Thoughts on the fallout of Amendment One

By Adam Carlson

Well, the amendment passed and now the opinions are flying left and right like shit being hurled from the monkey house at the zoo.

There have been a lot of people who voted for this amendment stating that they did so and that they are proud of their choice to vote their beliefs. Furthermore most have also pointed out that they feel persecuted because those with progressive views (not to mention those of us who are actually educated and informed) are calling them ignorant for it.

For the record, if you voted pro Amendment One believing that it was really about blocking homosexual marriage from attaining legal status in North Carolina you did vote out of ignorance. Also, if you voted pro Amendment One believing that it was legislation to MAKE homosexual marriage illegal in North Carolina, you ARE actually ignorant (by definition). Gay marriage has never been legally recognized in N.C., part of this amendment was simply blocking the ability of any one judge to overturn that by writing it into our constitution. And that was just the bait!

Amendment One: A political powergrab

By Jennifer Nicole Howard

Why is it that so many conservatives are afraid of gay people? Something tells me they aren’t.

The North Carolina General Assembly, largely controlled by Republicans, has passed an amendment to the state’s constitution which will be decided on by voters next month.  NC Amendment One seeks to establish marriage between a man and a woman as the only legally recognized union in the state.  This objective will preclude legal recognition for all other domestic partnerships in the process. Same-sex marriage is already illegal in North Carolina, so why are the bureaucrats so apprehensive?

It seems that these politicians have passed the point of concern to control gays and have a concern to control society at large. The men behind such a disastrous policy have one thing: the control of other human beings. These men hold a view of life that is so narrow-minded that they feel the need to control others in order to keep its tradition. Man has long lived under the rule of brute force and its religious counterparts. History proves that these ideals are misguided, yet these cynical men want to hold back the minds of those who wish to evolve.

Senator Daniel Soucek, a Republican sponsor of the bill said, “It’s not just the term marriage; it’s all of the societal communal building blocks that make up traditional marriage. We think that’s the healthiest way to raise children.” The comment here proves my point. This law is based on an arbitrary opinion. These traditionalists are afraid of change.

Studies show that child-rearing in a same-sex household does not affect their self-esteem, gender identity, or emotional health. The vast consensus of these studies is that children of same-sex parents do as well as children whose parents are heterosexual in every way. The supporters of this bill don’t care to know that such studies have been done. These types of people are simply stuck in their ways. They never care to seek the vast amount of information available to a human mind if one chooses to think. Instead they clench to outdated traditions, refuting new information that will contradict their premises, of which they are incapable of repudiating.

Negative America

By Justin A. Chick

There seems to be a growing trend in American society these days of widespread, unprovoked pessimism. From the cynical, unfounded drivel generated in the media to the political slander prevalent in modern politics, this negativity is having a detrimental and noticeable effect on the collective morale of American citizens at a time when spirits are already weighed down by a slowly recovering economy. One of the biggest facilitators of this unprecedented negativity is the internet.

Anywhere we look online we’re bound to find traces of rampant misbehavior. Take news articles for example. A recent article by the Daily Beast highlights a series of instances when the media—specifically the New York Times—had deemed a “potential Israeli strike against Iranian nuclear facilities ‘preemptive.”’ However, the article goes on to explain that “preemptive” implies that you are aware of an impending attack and are responding based on that certainty. A more accurate word would be preventative. Now, one might think, ‘What’s the big deal? It’s just a tiny error.’ Well, maybe so. But taken in its original context, the intentions of an entire nation are greatly exaggerated with a simple linguistic error. Such an implication from such a respectable news source can easily sway public opinion and heave a country into a war it doesn’t fully understand. This very thing happened with Iraq.

There goes the Judge

By William R. Toler

Shortly after 4 pm, FOX Business Network announced a reshuffling of programming which included cancelling Freedom Watch hosted by Judge Andrew Napolitano.

Photo Courtesy FOX News

And Libertarians across the country are pissed.

In a press release, the network announced that encore presentations of “the channel’s top post-market programs” would be aired, and three programs would get the ax. That’s right…they’re cancelling the Judge for reruns!

“We look forward to Judge Napolitano…continuing to make significant contributions to both FOX Business and FOX News,” said Kevin Magee, executive vice-president of the network. “In addition to daily branded segments, each of them will be showcased throughout future programming on both networks.”

Meet the Libertarians

By William R. Toler

After a struggle to stay on the ballot, the North Carolina Libertarian Party has six, count ’em, six candidates for president listed on the ballot.

Out of the six, the most-known is former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, who started out the race on the Republican ticket. During the early debates, Johnson’s views were close in line with Texas Congressman Ron Paul, and may have been too far out there for mainstream Republicans. But Johnson’s ideals seem to fit right in with Libertarian thought.

Another politician with his hat in the ring is Roger Gary. Who is Roger Gary? According to his campaign website, Gary has been involved with the Texas Libertarian Party since 1977. He was elected to public office where he served 6 years as Director of the San Antonio River Authority. Gary has also served two terms as the state LP chair.

Golden Rule booed in S.C.

By William R. Toler

“[C]an’t believe the golden rule got booed in SC. wow.”

That was the status from a Facebook “friend” during the GOP debate Monday night in the Palmetto State.

The Golden Rule, treat others as you would like to be treated, was uttered by the media and establishment’s least favorite candidate, Texas Congressman Ron Paul. The audience, made up of apparently status quo, warhawk conservatives, promptly booed the libertarian-minded, predidential hopeful.

During a reubuttal to an answer by Rick Santorum, Paul said our nation should follow the Golden Rule in terms of foreign policy.

“If another country does to us as we do to others, we’re not going to like it very much. So I would say, maybe we ought to consider a Golden Rule in foreign policy. [Cue the boos] Don’t do to other nations what we don’t want them to do to us.”

I was a little surprised myself, considering Republicans, especially in the Bible Belt, teach and preach the Golden Rule.
|

Hyper partisanship: a Downward Spiral

By Justin A. Chick

Since the advent of the United States and its application by our founding fathers, the party system of Democracy was designed to protect and represent our nation’s populace.

Unlike the Monarchy of 18th century Great Britain, the governing body of the United States was created to function in regard to the diverse ideologies prevalent throughout the colonies.  The intention was to govern via civilized debates, with each party or platform presenting their respective points of view, and then agreeing on a suitable compromise of principles to eventually implement into law.

Today, this democratic style of politics has been abused and manipulated beyond recognition.  What used to serve as an efficient source of policy making has now become an engine of personal interest, driving a wedge between Democrats and Republicans.  Congress, who has been gridlocked by political incompetence for nearly 2 years, has a current approval rating of around 15%.  This means about 85% of Americans don’t feel the government has provided reasonable solutions to problems it was designed to solve.

One of the major reasons for our country’s political inadequacies is due to a substantial lack of accountability among lawmakers.  The result is petty name-calling and finger pointing.  During the first year and a half of President Obama’s term, there was a tendency within his administration to blame the declining economy on his predecessor George W. Bush.  However true the claims may have been, they accomplished nothing politically and most likely had a negative effect on his ambitions by antagonizing Republicans before solutions were agreed upon.

Then, in 2011, the Obama Administration—Joe Biden specifically—made the remark, “Bush broke it, but we own it,” referring to the U.S. economy and attempting to take accountability for the 2 and a half years of stagnant economic growth.  It didn’t take long for conservatives to seize the opportunity to call for a public apology for previous remarks blaming Bush.

Occupy Wall Street: Week 3

By Justin A. Chick

Occupy Wall Street has reached its 3rd week of protests since the original congregation of enraged Americans on September 17.

What started out as an isolated protest against the discriminations and malpractices of the financial sector has evolved into a legitimate force.  The ideology behind the demonstrations have appealed to many Americans as the protests have spread to other cities across the nation including Washington, Los Angeles, Seattle, Denver, Chicago, and Miami.

Many media outlets have questioned the demands of the protesters, often going out and interviewing the most outlandishly clad, eccentric individuals they could find in order to make some sense of the situation.

“So tell me, what exactly are you aspiring to accomplish here on Wall Street?”

“Um, well . . . corporations are taking money from the people by . . . uh, keeping it for themselves instead of giving it to other people.”

“Corporations?”

“Yeah.   Uh, like Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch . . . .”

“Mortgage companies?”

“Uh, well . . . yeah.”

So it goes.  CNN’s Erin Burnett recently asked a protester, “So do you know that, um, taxpayers actually made money on the Wall Street bailout?”  The man replied that no, he was not aware of it.  “Does that make you feel any differently?” she asked.  To which he replied that, pending a little research, it might.

My question is: who said anything about protesting the financial bailout?

Who is Justice Kennedy?

By Justin A. Chick

Early last week, the Obama administration decided to pursue a Supreme Court ruling regarding its heavily disputed health care legislation.  26 states including Florida, Ohio, Indiana and Michigan—key states in the upcoming presidential election—have filed lawsuits claiming that the mandate to purchase health insurance by 2014 or else face penalties is unconstitutional.

Rather than asking the U.S. Appeals Courts to make further rulings on the issue, the administration will seek Supreme Court adjudication.  It is likely that the Supreme Court will accept the case primarily due to claims of unconstitutionality.  If the Supreme Court does, in fact, take the case, projections have indicated a ruling by July of next year.  Thus, the decision could have a direct influence on next year’s presidential nomination.

Of the 9 Supreme Court Justices, the four most liberal—Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotoymayor—will likely support the bill while the four most conservative—Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, and Chief Justice John Roberts—are expected to vote against it.  This could potentially make Justice Anthony Kennedy the swing vote; the deciding factor in the ruling.  Which raises the question among many Americans: who is Justice Anthony Kennedy?

Hoffa ‘hates’ on conservatives

By Chris Kling

Did you hear what Jimmy Hoffa said at Obama’s de facto re-election rally that tax payers paid for?

He was speaking to the union faithful, stirring up support for President Obama who would take the dais later. The LA Times reported on the Teamster Union boss’s entreaty to his followers, whom Hoffa himself identified as an “army”.

Introducing the nation’s chief executive, Teamsters President James Hoffa Jr. appealed for union members to follow Obama’s campaign promise to shun harsh partisanship and to reason and work together with political opponents such as the “tea party” to build a better America for everyone.

Well, no, actually Hoffa didn’t do that. He said many things about the tea party. But here’s the Hoffa action sentence: “Let’s take these sons of bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong.”

I can guarantee you that if I went on record calling upon my conservative friends to gather our army and take out those “sons-of-bitches” liberals, that there would be secret service agents at my door, ready to throw my butt in to jail.