Another Blog From

Archive for the ‘states rights’ Category

Gay Arianna Nation Blogger, Aly Windsor, Smears North Carolina (And Demeans Gays)

In gay marriage, politics, states rights on May 9, 2012 at 8:24 am

Are gays sissies?  Or just those gays affiliated with the Arianna Nation?  Aly Windsor, blogging for the Arianna Nation (HuffPost) is crying all the way to that liberal media outlet about her “harrowing” experience at a North Carolina voting poll, where she breaks down and whines that she was made and forced to endure a slow and painful walk into the polling center that no one ought to endure.  Aly was there to vote early on “Amendment 1”, an amendment to the state’s Constitution that would effectively and decisively ban same-sex marriage and uphold the one man/one woman model.  (That amendment has since passed)  Aly writes that her “family was harassed” while she made her way into the polling center.  But other than a verbal word of discourse here and there, Aly made her way in without ever being touched.  She complains her feeling were hurt by what was said verbally to her, and what was written on the signs people held out in front of them.  Are we supposed to feel sorry for Aly?  Are we supposed to feel her pain?  This is the Democratic process, and liberals “harass” conservatives and conservative value every day.  To say she was “harassed” is libelous, in the legal sense, silly in the real sense.  So there were people out in the streets, their streets too, peacefully protesting against gay marriage.  Nobody was throwing rocks at voters, or smashing windows, upturning cars, setting fire to the city.  But Aly still feels these people ought not have the right to even stand and protest against a measure she supports.  Because, in her liberal mind, that’s not fair, and that’s not nice.  In Aly’s childish mind it’s mean people being mean.  Hmm.  Were any of the “scary” protesters holding clubs in their hands, intimidating voters and being intentionally menacing like they did in front of polling stations during the 2008 Presidential election?  Aly Windsor is nothing more than a sham and a canard, and she is using the Arianna Nation as a sympathy platform for her own selfishness and egotism, and she demeans all gays and lesbians with her unbecoming hissy-fit.  She would work to have laws passed to make it illegal for this to happen to anyone again.  But – if one form of protesting can be made illegal, how soon will it be that all forms of protesting will be made illegal?  Or is it only conservatives protesters, and those protesters who are out in their communities supporting measures that Aly doesn’t like she wants to see banned?  Because if another measure comes up for a vote that liberals strongly disapprove of, like an anti-abortion amendment, does anyone believe the pro-abortion crowd would not be out in those same streets “harassing” voters (and using more than the “hurtful” and “spiteful” words than were directed at Aly) as they went into the polling stations?  Does anyone believe Aly would want their voices silenced?  Isn’t protesting a two-way street?  Or is it only the one-way thoroughfare Aly wants it to be, where liberal ideas and measures can pass through unhindered but where conservatives ideas and measures would be, in essence, “going the wrong way”?


“Amendment 1” And The Right Of The Majority To Decide – Except When The Majority Is Not The Liberal Side

In gay marriage, homosexuality, politics, states rights on May 8, 2012 at 10:21 am

North Caroline citizens will vote Today, May 8, on Amendment 1, a measure that would amend their state Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage.  This is as it ought to be – people deciding, not courts.  As there is strong indication that it will pass, challenge and interference in the right of the people to decide issues for themselves may ensue from so-called civil rights and civil liberties groups.  Gay marriage is not a Constitutional right, nor is it even a civil right.  It is certainly not a right to be administered by a minority of people, whether those people be lawyers, politicians or judges.  If gay marriage is ever to be, and to become, a right is must come from the people directly.  Hypocritical liberals have no concern about one lone judge, or a mere few of them, ruling from the bench and striking down any law or measure that, although it was passed either by a state’s majority congress or a state’s majority of citizens, it nonetheless does not pass mustard with liberals and liberal ideology – i.e., border enforcement; illegal alien crack-downs, voter ID requirements, and of course anti-gay marriage initiatives.  On the other hand, these same hypocritical liberals will always support the majority in any congress and in any populace when these majorities vote in favor of a liberal initiative, and these same hypocritical liberals will always condemn any attempt to override such legislation by conservatives when it suits their hypocritical. double standard wielding, two-faced fancies.  Gays and lesbians, and liberals, and even conservatives who support gay marriage, ought to understand that to force this issue on an unwilling public will only harm the progress made in gay and lesbian acceptance.  That goes for anything forced on a majority by the minority, by the way.  Will gay marriage ever be accepted in America, and if so, how soon?  How soon will depend on how patient pro-gay marriage supporters are willing to be.  Because if supporters keep forcing the issue, animosity towards gay marriage will only spread.  Or – do supporters of gay marriage think a minority can silence a majority?  And if so – for how long?

The Threat Of “Back Room” Abortions Does Not Justify The Continuation Of Legal Abortions; A Preamble To War…

In abortion, politics, pro-life, states rights on April 30, 2012 at 5:46 pm

Socialist Bernie Sanders (Ind. VT) has entered the “war on women” charade with a very direct response to conservatives and the pro-life movement.  Says Sanders:

“We are not going back.”

What does Sanders mean by that?  He asserts:

“We are not returning to the days of back-room abortions…we are not going back to the days when women could not have full access to birth control…we are not going back to the days of wide-scale domestic violence, [talking about the Violence Against Women Act]…further, not only are we going to protect and expand those laws which deal directly with women’s rights…”

That some women, once Roe vs. Wade is overturned and states begin to enact legislation to protect unborn children from abortion procedures, may feel compelled, driven, cornered into a “back room” abortion situation is not enough to legitimately or logically keep legal any procedure that unnecessarily kills an unborn child.  Women already have full access to birth control and contraception through the law.  In other words, no one is passing laws to prevent women from accessing birth control or contraception.  However it is not the prerogative or responsibility of taxpayers to pay the cost for women.  And if a woman cannot afford the cost herself that in no way diminishes, or amounts to, a lack of access.  Domestic violence is a serious issue, but do we really need another heavy, expensive layer of federal bureaucracy like the Violence Against Women Act, when these issues can be resolved more effectively, more efficiently at stale and local levels?  Like “hate crimes” laws, the Violence Against Women Act is another example of a needless, cumbersome, purely political, and politically correct, driven, ideological agenda that does nothing to prevent or stop domestic violence, but it sure puts a hell of a lot of taxpayer dollars into the pockets of liberal organizations and lawyers groups.

Sanders continues his directness:

“The right-wing in this country is waging a war against women and, let me be very clear, it is not a war that we are going to allow them to win.  But if they want political warfare, we must expand the field of battle, and we must be on the offensive.”

And let this be a message to Bernie Sanders, the Democrat Party, and all liberals:

We, conservatives, are pushing forward as well, with our political war, fighting against the war on the unborn, the assault on the U.S. Constitution and American freedom, the personal attacks on our character, our beliefs and our morality (of which liberals can challenge – anytime).  And let us be very clear – we’re not going back either.  We’re not going back to a time when abortion on demand was politically impossible to counter; we’re not going back to a time when it was easy to break into America and long remain, and where liberals would provide to these criminal aliens a sanctuary and a protective status; we’re not going back to a time when liberals could erode and degrade America’s military and military might, prowess and reach anywhere in this world; we’re not going back to a time when liberals, through media outlets and through the public education system, were able to get away with denigrating American history, America’s true founding and the facts concerning our founding fathers, America’s Constitution, American freedom and liberty and what it actually means to be an American; and we are not going back to a time when it was easier for liberals to put America’s sovereignty in jeopardy.  We also are expanding the “battlefield”.  And we, not liberals, are, and will remain, on the political offense.  You (liberals) want to fight a (political) war with us (conservatives) – bring it on!  We couldn’t be more excited, more eager, more ready, more resolved to win.  And – we will win.  Wanna put a wager on that?

What’s The Difference Between Breaking Into America Illegally And Breaking Into One’s Home Illegally?

In illegal immigration, immigration, politics, states rights on April 25, 2012 at 2:01 pm

Someone breaks into your home and starts stealing your belongings; your money, your jewelry, your art, your furniture, etc.  Would you have the audacity to stop them?  Would you call the police?  Would you seek to have them prosecuted and punished?  If you wouldn’t seek to stop illegal immigration into America, (a sovereign nation and “home” to 300 million legal residents), why would you feel differently towards your own home (also your sovereign domain) being robbed?  When illegal aliens break into America they steal things too, and not just the “jobs Americans won’t do”.  They also steal our identities, they steal money from education funding when they enroll their children in public schools using our tax dollars, they steal money from the food stamp program, SNAP, etc. when they use that system to buy food with our tax dollars, they steal money from the housing funding when they are given shelter to live using our tax dollars, they steal money from healthcare funding when they use public hospitals paid for with our tax dollars, and they even steal our political elections when they illegally vote for the politicians who pander to them and promise them amnesty.  Just as the home invader broke into your home to obtain something of yours, something of value, for him/herself, so too do illegal aliens break into America to obtain something of value for themselves, and in doing so they took something of value away from you, from all of us.  The Supreme Court is hearing argument of Sb 1070, Arizona’s “controversial” illegal immigration law.  It appears Arizona will win, which means illegal aliens, and their legitimacy in America (or at least in Arizona), will lose.  What Arizona is trying to do, by protecting its sovereign territory, (in this case a state) is no different from what a home owner would do, or seek to do, to protect their sovereign territory (in this case a home).  Yet, millions of home owners who probably would seek to defend their property, their own sovereign domain, still insist that trying to stop illegal aliens from breaking into America is tantamount to bigotry and xenophobia and racism.  Why do these Americans reject the legitimate sovereignty of America?  And  – would they just as readily, just as passionately, relinquish the sovereignty of their own homes to the people who would desire to rob them?  Would they do it if it was an illegal alien robbing them?

Bread And Circuses: Democrats Prep Their Tongues For Hispanic/Latino Vote

In Hispanics, illegal immigration, immigration, Latinos, politics, states rights on April 24, 2012 at 10:20 am

At a time when immigration, both legal and illegal, into America from Latin and Hispanic countries is allegedly at an historical standstill, Democrats nonetheless vow they will bend over backwards, get down on all fours and scrounge for the remaining scraps that are left by election time, November 2012, wholly prepared to lick whatever orifice necessary to appease this, albeit speculative, shrinking violet of a voting block.  The Supreme Court is set to decide on whether Arizona has the Constitutional right to enforce a “controversial” law it passed, known as S.B. 1070 (pdf version here) that allows its law enforcement “the power to check the immigration status of those with whom they come into contact who they suspect are in the country illegally. It also requires legal immigrants to carry their papers — a mandate of federal law.”  If the Supreme Court upholds the Arizona law, Senate Democrat Chuck Schumer says he and fellow Democrats “will force a floor vote on legislation that would invalidate” it.  Although Democrats know that even if such a measure passed the Senate, it would fail in the GOP controlled House.  But that is the point, or as Democrats see it – a calculated move on their part, its aim specifically designed to muster support for Democrats among Latinos and Hispanics in America, both legal and illegal (but especially those that can and will vote regardless of their status as citizens) who they hope will draw strength through coordinated outrage over Arizona’s anti-illegal immigration law.  In other words, Democrats are willing to lower themselves as shallowly as they can, and both cheapen and endanger America, for votes, anticipating that a majority of Latinos and Hispanics in America are as anti-American as they are, and are willing to do the “limbo” with, and for, Democrats.  Are Hispanics and Latinos really as despicable, conniving, repugnant and hostile to America, American law and our Constitution as is Chuck Schumer and the Democrat Party?  Will we will have to wait until November 2012 to find that out?

17 Reasons To Vote For Mitt Romney, Defeat Barack Obama

In abortion, NARAL, pro-life, right to life, states rights on April 21, 2012 at 6:44 pm

NARAL – National Abortion Rights Action League – knows what a Mitt Romney win in 2012 will mean to abortion in America.  The abortion rights group has studied the patterns of all fifty states with regards to abortion, both those states with pro-life leaning legislatures, and those states with pro-abortion leaning legislatures.  Seventeen states have been identified by NARAL which would immediately seek to ban abortion in their states once Roe vs. Wade is overturned.  Since a Romney win means an almost certain push to appoint conservative judges to the Supreme Court, and since NARAL knows conservative judges tend to be more strict Constitutionalists, and less activist, than liberals judges, any new appointment by a President Romney will be virtually guaranteed to support overturning the law that made abortion legal in America in 1973.  Any attempt to undermine abortion in America, and what is perceived (although not actually) a guaranteed Constitutional right, will be fiercely fought by NARAL and all pro-abortion groups, who consider laws banning abortion, abortion procedures and funding for abortion to be a “war on women”.  What we must keep in mind is that Obama will appoint liberal activist, pro-abortion, judges to the Supreme Court.  He has done it twice so far, with Sonya Sotomayer and Elana Kagan.  If elected to a second term, and given the opportunity to appoint another Supreme Court Justice, he will do it again.  NARAL has identified seventeen states ready to ban abortion.  A Romney win will bring those states that much closer to making that a reality.  Unborn lives are at stake in this election, as in all elections.  In this election, however, pro-life supporters have much to gain with a Romney win, and much to lose with an Obama win.  Until Roe vs. Wade is overturned, all unborn children have their lives to lose, if their mothers so choose.  Romney winning the Presidency will set into motion the key events that will lead to the overturning of Roe vs. Wade, allowing at least seventeen states to ban abortion.  Isn’t that seventeen very good reasons why we need to vote for Mitt Romney for President?