Madness at the Houston National Cemetery

Absolute evil and madness from the director of the Houston National Cemetery.



Take the time to register a complaint.

xtnyoda, shalomed

Working "Under the Radar"

We've been told that our government is working "under the radar" to enact more gun control without real legislative action or authority. Is this what is going on with the ATF ... providing illegal weapons to drug lord gangs and criminals in the lower states and Mexico ... so that the weapons will show up in criminal cases in the US ... and the citizens of the US then be convinced that we need more stringent gun control legislation?

from Phoenix, AZ

PHOENIX - Weapons linked to a questionable government strategy are turning up in crimes in Valley neighborhoods.

For months the ABC15 Investigators have been searching through police reports and official government documents. We’ve discovered assault weapons linked to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ controversial "Fast and Furious" case strategy have turned up at crime scenes in Glendale and Phoenix communities.

THE HISTORY

Phoenix ATF agents recently testified during a Congressional hearing that they knowingly allowed weapons to slip into the hands of straw buyers who would then distribute the weapons to known criminals.

The strategy was designed to lead ATF officials to key drug players in Mexico, but some agents admitted they never fully tracked the weapons after suspicious buyers purchased them.

“It made no sense to us either, it was just what we were ordered to do, and every time we questioned that order there was punitive action,” Phoenix Special Agent John Dodson testified.

According to the testimony of three Phoenix ATF agents, including Dodson, hundreds of weapons are now on the streets in the United States and Mexico, possibly in the hands of criminals.....

Sounds a little like "working under the radar" to me. Just connecting some dots.

Yea, I know, we'd never do something underhanded like this now would we?

xtnyoda, shalomed

The Forgotten Man

H/T to Donna Brown.

xtnyoda, shalomed

The Borg Conspiracy......: Obama negates the constitution

The Borg Conspiracy......: Obama negates the constitution:



"So says Newt Gingrich (and a lot of other knowledgeable people)."

With Every Action There is An Equal and Opposite Reaction

The political "progressives" are freaking out that there are actually American citizens that cherish our blood bought freedoms from a tyrannical, overlord, federal monarchy.

Yahoo news
HELENA, Mont. – With each bill, newly elected tea party lawmakers are offering Montanans a vision of the future.

Their state would be a place where officials can ignore U.S. laws, force FBI agents to get a sheriff's OK before arresting anyone, ban abortions, limit sex education in schools and create armed citizen militias.

It's the tea party world. But not everyone is buying their vision.

Some residents, Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer and even some Republican lawmakers say the bills are making Montana into a laughingstock. And, they say, the push to nullify federal laws could be dangerous.

"We are the United States of America," said Schweitzer. "This talk of nullifying is pretty toxic talk. That led to the Civil War."

A tea party lawmaker said raising the specter of a civil war is plain old malarkey.

"Nullification is not about splitting this union apart," freshman Rep. Derek Skees said. "Nullification is just one more way for us to tell the federal government: 'That is not right."
....
Arizona, Missouri and Tennessee are discussing the creation of a joint compact, like a treaty, opposing the 2010 health care law. Idaho is considering a plan to nullify it, as is Montana.
.....
Proponents draw on Thomas Jefferson's late 18th-century argument that aimed to give states the ultimate say in constitutional matters and let them ban certain federal laws in their borders.
....
The nullification debate reached a fever pitch this week when tea party conservatives mustered enough votes in the House to pass a 17-point declaration of sovereignty......

The rights and liberties of the individual American citizen are what is at stake ... and the individual citizen will prevail.

It's in our blood.

xtnyoda, shalomed

The Newest Outrage

Curt Levey at the Committee for Justice blog has an excellent take on the president's decision to not support the constitutionally passed law that defends traditional marriage.

Statement of CFJ Executive Director Curt Levey on today’s announcement that the Obama Administration will not defend the Defense of Marriage Act:

President Obama’s decision to abandon the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is both outrageous – as a matter of Justice Department policy and constitutional law – and a miscalculation that will decreases the chances of ObamaCare being implemented, while potentially increasing calls for Supreme Court Justice Kagan to recuse herself from certain gay rights cases.

The President’s refusal to defend DOMA, a federal statute enacted by overwhelming margins in the Senate (85 - 14) and House (342 - 67) and signed into law by President Clinton, flies in the face of Justice Department policy and principles of democratic government. It has long been the Department’s policy to defend any challenged federal statute unless no plausible argument can be made in its defense. By ignoring that policy, President Obama is engaging in a disturbing power grab that, if taken to its logical conclusion, would allow him to undermine any duly enacted federal law that he doesn’t personally agree with.

But that’s not the worst of this power grab. In announcing the President’s decision, Attorney General Holder informed the nation that “the president has concluded that … sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of [constitutional] scrutiny.” In layman’s terms, that means that President Obama has decided that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause prohibits distinctions based on sexual orientation in the same way that it prohibits racial discrimination.

Of course, the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment would be quite surprised to learn that they had made same-sex marriage a constitutional imperative. However, even putting originalism and strict construction aside, it was heretofore accepted that only the judicial branch – particularly the Supreme Court – has the authority to determine the appropriate level of Fourteenth Amendment scrutiny and whether a particular piece of legislation meets that level of scrutiny.

Apparently, President Obama has now taken that authority upon himself. And this from an Administration that was outraged that Congressmen were even discussing the proper interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment provision dealing with birthright citizenship.

This is not the first time that President Obama has shown he is willing to do an end run around the other branches of government in pursuit of his political agenda. His use of White House czars to circumvent the Senate confirmation process and of the EPA to circumvent legislative resistance to cap and trade should have forewarned us that he would attempt today’s end run around the judicial system.

Even if today’s end run succeeds, President Obama may come to regret it should he fail to win reelection. In that case, it will be up to a Republican president to defend ObamaCare against current and future constitutional challenges. Obama has just handed his successor a perfect excuse to effectively repeal or cripple ObamaCare by refusing to defend it in court.

Even in the short term, the President has strengthened the hand of ObamaCare opponents, particularly the many states that question its constitutionality and plan to resist its implementation. After abandoning DOMA, Obama has no moral authority to argue that, because ObamaCare is the law of the land, all government officials must enforce it unless and until the Supreme Court decides it’s unconstitutional.

Finally, even the President’s critics will concede that his conclusion about the proper level of constitutional scrutiny for sexual orientation – whether right or wrong – must have been based on legal research and analysis rather than just a sudden political whim. If so, Obama and Holder surely consulted the nation’s Solicitor General – the government’s top constitutional attorney – when conducting this important legal analysis. As a result, the Administration will be called upon to disclose whether Elena Kagan was still Solicitor General when this consultation began.

If the answer is yes and Kagan was involved in determining the federal government’s official position on the proper scrutiny for sexual orientation, it opens up an ethical can of worms for her concerning Supreme Court cases in which that standard is at issue. It’s a can of worms that Obama may come to regret.

Consider and Ponder.

xtnyoda, shalomed

Foreign troops in the streets of America

From The Borg Conspiracy

Couldn't happen you say? Guess again.

Canada, U.S. agree to use each other’s troops in civil emergencies
Canada and the U.S. have signed an agreement that paves the way for the militaries from either nation to send troops across each other’s borders during an emergency, but some are questioning why the Harper government has kept silent on the deal.

You haven't seen any mention of this in American media have you. No, this report is coming out of Canada and the American media is still asleep at the switch. No one in American media is questioning why the Obama administration has kept quite on this "deal" are they. Read on........

Neither the Canadian government nor the Canadian Fores announced the new agreement, which was signed Feb. 14 in Texas. The U.S. military’s Northern Command, however, publicized the agreement with a statement outlining how its top officer, Gen. Gene Renuart, and Canadian Lt.-Gen. Marc Dumais, head of Canada Command, signed the plan, which allows the military from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a civil emergency. The new agreement has been greeted with suspicion by the left wing in Canada and the right wing in the U.S.

I can imagine that this agreement has been greeted with suspicion (in Canada) and I suspect that it would be greeted with more than suspicion (here) if this nation and the people at large were made aware of what has been hidden from them.

The Posse Comitatus Act specifically prohibits the use of American military personnel in any capacity involving law enforcement against the people. Yet here is an agreement between Canada and America, that is in essence our government and this administration making an 'end around' maneuver, to insure that the present administration can field as many troops in the streets as possible once they call for it. (including foreign troops.) And the premise of the supposed necessity is the need to address potential "Civil unrest?"

While some in Canada are railing against what they see as the increased integration of American and Canadian militaries, in my opinion there is a far graver fear and reality that should be being addressed. And that reality is the justified fear that foreign troops can now legally (via treaty) be put in our streets to police and control our citizens during "civil unrest." And this has been done under the cover of darkness and secrecy and withheld from the knowledge and awareness of the American people.

We Americans have had some significant 'civil unrest' across the last fifty years in particular. The civil rights movement and anti war protests of the 60's immediately come to mind. Campus unrest, Kent State etc. Rioting, burning, marching in the streets. All have occurred and yet we have never had the need to call in troops from other nations to quell or police our citizens. So what is afoot now. What is this administration afraid of? What are they preparing for?

For the past twenty odd years, there have been those who spoke of the black helicopters and the FEMA camps that have been inexplicably constructed for supposed "natural disasters" and in each instance, those who questioned what they were seeing were called nutters and members of some radical fringe thinking.

I wonder what people will think of their opinions now. I wonder what they will think if they are told the truth about what this administration is doing and accomplishing under the cover of a complicit media.

The bottom line, America is being prepared. From our international policy interactions with other nations, to the purposeful contrition and demeaning of America by this president in the eyes of the world. To the way our supposed office of homeland security responds and reacts to known and observed threats to this nation and recognizes the greatest of those threats as (supposedly) domestic in nature. To the recent admonishes by Janet Napolitano to solicit information from everyday Americans against their neighbors. To the manner in which our leaders now classify our own people in America as a greater threat than those on foreign soil who have vowed ill will toward this nation.

This president and his administration have been open and forthright as it concerns their observations of militant Islamic terror in the world. They have denied it exists and refused to even use the word terror or to recognize or acknowledge that there is Muslim fundamentalism afoot in the surge of global terrorism. They have branded our own people as threats, including Christians who have spoken out against homosexuality and those coming home from having served in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

These veterans are considered as potential subversives and potential threats to this nation. Yet this administration turns blind eyes and deaf ears to those all but screaming to be seen as the true threats to this nation in the middle east. Combine that with the fact that this president and his administration's across the board acceptance, that America stands to be attacked and on a level far beyond the 9/11 attacks.

That sentiment has been repeatedly followed up by the Obama administration, with the statement that America can 'sustain and absorb' another terrorist attack along the lines of 9/11 or worse. Now consider what is presently happening in Wisconsin and soon to be happening in Indiana and Ohio and other states.

This administration is preparing the ground for the day (soon to come) when the president could very well step forward and declare a national emergency. A time when in the face of rising discontent, this man could in essence call for marshal law and then bring in foreign troops to enforce his edicts. And by the way, his authority to use the kill switch on the internet is in place to be activated.

Still say that it can't happen here in America? Look around....pay attention people. How has the entire middle east been set afire in recent weeks and who was responsible for that happening. Still believe that all of that was the result of some leaked memos by wikileaks and some errant US Army PFC who apparently had unlimited access to America's greatest secrets?

There is a global fundamentalist Muslim realignment in the making. It has already occurred in Tunisia and Egypt and it is now spreading to Yemen and Bahrain and yes, it is spreading to Saudi Arabia. Libya is burning and the Muslim fundamentalists are cheering. Iranian navy ships are transiting the Suez in route to Syria And America is condemning Israel on the florr of the UN and this president remains silent.

Yet in the background, his military leadership is signing covert treaty agreements with Canada authorizing the deployment of Canadian troops in the streets of America during civil unrest? And yet Americans haven't been told about it.

The only position that this president has taken in the past month on any issue, has been to support the unionized efforts to overthrow the duly elected government of Wisconsin and the wishes of the people there. And to that end, the president and his party have sent their own campaign machine and resources into Wisconsin to see to it that the people of Wisconsin are not allowed to vote for their own self determination. Nor will they be allowed in any fashion to stand against the unions who have destroyed the public treasury of Wisconsin.

How much longer before this happens all across America? How much longer before we turn on the TV and see the streets of America resembling the streets of Cairo or Tripoli. How long before we see foreign troops marching and firing against our citizens?

That can't ever happen in America you say? It's already in motion people. Wake up and open your eyes before it is too late. Our enemies are inside the gates and they are preparing this nation for utter destruction and the ultimate socialist control of us all, cradle to grave.

Consider and Ponder.

xtnyoda, shalomed

The Health Care Battle Lines are Heating Up

In case you haven't heard a Federal Judge in Florida has ruled that federally mandated purchasing of health care by all Americans is ... unconstitutional.

The Washington Times
Quoting James Madison and Thomas Jefferson as authorities, a federal judge in Florida ruled Monday that Congress breached the Constitution when it passed the health care law, dealing the broadest rejection yet to President Obama‘s signature initiative.

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson‘s ruling is the second to find that Congress exceeded its powers by requiring Americans to buy insurance, known as the “individual mandate.” But the judge went further, saying that if the individual mandate is unconstitutional, so is the entire law.

“The individual mandate is neither within the letter nor the spirit of the Constitution,” Judge Vinson wrote, warning that to allow Congress to use the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution to justify it would “effectively remove all limits on federal power.”.....

A large majority of Americans agree with the Judge ... as does the constitution of the United States.

It is going to be very interesting to see how the Supreme Court rules on this because that is where this will eventually end up. Does the federal government have the power and authority to mandate any American to buy anything?

I'll just say that there has been more than one time in our nations history that Supreme Court Justices have voted in ways totally unexpected by the presidents that nominated them ... and this just might prove to be one of those times.

This is going to be the clearest test the Supreme Court has ever ruled on concerning the limitations of the federal government over the individual American citizen.

xtnyoda, shalomed

Repealing DADT Violates UCMJ

The UCMJ (Uniform Code Of Military Justice) strictly forbids "same sex" engagements. For Congress to repeal DADT is to pass a law that directly violates the UCMJ that all US military personnel serve under.

This is insanity.... and places the US military under 2 conflicting rules of law. Which is one to follow?

An Army National Guard Officer is stepping down from his command position rather than confront the order to go through training that forces the acceptance of "gay" encounters in the military life. He is saying that this is not punitive... but it in fact is a dramatic demotion in responsibility... and he knows it.

I thought we would all benefit from reading his letter to WND... well written... and helps explain exactly what is at stake with our civilian congress running rough shod over our United States Military and it's time honored Military Justice system.

World Net Daily exclusive

The Army National Guard officer who refuses to cooperate with the Obama administration's plan to force open homosexuality on the military is not being punished.... On the contrary, the lieutenant colonel, whose identity is being protected at his request, is getting exactly what he asked for: transfer from a command to a staff position so he will not have to order troops to undergo the Pentagon's pro-'gay' indoctrination.

"Today is my last day in command," said the career Army officer. "From now on I'll be a staff officer without a bunch of people working under me, so I won't have the moral conflict with having to enforce this new policy on them.

"It's not punitive, the state is actually standing by my position. I've worked with some really good commanders over the years and we have a good rapport."

The officer, who formerly commanded a battalion-sized unit, has strongly held religious beliefs that homosexual behavior is morally wrong, and he thinks the military will be damaged severely if it implements the Obama administration's plan to allow homosexuals to serve openly. He said many of the men under his command share his views...

......

The officer sent WND an email explaining his position in detail. Excerpts follow:

"Commissioned officers take the following oath: 'I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.' Notice that the oath demands allegiance – not to one's commander, not even to the president or to a government administration – but to a set of ideas, embodied in a document called the U.S. Constitution. This is not by accident. The oath omits allegiance to men because our founding fathers recognized that some men would go astray due to lust for power, and the logical outcome of a military force with allegiance to a man is eventually a dictatorship. If anyone doubts this truth, I encourage them to read the Wehrmacht Oath of Loyalty to Adolf Hitler or his oath for public servants.

"Loyalty must be subordinate to that allegiance to the Constitution, and must be tempered by one's conscience. To be a good commander, one must exercise loyalty both up and down the chain of command. This demands the ability to internalize command decisions, orders, and policies, and at the same time, to stand up for one's soldiers within the context of mission accomplishment. As soon as the DADT policy repeal became law, I realized that I wouldn't be able to show loyalty to my chain of command in this one area as the new policy is forced on the military. I have the greatest respect for my chain of command, so I forwarded my request to be relieved prior to the change so I would not have to be disloyal. To those who simply think soldiering is about blindly following orders without consulting conscience, I recommend that they educate themselves about the case of a man named William Calley, the former Army lieutenant convicted on 22 counts of murder in the My Lai massacre.

"Let me be very clear that in a combat situation, I would risk and even forfeit my life if necessary, for ANY American soldier, regardless of race, gender, national origin, or even what my religious beliefs designate as an immoral lifestyle choice. At the time of this writing, the practice of sodomy is a violation of Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and is therefore considered an immoral lifestyle choice. Contrary to the assumptions of many in the pro-homosexual camp, those who share my sentiments do not hate homosexuals, but we do, just as ALL prior generations, recognize the homosexual lifestyle as counter to natural law and immoral, and destructive to good order and discipline, which are crucial in a combat unit.

"Contrary to the assumptions of many in the pro-homosexual camp, those who share my sentiments do not hate homosexuals, but we do, just as ALL prior generations, recognize the homosexual lifestyle as counter to natural law and immoral, and destructive to good order and discipline which are crucial in a combat unit.

"There are those who see this as purely an issue of discrimination, which they believe is unfair in any segment of our society. 'Discrimination' has become a word that always connotes something bad. I would say to them that discrimination is not only necessary, but crucial in our military. The military has always discriminated and if we are to remain the world's premier military, we must continue to do so. Currently, the Army discriminates against those who are, by regulations, too old, too weak, too fat, too slow, too short, colorblind, asthmatic, diabetic, and a whole host of other disqualifiers. …

"True, there are certainly closeted homosexuals already in the military. There are also definitely closeted child/spouse abusers, pedophiles, adulterers, rapists, and I would guess even murderers in the military at this instant. Should we also change the UCMJ to make those activities legal? The truth is, the answer that most would give to that question is also the answer that most would have given to the question of allowing open homosexual service a generation ago. Do we continue to allow our moral compass to drift just because loud 'progressive' minorities that support immoral behaviors convince us that those behaviors should be considered 'mainstream?'"

The US Warrior is now fighting battles on several fronts... and the battle against the US Congress is now the US Warriors greatest enemy... and most dangerous battle ground.

xtnyoda, shalomed

How Liberalism self-destructed

JOEL KOTKIN of Politico has pretty well nailed it. I'm not sure that Joel really understands what he accurately describes... the rape of the Democrat Party by political progressives... who are not constitutional Americans... but rather Karl Marx Socialists.... but he at least has enough sense to understand what Americans have said during our recent election.

Democrats are still looking for explanations for their stunning rejection in the midterms — citing everything from voting rights violations and Middle America’s racist orientation to Americans’ inability to perceive the underlying genius of President Barack Obama’s economic policy.

What they have failed to consider is the albatross of contemporary liberalism.

Liberalism once embraced the mission of fostering upward mobility and a stronger economy. But liberalism’s appeal has diminished, particularly among middle-class voters, as it has become increasingly control-oriented and economically cumbersome....

Modern-day liberalism, however, is often ambivalent about expanding the economy — preferring a mix of redistribution with redirection along green lines. Its base of political shock troops, public-employee unions, appears only tangentially interested in the health of the overall economy....

....Often eager to micromanage people’s lives, contemporary liberalism tends to obsess on the ephemeral while missing the substantial. Measures such as San Francisco’s recent ban on Happy Meals follow efforts to control the minutiae of daily life ... contemporary liberals seem more concerned about controlling soda consumption and choo-chooing back to 19th-century urbanism. ...

If this defines success, you have to wonder what constitutes failure.

By all appearances the progressive's assault on the Democratic Party is hell bent on shoving it further to the left... and thereby further diminish the Democrats presence in Washington and our state capitols as well.

I don't think the progressives will ever figure out that Americans love their freedom... and their idea of freedom is not to have a government that grabs control of their lives in order to save them from themselves. And... that's fine... progressive's madness will further marginalize them until they will one day appear as an asterisk in the history of humanities desire for someone to save them from themselves.

Until then... freedom lovers will insist on living their lives based on bearing the brunt of responsibility for their own lives and actions... however bright or ignorant their choices might be.

xtnyoda, shalomed

The Lawsuit reported by xtnyoda against the voters of Oklahoma who stating that they want nothing to do with Sharai Law has been been ruled on by a federal judge.... and the Federal judge has blocked the voted will of the people.

Politico's Josh Gerstein

Judge blocks Oklahoma ban on Shariah law

A federal judge in Oklahoma has issued a temporary restraining order barring the state from adopting a constitutional amendment voters passed last week that forbids state courts from enforcing Islamic law, also known as Shariah.

The executive director of the local branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Muneer Awad, filed suit over the measure, claiming that it violates religious freedom guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

Awad said, for instance, that the measure could preclude the courts from enforcing or executing his will, since it includes references to Islamic law.

According to unofficial results, Oklahoma voters overwhelmingly adopted the measure by a vote of 70 percent in favor to 30 percent opposed. The proposal also included a ban on state courts' use of international law.

Judge Vicki Miles LaGrange's order barring certification of last week's vote is to remain in place at least through another hearing on Awad's suit set for Nov. 22, The Associated Press reported.

"The Court ... finds that the plaintiff has met the factors for this Court to enter a Temporary Restraining Order. The Court will issue an order as soon as possible," a clerk's filing in the case says.

We will keep an eye on this.

xtnyoda, shalomed

The Cats Out The Bag

Guess What!

The Illegal Insurgent/Immigrant insiders are letting it out of the bag that the president of the United States has a new "strategy" for making illegals... legal... without the consent of Congress... or Americans.

Keep in mind... this is from the insiders of the left... the cats out of the bag.

Phoenix Examiner

Proposed Dream Act will now include a wider group of migrants

Phoenix, Arizona—Chicanos Unidos Arizona has learned that Democrats will try and push through immigration reform before the likely takeover of the House by Republicans in January. An activist in Harry Reid's camp has sent us a proposed revised version of the Dream Act... It will include amnesty for a wider group of immigrants than previously thought....

..... Gina Gallagos, an Arizona La Raza political activist who has had several meetings with Obama’s administration, tells us that if Obama can’t get this legislation voted on, he has a “backdoor” amnesty planned that will be both legal, ethical, and fair. “Obama has made immigration reform one of the main issues of his campaign. He will not let Latinos down.”

OK... Mr. President... inquiring minds wish to know... just what is your "backdoor" amnesty plan?

xtnyoda, shalomed

Anyone ready for our Brave New World?


If you recently made any statements critical of American tax policies then Homeland Security just might be interested in keeping a watchful eye on you... as a potential terrorist.

Pittsburg Live article

Lawsuit planned after protesters put on terror list

An activist who believes he was improperly included on a state terror threat list said this morning he is preparing a federal lawsuit.

"When people's civil rights are trampled it's a federal issue," said Gene Stilp of Harrisburg, who holds a Virginia law license but does not practice as an attorney....

Let's see now... we have freedom of speech... as long as our speech is not critical of government tax issues.

Somebody's watching you... smile... you're on candid camera!

:-)

xtnyoda, shalomed

The Anchoress Speaks

I'm sure you've heard about the Federal Judge overruling the voted will on the citizens of California about the marriage proposition 8 law. A well spoken Catholic blogger responds very, very well.

The Anchoress

“Gender no longer…essential (to) marriage”

Elizabeth Scalia

In an utterly unsurprising ruling, and one that is inarguable if one is peering through the narrowed prism of stringently secular law, and reducing marriage to a sort of contractual partnering, Judge Vaughn Walker has ruled restrictions against same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional...

I was intrigued with this part:

Race and gender restrictions shaped marriage during eras of race and gender inequality, but such restrictions were never part of the historical core of the institution of marriage. Today, gender is not relevant to the state in determining spouses obligations to each other and to their dependents. Relative gender composition aside, same-sex couples are situated identically to opposite-sex couples in terms of their ability to perform the rights and obligations of marriage under California law. Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals....

As I say, an expected ruling, given the narrowing of perspective. It is counter-intuitive to 5,000 years of human cultural understanding, but we’ve seen a lot of that, these past 40-or-so years.

My first thought.....

Go read her entire post. My only comment after her's is... Amen.

xtnyoda, shalomed

Oh yes... the MSM and the Feds will spin this to not mean what it obviously does mean.




When was the last time you heard of a number like a 71% resounding put down... coming out of a vote on anything in America?

The Atlantic Wire

What Missouri Ballot Initiative Means for Health Care

Voters in Missouri have approved, by an overwhelming 71 percent of the vote, Proposition C, which states "the Missouri Statues be amended to deny the government the authority to penalize citizens for refusing to purchase private health insurance." The health care reform legislation recently passed by Congress includes a provision penalizing Americans who do not buy health insurance, the Constitutionality of which several states have challenged.....

Missouri says, "Feds... BACK OFF!"

More to follow.

xtnyoda, shalomed