Saturday, February 21, 2004

I admit that I have avoided talking about "gay marriage." The reason that I didn't want to talk about it was mainly that the issue has for the most part been decided, BY THE PEOPLE!!!!! Unfortunately, the "intellectual elites" in San Francisco have decided that the will of the people does not matter. California passed a law that defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman. But Gavin Newsome does not like what the unwashed masses have done throughout the state, so he just decided that the will of the people does not matter and he has unilaterally decided that the people are wrong. (I understand that I am using unilaterally in a ironic sense, but unlike the left using it improperly against our actions in Iraq, this is the correct usage because Gavin Newsome is doing it by himself). In all the polls across the US, two thirds of the people are against "same sex" marriage. The Left is just showing the same disdain for the people that they have always shown. The Left always knows what is best for the people, even if the people don't. Unfortunately, when the Left doesn't agree with the will of the people, instead of conceding that they are wrong, they go to court. San Francisco is suing the state because not allowing same sex marriage violates equal protection. Let's cut to the chase. As a single person, I don't get the same financial benefits of marriage, and most importantly, I just looked at the Constitution, and I couldn't find the right to be married. A fundamental weakness in the Left's argument is that marriage is a financial arrangement. It's not. Marriage is a religious institution for the purpose of procreation. After all studies have shown that the tradional family is the best enviroment for raising children.
The Left has used the tactic to sue the people (so to speak)when they don't like the election results, Florida of 2000 comes to mind. What the Left either doesn't or refuses to understand is that the Supreme Court did not "select" the president, but said that Florida cannot change the election laws to favor one candidate of another, is not legal. If the courts of California show some backbone (they haven't yet) they will tell the "intellectual elites" that the will of the people of California must stand and if the Left wants the law to change, then they must use democratic means, and not the courts to advance their agenda. Unfortunately, this being California (the home of the (9th Circus Court) I hold little hope of the people prevailing against a judiciary not beholden to the people

Thursday, February 19, 2004

So Howie is done now. He may not know this, but the rest of us do. He has only himself to blame for his implosion. The media christened him the front runner. Johnny and Johnny both ran to the (further) left to compete with Howie. Howie was never really ready for the Big Time. He can talk all that he wants about being the only Demo with executive experience, but he governed a state that is smaller than the largest cities of the nation. He showed that he was not ready to compete on a national scale by whining to Terry McAulife that the people he was running against were attacking him. Apparently, he had everything handed to him in Vermont, and didn't have to campaign against anyone. Howie didn't seem to know that everything he said would be examined, witness the record kerflufle, he sealed his records, then claimed that Pres. B's records from his time as governor were sealed for even longer. The problem with Howie, is that he never checked the facts (Pres. B's records were public record) nor did he as I recall ever acknowledge that he was wrong. Howie's biggest mistake, is that he never once acted "presidential." When a retiree called him on his venomous Bush hating, he shouted him down. Howie showed no ability to control his temper, is that the kind of guy that we want with his finger on the button? No. Howie waffled on religion, why? Who knows. Howie has no one but himself to blame, he bought into the media hype, and expected the nomination to be handed to him on a platter, and that is why he is no longer in the race.

Wednesday, February 18, 2004

What is character? I'm sure that everyone has their own idea of what it is. I would say that a major part of character is to stick to your convictions. John Kerry does not fit the bill. Kerry has flipped flopped on every major issue of the Bush administration. Take the Iraq war for instance. Bush jumped through hoops trying to get the UN to enforce its own resolutions. Kerry voted for a war, but as per his usual pattern, is now against it. He claims that he voted for it because of conditions he expected to be carried out. The truth of the matter is that Kerry conditioned his vote on provisions that were not in the bill on the Senate. Is he looking for an out so that he can be anti-war? When his record after Vietnam, he lied about atrocities. He claimed to have "heard stories." HE HAD NO PROOF!!! In courts of law, which Kerry should know all about, that is called hearsay evidence. Anyone can say anything, but in a legitimate court of law, it must be backed up with evidence. Most of the people Kerry heard about atrocities from were not in Vietnam, in fact, one soldier who supposedly "testified," had his identity stolen. The few true veterans exaggerated their rank and combat experience. To put it another way, Kerry sold out his brothers in arms for politics. If Kerry had character, he would have thrown away his medals and not someone else's medals. And of course now that we are in a war, Kerry suddenly is proud of his service in Vietnam. Which is it, Johnny? Take a stand on an issue for once in your life based on principles and not on political expediently.

Tuesday, February 17, 2004

We all know that the next election is going to feature dirty campaigning. To start off I have an open question to the Kerry Kamp. Do you consider money from trial lawyers and unions to be "special interest money?" Why not? Let's be honest here, all of the money that Kerry gets is perfectly legal, same with Bush. The difference here, and it is a major difference, is that Bush is not running around and saying, "We're coming, you're going, and don't let the door hit you on the way out?" Sounds pretty hypocritical to me, taking a dumptruck worth of special interest money, trying to hide it by saying that campaign donors are not special interests, then attacking someone else for taking special interest money. As a soon to be former union member, I find it incredible (but not too incredible) that the Teamsters decided to endorse John Kerry. I don't recall being asked as to who I supported in the presidential race, but my dues money (if I was still working) would be used to support a presidential candidate who I don't support. The Teamsters had no problem taking my money, but then were no where to be found when I had some health issues which caused me to lose my job. I can guarantee though that if I tried to object to my dues money being used as special interest money to support a candidate who I am morally and politically opposed to (if John Kerry was really a Catholic, he would view abortion the same way the rest of us do, as murder, and he would be against "same sex marriage") I would get the run around, and when it comes down to it, nothing would happen. In other words, the union leaders would be taking money from me, and giving it to John Kerry, a person who I believe would do great damage to the country as president. Can someone explain to me how the socialists who run the unions can take money from my pocket, give it to a candidate who I do not support, and that candidate does not call it special interest money?
No, I didn't think so.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?