I guess Bryan was unhappy with my shifting my dolt title over to some other folks and felt the need for a shotgun doltage discharge. Here’s Bryan taking on everything under the sun … though, of course, it’s mostly about Teh EVIL GAYZ and Teh EVIL PRESIDENT WHO LOVES THEM EVEN THOUGH HE’S A CLOSET MUSLIM AND ALL MUSLIMS ARE OUT TO KILL ALL GAYZ.
(Note: I don’t really think Bryan pays any attention to me. It’s a rhetorical device.)
Here is some analysis of President Obama’s refusal to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in Court.
Obama is violating his oath of office by refusing to defend DOMA. The Constitution he took a solemn and sacred oath to “preserve, protect and defend” requires him in Article II, Section 3 to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This refusal to do his sworn duty makes him derelict in his duty, and is both inexcusable and even impeachable.
On the other hand, if he considers a particular law unconstitutional, doesn’t that very oath to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution require him to not execute (or defend) a law?
This isn’t without precedent, either in terms of protecting a law in court, or in terms of issuing Signing Statements to not enforce a law. It’s not a tactic I particularly care for — probably for the very reasons you claim to hold, Bryan — but it’s not unprecedented, and I can understand the reasoning behind it.
Oh, sorry, I used the “R” word.
George Washington: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness…” President Obama is not just “subvert(ing)” these pillars, he is destroying them with RPGs and WMDs. He is no patriot and is a clear and present danger to his own country.
Hmmm. Religion and morality. You may not agree with Obama’s religion, but to claim that he doesn’t have them is, frankly, despicable, Bryan.
Obama says DOMA is based on “moral disapproval” of sexually deviant behavior and therefore is bad policy. But his refusal to defend it is based on his “moral disapproval” of those of us who defend natural marriage. If “moral disapproval” is no basis for policy decisions, he has no right to make that the basis for his refusal to defend this duly enacted law. He’s shamefully guilty of the very thing he criticizes in others.
Um … projecting much, Bryan?
On what basis do you determine that Obama is acting on basis of moral disapproval of anyone. It sounds like legal disapproval, to me.
The entire argument based on marriage “equality” is just gas. Homosexuals already have full marriage equality: they can get married, same as everybody else, to an adult, non-relative member of the opposite sex. Don’t let them fool you with all this “equality” bloviation.
And those uppity blacks in South in the 50s? They had the same right as any white person to ride in the front of the bus if they’re white. They had the right to buy their own bus company and make whatever policies they wanted, just like whites, too.
It’s like saying that it’s okay to persecute Jews, because they have the same equality of any Christian to … be a Christian.
They already have full equality under the law; they have exactly the same rights as everybody else. What they want are special rights based solely on sexually deviant behavior. No sane society should ever commit such folly.
But they wouldn’t have special rights in that case, Bryan. You would have just as much right to marry another man as any homosexual male would.
Here’s a thought. Obama is refusing to defend the Defense of Marriage Act because he thinks it’s unconstitutional. If he gets away with this, let’s just have the next Republican president refuse to defend a challenge to ObamaCare. Let it go down in flames. Gone. History. In the archives. Wonder how Democrats would feel about that??
I’m sure they’d be angry and outraged, too. Like they were over the flood of signing statements by George W. Bush saying that, hey, you know this law you just lawfully passed? I don’t think the following parts of it are constitutional, so I’m going to ignore them.
Yes, going tit-for-tat in that fashion is, ultimately, destructive — almost as bad as having a GOP Senate Minority game the system and control all legislation and appointments for the last two years. That’s why, in a civil society, we discourage such activities except in the most extreme cases.
DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) prevents states from having to recognize gay marriages performed in other states. If DOMA goes down, even states with marriage amendments in their constitutions may be forced to recognize sexually deviant marriages from pro-deviancy states. This is not an incidental matter. DOMA is rooted in the 10th Amendment, protecting the right of states to establish marriage policy without coercion from the central government. If DOMA is overturned, it will leave the 10th Amendment in tatters.
Um … I’m sure you’re more of a constitutional expert than I am, Bryan, but DOMA didn’t create the 10th Amendment. Even if DOMA is defeated in court, that doesn’t mean that 10th Amendment appeals on the subject of recognition of gay marriages from other states will suddenly lose all their basis.
More importantly, DOMA prevented the federal government from recognizing marriages, even in the state where they were held and were deemed legal. In some ways, DOMA is more of an assault on state’s rights (by effectively discounting what a state considers legal) than its repeal would be.
Other items of note:
Thank goodness.
Union thug calls one Tea Partier a “little s***” and then assaults another – on tape. And we’re the haters? http://ow.ly/42vCI
I grant, even without viewing the video, the gent’s actions may have been improper, even ugly and violent. I condemn it were it so. But unlike you, Bryan, I’m willing to admit that it’s not a matter of one side being all white hats and the other side all black hats. It’s not always a matter of the Forces of Light vs those of Darkness. And certainly we’ve seen similar “thuggery” (provoked or un-) from the TPers and others on the Right before. There are union thugs, just as there are management goons and police jerks and liberal assholes and conservative dolts. Look for trends, look for results.
Republicans have offered a CR that will keep government going and reduce spending. If Democrats want to grind government to a halt, let ’em.
Yes. This is just like my saying, “Sure, honey, I’ll help make dinner — oh, and I’m putting rat poison in the stew. If you go hungry, it’s your fault.”
Or, to put it in terms that I’m sure you’d agree with, Bryan, it’s the the Dems saying, “Sure, here’s a CR that will keep government going and increases taxes at the same time. If you GOPers want to grind government to a halt, on your heads be it.”
But, then, you know that.
Even wingers on the left, like the ones at Politico, …
Oh, yeah, that Politico is just full of left-wingers …
… are getting worried that this whole thing is a suicide-vest for Democrats. If they want to blow themselves up politically, Republicans should just get out of the way and let ‘em do it.
Funny, that’s what I hear a lot of folks on the Right worrying about for the Republicans in this.
Wisconsin taxpayers right nowpick up 99.4% of the cost of teacher pensions (Gov. Walker wants to reduce that to 94.2%); in the private sector, employers pick up 21.9%. Wisconsin taxpayers pick up 94.4% of teacher’s health insurance premiums (Walker wants to reduce that to 87.4%), while private employers pick up 70.1%. Bottom line: Wisconsin teachers ain’t got nothing to complain about, and won’t even if the new law goes into effect.
Except they lose the right to collectively bargain with the state government (their employer). And their funding base gets slashed.
The teachers (and other unionized public workers in the state — except, oddly enough, for the police and fire fighters unions, which supported Walker’s candidacy and are singularly excluded from the legislation) have already offered to concede on all the financial points. Walker’s insistence on moving forward without any compromise makes it clear that there’s much more to this than immediate finance.
James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal has it exactly right: when public unions “negotiate” with the politicians they bankrolled into office, it’s not a negotiation, it is a “conspiracy to steal money from taxpayers.”
And when major corporations and billionaires “lobby” with politicians they bankrolled into office, it’s not lobbying, it is a “conspiracy to steal money from the taxpayers.” Why should they get all the fun?
Utter folly: The U.S. ICE agent cut down in cold blood in Mexico by a drug cartel was unarmed! At U.S. insistence!
Actually, at Mexican government insistence. They kind of have a funny thing about American law enforcement officials walking around in their country armed. I’m sure people here in the US would be kind of worried about Mexican law enforcement officials, doing case work support for our DEA or something, wandering around armed.
Now, is that safe enough, and is that the arrangement that we want to have, in working with Mexican army and police to deal with drug cartels largely funded by sales in the US? Those are fine questions. But I think just labeling it “utter folly!” is … well, the sort of careful, nuanced, insightful analysis that I’ve come to expect from you, Bryan.
This is just as bad as forcing the soldiers at Ft. Hood to be unarmed when Maj. Hasan shouted “Allahu Akhbar” and started shooting up infidels.
Yes, because we should all be walking around armed, waiting for someone to start shouting, “Allahu Akhbar!” and shooting up infidels. It happens with such frequency, it’s staggers the mind. Or … not.