Tuesday, February 7, 2012

Barker's Newsbites: Tuesday, February 7, 2012


Hey... I wonder how that "Patriot's" parade in Boston went today?

(*GUFFAW*)
Posted by at

2 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/02/07/150967/

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that Proposition 8, California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, is unconstitutional because it violates the 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law.

* TOTAL BULLSHIT. IT'S NOT A QUESTION OF WHETHER ONE AGREES ON THE BAN OR NOT, IT'S SIMPLY A QUESTION OF DEMOCRACY, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, AND JUDICIAL OVERREACH.

[B]ackers of the...voter-approved law quickly signaled that they planned to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

* AND THE SUPREME COURT HAD BETTER TAKE THE CASE AND REVERSE THIS DECISION.

* FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH... I PERSONALLY SUPPORT CIVIL UNIONS - CIVIL MARRIAGE - BEING OPEN TO HOMOSEXUAL. BUT "MY SIDE" LOST THE VOTE. NOW TWO JUDGES (NOT EVEN A UNANIMOUS COURT!) ARE GOING TO REVERSE THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE BASED UPON WHAT I CAN ONLY SEE AS A DELIBERATE MISREADING OF THE CONSTITUTION. CLEARLY NEITHER THE ORIGINATORS NOR THE OFFICIALS WHOSE ACTIONS ADDED THE 14TH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION MEANT IT TO CREATE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO GAY MARRIAGE - ANYMORE THAN ONE COULD HONESTLY CLAIM THAT THE 14TH AMENDMENT CREATES A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO MULTIPLE-PARTNER MARRIAGES OR CHILD MARRIAGES. (*SHRUG*)

Prop. 8 passed with 52% of the vote in 2008 and outlawed same-sex marriages just five months after they became legal [via legislative action] in California.

California Attorney General Kamala Harris hailed the decision too. In a statement sent to CBS San Francisco, she called it “a victory for fairness, a victory for equality and a victory for justice.”

* UNFRIGG'NBELIEVEABLE! IT'S HER JOB - HER DUTY, BOTH TECHNICALLY AND ETHICALLY - TO DEFEND CALIFORNIA LAW!

The Attorney General’s Office had declined to defend Prop. 8 in court...

* TO RESIGN WOULD HAVE BEEN HONORABLE. TO "DECLINE" TO DO HER JOB... SHE SHOULD BE IMPEACHED AND REMOVED FROM OFFICE.

Gov. Jerry Brown, who also refused to defend the measure...

* AGAIN. THE RULE OF LAW IS LITERALLY COLLAPSING IN MANY JURISDICTIONS CONTROLLED BY DEMOCRATS. IT IS THE GOVERNOR'S JOB TO SEE THAT "THE LAWS ARE FAITHFULLY EXECUTED." IF HE DOESN'T LIKE A PARTICULAR LAW HE CAN WORK TO TAKE IT OFF THE BOOKS OF "REFORM" IT SOMEHOW, BUT UNTIL A NEW LAW IS IN PLACE IT'S HIS DUTY TO DEFEND THE LAW AS ENACTED.

February 7, 2012 at 4:45 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/dem-rep-kathy-dahlkemper-i-wouldnt-have-voted-obamacare-if-id-known-about-hhs-regulation_626302.html

* REMEMBER "YOU LIE!" AT OBAMA'S SECOND SOTUA...?

Former Democratic congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper, a Catholic from Erie, Pennsylvania, cast a crucial vote in favor of Obamacare in 2010.

Dahlkemper said recently that she would have never voted for the health care bill had she known that the Department of Health and Human Services would require all private insurers, including Catholic charities and hospitals, to provide free coverage of contraception, sterilization procedures, and the "week-after" pill "ella" that can induce early abortions.

* SO MUCH FOR OBAMA'S PROMISES... (*SIGH*)

"I would have never voted for the final version of the bill if I expected the Obama Administration to force Catholic hospitals and Catholic Colleges and Universities to pay for contraception,” Dahlkemper said in a press release sent out by Democrats for Life in November.

* SHE BELIEVED OBAMA. (*SHRUG*) BIG MISTAKE.

"We worked hard to prevent abortion funding in health care and to include clear conscience protections for those with moral objections to abortion and contraceptive devices that cause abortion. I trust that the President will honor the commitment he made to those of us who supported final passage."

(*SMIRK*)

* Hmmm... HOW TO PUT THIS? Ah... HOW'BOUT THIS: OBAMA... IS... A... LIAR!

Under ObamaCare, each state's federally subsidized health care exchange is required to offer a health insurance plan that covers elective abortions unless the state passes a law opting out of the requirement.

* BUT THEN OF COURSE I'M GUESSING OBAMA IS COUNTING ON SOME PARTISAN AND/OR IDEOLOGICALLY FOCUSED JUSTICE(S) TO RULE ANY SUCH STATE LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL. (SEE, FOLKS... HEADS OBAMA WINS... TAILS WE LOSE. THAT'S THE GAME.)

As former Democratic congressman Bart Stupak said when the Senate passed Obamacare in December of 2009, "A review of the Senate language indicates a dramatic shift in federal policy that would allow the federal government to subsidize insurance policies with abortion coverage. Further, the segregation of funds to pay for abortion is another departure from current policy prohibiting federal subsidy of abortion coverage."

Stupak, Dahlkemper, and a handful of other Democrats who held back on voting for final passage of Obamacare eventually voted for the exact same language in the Senate bill because the president signed an executive order saying the law wouldn't fund abortions.

* THIS PRESIDENT GIVETH... THIS PRESIDENT TAKETH AWAY. (*SMIRK*) SERIOUSLY, FOLKS... IT'S THIS FRIGG'N SIMPLE: OBAMA... IS... A... LIAR.

February 7, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)