"Rights" Misused Again - DOMA & Speaker Boehner

 Over at the the Huffington Post they are trying to paint the GOP House leader as a bigot for following his oath of office, while playing the President as their knight in shining armor, even though the president will not clarify his position on gay marriage (in the past Mr. Obama has stated that he does not support gay marriage, then he did,). From the Huffington Post (Link)

"That's why I was shocked to hear that Speaker John Boehner decided to use our tax dollars to intervene and stand up for DOMA to deny LGBT Americans the rights they deserve. This is discrimination -- plain and simple."

You were shocked!  I was shocked that the Obama government used our tax dollars to sue our states for doing the job Mr. Obama won't do. 


While there are many rights that individual Americans have, there are only a few "rights" that are protected by the rule of law.  If you study the US Constitution, and including the Bill of Rights along with the rest of the amendments, you will be unable to find marriage mentioned at all.  There is a reason for this. Many natural and "implied" rights cannot and should not involve government's heavy hand to interfere with individual adult choices. And there is a reason for this.  We need only look at the state of the economy to know how well government meddling works.

Our government was founded around a mostly 'hands off' philosophy (where individuals are concerned) unless one infringes on the "protected rights" of others.  And now, some are begging government to be the decider of who can marry whom. It boggles the mind.

But as much as some people wish that their particular issue was protected by law, the plain fact is many are not.

But married people have no more actual "protected rights" than anyone else.  That is why I believe using the word "rights" when discussing gay marriage is more of a propaganda tool than an actual "right" that should be protected by law.  Those special treatments that a married couple enjoy are the result of centuries marital disputes and contract law where the aggrieved parties seek a resolution through the government.  Politicians pandering to a large voting block have enacted many marriage friendly laws.  But today, we are much more enlightened about different lifestyles and can offer the same laws covering property and other issues that arise to cover gay and lesbian couples that would be unheard of in decades past.

If you want a "right" to gay marriage, I recommend a Constitutional amendment  to add the right.  It would then be protected by government.

Getting Bin Laden: Go, Don't Go From President Clinton?

President Clinton questions whether presidential candidate Mitt Romney would make the tough call to kill Osama Bin Laden. I find the decision to use Mr. Clinton to be really weird because it was President Clinton who failed to make that very same decision while he was president.

In the book, Dereliction of Duty, Lt. Col. Robert Patterson* describes the situation when our forces had "eyes on" Osama Bin Laden in 1998. A two hour window to hit him with a cruise missile (the president's second favorite toy) or let him go.

Describing the incident, Col. Patterson says the president was unreachable for an hour after the NSC Director, Sandy Berger, was informed of the situation and tried to contact the president for instructions. When they finally did contact the president, he wanted more study, more time to be sure. You know, hash it over with the Secretaries of Defense and State for a while.

That is the thing about tough decisions, one normally doesn't get a lot of time to mull it over (that's what makes them tough).

The rest is history. Instead of being dead, Mr. Bin Laden arranges the murders of 3000 Americans, stunts the US economy, starts a war, and has the US government and others chasing him for 10 years.

Dear President Clinton. Thank you for your service.

Here is the paid political advertisement by former President Clinton.





*Lt. Col. Robert Patterson, one of the president's Aides from May 1996 through May 1998, carried the "nuclear football" for President Clinton, among other duties.

GOP Presidential Candidate Huntsman - Not

I was headed to the grocery store this past Saturday when I heard presidential candidate Governor John Huntsman indicate that he supports banning so-called assault weapons on the Hugh Hewitt radio show. I'm sure this will revelation will have an effect on his NRA + A rating.

Of course, the Governor has sent an email to Mr. Hewitt claiming he misunderstood the question.

What?

If he misunderstood the question, then he has no business being President of The United States. I believe over the past three years we have experienced what happens when a president hasn't understood questions. I.e., massive new debt, prolonged high unemployment, programs that depress the job markets and no indication that he has learned anything since taking office.

That question was followed with a question on the Defense of Marriage Act, signed by President Clinton in 1996. His answer was ambiguous while registering his support for same-sex civil unions.

I don't recall the the exact quote, if a candidate mostly sees the government the way you do, vote for him/her. If not, vote for someone else. My hope is that this guy does not win the GOP nomination. Voting for him could be difficult.

What do you think?

Hugh Hewitt show transcript excerpt (from his blog):

HH: Would you veto an assault weapons ban?

JH: I would not veto an assault weapons ban.

HH: Would you veto repeal of the Defense Of Marriage Act?

JH: I personally am for civil unions. I don’t think we do an adequate job when it comes to equality at that level. I am for traditional marriage. I would have to look carefully at the language.

The Governor's assault weapon correction is posted on Hugh Hewitt's blog.