http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/01/16/supreme-court-will-decide-on-gay-marriage-this-year
In the article 'supreme court will decide on gay marriage this year' it speaks of exactly what the title states, sometime during 2015 SCOTUS will vote on whether or not same sex marriage is lawful under the constitution. If it is ruled that it is indeed legal, then this will be a nationwide decision.
I find this extremely intriguing. I was under the impression that gay marriage was left up to the states because marriage is a contract recognized by the state government. This must be a case where the federal government can choose to overrule the states if its deemed a right through the constitution. I may also be completely wrong and look like an idiot, but its not like anybody else even reads these I for one do not think that same sex marriage should be recognized, but I think its going to happen in every state eventually so there really is no use trying to hold it up any longer. It doesn't mean that catholics are forced to believe in it or have to somehow change our beliefs. Its just a legal ruling it doesn't mean the church recognizes it which is all that really matters.
Wednesday, January 28, 2015
Thursday, January 22, 2015
Obama needs to take a look around
http://www.wsj.com/articles/karl-rove-what-was-obama-thinking-1421886713
In the article "What was Obama thinking?" the author Karl Rove spoke about how "disconnected" the President's speech was. He spoke a lot about the so called successes that he and his administration had made since he was first elected. But when you take an actual look into it, these successes aren't really there. Look at his claims about the economic improvements. Rove says that you cannot claim economic growth when the median family income has decreased by nearly 40 percent. That is not economic growth. The president also talked about the shadow of crisis has passed while terror attacks were happening the very same day. He also took credit for the lowered oil prices.
I would agree with the author on the fact that the President's speech seemed disconnected. It seemed to me that he just decided to act like everything was going well and just assume that the American People were ignorant enough to believe it. It amazes me that he would talk as if terrorism was dead in the world when 13 people were massacred in Paris and an Al-Queda affiliate took credit for it, yet there was no mention of it during the State of the Union. The thing that i find the most absurd is how he took credit for the lowered gas prices. That is baloney. Not only does he have zero control over what overseas companies decide to do with their oil. Also, in the U.S. the energy production on federal lands has decreased by 5 percent while on private lands it has increased by 60 percent. If anything the President and his administration have done everything they could to keep us from producing more energy. Honestly, I don't think in this day and age the State of the Union is even necessary. A quick google search can tell you just about anything you would wonder about the President's plans for the next year and nothing he says is set in stone. It does worry me a little that this man has two more years in office and if he really is this out of touch we all need to be worried about the kind of changes he can make with this much time left.
In the article "What was Obama thinking?" the author Karl Rove spoke about how "disconnected" the President's speech was. He spoke a lot about the so called successes that he and his administration had made since he was first elected. But when you take an actual look into it, these successes aren't really there. Look at his claims about the economic improvements. Rove says that you cannot claim economic growth when the median family income has decreased by nearly 40 percent. That is not economic growth. The president also talked about the shadow of crisis has passed while terror attacks were happening the very same day. He also took credit for the lowered oil prices.
I would agree with the author on the fact that the President's speech seemed disconnected. It seemed to me that he just decided to act like everything was going well and just assume that the American People were ignorant enough to believe it. It amazes me that he would talk as if terrorism was dead in the world when 13 people were massacred in Paris and an Al-Queda affiliate took credit for it, yet there was no mention of it during the State of the Union. The thing that i find the most absurd is how he took credit for the lowered gas prices. That is baloney. Not only does he have zero control over what overseas companies decide to do with their oil. Also, in the U.S. the energy production on federal lands has decreased by 5 percent while on private lands it has increased by 60 percent. If anything the President and his administration have done everything they could to keep us from producing more energy. Honestly, I don't think in this day and age the State of the Union is even necessary. A quick google search can tell you just about anything you would wonder about the President's plans for the next year and nothing he says is set in stone. It does worry me a little that this man has two more years in office and if he really is this out of touch we all need to be worried about the kind of changes he can make with this much time left.
Wednesday, January 7, 2015
capitol hill v. white house
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/01/06/white-house-issues-veto-threat-over-keystone-bill/
The article "white house issues veto threat over keystone bill" explains the clash between the current congress and the white house. The press Secretary for the obama administration announced that the president would indeed continue his stance against the keystone pipeline bill by choosing not to sign it if it is passed. Senator john hoeven is leading the charge for the passing of the bill and he believes that they have 63 senators that will vote for the bill and possibly more which will cross the 60 vote threshold that is required for passing.
It amazes me that the first act of the new congress is already being challenged by the president. I think that this is going to be quite the battle between the president and congress for the next two years. To me it sounds like congress believes that the pipeline will help the entire country with the jobs and oil it will bring and and the president is trying to please special interest groups at the expense of the american people.
The article "white house issues veto threat over keystone bill" explains the clash between the current congress and the white house. The press Secretary for the obama administration announced that the president would indeed continue his stance against the keystone pipeline bill by choosing not to sign it if it is passed. Senator john hoeven is leading the charge for the passing of the bill and he believes that they have 63 senators that will vote for the bill and possibly more which will cross the 60 vote threshold that is required for passing.
It amazes me that the first act of the new congress is already being challenged by the president. I think that this is going to be quite the battle between the president and congress for the next two years. To me it sounds like congress believes that the pipeline will help the entire country with the jobs and oil it will bring and and the president is trying to please special interest groups at the expense of the american people.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)