The truth about ObamACORN (OneNewsNow.com)
Shared via AddThis
Friday, May 29, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Court Upheld the Law instead of changing it.. YAY
The justices uphold the same-sex marriage ban but also rule that the 18,000 gay couples who wed before November will stay married. The decision is sure to spark another ballot box fight.
By Maura Dolan May 27, 2009
Reporting from San Francisco -- The California Supreme Court's decision Tuesday to uphold Proposition 8 and existing same-sex marriages left in place all rights for California's gays and lesbians except access to the label "marriage," but it provided little protection from future ballot measures that could cost gays and other minorities more rights, lawyers and scholars said Tuesday.In a 6-1 ruling, the court said the November ballot measure that restored a ban on same-sex marriage was a limited constitutional amendment, not a wholesale revision that would have required a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to be placed before voters.
Interactive: Gay marriage chronology
Photos: Prop. 8 decision: photos
Full coverage of same-sex marriage, Proposition 8
Answering your questions, taking comments about the Prop. 8 decision
Cheers, anger and tears in response to decision on gay marriage
The court was unanimous in deciding that an estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who married before the November election would continue to have their marriages recognized by the state.Proposition 8 merely "carves out a narrow and limited exception" to the state constitutional protection gays and lesbians now receive, Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote for the majority.The court majority said same-sex couples would continue to have the right to choose life partners and enter into "committed, officially recognized and protected family relationships" that enjoy all the benefits of marriage under the state's domestic partnership law.
"Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples enjoy this protection not as a matter of legislative grace, but of constitutional right," George wrote.UC Berkeley constitutional law professor Goodwin Liu said the ruling shows "the court continues to be very deferential to the processes of direct democracy in California."In a separate, concurring opinion, Associate Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar noted some rights married couples have that domestic partners do not, and suggested that the state now has the duty "to eliminate the remaining important differences."She agreed with the majority that Proposition 8 was not an illegal constitutional revision, but said the ruling's definition of revision was too inflexible.Describing Proposition 8's "limited effect," the majority said that simply reserving the term "marriage" for opposite-sex couples "does not have a substantial, or, indeed, even a minimal effect on the governmental plan or framework of California that existed prior to the amendment."In deciding that gay couples who married in California before the November election will remain married, the court said it would be unfair and might even invite chaos to nullify marriages those couples entered into lawfully.Ending those marriages would be akin to "throwing property rights into disarray, destroying the legal interests and expectations of thousands of couples and their families, and potentially undermining the ability of citizens to plan their lives according to the law as it has been determined by the state's highest court," George wrote.Portions of the majority ruling read as a lament over the ease with which the California Constitution can be amended.The 136-page majority decision contained a lengthy history of the state Constitution and the ballot amendment process and distinguished California's amendment process from those of other states and the federal Constitution."If the process for amending the constitution is to be restricted," George wrote, "this is an effort that the people themselves may undertake."It is neither impossible nor improper to limit how voters may change the Constitution, George wrote."We have no doubt that an express restriction could be fashioned that would limit the use of the initiative power in the manner proposed by petitioners -- but the California Constitution presently contains no limits of this nature," he said.By stressing that only the term "marriage" was affected by the November election, the court seemed to signal that a broader ballot measure might not be upheld.But the court's definition of what would be an impermissible constitutional revision was also narrow and left gay rights activists nervous and several legal scholars skeptical."It leaves us to the kindness of strangers," said Jon W. Davidson, legal director of Lambda Legal, a gay rights organization. "They could take away anything."
By Maura Dolan May 27, 2009
Reporting from San Francisco -- The California Supreme Court's decision Tuesday to uphold Proposition 8 and existing same-sex marriages left in place all rights for California's gays and lesbians except access to the label "marriage," but it provided little protection from future ballot measures that could cost gays and other minorities more rights, lawyers and scholars said Tuesday.In a 6-1 ruling, the court said the November ballot measure that restored a ban on same-sex marriage was a limited constitutional amendment, not a wholesale revision that would have required a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to be placed before voters.
Interactive: Gay marriage chronology
Photos: Prop. 8 decision: photos
Full coverage of same-sex marriage, Proposition 8
Answering your questions, taking comments about the Prop. 8 decision
Cheers, anger and tears in response to decision on gay marriage
The court was unanimous in deciding that an estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who married before the November election would continue to have their marriages recognized by the state.Proposition 8 merely "carves out a narrow and limited exception" to the state constitutional protection gays and lesbians now receive, Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote for the majority.The court majority said same-sex couples would continue to have the right to choose life partners and enter into "committed, officially recognized and protected family relationships" that enjoy all the benefits of marriage under the state's domestic partnership law.
"Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples enjoy this protection not as a matter of legislative grace, but of constitutional right," George wrote.UC Berkeley constitutional law professor Goodwin Liu said the ruling shows "the court continues to be very deferential to the processes of direct democracy in California."In a separate, concurring opinion, Associate Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar noted some rights married couples have that domestic partners do not, and suggested that the state now has the duty "to eliminate the remaining important differences."She agreed with the majority that Proposition 8 was not an illegal constitutional revision, but said the ruling's definition of revision was too inflexible.Describing Proposition 8's "limited effect," the majority said that simply reserving the term "marriage" for opposite-sex couples "does not have a substantial, or, indeed, even a minimal effect on the governmental plan or framework of California that existed prior to the amendment."In deciding that gay couples who married in California before the November election will remain married, the court said it would be unfair and might even invite chaos to nullify marriages those couples entered into lawfully.Ending those marriages would be akin to "throwing property rights into disarray, destroying the legal interests and expectations of thousands of couples and their families, and potentially undermining the ability of citizens to plan their lives according to the law as it has been determined by the state's highest court," George wrote.Portions of the majority ruling read as a lament over the ease with which the California Constitution can be amended.The 136-page majority decision contained a lengthy history of the state Constitution and the ballot amendment process and distinguished California's amendment process from those of other states and the federal Constitution."If the process for amending the constitution is to be restricted," George wrote, "this is an effort that the people themselves may undertake."It is neither impossible nor improper to limit how voters may change the Constitution, George wrote."We have no doubt that an express restriction could be fashioned that would limit the use of the initiative power in the manner proposed by petitioners -- but the California Constitution presently contains no limits of this nature," he said.By stressing that only the term "marriage" was affected by the November election, the court seemed to signal that a broader ballot measure might not be upheld.But the court's definition of what would be an impermissible constitutional revision was also narrow and left gay rights activists nervous and several legal scholars skeptical."It leaves us to the kindness of strangers," said Jon W. Davidson, legal director of Lambda Legal, a gay rights organization. "They could take away anything."
Russia is worried isn't that telling you anything Barack?
Russia Fears Korea Conflict Could Go Nuclear
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Print
ShareThis
APTN
May 26: North Koreans are seen during a ceremony to celebrate the nation's underground nuclear test, in Pyongyang, North Korea.
May 26: North Koreans are seen during a ceremony to celebrate the nation's underground nuclear test, in Pyongyang, North Korea.
MOSCOW — Russia is taking precautionary security measures because it fears tensions over North Korea's atomic test could descend into nuclear war, news agencies quoted an official as saying on Wednesday.
Interfax quoted an unnamed security source as saying that a stand-off triggered by Pyongyang's nuclear test on Monday could affect the security of Russia's far eastern regions, which border North Korea.
"The need has emerged for an appropriate package of precautionary measures," the source said.
"We are not talking about stepping up military efforts but rather about measures in case a military conflict, perhaps with the use of nuclear weapons, flares up on the Korean Peninsula," he added.
North Korea has responded to international condemnation of its nuclear test and a threat of new U.N. sanctions by saying it is no longer bound by an armistice signed with South Korea at the end of the 1950-53 Korean War.
Itar-Tass news agency quoted a Russian foreign ministry official as saying the "war of nerves" over North Korea should not be allowed to grow into a military conflict, a clear reference to Pyongyang's decision to drop out of the armistice deal.
var adsonar_placementId="1425871",adsonar_pid="1367767",adsonar_ps="-1",adsonar_zw=224;adsonar_zh=93,adsonar_jv="ads.adsonar.com";
qas_writeAd();
"We assume that a dangerous brinkmanship, a war of nerves, is under way, but it will not grow into a hot war," the official told Tass. "Restraint is needed."
The foreign ministry often uses statements sourced to unnamed officials, leaked through official news agencies, to lay down its position on sensitive issues.
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has condemned North Korean tests but his foreign ministry has warned the international community against hasty decisions.
Russia is a veto-wielding permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, which is preparing to discuss the latest stand-off over the peninsula.
In the past, Moscow has been reluctant to support Western calls for sanctions. But Russian officials in the United Nations have said that this time the authority of the top international body is at stake.
"We cannot provide cover for any actions that lead to the destabilisation of the non-proliferation regime," Interfax quoted its foreign ministry source as saying.
Related Stories
U.N. Chief Sees 'Violation' if North Korea Nuclear Test Confirmed
Experts: North Korea a Fully Fledged Nuclear Power
N. Korea May Restart Nuclear Plant in Months
U.N. Deadlock Over N. Korean Rocket Apparently Easing
Japan Strengthens Sanctions Against N. Korea After Rocket Launch
World Eyes Frail Kim Jong Il at North Korea Parliament
North Korean Media: Kim Jong-Il Sobbed During Rocket Launch
First Images of N. Korea Rocket Launch Revealed
N. Korea Rocket Passes Over Japan Without Incident
U.N. Security Council to Hold Emergency Session Over N. Korea Launch
Report: North Korea Turns on Radars, Removes Top Part of the Rocket
North Korea Tracked Closely Ahead of Possible Saturday Rocket Launch
South Korea: North May Launch Rocket Saturday
N. Korea Fueling Rocket in Final Preparation for Launch
N. Korea Threatens to Retaliate With 'Thunderbolt of Fire'
N. Korea 'Will Mercilessly Shoot Down' U.S. Spy Planes
Reports: Iran Experts Aiding North Korea Rocket Launch
Admiral: North Korea Rocket Could Reach Hawaii
Pictures Emerge of N. Korea Launchpad as Warships Move Into Area
Japan Issues Order to 'Destroy' N. Korea Rocket
North Korea Threatens to Restart Nuke Program Over Rocket Launch Sanctions
Japan Readies Crisis Steps for North Korea Missile
FAST FACTS: A Glance at North Korea's Missile Arsenal
U.S.: North Korea Loading Rocket on Launchpad
N. Korea Reasserts Right to Satellite Launch
Intelligence Officials: North Korea's 'Satellite' Is Long-Range Missile
Official Says North Korea is Month Away From Launching Missile or Rocket
North Korea Bans IAEA From Yongbyon Nuclear Facilities
Reports: North Korea Fires Short-Range Missile Into Yellow Sea
Photo Essays
North Korea Missile Plan
North Korea Missiles
The Interfax source made clear Russia has not finally made up its mind on the U.N. vote yet. "We should not subscribe to any specific option beforehand," the source said.
However, the Tass source indicated Russia could back sanctions.
"The (U.N. Security Council) resolution is most likely to involve sanction-like measures," he said. "The U.N. Security Council is engaged in a tough work."
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
ShareThis
APTN
May 26: North Koreans are seen during a ceremony to celebrate the nation's underground nuclear test, in Pyongyang, North Korea.
May 26: North Koreans are seen during a ceremony to celebrate the nation's underground nuclear test, in Pyongyang, North Korea.
MOSCOW — Russia is taking precautionary security measures because it fears tensions over North Korea's atomic test could descend into nuclear war, news agencies quoted an official as saying on Wednesday.
Interfax quoted an unnamed security source as saying that a stand-off triggered by Pyongyang's nuclear test on Monday could affect the security of Russia's far eastern regions, which border North Korea.
"The need has emerged for an appropriate package of precautionary measures," the source said.
"We are not talking about stepping up military efforts but rather about measures in case a military conflict, perhaps with the use of nuclear weapons, flares up on the Korean Peninsula," he added.
North Korea has responded to international condemnation of its nuclear test and a threat of new U.N. sanctions by saying it is no longer bound by an armistice signed with South Korea at the end of the 1950-53 Korean War.
Itar-Tass news agency quoted a Russian foreign ministry official as saying the "war of nerves" over North Korea should not be allowed to grow into a military conflict, a clear reference to Pyongyang's decision to drop out of the armistice deal.
var adsonar_placementId="1425871",adsonar_pid="1367767",adsonar_ps="-1",adsonar_zw=224;adsonar_zh=93,adsonar_jv="ads.adsonar.com";
qas_writeAd();
"We assume that a dangerous brinkmanship, a war of nerves, is under way, but it will not grow into a hot war," the official told Tass. "Restraint is needed."
The foreign ministry often uses statements sourced to unnamed officials, leaked through official news agencies, to lay down its position on sensitive issues.
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has condemned North Korean tests but his foreign ministry has warned the international community against hasty decisions.
Russia is a veto-wielding permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, which is preparing to discuss the latest stand-off over the peninsula.
In the past, Moscow has been reluctant to support Western calls for sanctions. But Russian officials in the United Nations have said that this time the authority of the top international body is at stake.
"We cannot provide cover for any actions that lead to the destabilisation of the non-proliferation regime," Interfax quoted its foreign ministry source as saying.
Related Stories
U.N. Chief Sees 'Violation' if North Korea Nuclear Test Confirmed
Experts: North Korea a Fully Fledged Nuclear Power
N. Korea May Restart Nuclear Plant in Months
U.N. Deadlock Over N. Korean Rocket Apparently Easing
Japan Strengthens Sanctions Against N. Korea After Rocket Launch
World Eyes Frail Kim Jong Il at North Korea Parliament
North Korean Media: Kim Jong-Il Sobbed During Rocket Launch
First Images of N. Korea Rocket Launch Revealed
N. Korea Rocket Passes Over Japan Without Incident
U.N. Security Council to Hold Emergency Session Over N. Korea Launch
Report: North Korea Turns on Radars, Removes Top Part of the Rocket
North Korea Tracked Closely Ahead of Possible Saturday Rocket Launch
South Korea: North May Launch Rocket Saturday
N. Korea Fueling Rocket in Final Preparation for Launch
N. Korea Threatens to Retaliate With 'Thunderbolt of Fire'
N. Korea 'Will Mercilessly Shoot Down' U.S. Spy Planes
Reports: Iran Experts Aiding North Korea Rocket Launch
Admiral: North Korea Rocket Could Reach Hawaii
Pictures Emerge of N. Korea Launchpad as Warships Move Into Area
Japan Issues Order to 'Destroy' N. Korea Rocket
North Korea Threatens to Restart Nuke Program Over Rocket Launch Sanctions
Japan Readies Crisis Steps for North Korea Missile
FAST FACTS: A Glance at North Korea's Missile Arsenal
U.S.: North Korea Loading Rocket on Launchpad
N. Korea Reasserts Right to Satellite Launch
Intelligence Officials: North Korea's 'Satellite' Is Long-Range Missile
Official Says North Korea is Month Away From Launching Missile or Rocket
North Korea Bans IAEA From Yongbyon Nuclear Facilities
Reports: North Korea Fires Short-Range Missile Into Yellow Sea
Photo Essays
North Korea Missile Plan
North Korea Missiles
The Interfax source made clear Russia has not finally made up its mind on the U.N. vote yet. "We should not subscribe to any specific option beforehand," the source said.
However, the Tass source indicated Russia could back sanctions.
"The (U.N. Security Council) resolution is most likely to involve sanction-like measures," he said. "The U.N. Security Council is engaged in a tough work."
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Happy to see California Supreme Court actually did the right thing.
I am speaking of Prop 8 of course. I thought with all the liberal special interest money out there rallying against this law or Ban on Gay marriage that the Liberal judges would determine the law passed by the PEOPLE to be unconstitutional. I was pleasantly surprised that wasn't the case. Whether you are for something or against something doesn't give you the right as part of the MINORITY to change a law the people have passed. For so many years California has been overturning things in court that shouldn't have even been heard. It's just a nice change to see that Judges weren't MAKING laws this time and instead inforcing the voice of THE PEOPLE.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Take a Stand against high Gas Prices....
Live frugally and stay close to home on holidays and during the summer months. Demand needs to come down but refineries at the same time need to increase reserves and production. We are heading into Hurricane Season and reserves need to increase as well as production to prepare in case rigs and refineries are damaged by Storm weather later on in the season. Plan ahead people. This happens every year. The soaring gas prices a year or so ago actually started our spiral downward.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Barack has to take a stand against Pelosi
Debs says: "ASK FOR THE WITCHES RESIGNATION. She isn't qualified to be in such a position anyway.
She should climb on her broomstick and fly back to her corrupt San Francisco, where people on the left can say or do anything they wish and only the Conservatives are flogged."
Barack, get off the fence: Pelosi's accusations against the CIA can no longer be met with silence
Wednesday, May 20th 2009, 4:00 AM
He's the man with the silver tongue, "a gift," as he once called his inspired ability with words. Yet while a heated battle with national security implications rages around him, President Obama has pushed his mute button.
It's been six days since House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went wiggy and accused the Central Intelligence Agency of repeatedly lying to her and others in Congress, saying "they mislead us all the time."
But Obama has not said a single word on the subject. His press secretary has brushed off efforts by reporters to learn whether Obama agrees with fellow Democrat Pelosi or with Leon Panetta, his CIA director.
Panetta, a former Democratic congressman himself, forcefully rejected Pelosi's charges, which, if true, would constitute serious crimes.
Republicans are happy campers, with Pelosi's televised rant providing a welcome break from their own problems. GOP House leader John Boehner, partisan motivations aside, is right when he challenges Pelosi either to offer evidence she was misled by the CIA on the waterboarding of terror detainees, or apologize to those trying to keep America safe.
Pelosi's refusal to budge is Obama's cue to get involved. He must come to the defense of the CIA or explain why he thinks Pelosi has a case.
Silence is not an option. The stakes are too high for the President to take a pass.
In political terms, Obama's desire to stay neutral is understandable. It's a no-win situation, with Pelosi holding the fate of his numerous pieces of sweeping legislation.
He would also pay a price for alienating the CIA by backing Pelosi. The spook-and-dagger crowd is well known for getting even with Presidents it doesn't like - see George W. Bush - and it takes only one disgruntled agent to leak unflattering information.
Yet the presidency is more than just our politician in chief. And the sweeping nature of Pelosi's charges, coming while we are at war with an enemy that vows to attack us again, demands Obama's voice and judgment. We cannot afford to have a demoralized CIA.
If he doubts the seriousness, Obama need only review Pelosi's shocking claims. She said she had attended a CIA briefing in September 2002, where "the only mention of waterboarding at that briefing was that it was not being employed."
The CIA disputes that, saying it told her the interrogation technique had been used. Panetta issued a confirming report, citing agency notes.
Curiously, Pelosi does admit she learned from an aide in early 2003 that waterboarding had been used, but never once complained to the CIA or the White House about a technique she calls torture. At the time, she was the top leader of House Democrats, so her complaints could have made a difference.
Some of Pelosi's theatrics heighten the need for Obama's involvement. In what struck me as a partisan fixation bordering on paranoia, Pelosi ranted in an "us against them" way that was disturbing: "This is their policy, all of them. This is their policy. This is what they conceived. This is what they developed. This is what they implemented. This is what they denied was happening."
Later, with reporters questioning her honesty, she tried to turn the tables on the unnamed bogeymen again. "They mislead us all the time. I was fighting the war in Iraq at that point, too, you know, saying to my members the intelligence does not support the imminent threat that they are conceding. . . . They misrepresented every step of the way. And they don't want that focus on them. So they try to turn the attention on us. We had to win the election to make the change."
Indeed, Democrats won two elections in a row and Obama sits in the Oval Office.
That responsibility demands his leadership on this sordid mess.Read more: "Barack, get off the fence: Pelosi's accusations against the CIA can no longer be met with silence" - http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/columnists/goodwin/index.html#ixzz0G8xv6wKK&A
Barack, get off the fence: Pelosi's accusations against the CIA can no longer be met with silence
Wednesday, May 20th 2009, 4:00 AM
He's the man with the silver tongue, "a gift," as he once called his inspired ability with words. Yet while a heated battle with national security implications rages around him, President Obama has pushed his mute button.
It's been six days since House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went wiggy and accused the Central Intelligence Agency of repeatedly lying to her and others in Congress, saying "they mislead us all the time."
But Obama has not said a single word on the subject. His press secretary has brushed off efforts by reporters to learn whether Obama agrees with fellow Democrat Pelosi or with Leon Panetta, his CIA director.
Panetta, a former Democratic congressman himself, forcefully rejected Pelosi's charges, which, if true, would constitute serious crimes.
Republicans are happy campers, with Pelosi's televised rant providing a welcome break from their own problems. GOP House leader John Boehner, partisan motivations aside, is right when he challenges Pelosi either to offer evidence she was misled by the CIA on the waterboarding of terror detainees, or apologize to those trying to keep America safe.
Pelosi's refusal to budge is Obama's cue to get involved. He must come to the defense of the CIA or explain why he thinks Pelosi has a case.
Silence is not an option. The stakes are too high for the President to take a pass.
In political terms, Obama's desire to stay neutral is understandable. It's a no-win situation, with Pelosi holding the fate of his numerous pieces of sweeping legislation.
He would also pay a price for alienating the CIA by backing Pelosi. The spook-and-dagger crowd is well known for getting even with Presidents it doesn't like - see George W. Bush - and it takes only one disgruntled agent to leak unflattering information.
Yet the presidency is more than just our politician in chief. And the sweeping nature of Pelosi's charges, coming while we are at war with an enemy that vows to attack us again, demands Obama's voice and judgment. We cannot afford to have a demoralized CIA.
If he doubts the seriousness, Obama need only review Pelosi's shocking claims. She said she had attended a CIA briefing in September 2002, where "the only mention of waterboarding at that briefing was that it was not being employed."
The CIA disputes that, saying it told her the interrogation technique had been used. Panetta issued a confirming report, citing agency notes.
Curiously, Pelosi does admit she learned from an aide in early 2003 that waterboarding had been used, but never once complained to the CIA or the White House about a technique she calls torture. At the time, she was the top leader of House Democrats, so her complaints could have made a difference.
Some of Pelosi's theatrics heighten the need for Obama's involvement. In what struck me as a partisan fixation bordering on paranoia, Pelosi ranted in an "us against them" way that was disturbing: "This is their policy, all of them. This is their policy. This is what they conceived. This is what they developed. This is what they implemented. This is what they denied was happening."
Later, with reporters questioning her honesty, she tried to turn the tables on the unnamed bogeymen again. "They mislead us all the time. I was fighting the war in Iraq at that point, too, you know, saying to my members the intelligence does not support the imminent threat that they are conceding. . . . They misrepresented every step of the way. And they don't want that focus on them. So they try to turn the attention on us. We had to win the election to make the change."
Indeed, Democrats won two elections in a row and Obama sits in the Oval Office.
That responsibility demands his leadership on this sordid mess.Read more: "Barack, get off the fence: Pelosi's accusations against the CIA can no longer be met with silence" - http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/columnists/goodwin/index.html#ixzz0G8xv6wKK&A
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
