetoric to over reach on almost every issue.  Should a man not be opposed to gay rights he is branded pro gay lifestyle.  Should a man not believe the Constitution mandates the personal right to bear arms to individuals he is thought to be opposed to citizens owning fire arms.  Should a man oppose illegal immigration he is opposed to immigration.  Should a man support the right of a woman to chose he is branded pro abortion.  Should a man not support government paid for abortion he is branded an opponent of women’s rights.  Should a man not support laws that favor black skinned Americans he is anti civil rights.  Should a man support the rights of an American to oppose religion he is anti Christian.  Should a man not support states rights he is pro big government.  Should any man differ on any issue with the conservative or liberal accepted political doctrine he is labeled disloyal to his political party.  It is sad that a nation founded on the individual freedoms of all men has some how lost its respect for individual thinking.