This afternoon, a Federal Judge ruled that the State of Oregon discriminates against homosexuality with its voter-approved ban on gay marriage. Once again, the Will of the People is overturned, and the Gay Agenda gets another victory at the expense of the democratic process.
I was reading the now usual proclamations of victory from those that support gay marriage, and the all too common attacks on anyone who says anything but total devotion to their cause. One respondent in particular posed a good argument, that was logical in its approach, and sought discussion from others. What he got in return was scorn, hate, ridicule and a complete lack of any discussion whatsoever. I wrote the following to the gentleman who had posted his argument:
"Hang in there, (Respondent). In this so-called "discussion" there is the view and rationale of the gay agenda ONLY. Any other views, thoughts or discussion are voraciously attacked and labeled as hateful. The basic First Amendment Rights of anyone disagreeing with homosexuality are lost in a hailstorm of true hate by those who claim tolerance, but clearly display none whatsoever.
The bullies that support gay marriage at the expense of the majority 'will of the people' want nothing from the majority except their full and devoted agreement to the acceptance their perverted lifestyle, and their disgusting flaunting of said lifestyle in the faces of those who find it to be repugnant and vile.
Always speak your mind on the matter and avoid falling to the positions of acquiescence and false acceptance simply because people who feign tolerance, but abhor a differing opinion, attack you with the same hate they claim you have for them, and are expecting you to bow to their ridiculously hypocritical position."
In the firestorm of hate and rhetoric that follows anyone who voices their disagreement with homosexuality, it is vitally important that you keep your voice, and speak out whenever you can. Why? Because, while those who support the gay agenda can scream out at everyone they deem as hateful, it is our right and responsibility to scream right back; to speak our minds without fear of intimidation or retaliation.
And if the other side doesn't like it, that's too bad! So long as you truly do not eschew hate, your voice is just as important as those who rail against your views. We must do everything in our power to incite discussion, and rise above the hateful words and attempted intimidations that the other side, so clearly intolerant of those who view homosexuality with anything less than full and unabashed acceptance.
Showing posts with label Commentary; Current Events. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Commentary; Current Events. Show all posts
Monday, May 19, 2014
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
The Supreme Court Overturns DOMA
This morning, the United States Supreme Court ruled in a divided Court to overturn The Defense of Marriage Act, the Federal Legislation, passed in 1996 and signed into law by the-President Bill Clinton, which mandated that the Federal Government only recognized marriages that were between one man and one woman, and supporting the definition of a traditional family. DOMA was endorsed by numerous churches and other national entities.
After the ruling was announced, the message boards were aflame with support (by the gay community) for the decision. Anyone with the temerity to disagree was attacked with voraciousness, vehemence, intolerance and hatred; as if having a contrary opinion was a horrific and unconscionable thing.
Here's my response:
"According to the Constitution, the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to decide this case. The SCOTUS was created and designed by the Founding Fathers to interpret the law ONLY, then to send to Congress their ruling; and Congress would then draft and legislate the law to abide by the ruling of the Supreme Court. That's it. Unfortunately, Lawyers and Special Interest groups have changed the basic role of SCOTUS into the law-making entity it is today.
Justice Scalia was entirely correct when he stated [in the dissenting opinion], "We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation. The Court's errors on both points spring forth from the same diseased root: an exalted conception of the role of this institution (SCOTUS) in America."
Right, or wrong, the issue of gay marriage is an issue that should be up to the people as a whole to decide. Let Congress fight it out--as it should! Legislation through legal action only undermines the Constitution and the foundation of democracy that the Republic of the United States was founded upon.
Today's Supreme Court decision will forever alter the check's and balances system that was designed to assure that our Government never had too much power to dictate how Americans should live. Instead, the Supreme Court, the top-tier of Constitutional interpretation, has literally stripped the checks and balances system and bypassed Congress, the law-making entity of the United States Government. And ultimately, that is just plain unconstitutional."
*As of about one hour after posting my opinion, the only comment I had was related to a single typo I had in the text; a single apostrophe placed where it shouldn't have been. There was no addressing my opinion, just an attack because I had an apostrophe in the wrong place.
I love it when I can state my point well enough that no one can tear it down!
After the ruling was announced, the message boards were aflame with support (by the gay community) for the decision. Anyone with the temerity to disagree was attacked with voraciousness, vehemence, intolerance and hatred; as if having a contrary opinion was a horrific and unconscionable thing.
Here's my response:
"According to the Constitution, the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to decide this case. The SCOTUS was created and designed by the Founding Fathers to interpret the law ONLY, then to send to Congress their ruling; and Congress would then draft and legislate the law to abide by the ruling of the Supreme Court. That's it. Unfortunately, Lawyers and Special Interest groups have changed the basic role of SCOTUS into the law-making entity it is today.
Justice Scalia was entirely correct when he stated [in the dissenting opinion], "We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation. The Court's errors on both points spring forth from the same diseased root: an exalted conception of the role of this institution (SCOTUS) in America."
Right, or wrong, the issue of gay marriage is an issue that should be up to the people as a whole to decide. Let Congress fight it out--as it should! Legislation through legal action only undermines the Constitution and the foundation of democracy that the Republic of the United States was founded upon.
Today's Supreme Court decision will forever alter the check's and balances system that was designed to assure that our Government never had too much power to dictate how Americans should live. Instead, the Supreme Court, the top-tier of Constitutional interpretation, has literally stripped the checks and balances system and bypassed Congress, the law-making entity of the United States Government. And ultimately, that is just plain unconstitutional."
*As of about one hour after posting my opinion, the only comment I had was related to a single typo I had in the text; a single apostrophe placed where it shouldn't have been. There was no addressing my opinion, just an attack because I had an apostrophe in the wrong place.
I love it when I can state my point well enough that no one can tear it down!
More Border Fencing?
An article in this morning's MSN Homepage tells of additional funding for another 700 miles of US Southern border fencing. The 1500 or so comments were all predictable in their pro and anti rhetoric. Here was my response:
"With as much $$ as the illegals pay the coyotes (guides), they could be applying for and securing legal green cards, then cross the border without endangering their lives. Why isn't the Federal Government pushing programs to emphasize this avenue for those wishing to come to the US?
As a result, there would be fewer deaths, fewer illegals, and the drug cartels would have fewer unwilling and very reluctant drug mules with which to smuggle drugs across the border.
Instead, we erect an [ineffective] isolation fence costing billions of dollars, increase border security which costs billions of dollars, and fill our prisons with illegals which costs the American taxpayers billions of dollars. Anyone see the pattern and insanity here?"
*I literally just posted the comment on MSN, but if I get any responses, I'll add them below:
In the hour since my post, I have gotten zero responses. What a surprise...
"With as much $$ as the illegals pay the coyotes (guides), they could be applying for and securing legal green cards, then cross the border without endangering their lives. Why isn't the Federal Government pushing programs to emphasize this avenue for those wishing to come to the US?
As a result, there would be fewer deaths, fewer illegals, and the drug cartels would have fewer unwilling and very reluctant drug mules with which to smuggle drugs across the border.
Instead, we erect an [ineffective] isolation fence costing billions of dollars, increase border security which costs billions of dollars, and fill our prisons with illegals which costs the American taxpayers billions of dollars. Anyone see the pattern and insanity here?"
*I literally just posted the comment on MSN, but if I get any responses, I'll add them below:
In the hour since my post, I have gotten zero responses. What a surprise...
Monday, December 17, 2012
U.S. Fiscal Irresponsibility
An op-ed piece in today's Salt Lake Tribune by cartoonist Pat Bagley touched on the subject of the current fiscal crisis the United States finds itself in. I wrote the following response to that op-ed:
"First of all, typical to a Bagley op-ed cartoon, this just doesn't make sense. The words of the character don't correlate to the rest of the picture. Plus, Bagley's drawings are amateurish, at best. Try looking up David Horsey, the Pulitzer Prize winning editorial cartoonist. His pictures are vastly superior to Bagley, and his comments always make sense.
Second, as I read things about the Congressional spending habits, I find it interesting that no one has remembered that the basic fiscal approach from both parties has flip-flopped. Until sometime early this century, the Democrats wanted to 'Save, Save, Save!' And the Republicans wanted to 'Spend, Spend, Spend!' Why the basic philosophical shift in dealing with America's money woes?
Unfortunately for both sides, partisanship will destroy this country. We can all thank Slimy Newt Gingrich for that one when he pressed the Republican Congress to fight any bipartisan efforts in any aspect of government. His "Contract with America" was the beginning of the current fiscal crisis.
In order to end this whole crisis, both sides of the aisle need to set aside the suspicions and anger and work cooperatively--as they did for decades of growth--to find solutions that will get us back on track towards fiscal health.
Lastly, in the entire debate as to what programs can be saved, and which ones can't, another lost bit of history looms over the entire discussion...that as of 2010, had Congress stuck to their predecessors guns and kept the plan in place, the United States would be out of debt, Medicare and Social security would be just fine, and the country would not be in trillions of dollars of debt to China--a debt that may never get paid off now.
Who is to blame for our current crisis? Both parties, and two consecutive Presidents...and all the voters who kept them all in office. In other words, we ALL are responsible. So before you go around pointing fingers, you'd better take a look at yourself.
"First of all, typical to a Bagley op-ed cartoon, this just doesn't make sense. The words of the character don't correlate to the rest of the picture. Plus, Bagley's drawings are amateurish, at best. Try looking up David Horsey, the Pulitzer Prize winning editorial cartoonist. His pictures are vastly superior to Bagley, and his comments always make sense.
Second, as I read things about the Congressional spending habits, I find it interesting that no one has remembered that the basic fiscal approach from both parties has flip-flopped. Until sometime early this century, the Democrats wanted to 'Save, Save, Save!' And the Republicans wanted to 'Spend, Spend, Spend!' Why the basic philosophical shift in dealing with America's money woes?
Unfortunately for both sides, partisanship will destroy this country. We can all thank Slimy Newt Gingrich for that one when he pressed the Republican Congress to fight any bipartisan efforts in any aspect of government. His "Contract with America" was the beginning of the current fiscal crisis.
In order to end this whole crisis, both sides of the aisle need to set aside the suspicions and anger and work cooperatively--as they did for decades of growth--to find solutions that will get us back on track towards fiscal health.
Lastly, in the entire debate as to what programs can be saved, and which ones can't, another lost bit of history looms over the entire discussion...that as of 2010, had Congress stuck to their predecessors guns and kept the plan in place, the United States would be out of debt, Medicare and Social security would be just fine, and the country would not be in trillions of dollars of debt to China--a debt that may never get paid off now.
Who is to blame for our current crisis? Both parties, and two consecutive Presidents...and all the voters who kept them all in office. In other words, we ALL are responsible. So before you go around pointing fingers, you'd better take a look at yourself.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Civil Rights For Air Travelers--Follow Up
Just about an hour ago, MSNBC released a story about the images from airport body scanners being saved by federal agencies. This policy by the agencies involved goes directly against what the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has been telling the citizens of the United States. The following is the story:
"Despite claims by the TSA that electronic body scan images "cannot be stored or recorded," some federal police agencies are in fact saving tens of thousands of images, according to a report by CNET News.
The body scanners, increasingly found in airports, courthouses and other places where security is high, use an assortment of technologies. These include millimeter wave scanners in which the subject is harmlessly pelted with extremely high frequency radio waves which reflect a picture back to the device — and backscatter X-ray which measures low-powered reflective X-rays to produce clearer body shots, shots that can reveal alarmingly precise anatomical detail.
According to CNET, the U.S. Marshals Service admitted this week that it had saved thousands of images that had been recorded from a security checkpoint in a Florida courthouse.
The revelation comes at a tense time. Two weeks ago, when Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said such scanners would appear in every major airport, privacy advocates such as the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington D.C. filed a lawsuit to stop the device rollout.
The reason? Because the devices were "designed and deployed in a way that allows the images to be routinely stored and recorded," EPIC executive director Marc Rotenberg told CNET, adding that this "is exactly what the Marshals Service is doing."
As CNET's Declan McCullagh explains, it's the mystery of the devices' potential that is most unnerving: "This trickle of disclosures about the true capabilities of body scanners — and how they're being used in practice — is probably what alarms privacy advocates more than anything else," he wrote.
The TSA maintains that body scanning is "constitutional" and the CNET report notes that while the machines are built to "allow exporting of image data in real time" and provide networked "high-speed transfer of image data," the system are built with filters to "protect the identity, modesty, and privacy of the passenger."
(by Wilson Rothman, MSNBC.com 08/04/10)
The following is my brief response to the article:
"Why is Congress allowing this to happen? Why is the President NOT putting a stop to this? Why is the ACLU NOT suing the TSA over this? Our Civil Rights, as guaranteed under the provisio of the Constitution of our United States, are being attacked by a Federal Agency--and no one is asking "Why?" Write your Senator and House Rep! Write the President! This HAS to stop!"
Is this alarming to anyone? Are you reading this and say to yourself something like, "I can't believe this is actually going on?" If it is to you, please, please, PLEASE, write to your elected Congressional leaders and let them know how you feel. If the majority stay silent, then we will lose our liberties as guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States. Please, Make your voice heard!
"Despite claims by the TSA that electronic body scan images "cannot be stored or recorded," some federal police agencies are in fact saving tens of thousands of images, according to a report by CNET News.
The body scanners, increasingly found in airports, courthouses and other places where security is high, use an assortment of technologies. These include millimeter wave scanners in which the subject is harmlessly pelted with extremely high frequency radio waves which reflect a picture back to the device — and backscatter X-ray which measures low-powered reflective X-rays to produce clearer body shots, shots that can reveal alarmingly precise anatomical detail.
According to CNET, the U.S. Marshals Service admitted this week that it had saved thousands of images that had been recorded from a security checkpoint in a Florida courthouse.
The revelation comes at a tense time. Two weeks ago, when Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said such scanners would appear in every major airport, privacy advocates such as the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington D.C. filed a lawsuit to stop the device rollout.
The reason? Because the devices were "designed and deployed in a way that allows the images to be routinely stored and recorded," EPIC executive director Marc Rotenberg told CNET, adding that this "is exactly what the Marshals Service is doing."
As CNET's Declan McCullagh explains, it's the mystery of the devices' potential that is most unnerving: "This trickle of disclosures about the true capabilities of body scanners — and how they're being used in practice — is probably what alarms privacy advocates more than anything else," he wrote.
The TSA maintains that body scanning is "constitutional" and the CNET report notes that while the machines are built to "allow exporting of image data in real time" and provide networked "high-speed transfer of image data," the system are built with filters to "protect the identity, modesty, and privacy of the passenger."
(by Wilson Rothman, MSNBC.com 08/04/10)
The following is my brief response to the article:
"Why is Congress allowing this to happen? Why is the President NOT putting a stop to this? Why is the ACLU NOT suing the TSA over this? Our Civil Rights, as guaranteed under the provisio of the Constitution of our United States, are being attacked by a Federal Agency--and no one is asking "Why?" Write your Senator and House Rep! Write the President! This HAS to stop!"
Is this alarming to anyone? Are you reading this and say to yourself something like, "I can't believe this is actually going on?" If it is to you, please, please, PLEASE, write to your elected Congressional leaders and let them know how you feel. If the majority stay silent, then we will lose our liberties as guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States. Please, Make your voice heard!
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Arizona and the Immigration Debate
(The following is a post I made on MSNBC in response to a story about the current Arizona immigration law. I literally read every comment on the site prior to writing my response. The issue is obviously a hot-button topic, because many comments were filled with anger and resentment on either side of the issue.)
In its simplest, The Federal Govt. has failed to properly confront the problem; so The State of Arizona is exercising its State Constitutional RIGHT to address the issue of ILLEGAL Immigration.
Special Interest groups have flooded the media with propagandized statements about the Unconstitutionality of the law; and the media in turn splash image after image of sad looking illegals in an attempt to sway public opinion. Special Interest groups be damned if they side with people who have sidestepped the legal requirements toward citizenship.
President George Washington, one of our Founding Fathers said, "Laws made by common consent must not be trampled on by individuals." The Arizona law, passed by consent of the people, is indeed being trampled on by individuals and Special Interest Groups who seek to impose their personal will upon the majority of the citizenry. How, in any conceivable logic, can these individuals be granted such power?
The current problem exists not because of Obama, but because of President Ronald Reagan giving blanket amnesty to some 2.5 million illegals in the mid-eighties simply because no one was willing to properly confront the issue at that time. With his amnesty proclamation, the proverbial floodgates were thrown wide open, and the current immigration problem we have today was begun.
All the citizens of this country are asking is that anyone entering this country do so having used the proper legal channels, and go through the citizenship process as currently mandated by Federal Law. Anyone who screams "human rights!" in defense of those people who fail to enter legally, does not truly support the wishes of the citizens of the United States, nor the laws that govern us all.
What price do we, as a nation, pay if the problem of illegal immigration is either ignored, or swept aside in favor of "rights" that non-citizens have in this country? What possible outcome exists that benefits Americans if our public infrastructure is bankrupted by the growing tide of illegal immigration? Benjamin Franklin, another of our Founding Fathers stated, "Even peace may be purchased at too high a price." In this case, what is the price for peace if our nation's leaders turn a blind eye to, or our courts allow for the "rights" of non-citizens to prevail?
However you feel about this issue, no matter which camp you're in, the very basics of the immigration issue are about what is legal, according to US law, and what is illegal. That's it. Anyone screaming anything more than this basic definition is efforting a personal agenda.
In its simplest, The Federal Govt. has failed to properly confront the problem; so The State of Arizona is exercising its State Constitutional RIGHT to address the issue of ILLEGAL Immigration.
Special Interest groups have flooded the media with propagandized statements about the Unconstitutionality of the law; and the media in turn splash image after image of sad looking illegals in an attempt to sway public opinion. Special Interest groups be damned if they side with people who have sidestepped the legal requirements toward citizenship.
President George Washington, one of our Founding Fathers said, "Laws made by common consent must not be trampled on by individuals." The Arizona law, passed by consent of the people, is indeed being trampled on by individuals and Special Interest Groups who seek to impose their personal will upon the majority of the citizenry. How, in any conceivable logic, can these individuals be granted such power?
The current problem exists not because of Obama, but because of President Ronald Reagan giving blanket amnesty to some 2.5 million illegals in the mid-eighties simply because no one was willing to properly confront the issue at that time. With his amnesty proclamation, the proverbial floodgates were thrown wide open, and the current immigration problem we have today was begun.
All the citizens of this country are asking is that anyone entering this country do so having used the proper legal channels, and go through the citizenship process as currently mandated by Federal Law. Anyone who screams "human rights!" in defense of those people who fail to enter legally, does not truly support the wishes of the citizens of the United States, nor the laws that govern us all.
What price do we, as a nation, pay if the problem of illegal immigration is either ignored, or swept aside in favor of "rights" that non-citizens have in this country? What possible outcome exists that benefits Americans if our public infrastructure is bankrupted by the growing tide of illegal immigration? Benjamin Franklin, another of our Founding Fathers stated, "Even peace may be purchased at too high a price." In this case, what is the price for peace if our nation's leaders turn a blind eye to, or our courts allow for the "rights" of non-citizens to prevail?
However you feel about this issue, no matter which camp you're in, the very basics of the immigration issue are about what is legal, according to US law, and what is illegal. That's it. Anyone screaming anything more than this basic definition is efforting a personal agenda.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
