Vox’s posts tagged election 2008

CA Homosexuals Might Get Their Marriages Overturned by Proposition 8

nobody@vox.com(theway2k) — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 04:06:30 +0000

On May 15, 2008 the California Supreme Court in a 4-3 decision struck down a people’s initiative in 2000 that defined marriage as between a man and a woman. Mystically four State Supreme Justices found that California’s State Constitution made the people’s initiative unconstitutional in 2008.

On July 16, 2008 the California Supreme Court unanimously dismissed a homosexual activist challenge of Proposition 8 appearance on the November 2008 ballot. I am betting the Justices of the California Supreme Court are elected rather than appointed (Really it’s a good bet). The unanimity to shoot down the homosexuals in July is in stark contrast to a close decision for the homosexuals in May.

Proposition 8 proposes amending the state's constitution to provide that the only kind of marriage that will be valid or recognized in California will be a marriage between one man and one woman.

I am betting Proposition 8 on November 4, 2008 will pass thus overturning the California Supreme Court’s 4-3 decision in May. And the homosexual activists KNOW IT.

In Bennett v. Bowen, No. S164520 the homosexual activists that had big buck homosexual organizations on the legal team (including the ACLU of course) went down in flaming defeat with the unanimous decision.

This is what Christian influenced OneNewsNow.com says about Bennett v. Bowen:

The California Supreme Court has ruled that the marriage protection amendment will remain on the state's November ballot.

Following the California's Supreme Court ruling that legalized homosexual "marriage" in that state, activists sued to keep the marriage protection amendment off the November ballot. However, they failed in their attempt on Wednesday when the court ruled in favor of Proposition 8's inclusion on the ballot.

Glen Lavy with the Alliance Defense Fund says the homosexual activists trying to keep the amendment off the ballot showed their contempt for the will of the people and the democratic process by filing such a baseless lawsuit. "I would have been shocked if the court had prevented this amendment from going on the ballot," he comments. "The lawsuit was frivolous. There was no basis for the arguments. It would have been ridiculous for the court to rule in their favor," Lavy contends.

Matt Staver of Liberty Counsel represented the Campaign for California Families and argued in defense of the amendment. "[We] really didn't know which way the court was going [on this particular issue]," he says. "But the good news is they've rejected the argument by same-sex advocates to remove the marriage amendment from the ballot.

"Now the secretary of state is free to print all the information to notify the voters and, in fact, the voters will speak in November," the Liberty Counsel founder continues. "And when they speak, I believe they'll pass these 14 words. These 14 words will overrule the 4-to-3 decision of the California Supreme Court and restore marriage as the union of one man and one woman."

Those 14 words are: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." According to Staver, passage of Prop. 8 would invalidate all same-sex marriages performed in California prior to the enactment of the amendment.

The legal Christian perspective is confident Proposition 8 is something the California Supreme Court can’t touch if passed.

Not so fast though, a blog dedicated to legal reasoning has this to say about Bennett v. Brown:

The California Supreme Court, which approved same-sex marriage in a landmark ruling in May, has refused to remove a proposed ban on same-sex marriage from the state's November ballot.

The state's highest court cleared the way on June 16 for state voters to weigh in on a ballot initiative, Proposition 8, which would outlaw same-sex marriage under the state constitution.

On June 20, LGBT-rights advocates asked the state supreme court to block the vote and pull the measure from the ballot, saying it would destroy fundamental rights that can't be curtailed by popular initiative. Bennett v. Bowen, No. S164520.

Under the supreme court's May 15 ruling, the court relied on state constitutional rights of privacy and equal protection to allow equal marriage rights to same-sex couples. The suit argues that repeal of those rights requires revision of the state constitution, which can only be done by a two-thirds vote of the state Legislature, before going to voters.

Same-sex marriages have been taking place throughout the state since June 16, when the original decision became final. If Proposition 8 is approved by voters and same-sex marriage is outlawed, the California Supreme Court is likely to be faced with the legal question of whether the existing same-sex marriages are valid and a renewed challenge to the constitutionality of Proposition 8.

The one-page order signed by Chief Justice Ron George, denies, without explanation, the request to pull the measure from the ballot. The order was unanimous. (The National Law Journal Legal Pad LA)

The author of this article (Pamela A. Maclean) speculates that the California Supreme Court will again enter the legal fray of difficulties with a passage of Proposition 8. So it might still be the will of the voters versus the will of judicial system.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Black Belt Patriotism

nobody@vox.com(theway2k) — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 22:11:49 +0000

Chuck Norris Patriot 2

“Black Belt Patriotism: How to Reawaken America” is the title of Chuck Norris’ new book. I don’t know about you but I have a hard time taking the Karate-Movie-TV star seriously in the realm of politics. Of course I am not going to tell Chuck that.

Whether one takes Chuck seriously or not I am gratified to find someone with star appeal which is actually a Conservative and not a Moonbat Liberal.

What I do like about Chuck is he comes across as a Joe American (slanted to the right) that may not be an expert but has a voter’s gage to speak from his heart.

That is just what Chuck does in his WND column entitled “Mad as h--- and not going to take it anymore!” You really need read this particular and allow it to stir your voting juices. Chuck is angry at Congress and even has ideas for Congressional reform. CHECK IT OUT!

JRH 7/15/08

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Backlash: 2 million angry Democrats reject Obama?

nobody@vox.com(theway2k) — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 16:25:02 +0000

Puma

I hope some one on the McCain Campaign is smart enough to take advantage of the Barack Hussein Obama guilt by association, flawed experience and the hatorade of the Hillary Democrats. If the GOP puts the right formula together the Black Supremacist loving Left Wing Obama will lose easily.

With Democrats like Party Unity My Ass (PUMA) and Just Say No Deal working against Obama, certainly the GOP can put a winning formula together to keep the fringe Left out of the White House.

PUMA and Just Say No Deal have raised millions to aid in paying off Hillary’s campaign debt. I am guessing they believe that will Hillary off the hook in supporting Obama.

Go Democratic Party Civil War.

JRH 7/13/08

PUMA Dems

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

McCain Advisor: "We have sort of become a nation of whiners."

nobody@vox.com(Vote for President Obama 2008) — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 22:28:45 +0000

In an interview with the Washington Times, McCain's top economic adviser Phil Gramm tells America to suck it up and stop complaining about the economy:

"You've heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession," he said, noting that growth has held up at about 1 percent despite all the publicity over losing jobs to India, China, illegal immigration, housing and credit problems and record oil prices. "We may have a recession; we haven't had one yet."

"We have sort of become a nation of whiners," he said. "You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline" despite a major export boom that is the primary reason that growth continues in the economy, he said.

Are all of you whinning when you buy groceries and gas for your family? Well, stop it. McCain doesn't like it.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Election 2008

nobody@vox.com(Dan Chan Magic Man) — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 06:45:47 +0000

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Could Georgia Go Obama?

nobody@vox.com(Vote for President Obama 2008) — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 03:04:59 +0000

In 2004 41.4% of Georgia voters voted for ~~Obama~~ John Kerry. Those voters will go Obama.

Most of the newly registered will vote Obama. The state Democrats are working hard to register new voters and get them to the polls.

Most independents will vote Obama.

At least 5% of the GOP will vote for Georgian (Libertarian Party Candidate) Bob Barr or stay home.

Then there are the Obamacans...Republicans for Obama.

It’ll be close. We have our right wingnuts here who want you to believe it can't happen. Who are they trying to fool? Themselves maybe.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Cindy McCain – Who Knew?

nobody@vox.com(theway2k) — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 15:59:03 +0000

Cindy McCain

I received a photo collage of Cindy McCain from a friend describing the character and activism of the GOP nominee’s wife. The email is one of those “send it to your friends” emails which I do not usually participate in; however this is so awesome Americans indeed need to know.

I am not going to post the photos, for they are not as important as the information about the (hopefully) next First Lady of the USA.

Read this and compare it to Michelle Obama. It is a comparison of an American patriot (Cindy) and a person who is ashamed of America (Michelle).

JRH 7/2/08

***************************

Cindy McCain

Bet you would have never guessed this one! No matter your politics. The media will never tell of this, so pass it on.

There was an article in the Wall Street Journal on Cindy McCain, John's Wife. All I ever saw was this attractive woman standing beside John. I was surprised how talented and involved with world problems she is. This is a summary of the article.

She graduated from Southern Cal and was a special-needs teacher.

After her Dad died she became involved with his beer distributing firm and is now the chairwoman. Sales have doubled since she has taken over from her father.

They have a marriage prenuptial agreement, her assets remain separate. She is involved around the world clearing land mines - travels to these countries on a detonation team and serves on their board.

They have a 19 year old serving in Iraq, another son in the Naval Academy, a daughter recently graduated from Columbia Univ., an adopted daughter in High School, and a son who is the finance guy at the beer firm.

Raised kids in Phoenix, AZ rather than Washington D.C. (better atmosphere): He commuted.

In 1991, Mrs. McCain came across a girl in an orphanage in Bangladesh. Mother Teresa implored Mrs. McCain to take the baby with severe cleft palate. She did so without first telling her husband. The couple adopted the girl who has had a dozen operations to repair her cleft palate and other medical problems.

They have a Family Foundation for children's causes.

She's active with 'Halo Trust' - to clear land mines, provide water and food in war ravaged and developing countries.

She will join an overseas mission of 'Operation Smile', a charity for corrective surgery on children's faces.

She has had two back surgeries and became addicted to pain killers. She talks openly about it which she says is part of the recovery process.

I'm surprised the media is so quiet about her attributes. She sounds more capable than Hillary or Obama. We would really get two for the price of one: A person with business and international experience. John did work for the firm for awhile when he left the Navy. She, however, has the real business experience. Very interesting.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Elections and Judicial Activism

nobody@vox.com(theway2k) — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 19:08:31 +0000

SCOTUS - Above any office

As long as Congress allows no checks or balances to the ever growing power of America’s Judicial System (not just the Supreme Court), elected Executive Branch Presidents may shape the rule of law and social rights of years to come.

Notably the Federal Bench has been dominated by Left Wing ignore the Constitution and the will of the people to make up their own extra-Constitutional Rule of Law that is less based on the Constitution and more on a Secular Humanist utopian vision.

This is so evident that eight years of Bush appointees have not been stalled or forced to back down by Democratic Party gridlock on confirmation. The Democrats KNOW that if Conservative Appointees equal or overtake the Left Wing Activist Judges Constitutional Intent will be more the measuring stick than the decision by fiat of Left Wing Judges.

So you Americans that are neither fringe Leftists or fringe Rightists (like I tend to lean toward) had best consider the judicial system in your vote for America.

If you vote for Obama you are definitely voting for change; however I assure you it is not the kind of change that derails politics as usual as Obama implies. A vote for Obama will be a Vote for fringe Leftist Utopianism that will lead America on a path to socialism and multi-cultural diversity (meaning the enfranchisement of illegal aliens and the incorporation of foreign cultural laws –Sharia Law – into our culture).

A vote for McCain will be more of a Center-Right future. I know McCain will not appoint fringe Leftist Judges; however I suspect he will appoint centrist-Right Judges. There is no mystery how a Leftist activist Judge will create by fiat new extra-Constitutional Law. McCain’s Appointees may vote Left or Right but it will be more principled. Sadly a McCain Appointee will probably keep the status quo; however at least a McCain Appointee will not actively create new laws (at least not without a good deal of precedent).

Thomas Sowell has some excellent thoughts on how Judges shape the future based on who is elected.

JRH

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Barack Obama's Recent Letter To The GLBT Community

nobody@vox.com(Sean & Stefan) — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 20:03:26 +0000

The McFreeds share the following letter from Barack Obama with you...

Barack Obama

Dear Friends,

Thank you for the opportunity to welcome everyone to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club's Pride Breakfast and to congratulate you on continuing a legacy of success, stretching back thirty-six years. As one of the oldest and most influential LGBT organizations in the country, you have continually rallied to support Democratic candidates and causes, and have fought tirelessly to secure equal rights and opportunities for LGBT Americans in California and throughout the country.

As the Democratic nominee for President, I am proud to join with and support the LGBT community in an effort to set our nation on a course that recognizes LGBT Americans with full equality under the law. That is why I support extending fully equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples under both state and federal law. That is why I support repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy, and the passage of fully inclusive laws to protect LGBT Americans from hate crimes and employment discrimination. And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states.

For too long, issues of LGBT rights have been exploited by those seeking to divide us. It's time to move beyond polarization and live up to our founding promise of equality by treating all our citizens with dignity and respect. This is no less than a core issue about who we are as Democrats and as Americans.

Finally, I want to congratulate all of you who have shown your love for each other by getting married these last few weeks. My thanks again to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club for allowing me to be a part of today's celebration. I look forward to working with you in the coming months and years, and I wish you all continued success.

Sincerely,
Barack Obama

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Obama Calls Dobson a Liar

nobody@vox.com(theway2k) — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 00:19:43 +0000

Looney left

Well he kind of does, as a typical politician Obama made words discrediting Dobson’s criticism in such a way that it sounded like calling Dobson a liar in such a way that Obama could claim plausible deniability.

Obama said this about Dobson:

Sen. Barack Obama said evangelical leader James Dobson was "making stuff up," when he accused the Illinois senator of distorting the Bible and taking a "fruitcake interpretation" of the U.S. Constitution.

"Any notion that I was distorting the Bible in that speech, I think anyone would be hard pressed to make that argument," Obama told reporters on board his press plane Tuesday night. (CNN)

Obama said this in reference to a radio broadcast by Dobson:

Dr. James Dobson responds to a speech made by Barack Obama in which the presidential candidate, while discussing the role of religion in government, compares Dr. Dobson to political activist the Rev. Al Sharpton. Dr. Dobson also updates listeners on the battle to preserve traditional marriage in Arizona, and pays tribute to late broadcast journalist Tim Russert. Joining Dr. Dobson for a discussion of these important issues are Focus on the Family President Jim Daly and Tom Minnery, Focus' Vice President of Public Policy.

"76 percent of the [American] people identify themselves as Christian ... [but Barack Obama is] diminishing the idea that people of Christian faith have anything to say." - Tom Minnery (This is the web page intro of the Broadcast you can listen to by clicking HERE.)

Gary McCullough the Director of Christian Newswire is of the opinion that Obama’s public dismissive rebuke of Dobson will sway Evangelicals which are not very excited about McCain to the McCain side. The meaning of this opinion being that Evangelicals disillusioned by fringe Leftist Obama who might have stayed in November 2008 may show up to the polls if for no other reason as a response for a personal attack on one of the most popular Evangelical radio broadcasters in America – James Dobson. READ McCullough’s opinion.

JRH 6/26/08

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Obama vs. McCain: The Big Picture

nobody@vox.com(irregularapples) — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 17:43:01 +0000

An article that I read which was published this morning on the Atlasphere. I really dont like the idea of having to pick between these two candidates. One of them presents himself as a somewhat angry, volatile, tough guy who wont take crap from anyone, but doesnt seem to be much of a listener either. The other a good looking, young, change-spouting pseudo-socialist who wants to take my money to support various goverment programs that i dont agree with and who doesnt take strong stands against those who threaten us as a country and people. I admit that politics isn't my strong point in argument, but when it comes to what I believe, I definitely can stand up for that... and I have to admit, what we're getting ourselves into on the global picture is just plain scary. The article below, written by Thomas Sowell, really puts the issues into perspective for me. I want a president who will be willing to fight against those who hate and seek to destroy the United States. My life is entirely too important to me.

*****

McCain and Obama are each miserable choices for President. Yet we also face perilous threats in the world, like the prospect of a nuclear Iran. Can we afford to stay home during this election?

Now that the two parties have finally selected their presidential candidates, it is time for a sober — if not grim — assessment of where we are.

Not since 1972 have we been presented with two such painfully inadequate candidates. When election day came that year, I could not bring myself to vote for either George McGovern or Richard Nixon. I stayed home.

This year, none of us has that luxury. While all sorts of gushing is going on in the media, and posturing is going on in politics, the biggest national sponsor of terrorism in the world — Iran — is moving step by step toward building a nuclear bomb.

The point when they get that bomb will be the point of no return. Iran’s nuclear bomb will be the terrorists’ nuclear bomb — and they can make 9/11 look like child’s play.

All the options that are on the table right now will be swept off the table forever. Our choices will be to give in to whatever the terrorists demand — however outrageous those demands might be — or to risk seeing American cities start disappearing in radioactive mushroom clouds.

All the things we are preoccupied with today, from the price of gasoline to health care to global warming, will suddenly no longer matter.

Just as the Nazis did not find it enough to simply kill people in their concentration camps, but had to humiliate and dehumanize them first, so we can expect terrorists with nuclear weapons to both humiliate us and force us to humiliate ourselves, before they finally start killing us.

They have already telegraphed their punches with their sadistic beheadings of innocent civilians, and with the popularity of videotapes of those beheadings in the Middle East.

They have already telegraphed their intention to dictate to us with such things as Osama bin Laden’s threats to target those places in America that did not vote the way he prescribed in the 2004 elections. He could not back up those threats then but he may be able to in a very few years.

The terrorists have given us as clear a picture of what they are all about as Adolf Hitler and the Nazis did during the 1930s — and our “leaders”and intelligentsia have ignored the warning signs as resolutely as the “leaders”and intelligentsia of the 1930s downplayed the dangers of Hitler.

We are much like people drifting down the Niagara River, oblivious to the waterfalls up ahead. Once we go over those falls, we cannot come back up again.

What does this have to do with today’s presidential candidates? It has everything to do with them.

One of these candidates will determine what we are going to do to stop Iran from going nuclear — or whether we are going to do anything other than talk, as Western leaders talked in the 1930s.

There is one big difference between now and the 1930s. Although the West’s lack of military preparedness and its political irresolution led to three solid years of devastating losses to Nazi Germany and imperial Japan, nevertheless when all the West’s industrial and military forces were finally mobilized, the democracies were able to turn the tide and win decisively.

But you cannot lose a nuclear war for three years and then come back. You cannot even sustain the will to resist for three years when you are first broken down morally by threats and then devastated by nuclear bombs.

Our one window of opportunity to prevent this will occur within the term of whoever becomes President of the United States next January.

At a time like this, we do not have the luxury of waiting for our ideal candidate or of indulging our emotions by voting for some third party candidate to show our displeasure — at the cost of putting someone in the White House who is not up to the job.

Senator John McCain has been criticized in this column many times. But, when all is said and done, Senator McCain has not spent decades aiding and abetting people who hate America.

On the contrary, he has paid a huge price for resisting our enemies, even when they held him prisoner and tortured him. The choice between him and Barack Obama should be a no-brainer.

Thomas Sowell is a Senior Fellow at The Hoover Institution at Stanford University in California. He has published dozens of books on economics, education, race, and other topics. His most recent book is Economic Facts and Fallacies, published in December 2007.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Libertarian Party: Bob Barr for President

nobody@vox.com(theway2k) — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 01:43:44 +0000

Bob Barr 5-12-08

Here is an interesting situation. Former Republican Representative from Georgia Bob Barr has taken on the Libertarian Party nomination for President. Barr is a former Representative because a Democratic Party dominated State Congress pull off some gerrymandering to eliminate Barr’s Republican base. It placed Barr in a position of running against an incumbent Democratic Party Representative with his base gerrymandered to win.

Anyway, the Left Wing MSM is ~~reporting~~ praying that Barr will have just enough appeal to swing a close race away from McCain and into Barack HUSSEIN Obama’s lap.

The GOP is already counter-spinning that an intelligent Republican will understand a vote for now Libertarian Barr is really a vote for Obama.

My fascination with Barr becoming the Libertarian nominee for President is that primarily he is Slanted Right on most issues and was a virulent pursuer of staining the Clinton legacy. Now this fascinates me because the Libertarians have lately evolved into fiscal Conservatives yet nearly to the fringe Left on social issues. For example the Libertarian philosophy of anything goes as long as it does not infringe the beliefs of the individual or cause harm to other individuals has morphed into anti-Christian morality and pro-homosexual activism.

That does not fit the Barr image.

JRH

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

McCain and Bush present US voters w/a false dilemma

nobody@vox.com(draconem) — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 01:09:30 +0000

Side by side McCain and Bush propose the following false dilemma:

Either we open up offshore drilling by providing drastic increases in funding to our coastal states in incentives and to deal with the inevitable environmental degradation
-OR-
We sit back and watch the cost of energy in the US rise as the price of oil continues to rise on the world market.

This dilemma is false. The real question is:

Should we make a drastic increase in federal funds (per McCain) to our coastal states and bear the cost to clean up the inevitable environmental degradation, in order to execute a plan which at best can be expected to only increase world oil supply by 0.2% in 2030?

The reasons the Bush/McCain dilemma is false are not limited to the following:

We do not have to sit back and watch the cost of energy rise. There are other options we can pursue to reduce to cost of energy in the US. It is not a matter of drilling offshore or doing nothing, it is a matter of looking at the array of possible policy actions and, given finite funding, wisely choosing the best investments to fund. For example, Gas/Diesel/Biofuel hybrid electrics which get 200+ miles per gallon are available right now and w/ investment from US gov't could not only start effectively reducing our dependence on foreign oil within a couple years, but are also a bridge to a long term energy solution. Whether you support that or not, the fact remains that if you believe the only solution we currently have is to drill offshore you are demonstrating a gross misunderstanding of both the problem and that potential solution. To wit:

Opening up offshore drilling will not reduce the cost of energy in the US. A projected 0.2% increase to world oil supply in 2030 is insignificant at best. That amounts to being guaranteed to stay in the red for 22 years then most likely remain there because this will never pay for itself. Ironically, it is analysis and stats from the Bush's own DOE supporting this assertion.

The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017. Total domestic production of crude oil from 2012 through 2030 in the OCS access case is projected to be 1.6 percent higher than in the reference case, and 3 percent higher in 2030 alone, at 5.6 million barrels per day. For the lower 48 OCS, annual crude oil production in 2030 is projected to be 7 percent higher—2.4 million barrels per day in the OCS access case compared with 2.2 million barrels per day in the reference case (Figure 20). Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html

IMO insignificant may actually be an overstatement considering 0.2 million barrels per day is merely 0.2% of the total of 85 million barrels per day in current world oil production.

Bush and McCain chose to promote this false agenda as a ploy to convince voters McCain has a good energy policy when in reality the idea is nothing more than a kickback to oil companies who support his election. McCain will continue the Bush Energy policy that has cost the US billions while the oil companies set records w/ billions in profits.

Again the actual dilemma we face can be stated clearly:

Should we make a drastic increase in federal funds to our coastal states and bear the cost to clean up the inevitable environmental degradation, simply in order to execute a plan which at best can be expected to only increase world oil supply by 0.2% in 2030?

The only reasonable answer is no.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend