Regarding the March 11 news article “Brannon equates Romney, tyranny”: One thing that is very clear from the article about Greg Brannon’s assertion that a vote for Mitt Romney is a vote to “advance tyranny” is that Brannon has had the good fortune never to have lived under real tyranny.
The same might be said of his frequent recourse to the Constitution as the cure for all the wrongs he sees. Nowhere does he explain what constitutional guarantees he thinks we are being denied or really give much indication that he has a positive knowledge of the contents or history of that document.
At one point he refers to abortion, but does that mean he believes that a constitutional right to privacy either does not exist or should be limited so as to allow more state interference in the sexual and reproductive lives of residents? Would he reverse only Roe v. Wade or also Loving v. Virginia and Griswald v. Connecticut, which rest on the same foundation of individual liberty?
Unfortunately, from what he said it appears that the words “tyranny” and “Constitution” are just rhetorical tools intended to express unfocused anger and conceal a lack of thoughtfulness.
Kevin L. Smith