Here is an opinion piece from CNN on the recent judge's ruling overthrowing a California election that defined marriage. Here is the link to the story.
I am not so much concerned about gay marriage, to me that isnt the real issue. The larger issue is that a legal election has been thrown out. If a judge can do that, we no longer have a democracy.
The judge ruled that the vote unfairly discriminated against gay people by not letting them get married.
The judge is also openly gay. Can you say conflict of interest?
Even on that point alone his ruling should be thrown out.
It probably will get to the supreme court eventually.
But it is disturbing that a judge can throw out an election.
7,000,000 votes mean nothing in this judge's eyes.
ReplyDelete"If a judge can do that, we no longer have a democracy." ....that about sums it up. This is what happens when people who don't believe in homosexual agenda don't vote. GET THIS: Homosexuals vote, they give $$ to their candidate. Their candidates, once in office become very agressive to do their bidding. We can no longer sit on the sidelines and wish things would get better. Now look...we just confirmed a Supreme Court Justice who is pro-homosexual, pro whatever...A Justice who has NO judicial experience. Only a far left world view. She will be there once this reaches the Supreme Court. The death of a nation. Slow & painful.
@August 8, 2010 7:41 PM
ReplyDeleteGood Post!
We are in battle for the future of our Children and Grandchildren!
Not only thier futures as it relates to the National Debt - but for their hearts and minds!
Just like the article explained they will be indoctrinating them from an early age and through a "LIBERAL LED" educational system!
The fence sitting is almost over - its time to take a side (stand) or get knocked off on one side or the other!
Obama is fulfilling another campaign PROMISE!
AND
In the process he gets closer to his ultimate goal of fundamentally destroying AMERICA and its CORE VALUES!
Had the majority voted not to allow bi-racial marriage, or somehow denied blacks the rights other Americans have, would you still be complaining about the will of the voters being overturned? Or, do you honestly believe that the majority should rule in all cases, and that the electorate should have the right to pass legislation that is discriminatory, so long as it is the majority opinion? Because I would bet you might get a state to pass such legislation. Would that be okay?
ReplyDeleteLook, Sir or Ma'am...The Point IS: the people voted. their vote was overturned by 1 judge (who just HAPPENS to be an open homosexual) Let's not try & muddy the water or confuse the issue. The people voted... I guess the question is: Does the people's vote matter? Just askin'
ReplyDelete@9:20...I guess you didn't take the time to read jj's link. eh? guess not. If you had, you might not have tried the argument you did.
ReplyDelete@7:54 You said
ReplyDelete"In the process he gets closer to his ultimate goal of fundamentally destroying AMERICA and its CORE VALUES!"
Yeah, Einstein...that's his ultimate goal. Do you RWNJ's ever hear what comes from your mouth?
@9:27
ReplyDeleteHave you ever heard of the electoral college? Often times, no, the peoples vote doesn't matter because voters are, in general, idiots. Founding fathers knew this, prepared for this, and we still do it to this day. It's how things are run. Mob rule is anarchy.
The constitution is the constitution. Where's the GOPs when gun bans are overturned? Doh!
ReplyDeleteDemocracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. ~Ben Franklin.
Yeah, Einstein...that's his ultimate goal. Do you RWNJ's ever hear what comes from your mouth?
ReplyDeleteWell since you liked that so well?
Obama was raised Muslim as well as Christian! Right?
How do those Muslims treat the subjects in the topic of discussion!
Maybe O can destroy both sets of Values!
Btw: You would think that after the Priest adventure in the Catholic Church?
That people would figure out the Gay agenda!
Would the kids a Gay couple adopts have any choice or be influenced by their lifestyle?
That tolerence thingy is a ONE WAY STREET!
From Fox News:
ReplyDeleteHouse Republicans on Sunday doubled down on their opposition to Democrats’ stimulus spending as their colleagues prepared to return to Washington from recess this week to vote on a $26 billion aid package.
On NBC’s “Meet the Press," House Minority Leader John Boehner claimed, “The American people are screaming at the tops of their lungs to Washington, stop. Stop the spending, stop the job killing policies and yet the democrats from Washington refuse to listen.”
Boehner even suggested pulling the plug on the stimulus bill altogether to prevent the expenditure of the estimated $400- to 500-billion which hasn’t yet been spent.
And Republican Indiana Rep. Mike Pence pointed a finger at what he sees as heavy-handed Democratic tactics. “This has been the my way or the highway administration from the stimulus bill forward,” said Pence on “Meet the Press.” “Democrats on Capitol Hill and in this administration have slammed the door on republican ideas, have slammed the door on bipartisan proposals.”
Re-convening the House during a recess is nothing new. It’s happened several times, including two years ago for the auto bailout and in 2005 for Hurricane Katrina relief.
A final House vote on the state aid bill is expected Tuesday.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced Wednesday that the House will reconvene for a vote on the $26 billion state aid bill aimed at saving the jobs of teachers and other public employees, while giving the states a helping hand with Medicaid.
The bill’s supporters say the funds, part of the $682 billion stimulus package, will save at least 140,000 teachers from being laid off.
President Obama said Friday, “Speaker Pelosi says she's going to bring the House back in session to pass this bill, and as soon as they do I'm ready to sign it into law.”
The House had adjourned without expecting they’d get a chance to extend this state aid, which expires at the end of the year. But last week the Senate was able to win the support of Maine’s two moderate Republicans, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, giving Democrats the votes they needed to pass the legislation. That meant the House would have to return to give its approval.
Democrats call it a “jobs bill” and will tout its benefits on the campaign trail. Republicans characterize it as more wasteful government spending. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell addressed the timing of the vote by insisting, "This bill is a brazen attempt to funnel more money to public employee unions before an election at a moment of record deficits and debt.”
What your still on the fence?
"What your still on the fence?"
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think most people have no idea. They know all about Idol & Desperate housewives. But, when it comes to things that actually impact their lives, most don't have a clue.
"...giving the states a helping hand with Medicaid." This is a Tsunami they created with this healthcare monster that will sink quite a few states ship. Albeit, Medicare was already headed for bankruptcy. The healthcare bill just nailed the coffin of Medicare. Outcome: LOTS of old people are going to be left out in the cold. Literally. The real irony is that the AARP endorsed the healthcare monster. What a shame.
Oh well, does anyone care? Does anyone care that 1 judge has the gall and authority to void 7,000,000 votes?
7:42
ReplyDeleteSorry, couldn't get past the first 3 words of your post.(From fox news) Why? Here's an example:
Indiana governor (and potential 2012 Republican party Presidential nominee) Mitch Daniels appeared on Fox News yesterday. Obviously, he offered nothing but rational commentary. Ha, just kidding he linked Social Security and Medicare to child abuse.
http://www.indystar.com/article/20100809/NEWS05/8090317/Daniels-for-president-He-says-he-s-open-to-the-idea
7:42
ReplyDeleteI don't watch Fox, but I do watch Meet the Press. Did you? Didn't think so. Here's my non-fox take on what was said.
Host David Gregory to John Boehner "Will extending the Bush tax cuts pay for itself?" Boehner: "Um... Hey Look over there"
Here's the exchange -
http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0808/boehner-refuses-tax-cuts-pay/
I am not surprised that one activist judge would circumvent the will of the people of the state he has sworn an oath too. Just as I am not surprised any more when Obama circumvents the law against the will of the American people. They are both activists who are more interested in their cause than their careers. The judge's cause being gay rights and Obama's being Big government/Socialism.
ReplyDeleteFrom an Article on Cnn/Money:
ReplyDeleteThe 2.5 Dollar Slush Fund
Not our problem, say defenders of the trust fund concept. The money is owed to Social Security; it must be paid to Social Security. Legally, that's true.
But the entire federal budget needs to be rethought as the nation stares at the mountain of debt accumulated from years of our not paying our bills.
And the question is how?
Let the young pay it back
The unfortunate reality is that the trust funds proved to be ineffective at saving the money meant for Social Security in any economically meaningful way. Having used those Social Security surpluses as a slush fund for the rest of government has indeed complicated things.
First, it allowed Congress to keep all other taxes lower than it otherwise would have been. By using Social Security money to fill the gap, current and soon-to-be retirees got an effective discount on their share of the cost of government. By contrast, the responsibility for repaying the trust funds that they used is going to fall fully on today's younger workers. Not the best deal imaginable -- at least for those on the other side of the deal.
We urgently need to shift our attention to what to do to strengthen Social Security. There are a number of sensible solutions:
gradually raise the retirement age since we are living longer;
slowing the growth of benefits for high earners to preserve them for those who depend on the program;
correct the inflation formula, which overestimates annual cost of living adjustments.
The rhetoric surrounding the issue is likely to heat up. Instead of trading accusations or competing over promises of what not to do to fix the program, policymakers from both parties agree that changes need to be made to strengthen Social Security and rebalance the budget. We should get started as quickly as possible.
After all, as the program trustees said: "The projected trust fund shortfalls should be addressed in a timely way so that necessary changes can be phased in gradually and workers can be given time to plan for them. Implementing changes sooner will allow the needed revenue increases or benefit reductions to be spread over more generations."
That is a point everyone should be able to understand.
America is a Democratic Republic. A judge can't make law. Only the legislative branch can make law.
ReplyDeleteFascinating! A judge who has no ties to the current POTUS is now, by the Arkansas City intelligencia linked directly to him.
ReplyDeleteDo you even know who appointed the judge? Was he appointed or elected? These comments are so brainless.
OK, Einstein...What's who appointed him got to do with *#@$$? I believe the point is that 1 (ONE) man can void 7 million votes. Linked to whoever is irrelevant & immaterial. However, since you want to talk about who he's linked to... Looks like to me he's linked to some...uhhhh...how you say....It's coming to me..linked to...
ReplyDeleteUmm...9:55, sorry to rain on your little hissy fit, but 8:53 was referring to an earlier post.
ReplyDeleteFrom an article on CNN/Money:
ReplyDeleteThe issue now is not the Bush tax cuts, said O'Neill, who doesn't think the economy is in terrible shape. Rather, it's the need for fundamental tax reform, preferably one that is much simpler and emphasizes investment and growth over immediate consumption.
"If we let the Bush tax cuts expire, it's still the same stupid tax system."
----------------
I think there are answers if they would just look in the right PLACE!
But, it probably won't happen with people who
are only interested in their agendas!
@9:27 - That's all I was asking as well. What if we voted to make apartheid the law of the land. Would you be okay with that? What if a black judge overturned it? Would you be upset? That's all I'm asking...
ReplyDelete@9:30 - Yeah, I read the linked article. I was commenting on JJ's premise that a judge has no authority to overturn the majority vote of the people. This article was written by an obvious right wing, fundamental conservative that has his own bias, and his own way of interpreting scripture. Problem is, for years people used scripture to justify racism, slavery, and subjugation of women. If we voted to deny women the right to work, or vote would that be okay?
ReplyDeleteWomen should not be in positions of authority over men, they should know their place, and be silent. The bible says so. I say it is about time we return to our sound biblical principals. The emancipation of women has done more to damage our families than anything else. Women belong home, and in the kitchen. If women were home raising kids, families would not be so broken, and there would be plenty of work for men. Lets pass a law that requires women to stay home and take care of their children. It is biblical, and it makes sense.
Yeah. Now get your b!tch @ss in the kitchen and make me some pie!
ReplyDeleteAmerica is not a Democracy, never has been, and it wasn't meant to be. It is still, (at least for now,) a Democratic Republic. Neither the people, the judicial branch, or the executive branch have the authority to make law. That is the responsibility of the legislative branch. Further, we are not a country where majority rules. In fact, our system of government was set up to prevent that from happening, and to protect the rights of minorities.
ReplyDeleteThe Greatest Management Principle in the World!
ReplyDeleteThe BEHAVIOR you REWARD!
IS
The BEHAVIOR you will RECEIVE!
Why do we allow hatred and bigotry to cloak itself in religion so that it can find safe haven in the constitution? We claim to uphold the values of tolerance and respect. We decry racism; unless it wraps itself in faith and calls itself religion. Then we not only tolerate it, we give tax breaks to the institutions that practice it.
ReplyDeleteWhy do we allow hatred and bigotry to cloak itself in religion so that it can find safe haven in the constitution?
ReplyDeleteBecause the Constitution does not make personal choices for you! But gaurantees your right/ability to make those CHOICES!
We claim to uphold the values of tolerance and respect.
Yes, but we also pass laws that are aimed at making those very things important! Then allow Politicians, Groups etc. to break them with little to no recourse.
We decry racism; unless it wraps itself in faith and calls itself religion.
Yet some still draw "POWER" from being a called VICTIM!
Then we not only tolerate it, we give tax breaks to the institutions that practice it.
While we let Government do the JOB of Religion! Then give our money to the Government and deny our own religious duties!
From an article on Motley Fool:
ReplyDeleteSo now what?
With 40.8 million Americans on food stamps (record high) and 45% of the unemployed having been seeking employment for 27 weeks or more (record high), what's left if (or when) QE2 doesn't kick start GDP growth? Should we start begging for QE3? Should we cancel the bomb of the National Association of Realtors' existing home sales report, scheduled for public release on August 24th? Or should we bite the bullet and accept that current economic policy dictates 0% returns-on-savings, even as Washington continues to lever-up our future to the point of economic collapse?
Before the Fiat Fools -- Hedgeye's name for political actors and bankers who have placed their hopes of economic recovery in printing endless supplies of new cash -- run out campaigning for QE3, maybe they should analyze some real time market results to yesterday's announcement of QE2:
1)The US dollar is battling for resuscitation after 9 consecutive down weeks -- down 9% since June.
2) US Treasury yields are making record lows on the short end of the curve, with 2-year yields striking 0.49%.
3) The yield spread (in this case the difference in return between 10-year and 2-year Treasury bills, which shows a long-term confidence when high) continues to collapse, down another 4 basis point day-over-day to 223 basis points.
4) The S&P 500 is down below its 200-day moving average (a common signpost for the health of a market or stock) of 1115.
5) US Volatility (VIX) is spiking from its recent stability.
6) In Japan, long time quantitative easing specialists found their markets closing down overnight by 2.7%, which makes them down 11.9% for the year to date.
Lest our doom and gloom seem built entirely on technical measurements, what they boil down to is actually quite simple -- an idea about our country which dates back to 1835. Alexis De Tocqueville, author of Democracy in America, which was published that year, seemed to warn of this day when he wrote: "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."
-- Keith R. McCullough is CEO of Hedgeye, a research firm based in New Haven, Conn.
@5:00 p.m. hmmmm..makes you think. You know, I can read and understand that. Maybe the people in Congress can too. (after all, most are lawyers, doctors, or at least college educated) I think you should e-mail a copy to them.....In laymen's terms...WE'RE SCREWED!
ReplyDeleteFrom Tuesdays Motley Fool:
ReplyDeleteAccording to Reuters columnist James Pethokoukis:
Rumors are running wild from Washington to Wall Street that the Obama administration is about to order government-controlled lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to forgive a portion of the mortgage debt of millions of Americans who owe more than what their homes are worth. An estimated 15 million U.S. mortgages -- one in five -- are underwater with negative equity of some $800 billion. Recall that on Christmas Eve 2009, the Treasury Department waived a $400 billion limit on financial assistance to Fannie and Freddie, pledging unlimited help.
It's worth reiterating that this is a rumor, and nothing more. The Treasury plans to hold an Aug. 17 meeting to discuss Fannie and Freddie's future, which would be an obvious time to either confirm or deny this speculation.
For the moment, let's assume they're true. Sounds like another devastatingly expensive taxpayer giveaway, no? Probably. But there's actually an argument that doing this could save Fannie and Freddie money. Studies are in fair agreement that the propensity for homeowners to walk away from a mortgage rises as their homes sink deeper underwater. If the rumored program is designed so that the cost of mortgage forgiveness is less than the amount Fannie and Freddie would lose in foreclosure (and it easily could be), it'd make a good amount of sense.
There's just one small problem …
At least, that's the theory. Reality is sadly different, and there's almost zero chance of what I just described happening in real life -- although it's the argument you can be assured the administration will give you to justify this program's existence.
Since Fannie and Freddie don't know exactly who plans on walking away from their house, a principal forgiveness program like this would have to be extended to a blanket group of homeowners -- including those who have no intention of defaulting. When you add in the cost of paying these homeowners to not do something they never would have done in the first place, the total cost of the program could look godawful. Cash for Clunkers and the first-time homebuyers credit ran into the same problem. It's inefficiency like you can't believe.
But who cares? Spending a couple dozen billion on Fannie and Freddie is called a slow Tuesday in Washington. We should ask not what this program might cost -- it would inevitably be huge -- but how it might affect the housing market.
Hello, unintended consequences!
And, oh, how it would. I consider the unending battle on homeowners' behalf a carryover of last decade's bubble mentality, which insisted that homeownership ranked among life's most sacred treasures. If you're a renter and you get into trouble, you can go pound sand. If you own a home and you get into trouble, the government's got your back. That's a dangerous signal to send.
But that's the least of my worries (and I'm a renter). What would be seriously awful about this potential program is that, from the sound of it, it would only apply to mortgages owned or backed by Fannie and Freddie. No, there aren't details on how this program might work (or even if it's real), but this seems obvious: Fannie and Freddie can't order private lenders to forgive mortgage principal, after all.
That's dangerous because Fannie and Freddie only hold about 50% of the nation's mortgages. Private lenders (mainly banks) hold billions more.
If Fannie and Freddie loans were granted principal forgiveness, while private loans were left to fend for themselves, the message to borrowers would be clear: If you need a mortgage, demand that it's backed by Fannie or Freddie. They're a one-way ticket to wealth, whereas private mortgages actually hold you to your word. In the end, borrowers' addiction to government-backed mortgages would be strengthened, at a time when most economists agree the long-term policy should be a gradual weaning.