If there is any surprise with this vote it would have to be concerning time; actual time. The measure was approved on a 385-23 vote, and goes next to the Senate. With Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) at the helm in the Senate who knows how long this bill could sit there.
The Obama administration announced the energy and aid package on Tuesday, when Secretary of State John Kerry landed in Kiev for talks with the new government.
The White House said the $1 billion loan guarantee was aimed at helping insulate Ukraine from reductions in energy subsidies. Russia provides a substantial portion of Ukraine’s natural gas and U.S. officials said they are prepared to work with Kiev to reduce its dependence on those imports.
The assistance is also meant to supplement a broader aid package from the International Monetary Fund.
Former Congressman Ron Paul had some startling trepidations, he said, “I’ve always argued that foreign aid is a process where you take money from poor people in this country and give it to rich people in other countries, because the people never seem to be helped. […] It’s government to government.” And so right he is with that statement.
In an interview with FOX News, Paul furthermore noted that the U.S. has given over $7 billion in aid to Libya, Egypt, and Syria – all of which remain unstable.
And with remittances going to Iraq, Afghanistan, and who else knows where, I believe the United States has established a rather ugly precedence with what seem like automatic money.
Congressman Paul did make a couple of points however, mentioning the notion of there may be unintended consequences to America’s good intentions. And of course we believe he is right. (Please see any consequences tag in Categories.)
He used the following narrative for his example — “[Ukraine] is behind on their payments to Russia for their natural gas. So maybe if we send money to their new government, they will pay Russia the money for their gas.”
Paul called the aid package wasteful, especially given that the U.S. is in so much debt. He also speculated that there are ulterior motives behind U.S. interventions overseas. Yet we would like to add that by stating, “If the U.S. really believes that sending the money is ‘a waste’ as Ron Paul alleges, we feel that one would or should weigh in their own hearts – is the Ukraine and the people’s well-being also ‘a waste.’”
Yet for some silver lining Paul also stated that, “he believes in helping people around the world, he thinks we should start with allowing Americans to “keep their own money… and if they want to donate to these countries, fine and dandy.”
And finally for this offering we do have a couple of issues that are upsetting us, therefore we will tag them, Accountability and Responsibility.
We are just going to make mention here of what topic one could expect to see. There are growing calls to follow the money on ObamaCare. Republican lawmaker Peter Roskam (IL) is planning to introduce a bill today that is aimed at keeping track of the $1.8 trillion taxpayer dollars expected to be spent on ObamaCare over the next decade.
Now let us add the $300 million that appears to be lost or somehow, someone in the Obama administration does not have those two precious traits needed for creating an effective government.
WHAT IS STIFLING THE AMNESTY DREAM..?
Here, plain as a sunny day, a real “I can see for miles and miles” kind of day it has become a favorite past time of mine to show an example of what true multimedia publishing and reporting is – and I will again try to make the article a true fair and balanced assessment pursuant to what really is going on with regards to immigration “reform” in the U.S.A.
Furthermore, since this little article where I have used his source citations and examples, I will email this response to irresponsible reporting to Mr. Nakamura who I believe is some type of reporter for the Washington Post.
“Thirteen years ago, President George W. Bush welcomed Vicente Fox of Mexico to Washington to lay the groundwork for an overhaul of U.S. immigration laws — sensing that fellow Republicans were finally ready to go along with a new legalization effort. The push included a rare address to Congress on Sept. 6, 2001, when Fox declared that immigrants “invariably enrich the cultural life of the land that receives them.”
After reading the full context of President Vicente Fox’s rare address to Congress, it is odd if not outright embellishing the true favor of the nation. It seems rather ridiculous to say that there will be an overhaul predicated upon “sensing” that fellow Republicans were finally ready to go along with a new legalization effort and that according to Mr. David Nakamura.
“For more than a quarter century, it has never been the right time for immigration reform. And the biggest stumbling block always seems to be concerns, primarily among conservatives, that border
controls are not tough enough and must be strengthened further before anything else can be done.
Yes and indeed quite accurate and true. Anyone, or in the larger context, any nation can proceed with stifling immigration reforms. However, the arguments that are presented warrant scrutiny. The first argument concerns the never ending drama of lying and corruption, or just plain mismanagement and improper allocation of resources.
The second argument simply illustrates how unfair and imbalanced those who seek “reform” are by wanting to jump logistical steps in seeing to it that said reform is accomplished. In other words, why should anyone in the USA trust or give more, knowingly, predicated upon past performances that simply show that the two definitions of reform are on opposite sides of the street.
Furthermore, let us not be manipulated by the ever increasing author of the original Washington Post article. In all true reality, the majority of those who are seeking reforms are actually illegal immigrants that already live in the U.S.A. looking to get more from an already over-spending government.
“But the situation is largely out of Obama’s hands, and the latest impasse has frustrated longtime advocates.” First the situation is not out of Obama’s hands. Earlier in the article it was alleged that Obama launched his immigration plans one year ago. Nothing could possibly be further than the truth. Obama easily started six years ago, yet matters that he felt were more important – ObamaCare, Welfare reform, the authorization of more food stamps and other entitlements, Fast and Furious, and any one of the five major scandals that are still open and unsolved at the time of this writing.
Why does the writer make such statements? Are the longtime advocates dismayed for some reason? Does the situation exist whereby someone has not been open and realistic with them? Or it can be and almost is always the case that the primary work is not finished or the incumbent government has not completed what they say they would have done.
It is a debate that has raged since President Ronald Reagan signed the last major overhaul of immigration laws in 1986, a bipartisan achievement hailed as a solution to the crisis of 5 million immigrants living in the country illegally. The Immigration Reform and Control Act put 2.7 million people on the path toward citizenship, marking the largest legalization program in U.S. history.
The number of people living in the country illegally rose again quickly, reaching more than 11.7 million last year. Yet, keep in mind the original program the IRCA (1986) was twenty-eight (28) years ago.
FOUNDING FATHERS ON IMMIGRATION
Hello and welcome again to Founding Fathers Quote’s Friday! This is a little meme that was put together years ago – and now when I look back at some of my earlier articles dating from 2007 it openly stuns me! Credit due where credit is due of course, and in this particular case this meme was originally designed and put together by Hercules Mulligan, who at the time maintained one of the most perfect and well-versed blogs around.
That is when a lot of rubbish began about something I know very little about referred to as “The Illuminati” which Hercules Mulligan was actively (spare time) writing about. Yet when someone takes one’s writing and viciously attacks it, I believe as much as Mulligan did that it was time for proof to hit the pudding.
He calmly informed me that he was going to finish his book and knowing that I have published books, made the request to be left alone. Hey c’mon already! With even an outside chance of gaining the publishing rights I assured him I would leave him alone and wished him the best of luck in all his endeavors.
“A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader…” Samuel Adams in letter to James Warren 1779.
In Samuel Adams’ letter to James Warren during 1779 there is nothing more important than what he is actually saying. He states that a general dissolution (breaking down of one’s known ways) of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the entire military of the common enemy.
Further he espouses, “While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but once they lose their virtue then [they] will be ready to surrender their rights, liberties, and their actual ways of living to the first external or internal invader.”
Next up…Alexander Hamilton, who after being at odds with something Thomas Jefferson was going on with, namely precisely what our president Barack Obama has to some measure already done, and now after the GOP launched their Republican Principles most of us feel much the same as Mr. Hamilton did.
During his campaign run against Aaron Burr, Jefferson simply switched in everything be believed in with regards to immigration policy during that time. Ostensibly, what Jefferson had done was started talking about, writing about, and stumping all around about was the simple notion of dropping all requirements of a previous assimilation responsibilities. During that time just before 1800 Jefferson began arguing about the requirements of naturalization.
Jefferson believed that a fourteen year residency requirement was too long, and demanded immediate naturalization (meaning citizenship then…) This is IMPORTANT: During his First Annual Message to Congress, Jefferson argued that the longer waiting period from 5 years originally to 14 years caused the “unhappy fugitives” distress. Furthermore, Jefferson believed that for the bona fide reason of embarking his life to America should be sufficient for citizenship. The important part mentioned earlier was that through counting, Jefferson and his followers believed that too strong were the votes of recent immigrants.
Hamilton was Jefferson’s longtime enigma. Being the Secretary of the Treasury under President Washington, Hamilton did not believe that should be given as cheaply as Jefferson was proposing in 1801.
In two different newspaper editorials Hamilton summed it up this way;
In the recommendation to admit indiscriminately foreign emigrants of every description to the privileges of American citizens, on their first entrance into our country, there is an attempt to break down every pale which has been erected for the preservation of a national spirit and a national character; and to let in the most powerful means of perverting and corrupting both the one and the other. (Published in “The Examination,” nos. 7-9 (1801—1802)
It seems rather inconsequential, but after President Thomas Jefferson’s first term the assimilation and residency period for new emigrants was again put forth to 5 years were it has been ever since. It is furthermore important to state that Mr. Jefferson a true founding father in addition to Alexander Hamilton, Samuel Adams, and James Warren did not elect to pull out an Executive Order to see to it that his way or the highway was achieved.
The principles of America’s Founders must be restored – meaning representative democracy, checks and balances among the branches, and to a more opportunistic public discourse.
We have been writing about this particular topic since the beginning of publishing this blog. Although lacking some means of data – which means that the data does exist (see Categories) and has been used in other articles at previous times throughout the tenure of this blog.
We believe that the current goings-on within the governmental structure has a direct and concurrent influence on our society today. Unlike years ago our means of communication is so much faster than in earlier times. Therefore, people who are out demonstrating their violent tendencies, responsibilities, and the general state of mind are heard about often times quicker than any news media has even been dispatched.
Our premise therefore lies in the notion of accountable, truth telling, and honorable people that make up a solid government. In fact, we would go as far as telling President Barack Obama that either he and/or his representatives source
scandals the various and often times ridiculous efforts an elected Congress has with special interest groups, lesser than honorable people, and the entire executive branch including the IRS, Post Office, EPA, FEMA, and as the list gets longer we will not.
Whilst we remain open, we would love to hear your comments on this specific most recent data that appears to be the prime opposite of what the Senate’s Gang of Eight has come up with; moreover, hopefully stopping the House of Representatives from following the Senate’s abhorrent lead.
A Rasmussen Reports survey found that only 25 percent of Americans believe the federal government will secure the border if comprehensive immigration reform is passed. What this data suggests is that the American people do not believe the federal government who has previously guaranteed that a proper fence would be built still has not happened and that only 25 percent believe that they will.
While most respondents said they want border security to play a prominent role in any type of immigration reform, few believe the federal government will actually enforce it.
The Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 25 percent of “likely” U.S. voters think it is even somewhat likely that the federal government will actually secure the border and prevent further illegal immigration if that is part of new legislation.
Further, 65 percent said they consider it unlikely. Just 5 percent said the government is “very likely” to secure the border if it is part of comprehensive legislation to give legal status to illegal aliens already in the country.
Meanwhile, only 18 percent of respondents said they believe those who are currently in the U.S. illegally should be granted legal status right away, while 62 percent said legalization should come only after the border is secured.
“Voters are evenly divided over the immigration plan passed by the U.S. Senate that would further secure the border and give most of those who entered the country illegally legal status to stay here,” the survey states.
Forty percent favor such a plan, while another 40 percent oppose it, leaving 20 percent undecided.
In September, support for the plan was at 53 percent when voters were asked, “If you knew that the border would really be secured to prevent future illegal immigration, would you favor or oppose this plan?”
Twenty-nine percent of respondents said they think the House of Representatives should pass the comprehensive immigration reform plan already approved by the Senate, while 44 percent believe the House should review that legislation piece by piece and approve only the parts it likes.
Therefore, it is probably an awesome notion that the folks over at Rasmussen did not contact us at The Contemplative Thinker. Our position is that of public opinion and just who is receiving the correct information? We are so sick and tired of this flimsy mainstream media assault on the American public with story after story of how DHS is “told” by [unknown individuals] that the border is secure when all one has to do is have a simple look.
Principles of America’s Founders must be restored…
Understanding our political heritage is a vital part of building a stronger America for the next generation. The principles of America’s Founders must be restored to their proper role in the public and political discourse, influencing public policy and reforming government to reflect constitutional limits.
Recently, law professor Jonathan Turley took to the pages of The Washington Post to warn about the growth of the administrative state. “The growing dominance of the federal government over the states has obscured more fundamental changes within the federal government itself,” Turley wrote. “Our carefully constructed system of checks and balances is being negated by the rise of a fourth branch, an administrative state of sprawling departments and agencies that govern with increasing autonomy and decreasing transparency.”
Predictably, some career bureaucrats did not like Turley’s message and registered their protests with letters to the Post. “If Mr. Turley were to check the beginning of regulations published in the Federal Register, he would see that these civil servants also have phone numbers where they can be reached,” one wrote. “Agencies like mine go to great pains to be open about our efforts and are subject to vigorous scrutiny by Congress and the courts,” added another. “They end up knowing just about everything but our shirt size. How much more transparent can we get?”
The complaints miss the point. Certainly many bureaucrats are nice people, and certainly they can be reached by phone, fax, or e-mail. The problem is not the people in the government; it is that those people do not have the constitutional authority to be making public policy.
As Heritage’s Joe Postell puts it, there are four major constitutional problems today:
The administrative state combines the powers of government in the hands of the same officials in violation of the separation of powers principle.
It is based on unconstitutional delegations of legislative power from Congress to bureaucrats and administrators.
It violates the principle of republican government, which requires that power—especially legislative power—be derived from the consent of the governed, expressed directly or indirectly through elections.
The administrative process it follows to adjudicate disputes is fundamentally opposed to the protections offered by the rule of law in the traditional judicial process.
The Founders gave us a system carefully crafted to divide power, but we have allowed bureaucrats to expand their reach. “Do we want to be governed by the rule of law as hammered out in open legislative debate, carried on by our elected representatives, directly accountable to us? Or do we wish to be governed by the expanding rule of regulation, the rule of administrators who are most certainly not accountable to us?” asks Heritage’s Bob Moffit. “The rule of regulation is the rule of regulators. But today, the rule of regulators is arbitrary and unaccountable government.”
For additional in-depth reading on the importance of understanding America’s political government, please click here.
ILLEGAL ALIENS TO ATTEND STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS“
For a guy that pretends to be a Constitutional lawyer, Barack Obama sure doesn’t seem to understand the Constitution or the law. The latest “lack of understanding” has the President inviting illegal aliens to attend the State Of The Union Address next Tuesday. Sadly, this is the second year in a row that Scofflaw-in-chief has decided to throw his disdain for the law into America’s face.
Even though his is supposed to represent the American people, he frequently shows his allegiance to foreign nationals and law-breakers. The President has vowed to use his speech to push for immigration reform and put together a group that looks like a who’s who of the amnesty movement including all of his Illinois Democrat stoolies.
“This year, we joined together to invite people whose stories illustrate the importance of immigration reform and to make clear that passing comprehensive immigration reform should be at the top of the to-do list,” said the group in a joint statement.
And with that, Estefania Garcia and Maria Torres, a couple of illegal aliens will be in attendance next Tuesday. But you see, those two aren’t just ordinary law-breakers, they are the so-called “dreamers”: illegal aliens brought to this country by their illegal parents when they were young. If you remember, Obama, with the stroke of his pen, created the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which completely halted the deportation process for millions of people who shouldn’t be in this country.
In case you haven’t noticed, Obama likes to give speeches where he surrounds himself with people that have sad stories. He uses these tragic bits of anecdotal evidence to sell his unpopular, and often, unconstitutional initiatives to the American people. Sure, illegal immigration costs this country billions of dollars and keeps millions of Americans from being gainfully employed, but look at these two poor girls who came to this country through no fault of their own. They just want a better life.
Americans want a better life too and Obama’s tired old song and dance is running thin with the people. Bob Dane of the Federation for American Immigration Reform is livid over the message that inviting illegals to the speech sends.
“It reinforces the one message that for this president is unambiguous: Violating immigration laws is just entirely inconsequential. The laws aren’t being enforced, and here you go, the public needs to get used to it. They can sit and stand anywhere they want, including next to me in the U.S. Capitol,” said Dane.
The number of illegal invitees is way down from last year’s State of the Union, which saw nearly 200 dreamers and schemers in the peanut gallery. By the way, just to show
you what a bunch of ingrates these people looking for a better life are, they actually booed Obama because he hasn’t done enough for them. I bet he’s a little more selective with this year’s invitations.
I am a hardworking, taxpaying, natural-born American citizen. Do you think I’ll ever get invited to sit in the House of Representatives to watch a speech? Do you think the president gives a crap about my concerns? The fact that Obama is catering to the needs of foreign nationals over American citizens is criminal. That he’s doing it while the people that he’s supposed to represent are suffering is just plain disgusting. Special hat-tip and thanks to tomfernandez28 for his remarkable touch.
What’s up with this so-called income inequality…
As a worsening jobs picture appeared last week, Barack Obama sought to hit the reset button.
His strategy? Lie. (Anyone out there surprised.)
“If you like your plan, you can keep it.”
“You can keep your doctor, period.”
“The Affordable Care Act will reduce the deficit and save money for the economy.”
“The Benghazi attack was a result of an anti-Muslim video.”
“Al Qaeda has been decimated.”
“Republicans don’t care about people.”
But this time, it’s different.
Instead of a little lie, the president jumped right to a demagogue-level fabrication. (I guess Obama has become more comfortable in office during his second term.)
The lie was captured during a speech on income inequality…
“We’ve also seen how government action, time and again, can make an enormous difference in increasing opportunity and bolstering ladders into the middle class. Investments in education, laws establishing collective bargaining and a minimum wage – these all contributed to rising standards of living for massive numbers of Americans.”
Like it or not ladies and gentlemen since I have been on this planet there has always been a problem with what people want. We really could go on for hours simply with gender equality alone. No, I am sorry but I did not start the Women’s Liberation Front; moreover, having maintained my support of human dignity as well as my “ut-oh something is not correct in this situation” for me it all began with this trumped up notion of Comparative worth.
During the 1960s through the 1990s (hey…that is only one generation) women wanted everything, which altogether they originally kept a soaring accountability on. I really hope beyond all hope I will be able to address accountability again. But be it for now, in the early going women were trailblazers in form and control.
They knew what they wanted, got the think tanks involved, and put together one of the most worthy presentations that regardless of being male or female one walked away feeling molested and rightfully so.
About getting and maintaining an erstwhile form of income makes today look just too easy. Furthermore, trying to adjust in a discriminatory, male dominated work force was difficult to say the least. Yet there are those of us who believe in human rights what is good for one must be good for the other in its entirety.
Then we all hit the collegiate experience. What started out as some decent placements, comparative worth, successful legislation especially within the “sex” aspects of the law, we were brouha-ha-ing all over campus. It was very obvious that we could see our hard earned debating, protesting, and fight for human rights coming together nicely.
Then on an open forum night insofar as women in combat, heck, women in the military was one of the issues for debate when there was a sudden overflow of what is equal and what is not equal that most of my female colleagues did not care for whatsoever.
This was only after we had put out the responsible notion of Comparative worth.
Comparative worth is a concept that the searching a Rolodex, doing dictation from supervisors, or even finishing a letter – all matters that had been agreed upon at hiring saw some very sensitive men feeling betrayed. Imagine if you can – the time spent for getting a number or address or having a predesigned closure of written correspondence.
The Women’s Liberation Front felt as though they should be paid the exact amount that the principle – often times a founder, or at the very least a partner and above all the person who paid for all attorney’s fees for a very specified altruistic act of human rights.
I do NOT have a problem with these arrangements. Yet, who is kidding whom? Where is the equality in that fiasco? I do NOT believe that there will ever be an X-Ray technician who will receive the same as the doctor who has ordered it. Remember folks, this is capitalism in the United States of America.
President Barack Obama predicts Congress will be busy this year debating a renewal of jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed and an immigration overhaul. But he says he wants his Cabinet also to focus on executive actions that do not require legislation.
“We are not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we are providing Americans the kind of help that they need. I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone,” Obama said.
“And I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions … and I’ve got a phone that allows me to convene Americans from every walk of life,” Obama stated, according to Reuters.
He says he is “very pleased” that Congress has agreed on a $1 trillion budget measure and urges lawmakers to pass it promptly.
Calling for “all hands on deck” to assist the economy, President Barack Obama is urging his Cabinet to identify ways to keep his administration relevant to people struggling in the up-and-down recovery.
With two weeks left before delivering an economy-focused State of the Union address to Congress, Obama is picking up the pace of his jobs message and demonstrating how he can advance his economic agenda administratively and through his ability to coax action from important interest groups.
Please assure me that you are reading this stuff. What does he mean, “of his jobs message.” All we have ever heard and seen from this mental midget is a report on jobs, and of course his action of going against data and experts whilst reforming and/or disorganizing a welfare system used by preceding presidents and actually working.
“We’re not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help they need. I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone,” Obama said Tuesday as he convened his first Cabinet meeting of the year. (In other words he is saying “my way or the highway” to Congress.)
In plain words this man is illustrating disrespect for Congress; the sooner Barack Obama is out of office is the sooner our job market will begin to turn around. Ask yourself a question or two: What has this conceited and egotistical person done with regarding the coal industry? (Over 67 percent have been laid off with no expectation of ever returning.)
We still wonder how (legally, or otherwise) how this arrogant person won his bid for re-election. This is another attempt to get people to look at the horror of politics; moreover, how stupid this country is in re-electing him.
This individual, Barack Obama, has to have the highest “father issues” ever rated by a public official. Again he is using his politics over people strategies that like ObamaCare, energy policies, and immigration reform simply does not think in terms of “what if” or until the end of his presidency.
What else could he possibly mean, “providing Americans the kind of help they need…”
Obama continued: “And I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward in helping to make sure our kids are getting the best education possible. We need making sure that our businesses are getting the kind of support and help they need to grow and advance, to make sure that people are getting the skills that they need to get those jobs that our businesses are creating.”
We feel that Barack Obama should remove himself from trying to secure various remedies. Seriously look at the plans that have materialized since he took office.
I believe that brilliant minds think alike! Today during my morning browse of news, immigration reform, economy, and of course the final four vying for the most sought after award for a “Gridiron football organization” the Super Bowl, I just happened to run into this sign (upper left) and unbeknownst to me at the time it had been posted there – the place I found it – by a monumental friend I’ve made here at Word Press. George is a fellow writer and politics are his specialty.
I do accommodate that brilliant minds do think alike!
I am so overly tired of having this ugly mug in my home, almost on a daily basis. The President’s formal press conferences are actually little pint sized campaigns and if any one particular person ever looked and saw those who are standing around him – I guess for some kind of cheering squad or definitely one there for moral support.
It has gotten to the point and as I was waiting for the economic bell to recover I knew in the forefront of my mind that this self-righteous basta*d would want to stand up on international television and take credit for it.
It was last week when the jobs report was released on Thursday that revealed only 74,000 people gained employment. Obama Economic Fact: 37% of the adult population do not have jobs and are no longer looking for work. The Obama Economy is a failure.
Let us all face it now – the person is the worst, most non-productive POTUS ever…in the history of the U.S.A.
“It is an affront to the idea of basic human rights that the battle for full marriage equality in this country remains in headlines and courtrooms,” Gansler said.
In an interview, Gansler predicted that controversy in Utah could put the constitutionality of gay marriage to rest. “This might be the issue, then, that answers the question for everybody,” he said.
The above written teaser was published in today’s The Baltimore Sun. It is an interesting article, moreover, it is well-written and enjoyable.
However, where we come in with our thoughts, opinions, and remedies are normally when the State’s Attorney General, Doug Gansler begins to perform far more than what is his job.
Therefore, it is not the writers of the article that we nail via the heart with a wooden stake, it is the poor amount of legislating, politicking, ad nauseum that he does without data, background, or ostensibly knowledge. Gansler therefore finds his way to the self-esteeming “Eric Holder’s Office of Attorney Generals” for nitwitted lawyers with the opportunity and mouth to say anything.
From the onset of the reading Gansler says that it is an open insult or giving offense to somebody – affront –that same-sex marriage somehow collides with basic human rights. So what do we have to say about those individuals who no doubt will claim that their basic human rights are being violated with this excuse that somehow entails basic human rights.
Here is a short and quick example. The practice of sodomy among heterosexual couples has been outlawed in all 50 states. So then what happens to the poor schmuck who does not care for that law and starts a big brouhaha saying that his religious liberties are being violated, it is unconstitutional to make laws regarding what two consenting adults do in the sanctity of their own home.
I am trying to be brief here, although when Gansler makes mention of the two extremes – unconstitutionally v. constitutional – there exists a problem insofar as I do not find anything written about same-sex marriage in our Constitution.
Being as malleable to both sides of the issue it is where Gansler states, “idea of basic human rights that the battle for full marriage equality in this country” that in reality shows the clarity of the issues. One, the “idea of basic human rights” we do not see a basic human right being challenged here and two, “battle for full marriage equality in this country” is critical to this argument.
If in fact, that is what same-sex marriage was all about (and it isn’t!) why then a battle for marriage equality. This debate finds its way into the immigration reform matter as well. It is now demanded by illegal immigrants that they want their parents and all of their relatives be given the right to come and go as they please.
Oh but wait…now same-sex marriage people feel it is also their RIGHT to have their different sexed partner as well as their families and relatives given the same nonsensical right. Why doesn’t any Senator, Representative, or President invite us to their offices for our RIGHTS and arguments?