Day: January 20, 2011

2010 Presidential Scorecard

As of noon today, Pres. Obama will begin his 3rd year of his presidency and as usual I will give my score card of his accomplishments as president……

Foreign Policy…..75…..C+

Domestic policy…..85…..B

Bipartisanship…..75…..C+

Leadership…..75…..C+

Keeping Promises…..70…..C

His overall score as president is 75 or a C+….this is higher than originally calculated because of his successes in the Lame Duck session of Congress….In my opinion, so far he is only slightly above average as far as a president goes……these next two years will determine if he will be known for more than being the first Afro-American president…..

Do Women Have Rights?

Of course they do if one is a thinking person….but then NOT everyone is such a person…….

It is Women’s History month and all the hoopla that goes with it….we will see all sorts of programming that targets women and their contributions of the American society….this is a good thing for women are the core to the values that we are told are our desires….family, home and life in general…….

Remember the days when women had to protest to get the right to vote?  Or the days of the women’s movement…the protests, the marches, the speeches, etc…..?  Yes, women have come a long way baby (damn commercial that stays with you) but to some they have come too far and overstepped their place in society…..

Bet you think I am blowing smoke up your ass…right about now……you should really get out more…..there are people, people in high places,  that feel that women are NOT protected by the Constitution…..yes…I said NOT!

It seems that one of our Supreme Court justices has an opinion on this subject…..one Scalia…….

In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don’t think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation. So does that mean that we’ve gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both?Yes, yes. Sorry, to tell you that. … But, you know, if indeed the current society has come to different views, that’s fine. You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society. Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn’t. Nobody ever thought that that’s what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don’t need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. You don’t like the death penalty anymore, that’s fine. You want a right to abortion? There’s nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn’t mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it’s a good idea and pass a law. That’s what democracy is all about. It’s not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society.

Or hear it for yourself…….

youtube.com/watch?v=M-86gg… via @youtube

I realize that we all have an opinion…right or wrong (if you agree with this dude then you are wrong)….but is this anything for a person serving on SCOTUS to go around mouthing off about?  I mean what happened to the neutrality of the courts?

Put That Brat To Work!

We have newly elected members of Congress and some have real strange ideas…..some are capable of rational thought and then there are those like the birthers and the tenthers…….speaking of tenthers…….

Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) posted a lecture on his YouTube channel where he explains in great detail his views on the Constitution. As part of the lecture, which is essentially a lengthy defense of his radical tenther interpretation of the Constitution, Lee claims that federal child labor laws are unconstitutional: (watch the video……)!!!
Congress decided it wanted to prohibit [child labor], so it passed a law—no more child labor. The Supreme Court heard a challenge to that and the Supreme Court decided a case in 1918 called Hammer v. Dagenhardt. In that case, the Supreme Court acknowledged something very interesting — that, as reprehensible as child labor is, and as much as it ought to be abandoned — that’s something that has to be done by state legislators, not by Members of Congress. […]

This may sound harsh, but it was designed to be that way. It was designed to be a little bit harsh. Not because we like harshness for the sake of harshness, but because we like a clean division of power, so that everybody understands whose job it is to regulate what.

So let us repeal those darn pesky child labor laws and put all our people back to work!  (sarcasm)