Monday, August 23, 2010


You get up every morning
From your alarm clock's warning
Take the 8:15 into the city
There's a whistle up above
And people pushin', people shovin'
And the girls who try to look pretty
And if your train's on time
You can get to work by nine...

Almost two-thirds of drivers say traffic is getting worse in their areas, and the majority of American drivers do not think the roads where they live were designed to handle the current volume of traffic.

"Driving is such an important part of our daily lives that it can affect our safety, our productivity at work, and even our general outlook on life. As an insurance company, understanding the driving experience helps us understand how to keep drivers - and their vehicles - moving and safe," said Kathleen Bromage, vice president, The Hartford.
American commuters seem to be adept at finding ways to make use of the time they spend stuck in traffic, with 86 percent of drivers admitting they perform at least one other activity - such as eating, drinking, talking on a cell phone or sending text messages- while driving to or from work.

Eating or drinking (76 percent) and talking on a cell phone (67 percent) are the most common commuting pastimes, with more than 25 percent of commuters reporting they do three or more different things while driving.

Commuters in cities studied with longer-than-average commutes - Phoenix and Charlotte - are most likely to report performing three or more different activities while driving.

All women spring forth from the womb with the ability to apply makeup while driving while simultaneously texting and telling their husband he is wrong.

Okay, I made that part up-it was not from the survey.

Surprisingly, even in today's tight job market, only one in 10 American commuters would be willing to commute as long as necessary to accept a new job they found very interesting.

However, most drivers (77 percent) would at least consider a job offer that involves a commute of more than 30 minutes each way.

Now here's the part that cracked me up.

The daily commute is a major time-waster and source of frustration for many drivers.

The survey reports that the average American commuter spends nearly 26 minutes commuting each way to and from work, including 14 minutes per day lost in traffic delays.

This means that the average commuter loses 56 hours per year because of traffic - the equivalent of seven full working days.

Okay-we're talking fourteen minutes a day here. Not long ago, it took longer than that for the television to turn on and the oven to warm up. We have automated our lives so much that we're worrying about less than a quarter of an hour?
And yet, if we manage to give the average American back those precious fourteen minutes of ever day, guess what he's going to do with them?

You got it-fourteen more minutes watching reality television shows!

Sunday, August 22, 2010


Time magazine’s cover story this week asks if Americans have a problem with Islam.

Ya think?

Do we have problem with a religion that has as one of its fundamental precepts, the concept of a Jihad (holy war), a call to fight against non-Muslims in the defense of Islam?

We all know that Time’s story is a reaction to New Yorkers protesting the building of an Islamic place of worship (a mosque) within spitting distance of the former World Trade Center.

And we also know that the real reason for opposition to a mosque near ground zero is that since Islamic extremists destroyed the World Trade Center, opponents don’t want an Islamic community center near the site.

Remember, my bleeding heart liberal (and apparently forgetful) friends at Time, that followers of Islam did this:

and this:

less than ten years ago!

The feelings of outrage are perfectly understandable.

And remember, this is a people who seem to have nothing to do all day but protest us!

Do these guys ever work?

Weighing his words carefully on a fiery political issue, President Barack Obama said Saturday that Muslims have the right to build a mosque near New York's Ground Zero.

The President is right. The Muslims do have the right to do this.

I also believe that the borough of Manhattan has the right to forbid it.

There are those who would be up in arms waiting to debate me right now (if they were reading this). After all, I am opposing the mosque based on religion.

But the U.S. Constitution doesn’t allow discrimination based on religion. Right?

What does the Constitution say about religion?

It says, and I quote, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

If Mayor Bloomberg were to forbid the use of the site for a Muslim place of worship, even if he were to be forthright about the reason, I do not see where that would equate with “Congress making a law respecting and establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

In the fall of 2001, Yusuf Islam (formerly Cat Stevens) wrote a letter to a music magazine asking Americans to remember that not all Muslims practice hate, and his letter touched me.

And I agree with him. Americans must learn tolerance and forgiveness.

But if this mosque is constructed, it is rubbing Islam in the face of the largest city in the US, reminding them of the largest military invasion on the east coast, an invasion where the wounds are only now starting to heal.

It’s simply too soon to expect that much forgiveness, that much tolerance.

The mosque may be built.

Another federal judge who is a traitor to the Constitution may make an unconstitutional ruling (as has happened in AZ and CA recently) in the name of political correct-ness and to support the goals of the Council on Foreign Relations.

If so, there will be tension in New York for a long time. More fuel to the jingoistic fires that keep us fighting a useless war in the Middle East.

Just like the power behind Obama's throne wants it.

Tuesday, August 17, 2010


"And the sign said anybody caught trespassin' would be shot on sight"

Hey Tom Morello and Los Lobos!

Still think Arizonans are like Nazis?

Still boycotting Arizona?

I've got good news for you!

I've mapped out a nice, scenic short cut from San Diego to your next tour date in Texas!

While everyone who has neither lived near the border or read Arizona’s immigration law has spewed their “Nazi” and “KKK” insults, the United States of America has effectively lost the first military invasion into the continental US and ceded a large parcel of our land without so much as firing a shot.

Yep-you heard me right. The Federal government has SURRENDERED UNITED STATES SOIL to Mexican drug cartels!

See this sign?

This is a real sign about eighty miles north of the Arizona border with Mexico.

Eighty miles from the border with Mexico in Arizona, the federal government has posted signs warning Americans not to approach any closer to the border, as it is a region of “active drug and human smuggling” and that those that ignore the warning may “encounter armed criminals and smuggling vehicles traveling at high rates of speed.”

About 3,500 acres of southern Arizona along the Mexican border is closed to U.S. citizens due to increased violence in the region.

This is how Pancho Obama defends the border and lives upto his Constitutional responsibilities.

The closed off area stretches 80 miles along the border and includes part of the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge. It was closed in October 2006 "due to human safety concerns," the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said Wednesday in response to news reports on the closure.

Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu told Fox News that violence against law enforcement officers and U.S. citizens has increased in the past four months, further underscoring the need to keep the 80 miles of border land off-limits to Americans.

The refuge had been adversely affected by the increase in drug smugglers, illegal activity and surveillance, which made it dangerous for Americans to visit.

"The situation in this zone has reached a point where continued public use of the area is not prudent," said refuge manager Mitch Ellis.

“It’s literally out of control,” said Babeu. “We stood with Senator McCain and literally demanded support for 3,000 soldiers to be deployed to Arizona to get this under control and finally secure our border with Mexico. “

U.S. Fish and Wildlife officials have warned visitors in Arizona to beware of heavily armed drug smugglers and human traffickers.

“We need support from the federal government. It’s their job to secure the border and they haven’t done it,” said Babeu. “In fact, President Obama suspended the construction of the fence and it’s just simply outrageous.”

Signs have been posted warning Americans not to cross into the closed off territory south of Interstate 8. Babeu said the signs are not enough – he said Arizona needs more resources to help scale back the violence caused by the drug cartels.

“We need action. It’s shameful that we, as the most powerful nation on Earth, … can’t even secure our own border and protect our own families.”

A new Arizona activist group, "Juicio PolĂ­tico Idiota de Kenia*" is recommending that the following signs be placed on the southern facing side of the signs put up by Obama's crew (facing Mexico)

"So I got me a pen and a paper and I made up my own little sign
I said, "Thank you, Lord, for thinkin' 'bout me
I'm alive and doin' fine."

Sign, sign, everywhere a sign
Blockin' out the scenery, breakin' my mind
Do this, don't do that, can't you read the sign?"

* "Impeach the idiot from Kenya"

Shackles On Me

Shackles On Me

by Jimmie Vaughan

"Shackles On Me" is NOT featured on Jimmie's new album, but the album is worth a listen all the same.

Don’t want no shackles
Don’t want no shackles on me
Don’t want no shackles
Don’t want no shackles on me

I say down with Big Brother
Don’t like those RFIDs
Got the blues about my freedom
Got the blues about tyranny
Got the blues about my freedom
Got the blues about tyranny

I say down with Big Brother
And the National ID
Don’t want a chip in my wallet
Chip in my car
And if I want to travel
It’s no body’s business how far

Don’t want no shackles
Don’t want no shackles on me

I say shame on Big Brother
Always tracking and tracing me
Don’t want a chip in my mother
Chip in my wife
A chip in my babies
Stay out of our life

Don’t want no shackles
Don’t want no shackles on me

I say down with Big Brother
No more slavery
Play it for me baby…
Now, do you want a chip in your forehead?
A chip in your arm
Always tweaking your brain and causing your harm

Don’t want no shackles
Don’t want no shackles on me

I say down with Big Brother
In the good old U.S.A.

I say down with Big Brother
Down with Big Brother
Down with Big Brother
Down with Big Brother
Down with Big Brother

Don’t want a spy chip in me


I say down with Big Brother
Down with Big Brother
Down with Big Brother
Down with Big Brother
Down with Big Brother

It’s all about Liberty

James Lawrence "Jimmie" Vaughan (born March 20, 1951) is an American blues guitarist and singer from Dallas, Texas. He is the older brother of the late Stevie Ray Vaughan.

Saturday, August 14, 2010


Protesters have been rallying outside Target Corp. or its stores almost daily since the retailer angered gay rights supporters and progressives by giving money to help a conservative Republican gubernatorial candidate in Minnesota. Liberal groups are pushing to make an example of the company, hoping its woes will deter other businesses from putting their corporate funds into elections.

A national gay rights group is negotiating with Target officials, demanding that the firm balance the scale by making comparable donations to benefit candidates it favors. Meanwhile, the controversy is threatening to complicate Target's business plans in other urban markets. Several city officials in San Francisco, one of the cities where Target hopes to expand, have begun criticizing the company.

"Target is receiving criticism and frustration from their customers because they are doing something wrong, and that should serve absolutely as an example for other companies," said Ilyse Hogue, director of political advocacy for the liberal group, which is pressing Target to formally renounce involvement in election campaigns.

Now first off, Hogue is lying. The criticism is from, not Target customers. As discussed below, gays are simply not enough of a percentage of the total population to be a target market. Except for Vaseline.

Okay, I know that was in bad taste. But it was a little funny, right?
The point is, Hogue is not upset because Target is involving itself in the election process. Hogue is upset because Target is involving itself with a candidate not endorsed by
Apparently, it is only WRONG to support candidates who are not liberal. is obviously full of themselves after the California Prop 8 ruling, which is still due to be challenged.

Any sympathy may have won on the marriage issue gets flushed down the toilet idiotic moves like this.

You see, I believe that Target has the right to endorse whomever they want. And contrary to the bile being spewed by Hogue and the other liberals who represent a small minority of the population, I believe Target’s customers will feel the same way.

Now as distasteful as I find organizations like, I also feel that they have the right to boycott whomever they want.

And I think that a lot of conservative organizations are likely to exercise the same right to demonstrate and boycott, and jump into this silly little duel that the gay activists have started.

I think it will be a mistake for Target to cave to the left-leaning groups, but it seems like the Minneapolis-based chain has gone from defending the donation as a business decision to apologizing and saying it would carefully review its future giving.

Come on Target-show a little backbone! If you’re going to go after a target (no pun intended) market, there’s got to be more profit in targeting (again, no pun intended) Christians than gays.

Gays probably have more disposable income, but there are a heckuva lot more Christians and they’ve got lots of kids. You may decide they are better for business.

You see, gays claim to be ten percent of the population, but according to several sites I researched, the actual number is closer to one percent.

Eighty-five percent of the population is Christian. Another three-to-five percent is Muslim. Those are some pretty big numbers who are probably in your corner, Target.
Tell to pound sand!

Can you let the Salvation Army set up in front of the store again this Christmas? You’re sending out some mixed messages here…

Tuesday, August 10, 2010


Here in my car
I feel safest of all
I can lock all my doors
It's the only way to live
In cars

-Gary Numan

I want to start off by giving credit to Barquedust, who posted a blog entry on the “Cash for Clunkers” program a little while back. I did not read that until a few days ago, and it inspired the following rant. I added some of the CARS history and a few numbers from a CPA’s perspective, but the original idea for this post was his. I tried to add enough of my own perspective to make both entries relevant.

His blog, “The Conspiracy Exposed,” is definitely worth checking out.

The financial wizards in the Obama administration are going to fix the economy, and correct all of the greedy Republicans who did nothing but reward their rich crony friends, right? And you know it’s going to work, because you think O is the “smart” president, right?

I will grant you, that Georgie W. was no genius-heck he butchered the English language in ways I thought were only possible by professional atheletes on ESPN!.

But is Obama really smarter? Is he going to be any different than the Marxist idiots who have gone before him?

Forget the birth certificate, and his idiotic stand on the Arizona Senate bill. Let’s look at his track record, because, as I have said before, past behavior is indicative of future performance.

The Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS), colloquially known as "Cash for Clunkers", was intended to provide economic incentives to U.S. residents to purchase a new, more fuel-efficient vehicle when trading in a less fuel-efficient vehicle.

The program was promoted as providing stimulus to the economy by boosting auto sales, while putting safer, cleaner and more fuel-efficient vehicles on the roadways.

Since our financial wizards in Washington were already borrowing fifty cents of every dollar spent from China, the entire $3 billion program had to be financed at a cost of about $138 million dollars per year.

That’s every year until we pay China (or whomever they sell their debt to) back.

On August 26 the Department of Transportation (DOT) reported that the program resulted in 690,114 dealer transactions submitted requesting a total of $2.877 billion in rebates. It is interesting that foreign cars accounted for more than sixty percent of the sales under this program, which resulted in a gain in market share for Japanese and Korean manufacturers at the expense of American car makers. Meanwhile, Japan's own program excluded U.S. cars.

In a study published after the program ended, two University of Delaware professors concluded that the program had a net cost of $2,000 for each vehicle traded.

Adam Maji, a liberterian columnist, wrote, “ [Cash for Clunkers] destroys wealth by not letting these vehicles be used up over their useful life. It destroys wealth by routing scarce resources into activities (in this case, auto construction) that would not otherwise take place, denying other industries access to those resources. It destroys wealth by taking on liabilities, through borrowing, that have to be paid back later by the taxpayers (reducing their purchasing power in the future) or by taxing them immediately (reducing their purchasing power today).”

Peter Schiff, economic advisor to Ron Paul’s 2008 campaign and 2010 candidate for Senate, shares the same view of the program: “We've borrowed all this money, and we are basically broke, right? [...]Let's try to find a way to encourage people who have cars that work, and they have no loans, and let's see if we can get them to go deep in the debt to buy a new car they didn't need so that they can have a car payment."

Economist Christopher Westley said that the program "sticks it" to the poor and lower-middle classes by raising the price of the remaining cars in the secondary market, as well as by raising the general price level resulting from the monetary inflation required to finance it.

According to an study released October 28, the program actually cost Americans nearly $20,000 more per car than the maximum rebate. Only 125,000 of the 690,000 purchases would not have been made without the incentives, the company said, and with $3 billion spent, that works out to $24,000 per car.

Critics argued that people trading in cars would use such funds to mostly buy trucks, with a minimal benefit on gas mileage. New federal data analyzed by The Associated Press finds that the single most common swap, at an occurrence rate of more than 8,200 times, involved Ford F-150 pickup owners. The fuel economy for the new trucks ranges from 15 to 17 miles per gallon, which equates to a mere 1 to 3 mpg improvement over the clunkers.

The Associated Press also noted that many not-so-green cars were purchased under CARS (Cadillac SRX, Hummer H3T, Lexus RX 350, Lincoln MKX and BMWX3) Many luxury cars qualified under the program despite being rated under 20MPG.

Let’s just use some simple math-I liberated the following amounts from Barquedust’s post since the work was already done. And despite what all of the studies say, let’s give the illegal alien in the White House full credit for his pipe-dream statistics.

A clunker that travels 12,000 miles a year at 15 mpg uses 800 gallons of gas a year. A vehicle that travels 12,000 miles a year at 25 mpg uses 480 gallons a year. So, the average Cash for Clunkers transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year (according to the Emporer). They claim 700,000 vehicles so that's 224 million gallons saved per year. That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil. 5 million barrels of oil at $70 per barrel costs about $350 million dollars

Seems simple, right. Now I’m going to take Barquedust’s calculations and analyze them from my point of view as a certified public accountant. I’m dropping that title out there to impress the heck out of you all, so ladies, comment back with your best swoon!

That $350M is a savings per year, so you’ve got to do a return-on-investment calculation to compare the present value of the future cash flows against your initial investment. This is a pretty standard calculation (every business major learned it in finance class) that is often used by corporations to evaluate an investment.

If you remember, this program cost $3 billion, so that’s the initial investment.

The $350 million saved on the 5 million barrels of oil annually are the future cash flows.

So let's assume the cars all last ten years (as if Detroit could build a car to last ten years), and calculate the present value of $350 million received each year, at the end of the year, using a discount rate of 4.6 percent (which is the interest rate on foreign US debt securities according to That number calculates to $2,755,884,764. Let’s round up to $2.8 billion.

Now you may think you’ve seen enough math for one day with the present value calculation-but we’re not done.!

The net present value calculation assumes that you HAD the $3 billion to start with.

Barry Obama did not-he borrowed it from our friends in China. And he’s paying them 4.6% (using your future tax dollars and your Social Security money) in interest each year to finance it.

That comes up to another $1.4 billion in interest over the ten years.

Let’s review.

Your genius candidate (I voted for Ron Paul so he’s not my candidate) will have spent a total of $4.4 billion dollars on a program that will save an estimated $2.8 billion.

Anyone with a PC and Microsoft Excel can easily check my math using the Excel net present value function. And most of these other figures can be pulled right from the Wikipedia entry on the CARS program. You do not have to take my word for it.

The net cost to American taxpayers is $1.6 billion dollars.

Now why would such a smart Irish guy like O’Bama do that?Perhaps to further bleed the wealth away from the US middle class through increased taxes and inflation and send us further into our slide towards Marxism?

Oh I'm sorry-is that just crazy conspiracy theory talk?

Everyone with children-you’re leaving your children one heckuva inheritance. I hope the new truck was worth selling them out.

Sunday, August 8, 2010


Postal Employee: "May I help you?"

Kramer: "Yeah, I'd like to cancel my mail."

Postal Employee: "Certainly. How long would you like us to hold it?"

Kramer: "Oh, no, no. I don't think you get me. I want out, permanently."

Newman: "I'll handle this, Violet. Why don't you take your three hour break? Oh, calm down, everyone. No one's cancelling any mail."

Kramer: "Oh, yes, I am."

Newman: "What about your bills?"

Kramer: "The bank can pay 'em."

Newman: "The bank. What about your cards and letters?"

Kramer: "E-mail, telephones, fax machines. Fedex, telex, telegrams,holograms."

Newman: "All right, it's true! Of course nobody needs mail. What do you think, you're so clever for figuring that out? But you don't know the half ofwhat goes on here. So just walk away, Kramer. I beg of you."

-from the Seinfeld episode ‘The Junk Mail” original air date October 30, 1997

I was telling a friend about my latest bout of dissatisfaction with the Unites States Post Office recently, and realized that this story about government waste and inefficiency, was perfect blog-fodder.

I lived in the Phildeplhia suburbs for the first thirty-two years of my life, and in the Hartford area for the next two. I do not recall much of a mail delivery problem.

In fact, when Seinfeld made all of the postal delivery jokes, I never got it. So when Newman says that “no mail carrier has successfully delivered ore than 50% of their mail, it was just a joke to me.

Then I moved to Airheadzona and the joke was on me.

Getting my neighbors’ mail, and my mail going missing is a weekly occurrence. Out here in Arizona, it’s too much to expect the public servants to go to houses, so we have apartment-style mailboxes even in single-home neighborhoods.

There’s a reason for this. Try it if you don’t believe me. If you go to the post office to complain about delivery service, no matter what the reason, you will get the same response.

“The mail is pre-sorted.”

I got my neighbors’ mail. “The mail is pre-sorted.”

My neighbor got my mail. “The mail is pre-sorted.”

My postman bit my dog. “The mail is pre-sorted.”

My mailbox is on fire. “The mail is pre-sorted.”

Over the first few years, I got to know the neighbor one block away pretty well. She had the same house number and was constantly getting my mail. I would get other people’s mail order-prescriptions and packages, and once even got someone else’s computer purchase from Best Buy Online on my doorstep.

With an apartment-style box, when you get a package, they put the package in a big box, take the key, and put it in your box. I had ordered $500 worth of merchandise, and on the day I was expecting it, went to my mailbox and no key. So I went home, went online, and checked the delivery confirmation.

The site said it was delivered, so I went back to the box to see if I missed the key. Nope. I noticed one of the parcel boxes door slightly ajar, and on a whim, I opened it, and there were my packages.

So I drove to the post office to make my first complaint. After all, anyone could have helped themselves to my parcels. So I went to the desk, made my complaint, and guess what they said?

“The mail is pre-sorted.”

I kid you not. And I went on to explain that this could not be a sort issue, that the postman had to just be more careful when placing the key in the box.

“The mail is pre-sorted.”

One year, I was busy at work, and made all of my Christmas purchases at Amazon. All of them went missing. Amazon did replace the shipment, but I went in to complain. You will never believe what I was told.

“The mail is pre-sorted.”

I even tried going to a different post office. They were a little more courteous, but had the same mantra.

I knew I was still going to order from Amazon, so I looked into what my delivery options were. Amazon offers a service called, Amazon Prime, where, for $80 per year, all of your shipments are sent by UPS 2 day mail. Sine I buy CD’s almost weekly, and since Amazon is cheaper than Best Buy, I joined.

Since then, I have been moving to make myself as independent of the USPS as possible.

I use E-mail, online banking, eCards, electronic bills for my utilities and credit cards-anything to get the volume in my mail box to zero.

I have stopped renerwing magazines, and let the publishers know that it is because of the post office incompetence.

And I am cancelling my NetFlix account since the DVD’s seem to be vanishing, and I will be very candid with NetFlex as to why.

You see, my issue has never been with the carrier. It’s with management.

By refusing to allow me to give feedback on his or her performance, the carrier does not even know they’re making the errors. The Postal Service management, by adopting the typical government policy of giving customers the runaround , simply perpetuates incompetence.

This story from shows me that I am not alone in my views.

The U.S. Postal Service reported a $3.5 billion loss in its most recent quarter Thursday, as mail volume plummets and retiree health care costs mount.

The USPS, a self-supporting government agency that receives no tax dollars, said operating revenue declined 1.8% to $16 billion during the fiscal 2010 third quarter compared to a year earlier, while operating expenses spiked 4.2% to $19.5 billion.

The quarterly loss was the fourteenth in the last sixteen quarters, the postal service said.
"A significant portion of USPS losses in the past few years has been due to an unprecedented decline in mail volume -- down more than 20% since 2007," the USPS said in a statement. "The replacement of letter mail and business-transaction mail by electronic alternatives continues to cause downward pressure on mail volume."

Of course, it has never occurred to the idiots who run the USPS that some of the decline may be due to their total lack of customer service.

For years, they have treated the public with the indifference of someone who runs a monopoly, and now that there are choices, they wonder why people avail themselves of the choices!

I know that not all of their decline in volume is due to dissatisfaction. But would Amazon even offer something like an Amazon Prime service if there was not a market for it?

I sent a package last year by Priority Mail with delivery confirmation. The package took a week to get there, and the delivery confirmation was never updated. Their response?

“Purchasing the priority mail services does not guarantee faster delivery. And purchasing the delivery confirmation does not guarantee delivery confirmation.”

So by paying for expedited mail service, there is no guarantee of receiving that expedited service? What other business is allowed to operate under such a model?

I was told I could apply for a refund, and was handed a five page form. Five pages. I wish I had saved it, so I could attach it to this post. I did what the USPS counted on me doing-walking away in frustration.

I can only laugh now as they spiral down deeper into a business cycle that can only end in bankruptcy. Sure, I know we'll only have to bail them out anyway, but give me this one joy in watching them fail.

Poor management, no accountability, horrible amounts of waste.

They get away with it by hiding behind the same wall of inaccessibility as every other government agency. That wall is how an immigrant president got into the White House, and how our government keeps you from getting too much information on its inner workings-just check out Stephen T. McCarthy’s post about his experience with the TSA.

The postal service is no different, and like Kramer, I want out.

Wednesday, August 4, 2010

Sodom and Gomorrah In La La Land

Forget for a moment how you feel about a gay or lesbian couple’s right to marry. Forget what the Bible says about homosexuality. The gay and lesbian lobby knows all about Sodom and Gomorrah, and talk of eternal fires and destruction by brimstone will not scare them.

My post today is not about morality. It is about the violation of the civil rights of the California voters. That should scare them

Proposition 8 (or the California Marriage Protection Act) was a ballot proposition passed in the November, 2008 election that added a new provision, Section 7.5 of the Declaration of Rights, to the California State Constitution, which provides that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California

On August 4, 2010, Federal judge Vaughn Walker overturned Proposition 8, methodically rejecting every argument posed by sponsors of the Act in response to a lawsuit filed by two gay couples who claimed Proposition 8 violated their civil rights.

"Proposition 8 singles out gays and lesbians and legitimates their unequal treatment," the judge wrote in his 136-page opinion.
"Our courts are supposed to protect our Constitutional rights," lead plaintiff Kris Perry said as Sandy Stier, her partner of 10 years, stood at her side. "Today, they did."
Protect Marriage, the coalition of religious and conservative groups that sponsored the ban, said it would immediately appeal the ruling.
"In America, we should uphold and respect the right of people to make policy changes through the democratic process, especially changes that do nothing more than uphold the definition of marriage that has existed since the founding of this country and beyond," said Jim Campbell, a lawyer on the defense team.
Despite the favorable ruling for same-sex couples, gay marriage will not be allowed to resume immediately.

Judge Walker said he wants to decide whether his order should be suspended while the proponents of the ban pursue their appeal. He ordered both sides to submit written arguments by Friday on the issue.

Walker, however, found it violated the Constitution's due process and equal protection clauses while failing "to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license."

"Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples," the judge wrote.

What does the United States' Constitution say about marriage?


But the Constitution does have a clause that seems to be increasingly meaningless to the Federal crime syndicate that says, “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

You may have heard of it-it’s one of those little amendments we like to call the Bill of Rights.

So what does that mean to this argument?

It means that since the Constitution is silent on marriage, the decision on marriage falls under the authority of the states or the people. The people are the voters of California, who had every right to pass Proposition 8. The Federal government had NO authority to overturn it.

To the lead plaintiffs, I’m sorry your side lost, but the other side was better organized, the voters spoke, and that was the righteous process.

This ruling is another example of a Federal government out of control and overstepping its authority in a further deterioration of our rights.

Today, gays and lesbians are celebrating, because this infringement of rights went their way. What happens when the rights that are infringed are yours? Will you be so quick to celebrate?

I've been saying it a lot lately, but to remind everyone-the tenth amendment is there to protect the PEOPLE from the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Everything you do to undermine that amendment leaves you and your children VULNERABLE.

There was a right way to overturn Prop 8. Bring it back to a vote and be better organized this time.

You also have the right to move to a state with laws that are more in line with your way of life. Harsh, I know, but if I don't want to live among idiots, I could move out of Arizona.

Letting the Federal government take away your right to vote on an issue and further usurping the states' powers may come back and bite you in the ass in the future.

And I do not mean a bite in the ass in a good way.
If we are going to throw out the Constituition, can we at least evict the illegal alien who currently resides in the White House and let this naturalized citizen be President?