The unfortunate matter of my various and sundry divorces are now legend in two of America’s Fifty States. It would appear as though the potential exists to include a more national sense of notoriety to that record. Following the election of November 6, 2012, in which Americans voted to return the single most unqualified person in our nation to a second term in office, so that he might continue his mission to end all property rights, destroy our First Amendment rights, subvert the Ninth, Tenth, and Second Amendments while he was at it, and transform America from a nation founded on individual freedom to one in which parents were required to seek school district approval on all packed lunches, soda pop, light bulbs, and tobacco would receive higher governmental scrutiny than marijuana, citizens in Forty Seven states have filed petitions with the White House to ask formally for the permission to secede from the Union.
According to Obama Administration rules, or U.S. Law, and I am not really certain which, Barack Obama is compelled to address personally any petition which garners 25,000 signatures within a thirty day period. You will be able to find a list of the States from which petitions have been filed. If your state is on this list, and unless you reside in Maine, Vermont, or Washington, it is, then I urge you to go ahead and sign the appropriate petition.
Pulling my tongue away from my cheek, if only momentarily, this does spell a bit of trouble for President Zero. This really is an unprecedented development. Despite his victory speech’s soaring rhetoric about how even though our nation’s ideological divide has become even more pronounced during his Administration, largely due to his service as the single most divisive political figure in American History, basing his campaign entirely on a platform of class warfare and promoting hatred of entire swaths of American citizenry by other citizen groups, ratcheting identity politics to an art form, that we are more united as a people than ever, having people formally asking to leave the union for the first time since 1860 dispels that myth almost immediately.
What it boils down to is this. In order for the Federal Government to redistribute the fruits of labor from half of Americans to the other half of Americans, and to continue to do this irregardless of what our Constitution says about individual property rights and protecting all citizens from the tyranny of Democratic majorities, you need to forcibly remove said fruits from half of all Americans. What this massive spontaneous show of utter disdain for the current group of political thugs shows is that a good percentage of those who believe in a limited federal power have had enough of losing their liberties, how ever slowly the progressive movement has been successful in destroying those liberties.
For those keeping score at home, Texas so far is the only state who has hit the required number of signatures. The rest of us have until December 10, 2012. Texas is a slightly different story than other states in this country. Texas joined the Union not as a part of the United States, but as an independent nation in her own right. For as long as I can remember, political compromise has been entirely synonymous with conservatives giving up entirely on their positions for the sake of bipartisanship, and not getting anything in return. I would say that the line has been drawn on watching our country being destroyed and reduced to just another failing example of the devastation that Marxism brings when allowed to flourish.
Benjamin Franklin once quipped when asked what the founders had done during the Constitutional Convention of 1789 with this answer, “we’ve given you a republic madam, if you can keep it.” Our Republic has lasted 223 years since then, and personally I would have liked it to last a lot longer. Half of our nation just voted to end our Republic and turn it into the nightmarish vision that festers inside the noggin of Barack Hussein Obama. These petitions are merely noting the inevitable, that those of us who wish to continue living under our Constitution as it was originally drafted are not at all willing to progress into that brave new world of full governmental authority upon every aspect of our lives.
My advice to our President is to tread carefully upon the message that these petitions represent and carefully consider his official response to them. They are not the penultimate list of those who are angry, but merely the tip of a very fractured iceberg that is the nation he leads.
Cross Posted From Musings of a Mad Conservative.
Tags: Petitions
I feel that we are headed toward a break up of the USA. A house divided cannot stand and we are more seperated now than ever except just before the Civil War.
MikeA wrote:
that was the idea…stomp on its grave.
Obama had one job…destroy AMERICA….he is very good at that job.
I’ve signed my state’s petition, but frankly I expect the White House to ignore these. Obama doesn’t care what the People think. He cares about implementing his Third-World anti-colonial revenge on America. Secession won’t come about until we hit the economic wall. When that happens, though, I expect the centrifugal forces that are already at work in America to split us apart. I am not sure exactly how we will break up. Probably by Section, with some spots like Dearbornistan (already only marginally part of the United States) going their own ways. I am hoping that it will be as peaceful as the dissolution og the former Soviet Union.
Storagemanager wrote:
Yes, but as Teh Owe said, there is more work to be done.
@ Storagemanager:
Nothing to see here, move along. But don’t worry, Gaza is an oppressed area, don’t ya know.
we dont have a states problem, we have an urban versus everyone else problem.
look at the election results maps.
the urban / suburban / rural divide is the where the fractures are
This is what I’ve been saying is going to happen:
I think Obama intends to take us off the Cliff and blame the Republicans. He’ll probably even get away with it because A) the Press will do everything it can to help him do so and B) the American public is stupid. It isn’t clear that anothe rRecession would hurt Obama and the Democrats much. After all, unemploment wasn’t enough to derail his re-election.
@ Iron Fist:
The idea is to bankrupt America and start over…without the constitution.
@ coldwarrior:
Republicans need to start doing better in urban areas and close ring suburbs. What kills them in these areas are single women.
@ Iron Fist:
The economy doesn’t matter with Obama. Normal political rules don’t apply to him.
@ Iron Fist:
boehner is such a smarmy spineless shit that 0 will roll him right over.
guaranteed boehner will do the wrong thing
@ huckfunn:
You aint seen nothing yet!
@ coldwarrior:
Boehner should call Obama’s bluff. He should set the tax increases at 1 Million dollars and propose a 30 % Entertainment tax. Obama would balk at this. But hey, no one ever said the GOP leadership was known for their cunning!
@ coldwarrior:
The big cities will not do well when the Economy collapses, though.The cities will no longer be the place to go to get jobs. Think Detroit only nation wide. I think it is difficult to predict exactly what will come out of an economic collapse, but why should the Solvent States hang on and go down with the Prolifigate States?
coldwarrior wrote:
It’s been that way for at least the last 4 elections, or at least as long as I can remember seeing red-blue maps. The urban areas are where the free stuff is, food, public transportation, housing, etc… If one wants to be a freeloader, it’s pretty slim pickings in Pissant, Oklahoma. Not much there but hard work.
Rodan wrote:
Obammy unleashed coming right up. No constraints whatsoever.
America has turned its back on Israel..
Iron Fist wrote:
Read the book the survivors by James Wesley Rawles..
coldwarrior wrote:
You’re right. The all blue, all broke urban centers have achieved total dominance ofter the rest of country. Even here in deep red Kentucky, my area (Louisville/Jefferson Co.) broke for Obama by 11 points. The states with the highest percentage of urban centers are the most dependably Democrat.
I think you’d be hard pressed to find an urban center, anywhere (even in Texas) that Romney carried.
Rodan wrote:
I’m having difficulty deciding who’s more unprepared for their job, Obama or Boehner.
Breaking news
MacDuff wrote:
The only exceptions are Utah and Oklahoma. Not one Obama county in either state.
Breaking: Petraeus Agrees To Testify At Benghazi Hearings On Friday…
Iron Fist wrote:
lets expand this down.
why should the areas in surplus of a state pay for he mooches elsewhere?
watch for this urban v everyone else struggle and a push for payments from the burbs to the cities
@ MacDuff:
That was not always the case. The Republicans never carried Urban areas, but they never got killed like this either. They need to learn how to close the margins.
@ Storagemanager:
For consideration -- The white house holds the affair over his head to get him to lie about Libya. Petraeus or someone else, leaks the affair to the news just before the testimony and thus relieves the general of having to lie.
or
The White House leaked the affair to destroy his credibilty.
Lets see what he says in front of congress….
@ MacDuff:
Boehner, Obama runs circles around him.
@ coldwarrior:
A large part of state revenues comes from Urban areas. There are moochers, but also high income producers and companies. What Republicans need to do is cut down the margins of losses in Urban areas. They used to be able to do this back in Eisenhower-Nixon-Reagan eras.
Rodan wrote:
Not true. There were Republican political machines 100 years ago, which carried urban areas in many elections.
@ MacDuff:
We have a similar issue in Canada. Ontario especially. There are over 100 seats in the province, with a large number of them in urban centers. For example Toronto alone has 25 federal ridings currently. Now add in several other large population centers and they quickly overwhelm the largely rural ridings which are typically conservative. In the past federal election, several Toronto ridings went from Liberal/leftist to Conservative. This aided in the Conservative Majority we currently enjoy. Now provincially, Toronto and a few other urban centers have ensured our current Liberal government.
@ coldwarrior:
It could happen. I’d be interested to see if cities, theoretically the hubs of economic activity, are a net plus or minus for a State. I know in my State you have four major cities, Knoxville, Chattanooga, Nashville, and Memphis. Nashville and Memphis break heavily Democrat, but Chattanooga and Knoxville break for the Republicans. I don’t kno wabout Nashville and Memphis’ output, though. They are economic hubs, but Nashville is primarily government which would be a net loss.
@ buzzsawmonkey:
That’s true. But what has happened is that the GOP has become less Urban and more Rural. Heck they barely carry suburbs now. They really need to do something to solidify the suburbs and make inroads in urban areas.
Storagemanager wrote:
um, no it has not.
the leadership and a minority have tho.
the vengeful god went away after noah.
@ Iron Fist:
That’s the key there. If an Urban area is the state capital, it’s a net loss. If it’s an economic hub then its a plus.
The country’s morals and values have changed….it is that simple.
@ coldwarrior:
Not quite. Just ask Lot and the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah.
It also means that he will not bless us. In the end, free will cuts both ways. If more and more people turn their face from God, then we get what we want. God will not bless us.
huckfunn wrote:
Interesting factoid, thanks!
@ Storagemanager:
As John Adams said…
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
And that is why so many more laws are passed. The people will not self-regulate.
coldwarrior wrote:
I do not wish to argue theology this early in the morning, but I disagree—while pointing out that what we might experience as “vengeful” is pretty much the inevitable consequence of prior actions.
Rodan wrote:
i am not sure that urban areas are net profit centers.
Storagemanager wrote:
for some poeple.
coldwarrior wrote:
Not since taxes and zoning drove out light industry.
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
this is the result of acts of free will.
this is a self inflicted wound
@ coldwarrior:
It depends. If they are state capitals, no. If they are commerce hubs yes. So it all depends. Example New York City carries most of the revenue for NY State. But Albany is a drain. So it all depends the city and the circumstances.
coldwarrior wrote:
It depends on how well managed the urban center is. Some are, most aren’t. You would have to look at how much money the city spends and how much deficit it also holds on a yearly basis.
Storagemanager wrote:
It always changes. Societies don’t stay static.
Obama was going for the changing morals and values vote
@ buzzsawmonkey:
That is what I am thinking, but I don’t even know where to go to get numbers to back that up. I think the cities would collapse without the resources that they suck from the surrounding countryside. The bigger the city, the bigger the suck. I think that deep down the city inhabitants realize this. That is why they vote for the Party of the Parasite in such numbers. They may or may not realize that they are killing their host, but they know that they can’t live their lives without the supply of resources from without. Food, energy, even technology are produced elsewhere, not in the cities, as a general rule.
Rodan wrote:
morals and values are not something one just throws away..
The big problem for Republicans/Conservative is that we are always bitching about what we are against and dismissing people and areas we don’t like. We need to be focus on what we are for and win people over.
Sadly I don’t think Conservatives get this yet and we will lose again in 2016.
@ Storagemanager:
Whose morality? Government can not impose morality on people. When it tries it becomes like Iran or Saudi Arabia. No thanks.
Rodan wrote:
Oh really….Obama is for gay marriage and killing babies….he just won.
Obama is for the Muslim brotherhood and killing wall street…he just won.
@ Storagemanager:
That’s not why he won. He convinced people Republicans are evil and hate them. Plus he is viewed as cool by the population thanks to the media and entertainment industry.
@ Rodan:
Governments always impose morality. Why do you think murder is illegal? Drugs? Prostitution? Governments always enforce a morality. The question is what kind of morality you are going to enforce. The Leftists want to enforce a Leftist morality that tells you what you can and cannot eat, how you must live your life, and even what you may think. Leftist morality is truly totalitarian. Rightwing morality is about self-reliance and responsibility. Even the abortion debate can be couched in terms of responsibility. Any way you cut it, though, the State is going to be enforcing some kind of morality. That is the purpose of the State.
Obama just signed an order for homeland security to monitor local law enforcement…sounds like big government in our daily lives to me.
Storagemanager wrote:
Most people don’t know that. That’s because many Republican leaders support the Muslim Brotherhood as well. Until the GOP stops it’s let spread Islamic democracy foreign policy, Obama’s embrace of the MB will not be discussed.
Rodan wrote:
My niece is gay…that is not what she said…she voted for gay marriage,.
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
I guess it depends on the definition of vengeful; if our concept of God is not, at the very least one of a judgmental Entity and the Bearer of consequence, one would have to question the point of belief in the first place.
@ Rodan:
Right, Rodan. I think people just voted with their minds.
@ Iron Fist:
I think drugs and prostitution should be legal. There needs to be some order in society, but when the Government gets to moralistic we get Iran/Saudi Arabia. A balance is needed that allows for freedom and free commerce, but not anarchy.
@ Storagemanager:
Doesn’t your niece know Obama can’t impose Gay Marriage? That actually makes my point. Obama is viewed as cool and hip, so people voted for him. It was pure propaganda.
Obama has one job…destroy the Constitution of the United States and replace it…he could care less about issues…
Rodan wrote:
What do you think is going on in New York where they are trying to tell you how much soda you can drink? They are trying to enforce their morality. Likewise forcing the Catholic Church to pay for abortions. That is State interference in religion. It is against the First Amendment, but you don’t see the ACLU squawking about it because it is enforcing morality that they agree with.
@ theoutsider:
You voted for Obama because you hate the GOP. You have never given a good coherent reason for voting for the guy.
If the people do see what is happening…we will end up just like ROME and Ceasar shall rule.
Iron Fist wrote:
tough question, eh?
Iron Fist wrote:
Goods used to be produced in the cities. The New York fashion/clothing industry, for instance, was not merely a batch of showrooms: the area from 34th to 42nd on the West Side was pretty much all manufacturing lofts.
When I came to New York in the late ’70s, most of Soho—now given over to flossy retail and multimillion-dollar loft apartments—was light manufacturing. So was the Noho area, just north of it, going over to the Bowery (then, still, largely a skid row but also the central district for new and used restaurant fixtures).
All these areas of light manufacturing have been driven out—partly by the economics of converting manufacturing lofts to residential and office use, partly by zoning, partly by environmental restrictions and regulations. The businesses that used to make the Soho area interesting—the jobbers who sold printing paper, the leather and plastic manufacturers, the scrap metal dealers and the live poultry market, are all long gone, and the jobs with them.
If the people do not see what is happening…we will end up just like ROME and Ceasar shall rule.
Rodan wrote:
Rodan, if you haven’t read this Gutfeld piece, you should; it’s the kickoff of his new book and it speaks to that very point.
Gutfeld’s the Rush Limbaugh for a new age, speaking to people that Limbaugh couldn’t hope to reach. Breitbart truly lives on in people like him.
@ Rodan:
Gay marriage is another issue where, no matter what the government does on it, it will be enforcing one moral viewpoint or another. You can’t get away from a government enforcing morality. HWat you can do is control what kind of morality it enforces.
@ Rodan:
Come on Rodan, you know that is Bullshit. You now that I am an ex-republican. Can you remember back that far?
@ Iron Fist:
Bloomberg is a Fascist and exactly what I am talking about. He’s now looking to end Happy Hour and begin restrictions on alcohol sales.
I oppose that. I don’t think Government should be involved in these things. The government should be there to keep a balance not impose values on people.
Go back 100 years….now..look at life today…we already gave up a lot of rights…and more will follow…
@ Iron Fist:
It should be a state issue.
@ MacDuff:
I read that and agreed with it. He gets it. Sadly a large part of the Right doesn’t. I don’t think we will win a Presidential election until 2020 or 2024, if America still exists.
theoutsider wrote:
So you proved my point. You hate the GOP and vote Democratic.
You must wear a seat belt…a helmet….blau blah..more rights taken away…a little at a time
Storagemanager wrote:
It’s creeping Fascism.
@ Rodan:
But a Liberal Supreme Court won’t leave it as a State issue. Therein lies the problem. Gay marriage, abortion, drugs, prostitution, all of these should be State issues. We are 100 years too late for that, though.
@ theoutsider:
So tell me, what, exactly is your plan for America when our National Debt hits 150% of GDP? Still plan on borrowing the interest on the debt from the Chinese?
The goal is to rid America of states rights…..only the FED…
@ Iron Fist:
Hey cut him some slack. he’s hasn’t got talking points yet from the DNC on that subject!
Storagemanager wrote:
Yup, the Left wants to get rid of the 10th Amendment.
@ Storagemanager:
The goal is to rid America of rights, period. There will only be that which is illegal and that which is required. That’s Obama’s ideal state. But we’ll collapse first. As I said upthread, think of Detroit writ large. That is America under Democrat rule. Only it won’t take them fifty years to get us there. At the rate Obama is spending, we’ll be at 150% GDP in national debt by 2016.
Iron Fist wrote:
The whole purpose of same-sex “marriage” is to enforce morality—Leftist morality—on the nation. Domestic partnership laws are capable of dealing with any same-sex partnership issues without making things a matter of government moral enforcement; they are “’tain’t nobody’s bizness if I do.”
That is why the Left pushes for same-sex “marriage” even when comprehensive domestic-partnership laws are in place, as in California.
@ Rodan:
I vote reality.
Iron Fist wrote:
the goal is to make America a third world country…a threat to no one..
theoutsider wrote:
in your reality, how much debt is too much?
I find it interesting that many people on the “right” are perfectly capable of seeing how an initiative like Obamacare is sold as a social benefit to cloak its socially-destructive ends, but are incapable of seeing how an initiative like same-sex marriage being sold as a “rights” or “equality” measure is also a a cloak for socially-destructive ends.
@ buzzsawmonkey:
wrong is right…up is down…dark is light..
theoutsider wrote:
Explain this reality? Can you address Iron Fist’s question to you?
@ MikeA:
My guess is that they will use the affair to destroy his credibility. To which I respond: Yet I’m supposed to believe William Jefferson Clinton, convicted of perjury for lying about the same thing, is a credible source?
Rodan wrote:
There’s simply no empirical evidence for the Left’s overarching belief that we need to be protected from ourselves. Modern conservatism and libertarianism are ideological bookends and the acceptance of that fact is, literally, our salvation.
@ MacDuff:
Agree!
Storagemanager wrote:
True.
Notice, however, that I am careful to eschew discussion of the morality of same-sex coupling when discussing the legal and social threat posed by same-sex “marriage.” That is another discussion—an enjoyable one, but irrelevant to the legal/social discussion.
My point is that the push for “marriage” is a political initiative, a wolf in sheep’s clothing by a movement founded on the principle of destroying marriage, for the purpose of gutting First Amendment protections.
@ Rodan:
Iron Fist is ranting about Same Sex Weddings. No body really cares about that. They are going to be legal in every state before to long.
Storagemanager wrote:
“Embedded with Gen. Petraeus” seems le mot juste, doesn’t it? Especially if he was embedded in her.
TMI, if I may say so…
@ Carolina Girl:
Your guy screws around, a mistake. Their guy screws around. let’s impeach.
Soon more will wake
@ theoutsider:
So tell me again, genius, WHAT IS YOUR PLAN FOR WHEN AMERICA REACHES 150% OF GDP IN NATIONAL DEBT? Surely you have a plan, because without doubt your President is taking us there as quickly as he can. What is your plan?
theoutsider wrote:
Clinton lied under oath…have you no respect for the law?…forget that….what’s your favorite tree?
@ theoutsider:
GAZE.
theoutsider wrote:
When did Petraeus become president?
theoutsider wrote:
The interesting thing is why the Left has made the nuptial interests of the homosexual population one of its banner causes. The homosexually-inclined are perhaps 4% of the population; perhaps 10% of that 4% cares about getting married—yet the Left has adopted that cause with an unbelievable ferocity.
The sole reason the Left has done this is for the purpose of making bad law that will have an impact on the vast majority of the population.
theoutsider wrote:
Good job of ignoring the debt question for the past week, BTW.
@ buzzsawmonkey:
Also, it should be noted that neither the African-American or Hispanic populations support gay marriage.
Iron Fist wrote:
we live in a smaller and smaller box of ‘compliance’
we are all criminals already, we are just unaware of it
Storagemanager wrote:
the founder of that company, Homer Stryker, was a doctor and he set a very complicated arm/wrist fracture when I was eight years old…a small bit of trivia
heysoos wrote:
we are going to get into that question at 11am eastern!
Carolina Girl wrote:
But evvabuddy in Cleveland got Obamaphone™!
@ buzzsawmonkey:
states issue marriage licenses.
it should be up to the states.
heysoos wrote:
Not a small bit of tibia?
lobo91 wrote:
he’s not here to discuss, inform, mix in or even have any fun…and just consider how many millions of aimless drones there are like him…no wonder Romney lost
Looks like Valerie Jarrett is going to be chairing today’s “business leader” photo op at the White House.
Given her expertise, which is certainly not business, it’s pretty clear what the agenda is going to be.
And the MSM will just lap this shit up…
@ coldwarrior:
To my way of thinking, the “fiscal cliff” isn’t 8 weeks away; the “fiscal cliff” is already here. Now Obama thinks he’s going to be able to raise $1.6 trillion in new tax revenue over the next 10 years.
I especially liked that he called in the left wing loons and union thugs to discuss the “fiscal cliff” yesterday. Like those assholes would have any useable suggestions or even understand the problem.
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
stop, you’re killin me
@ coldwarrior:
Can we get a solution?
@ buzzsawmonkey:
Obamafoe! Keep Obama in Presdint!
She’s so stupid and inarticulate I’m amazed Moonbeam hasn’t offered her a job at the California DMV.
@ coldwarrior:
@ lobo91:
he’s still waiting on his talking points.
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
and to use it to bash the right as a bunch of uncool knuckle dragging neanderthals and scolds who hate anyone not exactly like them.
pretty effective hammer if ya ask me. their guy won.
Carolina Girl wrote:
the shakedown crew….like the mob
theoutsider wrote:
That wasn’t his question.
This is priceless:
Further proof that botox causes dain bramage….
theoutsider wrote:
hey chief, you are up at 1100am eastern time.
we need you on the thread to tell us about debt levels.
get your econ face on.
heysoos wrote:
wow!
thats cool.
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
HA!
@ Carolina Girl:
First you have to prove that she ever had a brain.
@ coldwarrior:
Rats. And I’m stuck at a mediation over at JAMS San Francisco starting at 8:30, which means I need to leave in about 15 minutes.
Well hopefully they’ll have wireless and I can follow the discussion on my iPhone while I’m handing documents to the Judge.
theoutsider wrote:
sure, the solution is pretty easy.
but i want your plan as well…
save it for 1100am
@ lobo91:
I’d love to say I’ve had harder cases to prove, but somehow I don’t think so.
Carolina Girl wrote:
tell the judge to recess and go to the bar.
@ heysoos:
And today Jarrett is going to meet with people from some of the biggest corporations in America to explain things to them.
//Nice company ya got there…
@ coldwarrior:
Actually, this case is a real shakedown! I’m hoping it settles today.
coldwarrior wrote:
Stryker has a very nice manufacturing set up in Kalamazoo…really cool buildings and landscaping etc…a highly desirable place to work….turns out they are Obots…but I remember Homer, he was called in from duck hunting to set my fractures…complete with red plaid jacket and funky, flappy cap….he was a real character around those parts
coldwarrior wrote:
Yes. Absolutely.
HOWEVER…the point I am stressing is that whether or not it is “up to the states,” the creation of New Marriage in a few states will affect all the rest of them, and will affect our federal rights also, in neither case for the better.
First, because the requirement that states grant full faith and credit to the laws of other states means that creating same-sex marriage in one state will force the acceptance of it in states which don’t want it.
Second, because those who have “married” under same-sex marriage laws can and will sue private businesses which decline their business. There have already been suits against providers of wedding flowers, owners of banquet halls, and bed and breakfasts which have politely declined SSM business, on “equal protection” grounds.
Third, because it will be a short step from suing private businesses to suing religious establishments which decline to perform same-sex marriages—”freedom of religion” be damned. You think that farfetched? Look at what Obama is doing to Catholic entities with relation to medical mandates.
In short, the gay-rights lobby, which has already gutted the free-speech guarantees of the First Amendment through the introduction of the concept of “hate speech”, will also destroy the concept of freedom of religion. That is the purpose of “same-sex marriage”—not the protection of same-sex couples, which can be accomplished through domestic partnership laws.
Yes, the states can and should determine what constitutes “marriage.” But saying “it is up to the states” is a cop-out, when the initiative itself is aiming at larger game. Simply saying “it’s up to the states” is bringing a peashooter to a firefight.
@ lobo91:
I get that Trump said once when asked why he gave money to the ballerina’s Chicago mayoral campaign -- “it’s the cost of doing business.” I’m sure that while Obozo staged fundraisers and these clowns gave willingly, I also wouldn’t be at all surprised that they gave money to Romney as well (maybe sent a different guy to that dinner) -- “cost of doing business.” I imagine they’re going to be in for a shock now that Obozo and his merry band of Bolsheviks don’t need their money they’re about be screwed by this administration.
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
It didn’t work that way with concealed carry permits. Why should i twork that way with Gay Marriage? Not saying it won’t, or that the Leftists won’t try that, but there is a perfectly acceptable model for Federalism here.
I got a phone call from the VA today about my letter pointing out that they have me in the wrong priority group.
According to them, the 214 I sent them didn’t provide sufficient proof that I served in combat, such as the award of a campaign medal.
Since the 214 I sent them clearly mentions the Southwest Asia Service Medal with 2 campaign stars, I’m pretty sure that the problem is VA hiring people who can’t read English.
heysoos wrote:
i love that!
Iron Fist wrote:
The concealed carry permit is something the state controls regarding people within its borders. A “marriage” determines a household—and the already well-litigated and well-established freedom to travel and relocate will mandate that State B not disallow the “marriage” of the same-sex couple that has relocated from State A.
@ lobo91:
Maybe Obamafoe! lady did find a job after all…..
lobo91 wrote:
Affirmative action hires. You have to hire so many illiterates or you are discriminationg against the Illiterate-American demographic…
[/I think I am being sarcastic]
Carolina Girl wrote:
It actually did sort of sound like her in the message…
@ buzzsawmonkey:
This is headed on the fast track to the Supreme Court -- and it will be interesting as to the outcome. If they say that states have the right to set the marriage laws and that there is no Constitutional right to same/sex marriage -- does the vote in California for Proposition 8 then trump the decisions by the California Supreme Court?
events are moving quickly around Gaza…considering another ground campaign….they should have never pulled out the last time around until Gaza was totally weapons free
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/9670296/Israel-may-launch-ground-invasion-into-Gaza.html
Rodan, Speranza --
Thought you two would really like this article at Forbes Online:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2012/11/12/the-end-of-the-karl-rove-death-grip-signals-a-reagan-renaissance/
@ Storagemanager:
My property taxes are around $800 a year.
And I’m pretty sure that I get more for my money than they do.
@ heysoos:
They better finish the job. Also with the MB in control of Egypt, they should prepare for any scenario.
Damn -- the Dow is taking another dive -- down almost 81.
@ heysoos:
They need to line up the armored bulldozers and just scrape Gaza off into the sea.
Carolina Girl wrote:
It will not get to the Supreme Court until Obama makes another appointment or two—and then the First DA/DT Justice, Elena Kagan, will do the second thing she was appointed to do (the first being to twist enough arms to prevent Obamacare from being thrown out); she will write the majority opinion which will make same-sex marriage the law of the land under equal protection claims, which will make homosexual behavior a “suspect classification” on a par with race or religion, and which will gut the protections of the First Amendment for the rest of our lifetimes.
lobo91 wrote:
it would make a swell Urban Combat Training Center and Waterpark
@ lobo91:
That works for me. I said when they pulled out of Gaza that after the first inevitible terrorist attack the IAF should play B-17 over Berlin for a few months until there was nothing left standing.
BTW: Lenin legalized homosexual behavior. He wanted to destroy the old order to rebuild society from the ground up, so he removed restraints.
Stalin re-criminalized it. There is no better way to ensure a docile population than knowing the authorities can come for you at any time; and there is no better way to ensure utterly loyal service from an underling than for him to know he is subject to a penalty that is only held in abeyance on the condition of his utter and unswerving obedience.
@ Rodan:
I am surprised he hasn’t yet fallen to their default talking point: Blame
CanadaBush.Carolina Girl wrote:
Forward!…..er….Downward!
HC has learned nothing from Libya…
“”As the Syrian opposition takes these steps and demonstrates its effectiveness in advancing the cause of a unified, democratic, pluralistic Syria, we will be prepared to work with them to deliver assistance to the Syrian people,” she said.”
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/11/14/us-pledges-additional-30-million-in-syria-aid/?test=latestnews#ixzz2CDNkyAWl
@ heysoos:
She’s learned a lot from Libya. That’s why she is doing it again. She’s learned that they can get away with it.
@ buzzsawmonkey:
She may have hit a cobblestone on Obamacare -- it looks like the Supreme Court is going to revisit one of the cases on November 20th and allow further argument.
Maybe, just MAYBE, Justice Roberts has realized he totally screwed up earlier and will now find a way to overturn the damn thing.
@ Carolina Girl:
By calling Obamacare a tax, Roberts allowed for a repeal. Now, they just have to find it unconstitutional.