One day after the people of North Carolina adopted a ban on gay marriage , President Obama goes on the record supporting it ( by the way, Charlotte happens to be where the Democratic National Convention is being held this summer… oops, slight oversight ). Of course, this is ultimately where Obama wanted to go on the issue as he was legacy-building in his second term. But, Vice President Biden accelerated the time-table , putting his boss in an awkward situation before the election. So here was Obama, today, talking about his “evolution” on this issue: Thirty states have now adopted legislation similar to that of North Carolina. The courts and the media support gay marriage, but the people of this nation generally aren’t yet sold on it. Polls say gay marriage is in our future one day, but the only polls that really count are those on Election Day, which hasn’t been a very excellent day for gays on this issue. Are gay marriage opponents bigots or do they want time to reckon about radical changes taking place in our society? I reckon the latter is right. Obama played politics today. He didn’t need gays in 2008 — where else were they going to go as a voting bloc? — but apparently does now. “Evolution” or base politics? The answer is obvious. Today was not “courageous” of Obama, it was shrewd and may backfire in certain key states like, um, North Carolina.
View original post here:
Obama Endorses Gay Marriage
I agree with Quin Hillyer that having Joe Biden lecturing Mitt Romney on foreign policy doesn't exactly help their cause. It would be like Obama lecturing us on the virtues of humility. Remember, when during his debate with Sarah Palin, he said the U.S. & France had "kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon" ? Surely that was news to the people of Beirut. On the other hand, that didn't stop them from getting elected.
Continued here: Biden Lecturing Romney on Foreign Policy is Like Obama Lecturing Us on Humility
As a public school teacher I have lots of time off, including this week which happens to be my Spring Break. Some of my colleagues go on vacations to various destinations, some don’t. Like nearly everyone else it’s all a matter of choice based on certain realities, mainly one’s ability to pay for one’s vacation. So, when the Obama’s choose to go on numerous luxurious vacations knowing that times are tough, that these destinations are expensive, and that the American people are paying for them, etc., it grinds on some people. Well, someone called Obama out on his expensive vacations . Here’s the exchange: Liberals try to paint themselves like they’re populist every-men, but moments like this only reinforce reality: for liberals, there’s one set of rules and circumstances for them, and another for everyone else. As Andrew Wilkow likes to say, “Socialism is for the people, not the socialists.” Thus, despite the current economic realities the nation faces, Obama deserves his luxurious trips and you deserve to pay for them.
See original here:
Obama Called Out on Vacations
The NJ State legislature has passed a bill today which would legalize gay marriage in the Garden State . But, Governor Christie has vowed to veto the measure on two grounds: first, he’s opposed to the thought since NJ already has a civil union law which is effectively the same thing; and also that Christie wants this issue to be on November’s ballot. The leader of the state senate has refused this option — why encourage a higher turnout amongst conservatives if it’s not necessary? Regardless, the next go is Christie’s to make. I agree with Christie’s point of view on this issue: gay marriage is already effectively law in Jersey with the state’s strong civil union law, and if this is such an vital issue, let the people choose directly. While proponents of the bill shape the argument as a civil rights issue, it really comes down to semantics — gay couples will not likely have any new privileges under this legislation than they already have.
Read more:
Christie to Veto Gay Marriage Bill
Obama insists he doesn't want our energy needs linked to unstable parts of the world. Then why did he veto the Keystone Oil Pipeline? Obama remarked his grandparents' generation triumphed over fascism. Yet fascism is the very economic system that he advocates. Perhaps not yet in terms of wide scale deprivation of human rights but rather in the technical sense of the means of production remaining privately owned but strictly controlled by the government. If we are all to play by the same set of rules, then why has it taken months for the National Park Service to do anything about the Occupy beatniks laying siege to a number of parks in Washington, DC? Why should it be described as a greater tragedy when a "single mother" loses her job rather than a man with a wife that stays at home? Seems both domestic arrangements are in similar positions without income. In calling for a single source for the unemployed to seek information on training opportunities, doesn't that involve the federal government assuming more control over education? Obama insists it should be illegal for students to drop out of school before they are 18. Why should this be a matter of federal interference and what will the punishment be for those leaving prior to that age? If no country is better than any other according to multiculturalist dogma, then why should foreign students be allowed to remain here after graduation? If women are to earn equal pay for equal work, then make them lug the same weight around the stockroom or warehouse without having to seek masculine help to do so. If lightweight vests are being developed by federal researchers that can stop any bullet, will such protective garments be made available to civilians as well or do we have an obligation to be shot by law enforcement? Fascinating how it was mentioned derisively about a company that at one time ONLY produced yachts. If it should be impermissible for insurance companies to charge more for women’s health coverage, then why should men have to pay more for motor vehicle policies? Obama claimed politics is not about clinging to rigid ideologies. So why is it conservatives that must always surrender their basic ideals and thoughts? Obama claimed that government ought to only do what people are unable to do for themselves. Thing of it is, given his Frau's desire to manipulate and meddle in your dietary intake, the First Couple doesn't reckon you are really capable of doing anything for yourself. Obama wants to grant tax credits to businesses hiring veterans. Why should the military status of a business's employees be any business of the federal government? The best way to insure opportunities for veterans, as well as all other Americans, is for the federal government to know the least amount possible regarding the nation's workforce. If it doesn't matter in the military what color or gender you are, as Obama insists, why are certain standards lowered for females seeking advancement and White males held back because of the color of their skin rather than the content of their character. If color has no bearing in the military, why are we often reminded that Colin Powell was the first Black Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as if that is suppose to immunize him against all criticism and scrutiny? Would Bob Gates have been kept on as Secretary of Defense had he been a solid conservative Republican rather than an ardent establishmentarian compromiser? Obama admonished the American people to look at what the nation could accomplish if the people were organized along military lines. But, the purpose of the military is to defend democracy, not practice it. In a civilian state, the average person is allowed to question the decrees and decisions of leaders at all levels: elected, appointed, and bureaucratic. Such bottom up scrutiny is not allowed in the military and is punished severely. This analyst tabulated approximately 80 rounds of applause in the 2012 State of the Union Address. by Frederick Meekins
See the article here: Stream Of Consciousness Observations Regarding The 2012 State Of The Union