Here is a clip of the chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee discussing ACORN:
Tweet
Saturday, October 11, 2008
ACORN's Scott Levenson Vs. WSJ's John Fund
Friday, October 10, 2008
Connecticut Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage
This is the third State Supreme Court, following Massachusetts and California, to declare that the ability of homosexuals to marry one another to be a constitutionally protected right. Citing the equal protection clause of the State constitution, the justices of the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled in a 4-3 decision that civil unions were discriminatory and that the state’s “understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection.”
Another State Supreme Court has wildly overstepped its boundaries. This is not what our founding fathers, nor the authors of the Connecticut Constitution, could have ever imagined our courts doing. It is not the role of the courts to decide after hundreds of years of American jurisprudence and thousands of years of Judeo-Christian civilization that marriage must be redefined. For courts to arbitrarily impose their own will by judicial fiat upon the people of a State and usurp the powers of the legislature is inexcusable.
The issue in Connecticut is simply whether the term marriage should be extended to homosexuals. They already are afforded civil unions. So this is not an issue of obtaining some lost rights that heterosexuals have, but rather one dealing with what marriage itself means. Why judges should have the power to answer such questions is incomprehensible.
"Federalist No. 78" of the The Federalist Papers foresaw the dangers of what our courts are now doing and warned against it. Alexander Hamilton wrote the following in the essay: "The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequences would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body." These are words that ring true to this very day and that our black-robed overlords continue to ignore.
I wrote the following in response to the California decision and the same applies here in regards to equal protection: "Marriage is certainly a matter of civil law. But it is not a civil right. The issue is what the government ought to do. The issue at hand is whether the basic assumptions, that in fact predated the law, about what constitutes marriage should be upheld. It is about whether the law is right or wrong. This being the case the issues of equal protection do not apply. Equal protection does not say anything about what constitutes marriage. Equal protection is about the law being applied equally to all. It is about equal rights under the law being afforded to all, not what the law is itself about. If violating equal protection meant not accommodating those who wanted to alter the understood meaning of the institution then anyone could make these ridiculous claims. Caretakers could claim to be married if they so wished. Business partners could claim to be married if it helped the business. Friends who live together could be married. A person should legally be able to have multiple spouses (and at least that has a historical basis in terms of marriage). Anyone could claim to be married to anyone, since apparently violating an individual's idea of what marriage ought to be is considered legal discrimination and a violation of some fundamental right. But the truth is that it cannot, because marriage has a specific definition. The law, based on their underlying assumptions and the definition of marriage, treats all citizens to whom it applies fairly. Blacks get married. Whites get married. Jews get married. Gentiles get married. Immigrants get married. Asians and Latinos get married. Believe it or not, gays can get married too, so long as they marry the opposite sex. But saying that because marriage doesn't include same-sex couples it is therefore a violation of equal protection is absurd. The law does not apply to them in the first place. If one wants to argue that marriage should have a completely new meaning, then a new law is necessary to bring about same-sex marriage. This is because it requires a redefinition of what marriage itself means. Furthermore, it is nothing short of disgusting when gay activists use the the loaded term 'civil right.' The term alone brings about memories of the Black civil rights movement. Sometimes they go so far as to compare their cause to that noble movement. Homosexuals are not Blacks in the Jim Crow South. The laws of this land apply equally to gays, they did not apply equally to blacks. There are no signs saying 'No Gays Allowed.' To make these comparisons trivializes the history of segregation and racism."
Just weeks before the presidential election, John McCain has been handed an issue on a silver platter that he must use to his advantage. He must use this ruling to clearly point out the differences between U.S. Supreme Court Justices he would appoint compared to the judicial activists that Obama would put on the court. He must strongly protest this legislating from the bench.
Tweet
SNL's Special Thursday Night Spoof Of Second Presidential Debate
Bill Murray makes an appearance, which makes it all worth it:
Tweet
Betty White Calls Sarah Palin "One Crazy Bitch"
Even if you disagree with the sentiment, as everyone should, there is nothing like an old lady ranting and cursing:
Tweet
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Man Tells McCain At Townhall Forum That He Is "Really Mad" At "The Socialists Taking Over Our Country"
Now this is what I call straight talk from the heart of America:
Tweet
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Obama Communications Director Asks Sean Hannity Why He Hates The Jews
This Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs actually accuses Sean Hannity of being an anti-Semite. This is completely ridiculous. The Obama spokesman deflects the issue surrounding Obama's associations with Bill Ayers by focusing on some random shmuck that Sean Hannity had as a guest on his show. In fact, it is Robert Gibbs that is ignorant and insulting. Real anti-Semitism is trivialized when you start accusing a strong supporter of Israel that works every night with a liberal Jewish telivision co-host of anti-Semitism.
Tweet
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
CNN On Ties Between Obama And Bill Ayers
Here is Sarah Palin mentiioning the Obama-Ayers connection again:
Tweet
Monday, October 6, 2008
John McCain Goes On The Offensive Against Barack Obama
On Fannie And Freddie:
On Obama's record or lack thereof:
Tweet
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Former Foreign Policy Advisor To Barack Obama Talks About Invading Israel
This interview at Berkeley took place in 2002. Samantha Power left the Obama campaign in March 2008 after referring to Hillary Clinton as a "monster." She had been an Obama foreign policy advisor since 2005. She had made these remarks before she ever became an advisor and it is inexcusable that Obama would have her on his team given the comments on Israel she had made just seven months after 9-11. It is quite scary to think someone so very radical on Israel was one of Obama's foreign policy advisors, though unfortunately it is not all that shocking given the people that Obama has and continues to surround himself with.
Tweet
President Of The Los Angeles Chapter Of NOW Introduces Sarah Palin
Here is Sarah Palin using a Madeline Albright quote to play up the gender identity politics:
Tweet
SNL On The VP Debate And The Bailout
Tina Fey's version of Sarah Palin is already getting old, but here is the mock VP debate:
Here is SNL on the bailout. They take shots at Nancy Pelosi and Barnie Frank as well which makes the skit more worthwhile. It also skewers how this whole financial mess came to be. Here it is:
Tweet
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
RSS Feed (xml)