Love Barrack.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
ExxonMobile Rejects the Gay Agenda
FOXBusiness
While Rockefeller family’s attempt to get oil giant ExxonMobil to focus more on climate change got more publicity, there was another resolution that went before shareholders today as well--gay and lesbian rights.
ExxonMobil (XOM: 90.43, +0.63, +0.70%) shareholders voted down a resolution to add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to Exxon’s non-discrimination statement on Wednesday. Approximately 40% of Exxon’s outstanding shares voted in favor of the clause, but it was not enough to send the issue to the oil company’s board of directors.
Well, three cheers for Exxon. At least the shareholders haven't yet swallowed ethe koolaide of the homosexual agenda. We can at least congratulate them for opening a new front in the culture war despite high gas prices.
While Rockefeller family’s attempt to get oil giant ExxonMobil to focus more on climate change got more publicity, there was another resolution that went before shareholders today as well--gay and lesbian rights.
ExxonMobil (XOM: 90.43, +0.63, +0.70%) shareholders voted down a resolution to add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to Exxon’s non-discrimination statement on Wednesday. Approximately 40% of Exxon’s outstanding shares voted in favor of the clause, but it was not enough to send the issue to the oil company’s board of directors.
Well, three cheers for Exxon. At least the shareholders haven't yet swallowed ethe koolaide of the homosexual agenda. We can at least congratulate them for opening a new front in the culture war despite high gas prices.
Friday, May 23, 2008
More Thoughts on Gay Marriage
The 'gay identity' gives homosexuals release from the anxiety of not fitting in within sexual norms.Gay sex by practice is unhealthy, and should never be encouraged by any state in the form of marriage licenses. This is folly, and makes no sense.Why anyone is gay can be attributed to complex developmental factors, and to some degree, physiological factors that may make them more predisposed. There is NO gay gene. The manifestations are complex, as no one person with this proclivity is homosexual for the same reason. You can observe the range of manifestations parading down the street during a gay pride celebration.The gay agenda wants us to believe that once gay, always gay. In the same sense that once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic may have some truth. Alcoholism is likewise attributed to predisposed physiological and developmental/environmental factors. The crime to homosexuals is the establishment of a permanent 'gay identity’. Homosexuals who might want to pursue treatment have no options. It’s a hopeless situation for those who want try to understand , treat, and potentially manage their proclivity. However, having a sexual preference does not entitle anyone to marriage rights in our society. Certainly the courts do not have the authority, and only the legislature (we the people) can and should decide.It is appropriate that heterosexual marriage, as the institutional cradle to nurture and raise the next generation, be fully encouraged, endorsed, and given preference by the state for its own survival. There is no compelling interest for the state to license or endorse homosexuality.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
The Mother of all Dilemmas
With the polls trending away from McCain, evidenced by a recent Zogby poll indicating that Obama has an 8 point lead, it may be the GOP is overestimating the effect the Rev Wright Pastergate episode had on public opinion. McCain seems to be making no headway in pulling the GOP base together, which is not making his prospects brighter as time goes on. McCain had his head handed to him recently when, in typical maverick fashion, he criticised the NC GOP for the Rev Wright ad they were running against Democratic opponents running in the State gubernatorial race. The maverick thought the ad was not 'representative' of the kind of campaign he wanted to run. Unfortunately, the ads had nothing to do with him or his campaign. The NC GOP told McCain to go pound sand. McCain's lack of appeal to conservatives may cause the base to abandon the GOP ticket entirely for unlikely allies in the Libertarian Party, or even to write in their own choices.
As a conservative, one VP choice that won't help him with conservatives is Florida Governor Charlie Crist. Crist is a first class RINO, who supported legislation to provide voting rights for release felons, and is on board with the man made global warming hoax.
These two, McCain and Crist, would further divide the GOP from its base, and I hope the Maverick has more sense than to choose Crist as VP. He may feel beholden to him for his well timed endorsement in the Florida primary, but this will not balance the ticket where it needs help.
No conservative is looking eagerly to vote for this ticket, and may go with the nuclear option and not support it at all, which will have the consequence of putting an ill prepared President in office on the whimsical hope that a true conservative will emerge in 2012. I sympathize with that point of view, but going through another 'Jimmy Carter' administration is too painful to imagine. This election is the mother of all dilemmas for Conservatives.
As a conservative, one VP choice that won't help him with conservatives is Florida Governor Charlie Crist. Crist is a first class RINO, who supported legislation to provide voting rights for release felons, and is on board with the man made global warming hoax.
These two, McCain and Crist, would further divide the GOP from its base, and I hope the Maverick has more sense than to choose Crist as VP. He may feel beholden to him for his well timed endorsement in the Florida primary, but this will not balance the ticket where it needs help.
No conservative is looking eagerly to vote for this ticket, and may go with the nuclear option and not support it at all, which will have the consequence of putting an ill prepared President in office on the whimsical hope that a true conservative will emerge in 2012. I sympathize with that point of view, but going through another 'Jimmy Carter' administration is too painful to imagine. This election is the mother of all dilemmas for Conservatives.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
We were Democrats once...
I really miss the Democrat Party, before it became such a mess. I actually voted for Jimmy Carter...my first Presidential election. I didn’t know any better. Jimmy looked harmless enough, a Southern religious man, or so I thought. My congressman was none other than Albert Gore. Young and full of hope, the idealism of the party was intoxicating. Al Gore, at that time, was a pro-life blue dog, a Vietnam War veteran, a young man who seemed to possess the values of our region and culture. I met Al Gore several times when he would periodically appear at the Court House for community meetings, and he graciously helped me out a few times . Then, it happened.
Going back to my first mistake….Jimmy Carter. The country was furious at Gerald Ford for the Nixon pardon, at least that was the main thing I heard in my little circle. The Republicans were corrupt, and we needed a change. Sound familiar?
Well folks, we got change. Double digit inflation, double digit interest rates, double digit unemployment, high gas prices, long gas lines, and a major foreign policy disaster in Iran. Then I changed, and joined the Reagan revolution. The Gipper was remarkable communicator, who talked of a shining city on a hill, of small government, and the power of the individual. He confronted evil, and called it as he saw it. I was so taken with this leader; I joined the military to do my small part of fulfilling his vision for this country.
Then, it happened again. Enter stage right, the resurgence of Rockefeller Republicanism with the election of George H. Bush. I voted for him, hoping for the best, but it was a lesser of two evils choice. Then Bob Doyle came along, and I was presented again with an uninspiring lesser of two evils choice. George W. Bush, what can I say? John McCain, I could weep. As for Al Gore, he's not a well man, completely unhinged, wide eyed, and truely frightening to see how the demon that crawed inside his head has ravaged the poor boy. Now where do I go?
As I recall Davy Crockette, in a similar situation, said, "You all may go to hell, I'm going to Texas".
Going back to my first mistake….Jimmy Carter. The country was furious at Gerald Ford for the Nixon pardon, at least that was the main thing I heard in my little circle. The Republicans were corrupt, and we needed a change. Sound familiar?
Well folks, we got change. Double digit inflation, double digit interest rates, double digit unemployment, high gas prices, long gas lines, and a major foreign policy disaster in Iran. Then I changed, and joined the Reagan revolution. The Gipper was remarkable communicator, who talked of a shining city on a hill, of small government, and the power of the individual. He confronted evil, and called it as he saw it. I was so taken with this leader; I joined the military to do my small part of fulfilling his vision for this country.
Then, it happened again. Enter stage right, the resurgence of Rockefeller Republicanism with the election of George H. Bush. I voted for him, hoping for the best, but it was a lesser of two evils choice. Then Bob Doyle came along, and I was presented again with an uninspiring lesser of two evils choice. George W. Bush, what can I say? John McCain, I could weep. As for Al Gore, he's not a well man, completely unhinged, wide eyed, and truely frightening to see how the demon that crawed inside his head has ravaged the poor boy. Now where do I go?
As I recall Davy Crockette, in a similar situation, said, "You all may go to hell, I'm going to Texas".
Monday, May 19, 2008
Judicial Activism Runs Amuck in Collyfornia...Again.
Justice Baxter's Dissent
May 15, 2008
It's worth the read:
Only one other American state recognizes the right the majority announces today. So far, Congress, and virtually every court to consider the issue, has rejected it. Nothing in our Constitution, express or implicit, compels the majority’s startling conclusion that the age-old understanding of marriage —an understanding recently confirmed by an initiative law — is no longer valid. California statutes already recognize same-sex unions and grant them all the substantive legal rights this state can bestow. If there is to be a further sea change in the social and legal understanding of marriage itself, that evolution should occur by similar democratic means. The majority forecloses this ordinary democratic process, and, in doing so, oversteps its authority....But a bare majority of this court, not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves.Undeterred by the strong weight of state and federal law and authority, the majority invents a new constitutional right, immune from the ordinary process of legislative consideration. The majority finds that our Constitution suddenly demands no less than a permanent redefinition of marriage, regardless of the popular will....I cannot join this exercise in legal jujitsu, by which the Legislature’s own weight is used against it to create a constitutional right from whole cloth, defeat the People’s will, and invalidate a statute otherwise immune from legislative interference. Though the majority insists otherwise, its pronouncement seriously oversteps the judicial power. The majority purports to apply certain fundamentalprovisions of the state Constitution, but it runs afoul of another just as fundamental— article III, section 3, the separation of powers clause. This clause declares that “[t]he powers of state government are legislative, executive, and judicial,” and that“[p]ersons charged with the exercise of one power may not exercise either of the others” except as the Constitution itself specifically provides. (Italics added.)
History confirms the importance of the judiciary’s constitutional role as a check against majoritarian abuse. Still, courts must use caution when exercising the potentially transformative authority to articulate constitutional rights. Otherwise, judges with limited accountability risk infringing upon our society’s most basic shared premise — the People’s general right, directly or through their chosen legislators, to decide fundamental issues of public policy for themselves.
Judicial restraint is particularly appropriate where, as here, the claimed constitutional entitlement is of recent conception and challenges the most fundamental assumption about a basic social institution.
The majority has violated these principles. It simply does not have the right to erase, then recast, the age-old definition of marriage, as virtually all societies have understood it, in order to satisfy its own contemporary notions of equality and justice.
What is the point of ledgislatures, if unelected thugs in black robes are going to decide what the law should be? At that point, "we the people" no longer run the Government. The Collyfornia Supreme Court has crossed the line. We must decide whether tyrants will rule over us, or whether we will restore our Democratic Republic . Join the fight by joining the Thomas Moore Law Center. Become a card carrying member of the anti-ACLU.
May 15, 2008
It's worth the read:
Only one other American state recognizes the right the majority announces today. So far, Congress, and virtually every court to consider the issue, has rejected it. Nothing in our Constitution, express or implicit, compels the majority’s startling conclusion that the age-old understanding of marriage —an understanding recently confirmed by an initiative law — is no longer valid. California statutes already recognize same-sex unions and grant them all the substantive legal rights this state can bestow. If there is to be a further sea change in the social and legal understanding of marriage itself, that evolution should occur by similar democratic means. The majority forecloses this ordinary democratic process, and, in doing so, oversteps its authority....But a bare majority of this court, not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves.Undeterred by the strong weight of state and federal law and authority, the majority invents a new constitutional right, immune from the ordinary process of legislative consideration. The majority finds that our Constitution suddenly demands no less than a permanent redefinition of marriage, regardless of the popular will....I cannot join this exercise in legal jujitsu, by which the Legislature’s own weight is used against it to create a constitutional right from whole cloth, defeat the People’s will, and invalidate a statute otherwise immune from legislative interference. Though the majority insists otherwise, its pronouncement seriously oversteps the judicial power. The majority purports to apply certain fundamentalprovisions of the state Constitution, but it runs afoul of another just as fundamental— article III, section 3, the separation of powers clause. This clause declares that “[t]he powers of state government are legislative, executive, and judicial,” and that“[p]ersons charged with the exercise of one power may not exercise either of the others” except as the Constitution itself specifically provides. (Italics added.)
History confirms the importance of the judiciary’s constitutional role as a check against majoritarian abuse. Still, courts must use caution when exercising the potentially transformative authority to articulate constitutional rights. Otherwise, judges with limited accountability risk infringing upon our society’s most basic shared premise — the People’s general right, directly or through their chosen legislators, to decide fundamental issues of public policy for themselves.
Judicial restraint is particularly appropriate where, as here, the claimed constitutional entitlement is of recent conception and challenges the most fundamental assumption about a basic social institution.
The majority has violated these principles. It simply does not have the right to erase, then recast, the age-old definition of marriage, as virtually all societies have understood it, in order to satisfy its own contemporary notions of equality and justice.
What is the point of ledgislatures, if unelected thugs in black robes are going to decide what the law should be? At that point, "we the people" no longer run the Government. The Collyfornia Supreme Court has crossed the line. We must decide whether tyrants will rule over us, or whether we will restore our Democratic Republic . Join the fight by joining the Thomas Moore Law Center. Become a card carrying member of the anti-ACLU.
Lay off my wife, please.
by FOXNews.com
WASHINGTON — Barack Obama, crying foul over a video made by the Tennessee Republican Party last week, said Monday that his critics should “lay off my wife.”
In the four-minute video produced by the state GOP and now available on YouTube, Michelle Obama is shown delivering a speech in February during which she said: “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country.” The ad then features Nashville voters saying why they are proud of their country.
Asked about the video Monday, Obama told ABC’s “Good Morning America” that it is “low class.” The front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination warned that the Tennessee GOP “should be careful” and said he finds it “unacceptable” for them to use his wife in a video.
Well, should we...back off ? Can Michelle Obama unload on the opposition during campaign speeches, and not expect a little blow back? I think not. If the Senator wants his good wife out of the line of fire, his campaign shouldn't put her there in the first place. This is a Presidential race, not a garden party.
WASHINGTON — Barack Obama, crying foul over a video made by the Tennessee Republican Party last week, said Monday that his critics should “lay off my wife.”
In the four-minute video produced by the state GOP and now available on YouTube, Michelle Obama is shown delivering a speech in February during which she said: “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country.” The ad then features Nashville voters saying why they are proud of their country.
Asked about the video Monday, Obama told ABC’s “Good Morning America” that it is “low class.” The front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination warned that the Tennessee GOP “should be careful” and said he finds it “unacceptable” for them to use his wife in a video.
Well, should we...back off ? Can Michelle Obama unload on the opposition during campaign speeches, and not expect a little blow back? I think not. If the Senator wants his good wife out of the line of fire, his campaign shouldn't put her there in the first place. This is a Presidential race, not a garden party.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
