Flashback: When Democrats Swore They Would Never Back Gay Marriage

Comments Off on Flashback: When Democrats Swore They Would Never Back Gay Marriage

Jon Allen follows HuffPost’s intriguing advocacy journalism by quoting the few Democrats who haven’t endorsed gay marriage yet. (HuffPost’s been straight-up shaming them, naming the senators who have yet to flip and explaining that “the arc of history is moving in the direction of marriage equality.) He finds only two senators up in 2014 who refuse to endorse same-sex marriage. That’s incredible. It was also predicted by conservatives nearly 10 years ago.

Above, you’ll find a short video composed of the floor speeches some top Democrats made about SSM. At the time, Republicans wanted to block gay marriage in Massachusetts by amending the constitution with an official marriage definition. Democrats argued against that, but they didn’t argue in favor of gay marriage. They argued that DOMA made such an amendment unneccessary. They assured people like Rick Santorum that the slippery slope case for gay marriage was bogus.

The new Democratic advocates for SSM fall into two camps. The first consists of people who always liked the idea of this but worried about losing national elections. In his memoir, Democratic consultant Bob Shrum remembers John Kerry fretting that the Massachusetts Supreme Court had forced Democrats to talk about gay marriage before they were ready to. “Why couldn’t they just wait a year?” he asked Shrum, mournfully. The second camp consists of people who really do oppose the idea of gay people getting married. Republicans argued that this second camp was tiny, and that liberals were hiding behind it. They were right!

Thanks to Bill Smee and Emma Roller for the actual work on that video clip.

Slate

 

Advertisements

HB587 to protect Tennesseans’s 2nd Amendment rights fails in House Civil Justice Subcommittee-Again

Comments Off on HB587 to protect Tennesseans’s 2nd Amendment rights fails in House Civil Justice Subcommittee-Again

The House Civil Justice Subcommittee killed a great bill on Tuesday that would protect your 2nd Amendment rights. Only Rep. Rick Womick voted to protect your rights. I have news for Rep. Vance Dennis it’s not  a matter of not enforcing Federal statutes we “don’t agree with”, it’s stopping Federal laws that are unconstitutional Mr Dennis! Here’s what James Madison, the Father of the Constitution”  said about that.

MADISON’S REPORT ON THE VIRGINIA RESOLUTIONS of 1827

The states, then, being the parties to the constitutional compact (the Constitution), and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity that there can be no tribunal, above their authority, to decide, in the last resort,(not the Supreme Court, but the States)  whether the compact (Constitution) made by them be violated; and consequently, that, as the parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition (nullification). “

The Tennessee House State Government Subcommittee Votes to Support Federal Indefinite Detention

Comments Off on The Tennessee House State Government Subcommittee Votes to Support Federal Indefinite Detention

After listening to this video, I must say I’m amazed at Representative Johnny Shaw. Actually I’m at a loss to  words.  He is obviously very uninformed on what the Federal Government has done when they passed the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013. He and others like him are the problem with Tennessee going no where with nullifing unconstituional federal laws. And our Democratic Attorney General isn’t helping any either. Most of these people and the Governor need to go as soon as possible. A recall of all of them would be nice if that was possible. This vote was on Tn bill HB 1059.

James Madison from –MADISON’S REPORT ON THE VIRGINIA RESOLUTIONS of 1827

The states, then, being the parties to the constitutional compact (the Constitution), and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity that there can be no tribunal, above their authority, to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact (Constitution) made by them be violated; and consequently, that, as the parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition (nullification). “

Last week, the House State Government Subcommittee voted to help the federal government indefinitely detain American citizens just like they detained persons of Japanese ancestry in World War II.

Rep. Courtney Rogers presented a bill to stop state compliance with federal indefinite detention, and it was shot down. Only Reps. Butt and Evans voted to support your right to due process.

Rep. Johnny Shaw on the other hand seemed utterly bewildered as to why Americans wouldn’t want to be indefinitely detained.

McCain, Schumer Watch as Immigrant Hops Border Fence

Comments Off on McCain, Schumer Watch as Immigrant Hops Border Fence

John McCain, on a visit to the border town of Nogales, Ariz. with colleagues Chuck Schumer, Michael Bennet and Jeff Flake, bore witness, firsthand, to one of the challenges Congress will face as it attempts to craft immigration legislation: securing the border.

Standing at the country’s Southern border, McCain tweeted:

John McCain         @SenJohnMcCain

Just witnessed a woman successfully climb an 18-ft bollard fence a few yards from us in pic.twitter.com/GnMwEeQwDB

Shortly thereafter, he posted an update:

John McCain         @SenJohnMcCain

Border Patrol successfully apprehended her, but incident is another reminder that threats to our border security are real

The four senators are part of the bipartisan “Gang of Eight” leading the legislative effort on immigration reform.

Ron Paul: Let’s Call This What It Is—An Internet Tax

Comments Off on Ron Paul: Let’s Call This What It Is—An Internet Tax

Last week, during a series of Senate votes on the budget resolution, a majority of senators voted for an amendment endorsing the so-called “Marketplace Fairness Act.” The underlying Act has nothing to do with fairness and everything to do with enriching large companies and bloated state governments, while harming small businesses, taxpayers, and consumers.

The National Internet Tax Mandate, as Campaign for Liberty refers to the bill, would impose costly regulations on our nation’s job creators at a time when the economy is still struggling and millions of Americans are out of work. Businesses would be forced to become tax collectors in compliance with thousands of tax jurisdictions, and any increased operational costs would be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices.

It is unfortunately no surprise that some of the nation’s most powerful businesses are lobbying hard for this legislation. While these companies can afford to absorb the additional burden imposed by this bill, their smaller competitors cannot.

The Internet Tax Mandate also violates the original purpose of the Commerce Clause, which was to guarantee free trade among the states. Instead, the bill would allow states to levy taxes on goods crossing into their state, which is not what the Founding Fathers intended. Why should California be able to force a business in Texas to collect and pay California sales tax?

When considering any economic proposal, the unseen, potential ramifications must be examined. This mandate could discourage online commerce and stifle the growth of new businesses, exactly the opposite of what we need if we want to expand entrepreneurship and revive our economy. In addition, the long arm of Big Government would reach for companies operating in states currently lacking a sales tax.

Those brick-and-mortar businesses worried about competition from the Internet marketplace and wanting to “level the playing field” should instead focus on ways to decrease the burden of regulations and lessen government’s effect on a company’s bottom line. Reduced operational costs can lead to more competitive prices.

The National Internet Tax Mandate provides yet another example of the corporatism so prevalent in the “solutions” legislators are quick to propose—big business getting together with Big Government to step on the taxpayers and smaller competitors—and should be soundly rejected by those interested in restoring a vibrant economy.

US News

WH Tours Closed to US Citizens But Open for Muslim Brotherhood Groups

Comments Off on WH Tours Closed to US Citizens But Open for Muslim Brotherhood Groups

03/28/13

via White House Partners with Muslim Brotherhood Front.

The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), a group with Muslim Brotherhood origins and an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror-financing trial, recently toured the White House and met with multiple officials. According to the group, Paul Monteiro, Associate Director of the Office of Public Engagement, “cited ISNA as his primary means of outreach to the American Muslim community.”

The Obama administration’s close relationship with ISNA is about more than photo ops and press releases. It is about policy formulation. The input of ISNA is so treasured that the officials coached the organization on how to engage the White House.

On March 8, ISNA President Mohamed Magid joined 10 other religious leaders in a 90-minute conversation with President Obama about immigration reform. Also present was senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett, who spoke at ISNA’s 2009 convention. Three days later, Magid took part in a meeting with President Obama where he got “recommendations” in preparation for his Middle East trip, including some from groups with a history of defending Hezbollah.

“Over the past two years, I-along with my White House colleagues-have benefited from the advice of many of your [Magid’s] organizations through our Office of Public Engagement,” said Deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough on March 6, 2011 during a speech at the mosque that Magid leads.

ISNA’s White House tour included spending time with George Selim, the White House Director for Community Partnerships, who is an annual speaker at ISNA’s conventions. Selim previously admitted that “hundreds” of meetings have taken place between government officials and the Council on American-Islamic Relations, another group with Brotherhood origins that was designated an unindicted co-conspirator.

The U.S. government stated that ISNA is a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity when it designated it as an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation. A federal judge upheld  the designation in 2009 because of “ample” evidence linking ISNA to Hamas. A 1991 U.S. Muslim Brotherhood memo lists ISNA and several of its components among “our organizations and the organizations of our friends,” and a 1988 document says it is part of the Brotherhood “apparatus.”

The FBI had sources inside the U.S. Brotherhood network reporting that ISNA was a front as early as 1987. The source traveled on behalf of ISNA and allied groups and he told the FBI that he is “convinced that this organization has a secret agenda which includes the spread of the Islamic Revolution to all non-Islamic governments in the world which does include the United States.”

The source provided a secret ISNA document in 1988 that “clearly states that ISNA has a political goal to exert influence on political decision making and legislation in North America that is contrary to their certification in their not-for-profit tax returns,” says a declassified FBI memo.

ISNA’s White House tour was part of its Founders Committee meeting.

On June 10th 1964, Democrats Filibustered the Civil Rights Act

Comments Off on On June 10th 1964, Democrats Filibustered the Civil Rights Act


June 10, 1964, was a dramatic day in the United States Senate. For the first time in its history, cloture was invoked on a civil rights bill, ending a record-breaking filibuster by Democrats that had consumed fifty-seven working days. The hero of the hour was minority leader Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen (R-Ill.).

On June 10, 1964, Democrats filibustered the Civil Rights Act.
Grand Old Partisan reported, via DANEgerus:

On this day in 1964, Everett Dirksen (R-IL), the Republican Leader in the U.S. Senate, condemned the Democrats’ 57-day filibuster against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Leading the Democrats in their opposition to civil rights for African-Americans was Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV). Byrd, who got into politics as a recruiter for the Ku Klux Klan, spoke against the bill for fourteen straight hours. Democrats still call Robert Byrd “the conscience of the Senate.”

In his speech, Senator Dirksen called on the Democrats to end their filibuster and accept racial equality.

Michael Zak wrote about this in his book Back to Basics for the Republican Party and reminds us that Democrats, the party of Slavery, Secession, Segregation and the KKK… fought against equality.

Gateway Pundit

Older Entries