This past Sunday on Meet the Press, Vice President Joe Biden stated, "I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women, and heterosexual men and women marrying another are entitled to the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties. And quite frankly, I don't see much of a distinction beyond that." The statement lead to a series of walk backs by the White House and a few steps forward by other's in the administration over the past few days. Monday morning on Morning Joe, Education Secretary Arne Duncan in response to a question of supporting gay marriage said, "Yes, I do."
Today, North Carolina will be voting to define marriage as being between a man and a woman while later this year Minnesota will be doing the same. Many argue that creating this definition violates the GLBT communities civil rights. Civil Rights, as I understand it, pertains to the fact that no one may be discriminated based on race,creed or gender. That being said, being gay is a lifestyle and doesn't fall under that protection. Some will argue that the advent of Hate Crime legislation has added lifestyle to the Civil Rights list of protective areas.
What is being missed here is a larger argument and one I am a bit shocked that our Constitutional scholars have not explored further. Our Constitution is pretty clear on the separation of Church and State and Congress shall not pass any laws abridging the freedom to worship at the altar of any God. Those that seek to define marriage as being between one man and one woman do so under the shroud of religion.
If marriage is steeped in religious inception then to define it violates the separation of Church and State clause of the United States Constitution does it not? Instead of trying to use government to force a belief onto others why are we not working to strip away the layers of marriage embedded in our laws, regulations and all aspects of government intervention? Marriage is a choice that people make in the privacy of their dogma and that is where it should remain. I don't need an amendment to believe what marriage is nor do I need my public schools telling my children what marriage is.
Why is there not more discussion surrounding the removal of government from the equation of marriage and leaving marriage to the dogma's of the world?
Showing posts with label Vice President Joe Biden. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Vice President Joe Biden. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
Monday, August 8, 2011
Rick Santelli: If Not For Tea Party, U.S. Would Be Rated BBB
Rick Santelli: If Not For Tea Party, U.S. Would Be Rated BBB
After Standard & Poors downgraded the United States credit rating from AAA to AA+ figuring pointing was the spin of the day on Sunday and then again on Monday as the NYSE plunged over 600 points. Many Democrats, including Vice President Biden, asserted that the Tea Party held the country "hostage" and acted like "terrorists" when drawing the line in the sand and saying they would not increase the debt ceiling unless real deficit reduction was done. At the eleventh hour Congress cobbled together a debt ceiling increase with cuts to base line increases in budgets going forward while establishing a Super Congress to come up with more cuts to the budget.
Before the Tea Party faction of Congress held the debt ceiling debate "hostage" all three rating agency warned that government had spent to much. Notice one thing missing in the warnings by S&P, Moody's and Fitch - not one said that raising revenue was the issue for downgrades and lowering the outlook for the United States. All three rating agencies are unified that they are worried that spending will continue to outpace revenues resulting in more debt accumulation. The trouble is that 60% of our budget comes in the form of entitlement programs, 20% of the budget is military spending, and the final 20% is everything else. Many have pointed to two wars as the crux to our budget woes.
While that is part of it, the bigger aspect of our budget that we need to address is the growing costs of entitlement programs. Now, we cannot change the game for those near the retirement goal. So what do we do? What proposals are out there to cut the base line spending increases from the budget because even though we reduced the budget for next year we didn't actually cut it. All one has to do is go back and read the bill that was passed. It spells out how we may cut future spending increases which have been touted as spending cuts. Do our elected officials think we are that stupid?
Essentially what they are telling us is: Joe the Car Buyer is looking to purchase a new SUV. Joe the Car Buyer has budgeted $50,000 to purchase that new car. Joe the Car Buyer is on XYZ Car Lot and sees that sticker price for that new SUV is $70,000. After talking with the Sales guy and the Sales manager the final offer from XYZ Cars is $60,000. To get Joe the Car Buyer over the finish line the Sales Manager said that Joe the Car Buyer was actually saving $10,000 even though he had only a budget of $50,000. This is essentially how Congress and the Obama Administration is treating us.
After Standard & Poors downgraded the United States credit rating from AAA to AA+ figuring pointing was the spin of the day on Sunday and then again on Monday as the NYSE plunged over 600 points. Many Democrats, including Vice President Biden, asserted that the Tea Party held the country "hostage" and acted like "terrorists" when drawing the line in the sand and saying they would not increase the debt ceiling unless real deficit reduction was done. At the eleventh hour Congress cobbled together a debt ceiling increase with cuts to base line increases in budgets going forward while establishing a Super Congress to come up with more cuts to the budget.
Before the Tea Party faction of Congress held the debt ceiling debate "hostage" all three rating agency warned that government had spent to much. Notice one thing missing in the warnings by S&P, Moody's and Fitch - not one said that raising revenue was the issue for downgrades and lowering the outlook for the United States. All three rating agencies are unified that they are worried that spending will continue to outpace revenues resulting in more debt accumulation. The trouble is that 60% of our budget comes in the form of entitlement programs, 20% of the budget is military spending, and the final 20% is everything else. Many have pointed to two wars as the crux to our budget woes.
While that is part of it, the bigger aspect of our budget that we need to address is the growing costs of entitlement programs. Now, we cannot change the game for those near the retirement goal. So what do we do? What proposals are out there to cut the base line spending increases from the budget because even though we reduced the budget for next year we didn't actually cut it. All one has to do is go back and read the bill that was passed. It spells out how we may cut future spending increases which have been touted as spending cuts. Do our elected officials think we are that stupid?
Essentially what they are telling us is: Joe the Car Buyer is looking to purchase a new SUV. Joe the Car Buyer has budgeted $50,000 to purchase that new car. Joe the Car Buyer is on XYZ Car Lot and sees that sticker price for that new SUV is $70,000. After talking with the Sales guy and the Sales manager the final offer from XYZ Cars is $60,000. To get Joe the Car Buyer over the finish line the Sales Manager said that Joe the Car Buyer was actually saving $10,000 even though he had only a budget of $50,000. This is essentially how Congress and the Obama Administration is treating us.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Could Libya be Obama’s Waterloo?
Last week on Thursday the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution that authorized a no-fly zone over Libya. In addition to that resolution the UN resolved that an "immediate establishment of a cease fire" and gave authorization to all UN member states to use "all necessary measures" to protect civilians and civilian populated areas. Based on this UN Resolution, President Obama authorized the use of United States military to carry out, jointly, an attack on Libya. Without a clear plan on what the United States role, conversation is taking place on whether a UN Resolution is enough to prompt the use of the United States military. Professor Oona Hathaway, Yale Law School, pondered the question if Obama's use of US military violated the US Constitution by saying, "Judging just from the pictures of what we are seeing happening on the ground, this is quite substantial, and this is the sort of thing that would have needed Congressional approval" (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/03/22/6323385-did-obama-violate-the-constitution-with-libya-military-action).
Should have President Obama gone to Congress for approval prior to using US military forces as President Bush did prior to the Iraq War? Or does the President of the United States have the power to use the US Military as he sees fit as stated in the War Powers Act of 1973?
Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) suggested this week that, "President Obama moved forward without Congress approving. He didn't have Congressional authorization, he has gone against the Constitution, and that's got to be said. It's not even disputable; this isn't even a close question. Such an action – that involves putting America's service men and women into harm's way, whether they're in the Air Force or the Navy – is a grave decision that cannot be made by the president alone." Kucinich said this during an interview with Raw Story.
Vice President Biden, then Sen. Biden warned that if President Bush forged forward without Congressional approval into Iran it would be an impeachable offense. See the interview here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Adpa5kYUhCA
Then Sen. Biden's logic was that it would be impeachable since, "Iran is no immediate threat to the Unites States of America". Which begs the question, whether Libya poses an immediate threat to the United States?
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Repel of DADT should be catalyst of getting the Federal Government out of the rite of marriage
Last week Congress passed legislation that will pave the way for the repel of "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy in the United States military. In response, Vice President Joe Biden told ABC's "Good Morning America" last week, "I think the country's evolving. And I think you're going to see, you know, the next effort is probably going to be to deal with [the Defense of Marriage Act]" http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/12/25/biden_says_repeal_of_dont_ask_will_pave_way_for_gay_marriage/. The undercurrent of tolerance in America is moving perhaps "evolving" from the bigotry, racist and sexist thoughts of the 50, 60, 70, and 80's. What Vice President Biden is missing is that while society is becoming more tolerant of alternative views and lifestyles it is not the role of government to enact legislation to reflect in the manner Democrats are wanting to.
Instead of eroding State rights by enacting laws that re-defines marriage our Federal government needs to focus on stripping out marriage from our tax codes. Marriage is not something that government should be involved in. The rite of marriage is something that citizens enter into and should be allowed to do so without the interference of government. That interference comes in many forms. That being said, if groups of people in California, Michigan, Iowa, etc...want to enact amendments to their State Constitutions to define marriage then so be it. The definition of marriage is not a power enumerated to the Federal Government by the Constitution. And if people within these States agree/disagree with the new laws they have options – they can leave the state, fight to propose legislation to change the law, or plainly accept the law of the State.
In the end, I believe that marriage should be done within the framework of one's beliefs and not something sanctioned by the Federal Government. Vice President Biden is correct we are becoming more tolerant as a society so let's take the right step and remove the Federal Government from the marriage industry instead of expanding it.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Debt rises to incredible heights yet Americans are blind
This morning I am reading Star Tribune and various other news sites I follow when I came across this headline: CBO report: Debt will rise to 90% of GDP (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/26/cbos-2020-vision-debt-will-rise-to-90-of-gdp/) in the Washington Times. The headline enough raised my ire and should every American. Now, I have been railed against for my push of smaller government, more freedom and lower taxes platform. I hope this article puts things in perspective for those that believe I am "chicken little" on the size and scope of government.
The article notes that the Federal public debt when Obama took office was $6.3 trillion or $56,000 per household. That number has expanded to $8.2 trillion or $72,000 per household today. The CBO estimates that by 2020 we are on path to reach a debt of $20.3 trillion or $170,000 per household. I understand and acknowledge that Republicans, especially under Bush, lost their fiscal conservative way which lead to the historic election of Barack Obama. I recall last year when the unemployment rate hit 10% Vice President Biden noted that the Obama administration did not realize how bad the economy was and their numbers were off.
James Horney, a federal-budget analyst at the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said, " The biggest part of the deficit difference [between the Obama's administration and CBO numbers] is lower tax revenue due to the different economic assumptions." Horney is correct that the Obama administration has a rosary outlook but it is that thinking that tripped them up last year as unemployment surpassed 10%. We need to get Americans back to work and being productive. Too many of our manufacturing jobs are being outsourced and due to our mounting debt America is put in a conundrum. The conundrum is protecting America jobs while not alienating our ATM; China.
Sure the Fed could print money hand over fist but that will only lead to inflation and a deeper recession. So how do we jump start the economy and reverse the trend this article warns? To start we need to demand that our government go on a diet and that Americans be held accountable for their actions. Right now Obama is proposing incentives that will encourage banks to rework mortgages that are underwater for those that are unemployed. This new incentive will create more debt for taxpayers and further our co-dependence on Government solutions. It is unfortunate that people are losing their jobs and making the house payment is tough but that does not mean the government is the answer.
When will Americans realize that entitlements, cash for clunkers, tax credits and health care reform legislation are only hurting the future of America? We need to wake up and demand that government shrink and allow the private sector be allowed to work. We need to demand that more States Attorney General join the fight for State Rights against the growing tyranny of the Federal Government. Obama did not start us down that road but he is standing on the accelerator with both feet.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Democratic Principles eroding under the Obama Adminstration
Democracy is being challenged by the cloak of “Best interest of the United States”. Two alarming episodes playing out are the continual detaining of suspected terrorist and the message sent by Vice President Joe Biden. Granted the unending detaining of suspected terrorist subjects has been policy since 9-11, the thought that “change” was coming gave a glimmer of hope that America’s United States Constitution may regain its importance.
The President while campaigning for office set forth the notion of closing Gitmo detention center and to deal with those detained. The presumption was that all those housed in the facility would face trial and depending on the outcome would be either released or retained per court ruling. During the past week, President Obama and former Vice President Cheney have traded barbs on the issue of closing Gitmo and CIA memo results. Congress stripped out $80M that was to fund the closing of Gitmo due to no clear plan by the White House.
After the dueling speeches by Obama and Cheney, surrogates on all sides have laid out the plans going forward. One of the moves indicates that some detainees will be held “indefinitely” because they pose a threat to the United States even though proof, in the court of law, does not agree. The US Constitution protects the liberties of people accused of crimes from unnecessary punishment and a right to a speedy trial. Set aside the point that Bush has done the same thing as America voted for “change” in the last election cycle.
President Obama has proved, i.e. firing of CEO’s, that the US Constitution is a piece of paper worthy of nothing. It should not shock anyone that part of the plan for Gitmo detainees is to remand them indefinitely. The other affront to Democracy is being done through the message Vice President Biden is sent the Lebanon.
On Friday, Vice President Biden landed in Lebanon to carry the message that future US Aid to Lebanon hinged on the outcome of upcoming “Democratic” elections. Vice President Biden stated after a meeting with President Suleiman, “I do not come here to back any particular party or any particular person. I come here to back certain principles.” The United States has labeled Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.
Hezbollah has made inroads in recent elections by becoming an emerging force in the “Democratic” process. Hezbollah response to Vice President Biden’s statements is one of caution and “strong suspicion as to the real reason behind it”. Good or bad, if we are to stay true to our ideals of Democracy then the Obama Administration is not to dangle US Aid in front of the Lebonanese people in an effort to sway their vote.
Continuing the platform of “change” will lead America down the road of ruin and forever alter our liberties and pursuit of happiness within our own borders.
The President while campaigning for office set forth the notion of closing Gitmo detention center and to deal with those detained. The presumption was that all those housed in the facility would face trial and depending on the outcome would be either released or retained per court ruling. During the past week, President Obama and former Vice President Cheney have traded barbs on the issue of closing Gitmo and CIA memo results. Congress stripped out $80M that was to fund the closing of Gitmo due to no clear plan by the White House.
After the dueling speeches by Obama and Cheney, surrogates on all sides have laid out the plans going forward. One of the moves indicates that some detainees will be held “indefinitely” because they pose a threat to the United States even though proof, in the court of law, does not agree. The US Constitution protects the liberties of people accused of crimes from unnecessary punishment and a right to a speedy trial. Set aside the point that Bush has done the same thing as America voted for “change” in the last election cycle.
President Obama has proved, i.e. firing of CEO’s, that the US Constitution is a piece of paper worthy of nothing. It should not shock anyone that part of the plan for Gitmo detainees is to remand them indefinitely. The other affront to Democracy is being done through the message Vice President Biden is sent the Lebanon.
On Friday, Vice President Biden landed in Lebanon to carry the message that future US Aid to Lebanon hinged on the outcome of upcoming “Democratic” elections. Vice President Biden stated after a meeting with President Suleiman, “I do not come here to back any particular party or any particular person. I come here to back certain principles.” The United States has labeled Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.
Hezbollah has made inroads in recent elections by becoming an emerging force in the “Democratic” process. Hezbollah response to Vice President Biden’s statements is one of caution and “strong suspicion as to the real reason behind it”. Good or bad, if we are to stay true to our ideals of Democracy then the Obama Administration is not to dangle US Aid in front of the Lebonanese people in an effort to sway their vote.
Continuing the platform of “change” will lead America down the road of ruin and forever alter our liberties and pursuit of happiness within our own borders.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Supreme Court Justice Hillary Clinton
Over the past few days I have extended the distance I take Mischka for a walk from 1.5 miles to 3 miles. Since Mischka is heeling without being reminded, the walk is a lot quieter. The peaceful walk, except for the occasional barking dog or car passing, has allotted my mind greater freedom to explore events, concepts, and ideas without interruption. During our walk on Wednesday my thoughts traveled back to the Democrat Primary and the ultimate selection of Sen. Obama as their nominee.
My focus was not on the eventual historic bid for the White House rather on rival that did not get tapped; Sen. Hillary Clinton. Many whom I talked with when Democrat nominee Obama tapped Sen. Joe Biden to be the tickets Vice President thought Obama made a poor decision. The misstep of Sen. Biden instead of tapping Sen. Clinton looked to be fatal then the Republican Party gave the Democrats a gift when they added Gov. Palin to the ticket.
The adding of Gov. Palin allowed the conversation of the non-appointment of Sen. Clinton to subside. Why is it that Sen. Obama did not choose Sen. Clinton to form the ultimate “Dream” ticket? Was it perhaps a larger picture was being painted? The bigger picture being painted is the Supreme Court.
On President Obama’s 100th day in office, Justice Souter notified the President of his intention to retire from the bench. The news stirred up the mass media as to what type of person President Obama ought to choose for the highest court in our land. Currently the Supreme Court has one female and one black with the remaining Justices being white males. The pressure on President Obama is to appoint a minority female to the bench.
President Obama has established a list of criteria that he will look for in the next Supreme Court Justice. The number one criteria being empathy while top Democrats are looking for President Obama to appoint a non-judge type. I believe that President Obama will appoint a female but it will not be a minority.
Thinking back to the primary and the fallout after Sen. Biden was tapped to be the Vice President instead of Sen. Clinton, perhaps the media missed the second great story to come from last year historic election season. It appeared that the Clinton’s were on the outside looking in as the Democrats pushed toward the White House but that was all a façade.
The ground was being laid to pave the way, if Democrat nominee Obama was elected, for Sen. Clinton’s appointment to the Supreme Court. Granted the right Justice had to step down as to make the choice of Sen. Clinton the right one. The next Supreme Court Justice will be Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The pondering point is if the President will offer up a sacrificial lamb prior to Secretary of State Clinton’s confirmation hearing.
My focus was not on the eventual historic bid for the White House rather on rival that did not get tapped; Sen. Hillary Clinton. Many whom I talked with when Democrat nominee Obama tapped Sen. Joe Biden to be the tickets Vice President thought Obama made a poor decision. The misstep of Sen. Biden instead of tapping Sen. Clinton looked to be fatal then the Republican Party gave the Democrats a gift when they added Gov. Palin to the ticket.
The adding of Gov. Palin allowed the conversation of the non-appointment of Sen. Clinton to subside. Why is it that Sen. Obama did not choose Sen. Clinton to form the ultimate “Dream” ticket? Was it perhaps a larger picture was being painted? The bigger picture being painted is the Supreme Court.
On President Obama’s 100th day in office, Justice Souter notified the President of his intention to retire from the bench. The news stirred up the mass media as to what type of person President Obama ought to choose for the highest court in our land. Currently the Supreme Court has one female and one black with the remaining Justices being white males. The pressure on President Obama is to appoint a minority female to the bench.
President Obama has established a list of criteria that he will look for in the next Supreme Court Justice. The number one criteria being empathy while top Democrats are looking for President Obama to appoint a non-judge type. I believe that President Obama will appoint a female but it will not be a minority.
Thinking back to the primary and the fallout after Sen. Biden was tapped to be the Vice President instead of Sen. Clinton, perhaps the media missed the second great story to come from last year historic election season. It appeared that the Clinton’s were on the outside looking in as the Democrats pushed toward the White House but that was all a façade.
The ground was being laid to pave the way, if Democrat nominee Obama was elected, for Sen. Clinton’s appointment to the Supreme Court. Granted the right Justice had to step down as to make the choice of Sen. Clinton the right one. The next Supreme Court Justice will be Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The pondering point is if the President will offer up a sacrificial lamb prior to Secretary of State Clinton’s confirmation hearing.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Teleprompter please close the borders
This morning on the Today Show, Vice President Joe Biden responded to Matt Lauer question of “if a member of your family came to you said look I want to go on a commercial airliner to Mexico and back in the week, would that be a good idea?”, “I would tell members of my family and I have. I wouldn’t go anywhere in confine places now. It’s not that is going to Mexico. It you are in a confined aircraft when one person sneezes it goes through the entire aircraft. That’s me. I would not be at this point, if they have another way of transportation, suggesting they ride the subway. So, from my perspective what it relates to mitigation.”
Now Vice President Biden’s office has come back with a statement qualifying his statement as “if they were sick”. Really! The President last night said that closing the borders right now is not an option and equated to closing a barn door after the horse as already gotten out. WOW!!! No one knows how this Swine Flu will mutate or how we can combat it outside of staying out of confined places.
The Vice President needs to understand that his words carry weight. By telling the American public on the Today show that he’d tell his own family to not ride the subway or an airplane can have the same affect on the transportation industry as the label swine flu has had on pork futures. The airline industry is already struggling; the Vice President needs to choose his words more carefully.
Why not close the boarders. MSNBC just had a map of the United States up showing reported cases of the Swine Flu. Every state boarding Mexico had at least one confirmed case. Until the CDC, WHO, and Homeland Security office has a handle on the Swine Flu, doesn’t it make sense to ban all travel to and from Mexico and the United States?
I agree that the Swine Flu is already within our borders but it can still mutate. It is the mutation aspect that closing the borders will protect the citizens of the United States. Whispers online and in the media are hinting toward the notion that Universal HealthCare, had it been established, would have enabled the United States to be ahead of the Swine Flu. Really? Doesn’t Mexico have state run healthcare and look how well it has worked there.
It is time for the teleprompter to say, “We are banning all transportation between the United States and Mexico until we have a better understanding of strain of swine flu.” With the summer approaching and the annual plight of immigrant workers reaches further into the United States, the teleprompter needs to speak.
Now Vice President Biden’s office has come back with a statement qualifying his statement as “if they were sick”. Really! The President last night said that closing the borders right now is not an option and equated to closing a barn door after the horse as already gotten out. WOW!!! No one knows how this Swine Flu will mutate or how we can combat it outside of staying out of confined places.
The Vice President needs to understand that his words carry weight. By telling the American public on the Today show that he’d tell his own family to not ride the subway or an airplane can have the same affect on the transportation industry as the label swine flu has had on pork futures. The airline industry is already struggling; the Vice President needs to choose his words more carefully.
Why not close the boarders. MSNBC just had a map of the United States up showing reported cases of the Swine Flu. Every state boarding Mexico had at least one confirmed case. Until the CDC, WHO, and Homeland Security office has a handle on the Swine Flu, doesn’t it make sense to ban all travel to and from Mexico and the United States?
I agree that the Swine Flu is already within our borders but it can still mutate. It is the mutation aspect that closing the borders will protect the citizens of the United States. Whispers online and in the media are hinting toward the notion that Universal HealthCare, had it been established, would have enabled the United States to be ahead of the Swine Flu. Really? Doesn’t Mexico have state run healthcare and look how well it has worked there.
It is time for the teleprompter to say, “We are banning all transportation between the United States and Mexico until we have a better understanding of strain of swine flu.” With the summer approaching and the annual plight of immigrant workers reaches further into the United States, the teleprompter needs to speak.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)