David Gregory and Hobby Lobby: The Liberal Paradox
David Gregory, Hypocrite Emeritus, is being defended by the media for violating DC gun laws on his show, Meet The Press. “It’s silly to prosecute him,” they say. “What a waste of time!”
Of course, that’s the point those us of who aren’t gun-grabbing loons are trying to make. Most, not all, gun laws are stupid because, as David Gregory proved, the problem isn’t the equipment which most, not all, gun laws seek to ban or limit. That’s not even bringing the broader point of gun rights into the equation. From a purely practical perspective, the laws don’t work because the laws are aimed at people who, wait for it, OBEY LAWS. Murderous lunatics are, by definition, not law abiding citizens.
Anyway, there’s a larger picture here and one that plainly highlights the liberal hypocrisy and incoherence that somehow goes unnoticed by a very large number of people in this country who, unfortunately, also vote. Liberals like David Gregory are allowed to break laws to prove a point. I’d be fine with this if they were also held accountable for breaking those laws. But his accomplices – let’s face it, that’s what they are: accomplices after the fact – are defending him from ANY prosecution at all. Why?
He broke the law. Fine, he was making a point, but that doesn’t magically shield him from prosecution. Ask James O’Keefe. He’ll tell you all about it.
Or you could ask Hobby Lobby.
Craft store giant Hobby Lobby is bracing for a $1.3 million a day fine beginning January 1 for noncompliance with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, dubbed Obamacare.
The company opposes providing some contraceptives to employees through its company health care plan on religious grounds, saying some contraceptive products, like the morning after pill, equate to abortion.
Hobby Lobby, a privately-owned company, is refusing to comply with Obamacare mandates. They’re doing it to prove a point. The owners don’t believe they should be forced to pay for someone else’s birth control. That just happens to be against the law now. (Thanks, Bart Stupak!)
Yet the very same people who are defending David Gregory, who say he shouldn’t even be investigated, let alone prosecuted for breaking the law in DC are silent on Hobby Lobby being fined 1.3 million dollars PER DAY for breaking the Obamacare law. And it’s not like that 1.3 million dollars PER DAY is going to pay for the birth control for Hobby Lobby employees, either. It goes to the government. The employees still don’t get free birth control from Hobby Lobby. It’s straight up punishment that does nothing for the “victims” liberals claim to represent – the birth control-deprived employees of Hobby Lobby.
As a conservative, regardless of how I feel about Obamacare, I believe the law is the law until it is repealed. Therefore, Hobby Lobby should be fined until they get a temporary injunction while the case works its way to the Supreme Court. (Justice Sotomayor denied an emergency injunction, by the way. How nice.) That’s the law. Liberals undoubtedly agree with me regarding Hobby Lobby, but they don’t when it comes to David Gregory. Of course, anyone else who breaks DC gun laws should be prosecuted, if you ask those same liberals. Just not David Gregory because he was making a point. Like Hobby Lobby. But that’s different, they’ll say.
How? How is it different? Both are cases where the law is being broken. I thought liberals were all about “fairness.” Where’s the fairness when Hobby Lobby has to pay 1.3 million dollars PER DAY to prove a point and David Gregory doesn’t even have a charge pending against him? And no, the ATF isn’t allowed to waive DC gun laws.
If Hobby Lobby has to pay fines for not complying with Obamacare laws, David Gregory and his staff should be charged and convicted with knowingly violating DC gun laws. Period. That would be fairness. That would be an equal application of the law.
So, by arguing that Gregory shouldn’t even be investigated, let alone prosecuted, liberals are saying that they get to decide which laws should be enforced. They are basically saying that the law is only relevant when they say it is. If that’s the case, the law has no meaning. And yet they’ll be the first to propose new laws that must be followed for the greater good, until they decide it can be broken to make a point.
You see where this leads?
And they want to ban guns?