Category Archives: GOP
“Then I Shall Take Over The Entire Tri-State Area!”* Bloomberg’s Battle Cry
Thank you New York Post for your wonderful front page, couldn’t have described Bloomberg better myself.
Nanny Bloomberg just can’t help himself, he just needs to fix everyone’s life through regulation, because people just need to be controlled. Or in the words of a certain super villain, “The world is a mess and I just… need to rule it.”
To that effect Bloomberg plans to expand his soda ban, taking it to the level of banning 2 liter sodas from your pizza deliveries and pitchers of soda from your children’s birthday parties and mixers at bars , because clearly those are meant for one person to guzzle down.
No surprise that this, like most other liberal regulations, will raise costs for businesses.
So Bloomberg has built his own little fiefdom in New York City and he wants to spread his influence from one urban corner of New York state, out into the rest of New York state…and then THE WORLD! *Maniacal Laughter*
His excuse to infringe on people’s personal liberty and responsibility? Do it for the children! The favored excuse of liberals when they want to make other people feel guilty for defending their liberty.
You have exactly the right question, but you’re asking it the wrong way. Keep in mind we’re trying to save the lives of these kids — particularly kids… The state should do exactly the same thing in stores. – Bloomberg via Breitbart
Bloomberg’s inane fight to regulate the health of his citizens has reached everything from what food you can donate to homeless shelters and yet another regulation, this one on plastic-foam (styrofoam) containers, that will raise prices for businesses in New York City.
Yes, that sounds like exactly what a city with an already above average unemployment rate needs.
Anyone with any common sense would be questioning Nanny Bloomberg’s sanity at this point and wondering why he, a man who puts salt on his pizza, is spending so much time, energy, and money on programs to control how everyone else in his city eats.
ERMAGHERD! PAUL RYAN WANTS RAPISTS TO HAVE PARENTAL RIGHTS!
Well that’s apparently what liberals would like us to believe.
Anyone with a working brain is, I trust, automatically skeptical of such a claim…as you should be.
It’s not true.
I recently received a message on tumblr from a liberal who appeared to be very smug. They wrote “What if I told you” and linked to this article “Nightmare: 31 States Allow Paternal Rights for Rapists”.
Now the websites tagline is “Progressive: Politics to Pop Culture” so we can already tell this is A.) completely biased and B.) lacks any semblance of actual journalism already.
(Before you respond that I am also biased, remember that I don’t recommend you believe me with no further questioning…which is why I link to legitimate research and news so that you can start your own research.)
Okay, so this article is a hatchet job that provides no facts. Half of the links to ‘proof’ in their article lead to either articles on their own website (which also have no real facts to back them up) and the rest of the links (3 others) have to do DIRECTLY with a case that they cite where the mother won her court case, even though the rapist DID petition for parental rights.
The article (and none of the links) even tries to give us a percentage of woman who are A.) petitioned for parental rights by their rapists or B.) A percentage of rapists who are actually granted these rights.
My thoughts on that are of course that this is because the B part of that equation would be about 0% since the idea that any reasonably sane judge would grant custody or visitation rights to a felon and a registered sex offender (of which a rapist would be both) is absolutely ludicrous.
The article is actually so very bad that I’m going to have to take most of it apart piece by piece, which is something I think my readers enjoy.
In the midst of all the outrage over Todd Akin’s “legitimate rape” comments, Missouri resident Shauna Prewitt waded into the war zone. The victim of a brutal rape, Prewitt later gave birth to a daughter borne of that encounter. When her rapist later filed for custody of her child, Prewitt’s nightmare became frighteningly worse. This courageous woman shared her experience with the rest of America; she is not alone:
“Prewitt says that if she knew then what she knows now about the laws in 31 states thatgrant men who father children via rape visitation rights that are equal to those that other fathers also enjoy, she might not have chosen to keep her child.
“My attacker sought custody of my daughter, but thankfully I got lucky and his visitation rights were terminated,” Prewitt says. “But I’m not sure I would have made the decision I did had I known I might be tethered to my rapist for the rest of my life.””
Okay, so you are saying that a convicted rapist petitioned for parental rights and were denied…that’s not ‘luck’ that’s just common sense on the judge’s part.
This section is curiously lacking in any sort of statistic on how many women this happens to and how often the rapist succeeds…that just might be pertinent.
What does this have to do with Todd Akin’s comments? The idea that there can be “legitimate rape” because the woman was not impregnated during that vile act, and conversely, the notion of “false rape” when it results in pregnancy, is mind-blowingly frightening.
I must be missing something, but when did Akin claim that a pregnancy resulting from rape made it a ‘false rape’?
Regardless, most Conservatives saw Akin’s comments for the stupidity they were (he’s far better than his opponent regardless) so attempting to pin his comments on conservatives in general is just ridiculous.
For a victim to be forced to bear the child of the man who sexually assaulted her, and in many cases also drugged, abducted, terrorized, battered, disfigured, pummeled, shot, or stabbed her is unimaginable. While the sponsors of HR-3 will insist that such a victim was never raped, since alas, there is a pregnancy; these legislators also tell the perpetrator that he, by default, cannot be considered a rapist. In such a world, Ms. Prewitt would have had no grounds upon which to terminate the visitation of the rapist bastard who fathered her child.
Okay…so Akin was in on creating HR-3. However if you actually read the bill, like I actually did, you will find that it has no restrictions on women being raped having an abortion.
Nor does it change the definition of rape or say that women who get pregnant ‘weren’t really raped’ because they got pregnant. Now you just reaching the territory of stupid. Nor have the legislators in question tried to say that ‘if you get pregnant, then your rapists isn’t actually a rapist’.
So, yeah…she would still have grounds, except in the fantasy world you are constructing which has nothing to do with reality.
It’s nice how you never link to the text of the actual bill you are badmouthing, you just make up what you think is in the bill and feed it to your readers. Fact checking might help you.
What are we to take away from Prewitt’s experience? Consider that 31 states have not yet adopted special laws that restrict the ability of rapists to assert their custodian and visitation rights to a child born through rape. These 31 states effectively grant men who father children via rape visitation rights that are equal to those that other fathers also enjoy.
Okay, so maybe we should have a law that says ‘no felon or sex offender may petition for custodial rights of children’, but the states you are criticizing to NOT ‘effectively grant men who father children via rape visitation rights.’
What the state laws allow is for them to petition the court for those rights.
Remember earlier when I said that the idea that judge would grant such a person custodial rights was ludicrous?
Remember when you never gave us any statistics on how often this is attempted or how often it succeeds?
HR-3’s “legitimate rape” and “forcible rape” language would nullify the laws of the other 19 states for all of the reasons given above.
HR-3 uses no such language. Did you even read the bill?
After all, HR-3 says no such father could be a rapist – and fathers have rights.
HR-3 says no such thing. Did you even read the bill?
Data shows that roughly 27% of all American women faced with Shauna Prewitt’s circumstances make the decision to have and raise the baby; roughly 47% give birth but put the baby up for adoption.
Ooh! This looks like a buildup to some actual statistics on how many rapists petition and succeed in petitioning for custodial rights!
In the world of HR-3, the 26% who opt to have an abortion would be criminalized.
Whoops….no, just more fantasy world.
In point of fact, HR-3 actually say:
‘Sec. 306. Non-preemption of other Federal laws
‘Nothing in this chapter shall repeal, amend, or have any effect on any other Federal law to the extent such law imposes any limitation on the use of funds for abortion or for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion, beyond the limitations set forth in this chapter.
which means, for those with less reading comprehension, that this bill does not change the law on abortion at all. All it does is say that federal money cannot be used for abortions, except in the case of:
‘Sec. 308. Treatment of abortions related to rape, incest, or preserving the life of the mother
‘The limitations established in sections 301, 302, and 303 shall not apply to an abortion–
‘(1) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest; or
‘(2) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.
So actually…this law doesn’t change anything for women who have been raped or have lives that are being endangered by the pregnancy.
To escape an imminent jail term, women would be forced to have their rapist’s baby
No, just stop.
and face the likelihood of being tethered to him for life.
Really, stop. Your fantasy world is not amusing anymore. You really need to live in reality.
Likewise, any rapist-father, now legally classified as non-rapist under Akin/Ryan law, could withhold consent to adoption as the unwed biological father and insinuate himself into the lives of mother and child.
No, they are still considered rapists. HR-3 has nothing to do with the definition of rape or defining what constitutes a rapist, a felon, or a sex offender is.
As previously stated, the rapist could attempt any of these things, but a judge would throw out the requests nearly as fast as they were made, HR-3 has NOTHING to do with this.
Consider the psychological aspects of rape: it is about domination, humiliation, control, and brutal degradation. For such a man to have controlling interests in the life of a child spawned by his brutality is heinous and reprehensible.
Oh look, we agree on something. This may be the only truthful thing you’ve said in this entire piece of crap.
Still has nothing to do with HR-3.
Legislation that would open the doors of victimized women to their attackers and give them free reign to manipulate, control, and to exert psychological torture indefinitely is downright barbaric.
Yes, yes it is.
Good job, you managed two correct (if obvious) statements in this article.
Still had nothing to do with HR-3.
Consideration should also be given to children fathered through acts of incest, and pedophilia; these two are often interrelated. In such instances, the Akin/Ryan law could grant indisputable custody to men who already have a sexual predilection for children, and would place the children of the children they raped squarely under their control.
No, no it wouldn’t.
HR-3 says NOTHING about protecting rapists or pedophiles.
In fact, it protects federal funding for abortions in one two cases at all.
‘(A) an abortion–
‘(i) in the case of a pregnancy that is the result of an act of rape or incest, or
‘(ii) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy.
- HR-3
Great job at trying to poison the well though. I’m sure most of your liberal readers won’t bother to research this bill and will run around claiming that they have and that it protects rapists and bans abortions, but we both know that’s not true.
It’s a nice sentiment and I believe it. So why do liberals want my sexual orientation to determine my politics?
Or my friends,
my politics,
my religion,
etc.
I’ve seen this picture numerous times, or ones similar to it.
Usually posted by people or organizations that I’ve had intense disagreements with over the fact that they seem to believe that I can’t be a conservative if I’m gay…or that I can’t be gay if I’m a conservative. I’ve heard it both ways.
I’ve even, recently, dealt with someone who told me outright that being gay was a political position and that I crazy if I thought that being gay only dealt with your sexuality. (This was a liberal who said this, I haven’t had this reaction from any of the conservatives I’ve talked too. Including the ones I met at Right Online this year).
So please, explain to me how my sexual orientation doesn’t choose all of the things mentioned in that drawing…but it does choose my politics, because I’m failing to see how these things are different.
How much education can you afford?
I don’t usually discuss education, though I feel strongly about the subject, but as a college student who isn’t exactly rolling in cash, this topic had to be written about.
ThinkProgress (a “news” site that always leaves me wondering exactly how many “glaucoma” patients they have on staff*) has apparently taken issue with something that Romney said recently (surprise, surprise…not). Specifically they had a problem with this part of his speech on the 27th in Virginia.
I think this is a land of opportunity for every single person, every single citizen of this great nation. And I want to make sure that we keep America a place of opportunity, where everyone has a fair shot. They get as much education as they can afford and with their time they’re able to get and if they have a willingness to work hard and the right values, they ought to be able to provide for their family and have a shot of realizing their dreams.
Oh I get what they think they are upset about, but honestly they are just looking for a reason to dislike Romney. If they were paying any attention to his record they would know they were being ridiculous, but really…if a website posts an article named “Four Reasons Why The Court’s Decision To Uphold Obamacare Is Good News For The Economy” they aren’t really trying to be taken seriously anymore.
But I digress.
People are trying to make this statement look like Romney doesn’t care about the poor and don’t want them to get an education, but that’s just ridiculous!
This is the comparison they are making. God, I hope I’m never this stupid.
See the key word here is “afford” and that word doesn’t mean what you think it means.**
The definition of afford:
1. To be able to do, manage, or bear without serious consequence or adverse effect.2. To be able to meet the expense of; have or be able to spare the price of.
When you bring this term into a conversation of “can I afford this 60″ flat screen TV” it actually means “Do I have this money in my bank account right now?” Or “Will I be able to pay this off with the job I have?”
When you are talking about something such as a smart investment opportunity or education, the question becomes “can I spare the money right now for the pay off later?”
When I went back to school I weighed the cost very carefully. I was very aware of the amount I would have to take out in federal and private loans and I considered whether I could afford the cost and then decided that I couldn’t afford to not return to school.
Then, of course, you run into people *cough99%’scough* who complain that they spent SO much money that they couldn’t afford on their education and now they can’t find jobs and they can’t pay back all those loans they took out while getting degrees in Underwater Basket-weaving and Canadian Studies and Music Therapy. (Those last two are actual degrees…I sincerely hope that the first one is not.) Or perhaps one of these other, equally pointless and wasteful, degrees.
Can these people afford to get these degrees? (Well clearly they couldn’t, or they wouldn’t have been camping out in New York City, protesting other people’s better college choices). The only people who could afford that sort of degree would be someone like Paris Hilton, with outrageous amounts of family money (and even Paris isn’t that stupid, she, to my knowledge, never went to college. Instead she just started her own companies and became successful…without college, imagine that.) Instead maybe they should have gone to get a degree in something that could help them get a good career. Instead of dicking around in Women’s Studies majors, maybe they should have gone to nursing school. Instead of majoring in Religion (sorry Dylan***) maybe they should have gone to Business school or at the very least gotten a teaching degree.
Yes, I’m aware that the cost of college is outrageous, but you can only blame the government for that. You can’t blame them for your stupid choice of major, but youcanblame the government for subsidizing every stupid degree that colleges make available.
Wait, you say, I had to get a college degree to get a good job.
Bullshit. I’ve had good paying, full time jobs, that never once cared about whether I had a degree or not. You either haven’t looked in the right place, or you are looking for a job you will “enjoy”. I will admit, those full time jobs were boring as hell and I hate them, but I was also independent and made plenty of money to do whatever I wanted after paying my rent and saving a little.
But, you say, I want a job I will enjoy. I want a career, so I have to get a degree because those jobs won’t hire me without a degree.
Once again, blame the government and the subsidization of colleges. 50 years ago, people got college degrees for jobs that needed serious training. Doctors, Lawyers, Engineers, (some) Scientists. General jobs didn’t all come with a “those without college degree need not apply” disclaimer. The government subsidized and then degrees, the likes of which wouldneverget you a job, began popping up all over the place just to reel in the students.
So even if your broke can you ‘afford’ college? Well that depends on whether you have a plan and whether you know what degree to get to carry out that plan and whether you are willing to do the work to become successful. If you have those three things anyone can afford to go to college, that’s what Romney meant.
____________________________________________________________________________________
*No offense to those people I know who have LEGITIMATE pain management issues that are helped by a little mary-jane, but I think it’s clear this stuff (or whatever they are taking) is not helping the writer’s at ThinkProgress to ‘progress’ anywhere but the snack food aisle.
**Sort of like how the word “fair” and “equal” have somehow gained new, interesting, twisted definitions for liberals.
***That is what my brother majored in…
Democrats now have gay marriage on their platform
*packs bags to switch political camps*
Or not.
Because I’m not a moron.*
First of all, you are a gay person and think this means that the Democratic party cares about you one iota, you are naive…and a moron.
Just the same way you are a moron if you think that Obama’s jury-rigged, executive order dream act (which not even top officials at ICE agree with) means they care about illegal immigrants.
As Mark Steyn, over at National Review, put it: You are the Democrats house pets. You are convenient now, but the moment you aren’t good for their cause they will cut off all the favors and nice words.
As an exercise in sheer political muscle, it’s impressive. But, if you’re a feminist or a gay or any of the other house pets in the Democrat menagerie, you might want to look at Rahm Emanuel’s pirouette, and Menino’s coziness with Islamic homophobia. These guys are about power, and right now your cause happens to coincide with their political advantage. But political winds shift. Once upon a time, Massachusetts burned witches. Now it grills chicken-sandwich homophobes. One day it’ll be something else. Already in Europe, in previously gay-friendly cities like Amsterdam, demographically surging Muslim populations have muted leftie politicians’ commitment to gay rights, feminism, and much else. It’s easy to cheer on the thugs when they’re thuggish in your name. What happens when Emanuel’s political needs change?
Liberal politicians regularly cozy up to Islam, a religion which, the the countries where it runs the show, encourages institutionalized hatred of women and homosexuals. Want to talk about American culture ‘blaming rape victims’? Let’s talk about women being whipped for being raped in Muslim cultures under Sharia law, the law of Islam.
In Muslim countries, homosexuality is still a punishable offense with either prison or death being the punishments in most cases. In Iran, only months ago, 4 gay men were hanged for being homosexuals.
But liberals have an uncomfortable habit of viewing Islam as “an unfairly maligned religion of peace” as Sam Harris pointed out earlier this year.
But hey, no need to worry about that, because liberals will let us get married! Don’t worry about the fact that the groups which they considered allies (The Muslim Brotherhood), support (Hamas), and protect (Iran), are all in a hurry to kill or imprison all of us.
No need to make a stir over the fact that the same Boston mayor (Tom Menino) who said “There is no place for discrimination on Boston’s Freedom Trail” in reference to the owner of Chick-fil-A saying he supports traditional marriage, also have given $1.8 million of municipal land to the new mosque of the Islamic Society of Boston. Who lists Yusuf-al-Qaradawi as a trustee.
In case you don’t know who that is, he’s a man whose tolerant view of homosexuality led him to say “Some say we should throw [homosexuals] from a high place, [s]ome say we should burn them, and so on. There is disagreement. . . . The important thing is to treat this act as a crime.”
Yeah, no cause to worry about what liberals REALLY think about gay people.
No reason to think they only want to support us for as long as we are useful.
Because, hey, they say they are going to put gay marriage on their platform.
______________________________________________________________
*Also, it would helps because I don’t support gay marriage, but if you read my blog you already know that…I hope.
My Right Online Experience.
After a lot of difficulty and maneuvering I got a ticket for the full event at Right Online, which was sold out this year.
So Friday morning, my family* packed up and headed to Las Vegas.
The conference was held at The Venetian, which is apparently the only non-union business on the La Vegas Strip. Which made it ideal for a meeting of conservatives.
Anyway, I got to the Venetian in time to get registered and get my copy of Culture of Corruption signed by Michelle Malkin.
The Andrew Breitbart Tribute Reception was extremely moving with dozens of stories about Breitbart’s life and how he had affected the lives of those he worked with over the years. In fact, stories about Breitbart were brought up in almost every speech.
It made me incredibly sad to see how many people he had affected in his 43 short years and the fact that I never had to chance to meet him.
I can’t even begin to describe the awesomeness of the speeches at this event or how much they affected me. So I’ll simply include the videos and encourage you to listen to them.
I hope to also implement some of the ideas I got in the breakout sessions, where I heard a lot about making a blog successful and building an audience. Including the possibility of doing a roundtable podcast with other conservative voices and covering more of my city and state local politics.
To the speeches.
Andrew Marcus, Breitbart Tribute
Former Governor Sarah Palin
Michelle Malkin on June 15th
Michelle Malkin on June 16th
Roger Hedgecock
Hugh Hewitt
Congressman Joe Heck
S.E. Cupp
Lars Larson
Jonah Goldberg
Rusty Humphries
Dana Loesch
Who I got to take a photo with.
Ann McElhinney
*They wanted to go on vacation and Las Vegas seemed like a good choice.
I usually smile and laugh and tell people that politics don’t make me angry.
But that’s just not accurate today.
I’m mad as hell and, as Michelle Malkin said at Right Online this year, why the hell shouldn’t I be!
Fast and Furious, Executive privilege, unconstitutional executive orders about immigration, unconstitutional healthcare reforms, spitting and shredding the constitution, lying at every turn, campaigning instead of governing, cheap shots, dirty campaigns, refusing to listen to Congress, saying the Supreme Court’s decisions don’t matter, leaks of top secret documents, money given to the Muslim Brotherhood, support to the Sharia based government in Libya, promises made to a corrupt new President in Russia where soldiers are burning our flag, destroying our foreign policies and turning our country against our allies.
This is not something that we can not afford to allow to continue.
Every time I hear someone say they aren’t going to vote for Romney, for whatever reason they have, I want to punch something.
What are you thinking?
Do you want Obama to WIN?
Get your head screwed on straight and stop screwing over our country.
There is NO REASON good enough in this race to justify NOT voting for Romney this November. Even if you have issues with him, read that paragraph I wrote starting with ‘Fast and Furious’ again. Can anything you fear with Romney be worse than this?
I have very good reasons to vote FOR Romney. I’ve been supporting him for months.
So even if you can’t find a good reason to vote FOR Romney, right now all you have to do is look at Washington’s current leader and his cronies to find a reason
I don’t care what personal reasons you had for casting a ballot for someone else in the primaries, now that Romney is the nominee we can’t afford to vote for anyone else. If Giuliani and Bachmann announced a write in campaign (and I love Giuliani and Bachmann) I would still be voting for Romney, because he’s the one who can beat Obama.
And Obama cannot win.
I love this country more than I love my own life, but that’s why I can’t sit here and watch Obama tear this country down and destroy her foundations for another 4 years, so that he can rebuild her in his own image.
I swear by all that I consider holy that I will leave this country if Obama is re-elected. This is more than “going Galt” like I’ve seen some people threaten. This isn’t even a temporary idea, I will leave this country, I will get citizenship and I will throw my knowledge into fighting for that country.
Because, if Obama wins the election in November, then this country may no longer be worth fighting for. The things I love about this country will slowly, but surely, be chipped away and I can’t be here for that. It would break my heart and it might just kill me.
Don’t let Obama destroy this country. Don’t let petty, foolish, personal issues send your vote elsewhere. We can’t afford that.
I will be at the Right Online conference in Las Vegas on the 15th and 16th.
If any of my dear readers will also be at this conference then please let me know. It would be great to have someone to eat lunch with on Saturday.
I will be back on Monday with stories and photos of the weekend…well maybe not photos and maybe only carefully edited stories. After all, what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas.
In any case, I hope to return with all sorts of new tips and tricks for gaining a bigger readership and utilizing social media in a far more efficient manner than I have been. All taught by some of my favorite conservative commentators, such as Michelle Malkin and S.E. Cupp.
WOOHOO!
Keep your personal opinions out of my bedroom.
For those of you who are confused. No, I haven’t suddenly morphed into a liberal. (At least 2 people have permission to perform a cognitive recalibration [aka hit me really hard on the head]* if that ever happens.)
You see, it’s very hard to get me really invested in the same-sex marriage debate, since I’m a person that doesn’t believe that marriage should be a government contract at all. I think, as that post says, that there should be civil union on the government level and marriage on a religious level. It’s a simple solution that leaves nobody with what they actual want, but that’s what compromise, on a political level, is really about.
The very morning that this news occurred, I was writing a post about why Obama’s “evolving” views on gay marriage did not impress me. Luckily nothing I was planning to write in that post needs to be changed, because I’m still not impressed.
I’ve pointed out before that for a President, who has such a singular disregard for the 10th amendment, to claim he sees marriage equality as a ‘states’ rights issue’ is more than a little suspect.
While it may be hard to criticize his view on this particular topic, as I share the feeling that this is a state level issue, this really goes back to consistency and the willingness to do what you believe, instead of saying one thing and doing another as a way to ensure campaign donations. Forgive me if I find it hard to believe that this was not a timed and orchestrated ‘confession’ of support, but zero action, on the President’s part. Timed after the vote on North Carolina’s ‘Amendment 1′ and just before the Washington Post’s questionably researched hatchet job about Romney prep school years.**
_______________________________________________________________
But the real issue is that I just don’t give a flying flip what Obama personally feels about gay marriage, just as I don’t give a flying flip what Romney personally feels about gay marriage or gay people.
The proof is in the actions you take, not in the personal “evolution’ if how you feel about a topic.
Obama is still refusing to repeal DOMA and the only other actions the LGBT community can point to is the repeal of DADT, which was not even Obama’s doing. Congress passed the repeal, Obama merely signed it. Despite promises in 2008 to repeal DADT, Obama waited until he lost the House in 2010 to begin his attempt this repeal, instead spending the first 2 years of his term (when he had a Democratic majority in the House and Senate) to shove a healthcare “reform” bill, that the American people overwhelmingly did not support.
Let’s consider Romney now. He is against same sex marriage on a personal level. Something which has been the case for a long time. Despite this, he did not suspend his action to do what was legally correct when it came to signing same sex marriage into law in Massachusetts when he was governor. When asked his opinion, he gave it honestly, instead of hemming and hawing and making excuses about “evolving” views.
That’s why the title of this post is “Keep your personal opinions out of my bedroom.” because that is what I ask from all politicians, whether I agree with their personal views or not, because I am well aware that others may not agree with that view even if I am convinced that I am 100% correct in my views. The key is not to rely on your personal view of the situation, but what is actually the right way for the government to handle the situation, based on our constitution and laws.
So, no President Obama, your “evolution” does not impress me, nor should it impress any of the gay community. The members of the gay community who have swooned and cheered at your “support” should take care to not become puppets in failing President’s scheme to gain more campaign funds and another term to cause more harm to our economy and the American way of life.
_______________________________________________________________
For another, beautifully eloquent, article on this issue, please check out J. Michael Heilig’s post over at the Politify Online blog.
Our President has proven himself inadequate to lead this nation. In spite of the deficit, a failing economy, rising inflation, a continuing war effort, nuclear threats from Iran, strained ties with foreign allies, the death of labor jobs in the US and a job market that is all but dead, and the many other woes that face our families day in and day out our President remains aloof. He is more concerned with birth control and marriage and other social issues. Why is this? Why is this man’s mind so narrow? It is because he is pandering to minority voters.Shame on anyone who supports this administration for it’s stance on social issues! Shame on anyone who denies the Obama record and votes for this man on the merit of his word! Shame on anyone who goes to the polls not knowing fully what this President stands for! And shame on those who have turned their backs on the American people and vote in blind obedience to a party system that has failed both you and I as well as everyone else in this suffering nation! Shame on all of you because you have cast your vote in ignorance! Shame on you for taking for granted the rights that the founders of this nation bestowed upon you to select our leaders and for using these rights to elect a man who ignores the plight of his people!
________________________________________________________________
*AVENGERS QUOTE!
**Which I don’t mind saying, even with my limited studies of journalism, is the most rambling, incoherent, hatchet job I have read in a long time.
