May 10, 2012 Political
Barack Obama announced his support for gay marriage yesterday after his hand was “forced” by his gaffe prone VP, Joe Biden. Over the weekend Biden expressed support for gay marriage and the media frenzy began until Obama was “forced” to address the issue.
Obama claims his opinion on the issue has evolved and that discussions with gay people, his wife and children helped him evolve on the issue. While it might be true that he spoke with them about the issue it had nothing to do with evolving.
Obama has always supported gay marriage. Actually, he has said he does and that he doesn’t and that he does. It all depended on the time and the audience. Rather than evolving it would be more accurate to say Obama’s opinion has been revolving because he keeps going round and round on it.
Obama has always supported gay marriage. He just has not always voiced that support.
In fact, the announcement of this evolution is something that has been ongoing as he and his aides discussed whether he should announce it or not before the election (more flexibility after) and if before, when would be the best time politically? Obama wanted the announcement to provide the biggest bang for the buck, so to speak.
In just 90 minutes after his announcement he received a million dollars in donation from the gay activists. Of course, the obligatory fundraising email went out last night.
Obama is an opportunist. He planned on “evolving” all along but wanted to wait until after the election. He is in a tough fight so he wanted to get the gay community and his liberal base back in the fight. The African American community is strongly against gay marriage but Obama has little to worry about as many will vote Democrat no matter what and many who don’t vote or like his positions will go out and vote for him just because he is black. That is a fact that many blacks have already made public. There are some who question whether Obama will get that support though.
Obama risks losing more of the Independent voters who are not in favor of gay marriage. Obama risks losing those in the majority of states that have already rejected gay marriage.
This is all a political stunt. Obama has always believed in gay marriage. He knows that gay issues (like marriage) are part of the tactics used to brainwash a nation and make it Communist.
He wants this to happen but he wanted to wait until after the election and he would have had Biden not opened his mouth.
Obama, always the politician, has left himself some wiggle room. He announced that he is in favor of gay marriage BUT that he supports the concept of states deciding the issue.
He can pander to his base for votes and cash while making the blatantly obvious point that this IS a state’s rights issue.
Then again so was abortion before the federal government involved itself.
Obama would love nothing more than for a court to decide that gay marriage is a federal issue and conjure up a right out of thin air like it did with abortion. He would love for a court to say that all states have to honor the marriage of a gay couple that was legally performed in a state that allows it. It would be his way of using the backdoor (pun intended) to get gay marriage in all states.
Funny, Obama would oppose any legislation that would allow a concealed carry permit to be recognized in all states.
For now though, he will have to be content to state his support of an issue that he cannot possibly affect because, as he said, it is an issue that is up to each state.
And the gays will swallow this hook, line, and sinker…
As for me, I don’t have anything against gay people. I have an issue with the attempt to redefine marriage. And let us remember, there is no right to marry…
Never surrender, never submit.
The People’s Republic of Maryland lacks true leadership. It is headed by a Democrat governor who thinks that he has the authority to rule in opposition to the will of the people (much like Obama does at the national level) and he has a supporting cast of Democrats in the Capitol who are more than willing to be his sock puppets.
The Governor, Martin O’Malley (the Teflon Leprechaun), is looking to strengthen his bona fides so he can run on the national stage. He wants to be president someday. I would say he wants to be president when he grows up but he will never grow up. He has spent most of his final term in office pushing a liberal agenda that will play well on the national stage. He has mismanaged our money, raised taxes and is working on raising taxes yet again.
One of his signature acts is to get gay marriage passed in the state. He is looking to do this so he will appeal to the larger audience of liberals in the country and he is doing it much the same way Barack Obama was able to pass Obamacare. He bribed (or engaged in arm twisting) people including at least one Republican to vote for the bill. It has been speculated that Delegate Wade Kach was offered a six figure state job for his vote. No matter what, he and Delegate Robert Costa need to be replaced in the next election.
The issue of gay marriage is a state issue and though I oppose it, the state has a right to work on passing it (or not passing it). However, the issue belongs in the hands of the people and not the legislature. The definition of marriage needs to be part of the Maryland Constitution so it needs to be part of the referendum process. The PEOPLE, not political hacks, should get to decide the issue.
What infuriates me about this issue is that the politicians in Maryland worked like zealots to get this issue to the floor for a vote but work just as hard to deny Maryland Citizens their right to keep and bear arms. Maryland’s law does not allow people to easily get a permit to carry a handgun. The state’s laws are written specifically to violate the Second Amendment by infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. Fewer than 1000 permits have been issued from the tens of thousands of applications (and it is costly). Maryland requires people to show a reason they should be allowed to carry because in this People’s Republik the Second Amendment is not reason enough.
Every year Republicans introduce legislation to change this in an attempt to get Maryland closer to a “shall issue” state. Unfortunately, Democrats block this by not allowing it to ever see the light of day.
Delegate Joseph Vallario (who has been in office since 1975) refuses to let the bills make it to the floor. He is allowing his personal views to keep him from doing his duty as a legislator. He is supposed to do the business of the people and he is doing just the opposite.
Vallario has opposed gay marriage and refused to allow that bill to the floor though this year it has changed. Why? Because he is a sock puppet of the governor! Bills the governor likes eventually make it to the floor. It is no coincidence that O’Malley, who is protected by half a dozen armed police officers, is opposed to private citizens carrying handguns.
Maryland politicians have trouble understanding the Constitution. The Second Amendment is violated and while the US Constitution mandates a Republican form of government in all states, that applies in name only with regard to Maryland. We are governed by dictators.
The Declaration of Independence says that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.
They no longer have my consent.
I look forward to a ballot box revolution though, in truth, that would require an informed and educated electorate.
We sorely lack one of those…
Never surrender, never submit.
Aug 13, 2010 Political
Looks like California is going further down the tubes. While an activist judge with a homosexual bias (he is gay) disregarded the wishes of over 7 million people and while people are sashaying around celebrating the shredding of Constitutional Law (at either the state or federal level) the state of California is falling off the planet.
California is home to lots of very rich people and the state taxes everything imaginable. Unfortunately, it has a plethora of union workers (particularly public sector workers) who suckle the teat of government and have bankrupted the system. California has too many unions, too many public sector employees, too many illegal aliens and too many welfare programs. It cannot afford all of this.
The state intends to issue IOUs to those who are owed money:
State Controller John Chiang said Tuesday that without a state budget, California’s government would be unable to pay its bills in late August (or maybe early September). That means issuing IOUs to some people. Possible dates for IOUs could be either Aug. 27 or Aug. 31, when big payments to schools are due, according to this schedule on the controller’s website. NBC Los Angeles
The IOUs are a result of not having a budget but the reason there is no budget is because they cannot balance one. They owe more than they take in and they have not figured out how to cut what needs to be cut in order to get out of debt.
While the Governor and the courts are occupying their time worrying about gay marriage, the state is drowning and there is no hope in sight.
But like the passengers of the Titanic, they will have a gay ole time while the ship sinks…
Never surrender, never submit.
Ben and Jerry’s ice cream is not a particular favorite of mine. In fact I have not had their ice cream in years because I do not like the flavors they offer. I prefer Breyer’s ice cream because it tastes good. And additional benefit is that the company is not involved in social activism.
In honor of Vermont’s new law allowing gay marriage, Ben and Jerry’s has renamed their Chubby Hubby ice cream to Hubby Hubby. It is one thing to celebrate the passage of an event with a new label as they did when Obama was elected and they changed an ice cream name to Yes Pecan or when they changed a flavor to Jerry Garcia to honor the Dead’s lead singer but it is quite another to rename an ice cream to mark the passage of a divisive issue. A lot of people find gay marriage wrong and it does not seem like a smart marketing ploy to remind people of the decay of an institution by giving the ice cream a name that references homosexuality.
I really don’t care about Ben and Jerry’s but find it funny that they think it is smart to inject themselves into this kind of an issue.
At least this is just a temporary change of a product and not a new one. Imagine the label if they had developed a new ice cream called Hubby Hubby:
Fudge Packed Ice Cream
Lots of smooth cream sprinkled with nuts
For that bold, in your face taste
Perhaps they could have changed their Dublin Mudslide flavor to Double Mudslide or their Berried Treasure to Buried Pleasure…
I also wonder if the lesbians feel left out. There is no ice cream that has been renamed to honor the women’s ability to marry each other.
I think Ben and Jerry should rename their Banana Split ice cream to No Banana Lickety Split. It can have a label like:
No Banana Lickety Split
A delightful tub of ice cream designed
For those who don’t like to lick a cone
Maybe they could have changed their Phish Food flavor to Phish Mood or Jamacian Me Crazy to Jamacian Me Crazy so Lesbe Friends or even changing Sweet Cream and Cookies to Sweet Cream and Nookie.
OK, I have had about enough fun with this locker room humor. This is your chance to suggest flavors to honor other things in America. Perhaps they can come up with San Francisco Treat (packed with Fruits and Nuts) or maybe Democrat Delight (Lots of Fluff and Lacking Nuts).
Perhaps they can even rehonor Obama with a Cashews for Clunkers flavor. You have to use someone else’s money to buy it…
Lastly, they might try a flavor to honor Ted Kennedy. Something like Liver Quiver, an intoxicating ice cream that is sure to make a splash…
Have at it but try not to be to risque…
Apr 20, 2009 Political
I have never been one to sugar coat an answer to a question and I don’t tell the person asking what they want to hear if I feel that is not correct. Of course, like everyone, there are questions I prefer not to answer or that I answer tactfully in order to spare one’s feelings. Does this make me look fat is one such question…
I have always been of a mind that you should not ask a question unless you are prepared for the answer even if it is not what you wanted to hear. Not every answer will be the one you want and some will not be tactful.
During the Miss America Pageant Miss California, Carrie Prejean, was asked by Perez Hilton, a gay man, if she believed in gay marriage (he actually asked her if 46 states should follow the lead of the four that allow gay marriage). Miss California answered in a strange way but she ended up saying she believed marriage was between a man and a woman and that is how she was raised:
“We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite. And you know what, I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised.” Fox News
We don’t live in a land where you can choose to marry same sex. There are a few states that allow it but nearly all define marriage as between a man and a woman. But Miss California committed a sin because she did not affirm to the world that homosexuals should be able to marry. I think she could have answered it a little better but I am happy she stood for her beliefs.
Hilton’s response was rendered on his blog (today) when he said that Miss California was a “dumb b*tch.” Well, he should not have asked the question if he was not prepared to hear this kind of response. He indicated he would have preferred a politically correct response.
The gays in the audience were livid indicating that she should have never been runner up with that kind of belief. Who knows, maybe she would have won if she had given the answer that they wanted rather than the one that honestly depicted her belief though Hilton contends she lost because she is dumb. My understanding is that she was clearly in the lead prior to that question.
The guy who runs the Miss California competition, Keith Lewis, was saddened by her response. Why? Did he not expect her to say what she believed? Perhaps he thought that since she is from California she would be in favor of same sex marriage. One audience member said that her answer was different than 95% of the people in attendance. Perhaps (though there is no way of really knowing), but she comes from a state where voters rejected same sex marriage on several ballot initiatives. Here is what Lewis said:
“As co-director of the Miss California USA, I am personally saddened and hurt that Miss California believes marriage rights belong only to a man and a woman,” said Lewis in a statement. “I believe all religions should be able to ordain what unions they see fit. I do not believe our government should be able to discriminate against anyone and religious beliefs have no politics in the Miss California family.”
If politics do not belong in this then why did they allow Hilton to ask a question that has been the topic of a political battle for quite some time?
If the gay men in the audience (and according to the 95% guy, there were many) want to hear a different answer to that question then they should have their own pageant.
They could call it The Siss America Pageant.
Once again, the tolerant homosexual community is intolerant of someone who disagrees with its agenda. Nowhere is that any clearer than in the response from Hilton.