Still having difficulties deciding who to vote for…perhaps we can lend a lay-person’s hand

Think about all things…not what you just see immediately…

This is a normal first day or first week critical thinking exercise that we have used with our students from time to time. We will present some situational scenarios and all we are asking anyone to do is just get comfortable and allow the information – in whatever form to enter your minds – then we ask that if memories pop-up either remember them accurately or jot them down on paper. Ready?

“Heads back or on your desk…breathe as deeply as possible…and listen” If possible think of the judicial system overall as it stands in our nation today. As we begin our exercise thinking about the absolute highest form of judicial proceedings --Judicial Review — perhaps this is a good thing and perhaps it is a bad thing, who really knows?

While we are on the judiciary let’s begin to put these thoughts into relative experience on a much lower scale at the local city/county district or even the courts of small claims.

Proposition 8 was a 2008 California ballot initiative that proposed the enactment of the California Marriage Protection Act to amend the California constitution. The Proposition appeared on the November 2008 ballot under the title Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry; Initiative Constitutional Amendment. It passed with 52.24% of the vote. The measure added a new provision, Section 7.5 of the Declaration of Rights, to the California Constitution, which provides that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

Proponents of the constitutional amendment argued that exclusively heterosexual marriage was “an essential institution of society”, that leaving the constitution unchanged would “result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay”, and that gays “do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else.”

Opponents argued that “the freedom to marry is fundamental to our society”, that the California constitution “should guarantee the same freedom and rights to everyone”, and that the proposition “mandates one set of rules for gay and lesbian couples and another set for everyone else.” They also argued that “equality under the law is a fundamental constitutional guarantee” (using the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment).

Arizona has had an unprecedented level of illegal immigration problems that directly confront the people of that state day in and day out. Therefore, upon submission of documentation to the U.S. government’s Homeland Security Department (DHS) about what the state intended on doing to help rectify the dismal matter inasmuch as the federal government – who is supposed to deal with immigration and naturalization law – simply didn’t; furthermore, adding insult to injury the President goes on national television to announce that, “…the federal government is inactive in matters of illegal immigration…” or in other words, stand down.

But why stand down? Did the president have other issues that seem more important than the national security of our nation? You bet he did. This is the time in which the American History books (if allowed to print and not be censured) should make the unabated truth be told about the corruption going on to establish enough Congressional votes to secure Obamacare.

Between President Barack “Barry Soetero” Obama, Eric Holder, US Attorney General, Janet Napolitano, Secretary of DHS, as well as the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, and those other’s who were recipients of corrupt-o-cash, whilst maintaining the highest unemployment rate, visa giveaway’s, Visa Lottery’s, and increasing the amount of visa’s to another unprecedented level. Ostensibly what we have in the current administration is an assortment of politicians who specialize in law trying to run a country.

Now then wouldn’t it just be smarter and more astute to let a professional business person, who has made scores of funds – not only for himself – but for and on behalf of every investor into every company this person has dealt with? Attacking this individual for some company he worked with getting the highest asset value imaginable and then while at a premium thousands of people, including those who worked within the companies themselves profited enormously? This person has the needed experience this country needs to recover economically, or at least a better knowledge than what is currently in place.

While others have abdicated their responsibilities in times of war, national security, and literally misspoke about the additional funding his program of universal health care needs (approximately $1.7 trillion more) how much more do you want to take?