THE DAYS OF CAFÉ` LATTE` ARE OVER! IT’S NOW TEA TIME!
By; The speaker in the house
Claudia Roazen
The Republican Scott Brown win over Democratic candidate Martha Coakley in the bluest of blue States, Massachusetts was a resounding win for all Americans who want government to act responsibly. Is it ironic that this metaphorical tea party upset happened in the same State that gave us the real revolt in our American legacy? Is it equally ironic that in order to elect new blood in a Senate seat dominated for so long by the Democrats that we had to wait until the office holder died before the seat was vacated?
The tea is in the water but the question still remains whether the President and the Democrats read those tea leaves correctly. Will they see their futures and start making the backtracking adjustments to save their political backsides or will they continue to ignore us in the spirit of George III of England?
The kettle is hot and the first fitting cup has been poured in Massachusetts but more tea will flow across this Country on the next Election Day. Will Washington pause from sipping their cappuccinos long enough to put our Country back on its rightful path of free market capitalism, individual liberties and smaller less corrupt government?
There may be many differing viewpoints in this country but debate and compromise by our legislative body was the constitutional genius design by our forefathers to ensure that the majority never ignored the minority. With our Country being so equally divided between liberal and conservative lines one would intuitively believe that bi-partisan co-operation would be sought by our representatives in Congress. However, the President and the Democrats have ignored the spirit of our forefather’s design and have used a Marie Antoinette spending and sneering snub to half of the Country’s citizenry.
Hence, the long sleeping apathetic voter woke up, threw away their high priced designer coffee and filled their cups with inexpensive righteous tea. Mister President, Democratic members of Congress, stop growing government, stop owning banks and private enterprises, stop trying to spend us out of recession, stop trying to ram big bureaucratic, un-wanted, un-read Programs down our throats. Slice the lemons, because the Latte` days are over!
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Thursday, January 14, 2010
SEVENTY-TWO VIRGINS AND A LAWYER
SEVENTY-TWO VIRGINS AND A LAWYER
By; The Speaker in the House
Claudia Roazen
Why is the Obama Justice Department giving constitutional citizen rights to terrorist out to destroy its very existence? These terrorists have not committed treason because in order to be a Benedict Arnold they must have American citizenship.
The reason Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is being tried in New York by our court system we are told, is because the Administration wants to show the world that we are a fair and just country with laws in keeping with our moral governance. The thinking here is that the rest of the world does not believe that our Justice System is fair and not puppeteer by Government interests. The Obama administration, hearing the uproar from the American people that a terrorist was being granted a trial, came out and assured us that Khalid would be found guilty and if not, would be held regardless of the trial’s outcome.
What? I and most Americans are confused. We have all heard of stopping fire with fire but stopping mockery with mockery? Some are calling it a political show trial but what would we be showing? That in fact it is true, that our Justice system is rigged for outcome? Why is an obviously guilty murderer, (example) O.J. Simpson still walking around free and un-punished? I thought we at least all agreed that the O.J. Simpson trial was the definitive poster boy for our American Justice System not being a pretense of prosecutorial burden of proof? Innocent until proven guilty is supposed to make us all comforted in the knowledge that the State has no power to unlawfully imprison us and its advisories. Juries may make mistakes to our chagrin but perfection aside we have improved our Justice system from the days of the Salem witch hunts, or have we? If our imperfect Justice system found an obviously guilty man like O.J. Simpson, not guilty, then perhaps we can speculate that Khalid Mohamed is innocent and water boarding forced him to plead guilty?
When did these terrorists become United States citizens, before or after they tried to kill us? If we hold on to these terrorists whom are found not guilty what then would the world think of our system of laws and justice? How could we stop groups like the A.C.L.U. and Amnesty International from decrying our government as a corrupt fascist dictatorship that falsely imprisons its detractors?
Wait… I think that maybe I know the reason for this counterintuitive counterterrorism strategy! Money is power and debt is weakness. Are we trying to bleed dry the Osama Bin Laden war-chest as we have over spent our own economic bank?
Along with the promises of seventy-two virgins and the monetary compensation for the living love ones left behind, in his suicidal bomber incentive package, are we trying to force Osama, to now add paid legal fees to his terrorist benefits plan?
By; The Speaker in the House
Claudia Roazen
Why is the Obama Justice Department giving constitutional citizen rights to terrorist out to destroy its very existence? These terrorists have not committed treason because in order to be a Benedict Arnold they must have American citizenship.
The reason Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is being tried in New York by our court system we are told, is because the Administration wants to show the world that we are a fair and just country with laws in keeping with our moral governance. The thinking here is that the rest of the world does not believe that our Justice System is fair and not puppeteer by Government interests. The Obama administration, hearing the uproar from the American people that a terrorist was being granted a trial, came out and assured us that Khalid would be found guilty and if not, would be held regardless of the trial’s outcome.
What? I and most Americans are confused. We have all heard of stopping fire with fire but stopping mockery with mockery? Some are calling it a political show trial but what would we be showing? That in fact it is true, that our Justice system is rigged for outcome? Why is an obviously guilty murderer, (example) O.J. Simpson still walking around free and un-punished? I thought we at least all agreed that the O.J. Simpson trial was the definitive poster boy for our American Justice System not being a pretense of prosecutorial burden of proof? Innocent until proven guilty is supposed to make us all comforted in the knowledge that the State has no power to unlawfully imprison us and its advisories. Juries may make mistakes to our chagrin but perfection aside we have improved our Justice system from the days of the Salem witch hunts, or have we? If our imperfect Justice system found an obviously guilty man like O.J. Simpson, not guilty, then perhaps we can speculate that Khalid Mohamed is innocent and water boarding forced him to plead guilty?
When did these terrorists become United States citizens, before or after they tried to kill us? If we hold on to these terrorists whom are found not guilty what then would the world think of our system of laws and justice? How could we stop groups like the A.C.L.U. and Amnesty International from decrying our government as a corrupt fascist dictatorship that falsely imprisons its detractors?
Wait… I think that maybe I know the reason for this counterintuitive counterterrorism strategy! Money is power and debt is weakness. Are we trying to bleed dry the Osama Bin Laden war-chest as we have over spent our own economic bank?
Along with the promises of seventy-two virgins and the monetary compensation for the living love ones left behind, in his suicidal bomber incentive package, are we trying to force Osama, to now add paid legal fees to his terrorist benefits plan?
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
THE CONGRESSIONAL CHRISTMAS GIFT THIS YEAR IS A REJECT!
THE CONGRESSIONAL CHRISTMAS GIFT THIS YEAR IS A REJECT!
By: The Speaker in the House
Claudia Roazen
We all have had Christmas and Hanukah gifts that we accept and politely smile and show thanks to the giver, while thinking in our private thoughts “What were they thinking when they bought me this?” It is called in my family a “reject” gift. Yet, in the holiday spirit of giving we were all taught that it is not the gift but the thought that matters and counts. It is not only impolite but small-minded to let someone know that you are disappointed or displeased with their festively wrapped token even while you are secretly hoping to exchange it at the store on your first available opportunity. Interestingly however, as young children we are also taught to believe in Santa Claus and the song about him, ‘SANTA CLAUS IS COMING TO TOWN’ and how we needed to be good to get a present and especially good if we wanted to get that especially sought after gift. Bad behaving children got coal in their stockings instead of toys and gifts they hoped to receive.
Apparently, the President, the Senate Democrats and House Democrats believed that most of us Americans behaved badly this Christmas season and therefore left us tax bills in our Christmas stockings in the form of Health Care Reform. Ignoring the poll numbers, ignoring the tight economic times and ignoring the worry and displeasure of the majority of Americans that our Country’s debt is already too high, they passed and wrapped up this piece of legislation and placed it under the tree before leaving for their Holiday break. What were they thinking? Where can we return this gift? What did the majority of us do to deserve this lump of coal in our stocking?
Well, given the fact that we heard the Speaker Of The House Nancy Pelosi call town hall voices of dissent un-American Americans, I guess we were bad. I also think that our President’s latest polling numbers fell and again most American were responsible for that, and we were bad. You might also say that the Tea Party rallies throughout the year at different cities across the country were Americans pouting, crying and shouting knowing Santa was coming to town, and we were bad.
So…most Americans did not want Health Care Reform to be quickly decided and railroaded passed a long and necessary debate with only one party’s voice (Democrats) writing the legislation but what else is new since we gave Democrats the Presidency and the majority in 2008. We have many unwanted gifts this year from Washington from the Stimulus Plan to now Health Care Reform.
I hate to look a gift horse in the mouth and undo all my gracious social upbringing but this Santa Congress deserves to be told that its gifts are rejects and its naughty and nice lists are upside down.
I’m making a new list and checking it twice and making sure that those Democrats and any line crossing Republicans will get what they deserve at the ballot box in 2010, Ho…Ho…Ho!
By: The Speaker in the House
Claudia Roazen
We all have had Christmas and Hanukah gifts that we accept and politely smile and show thanks to the giver, while thinking in our private thoughts “What were they thinking when they bought me this?” It is called in my family a “reject” gift. Yet, in the holiday spirit of giving we were all taught that it is not the gift but the thought that matters and counts. It is not only impolite but small-minded to let someone know that you are disappointed or displeased with their festively wrapped token even while you are secretly hoping to exchange it at the store on your first available opportunity. Interestingly however, as young children we are also taught to believe in Santa Claus and the song about him, ‘SANTA CLAUS IS COMING TO TOWN’ and how we needed to be good to get a present and especially good if we wanted to get that especially sought after gift. Bad behaving children got coal in their stockings instead of toys and gifts they hoped to receive.
Apparently, the President, the Senate Democrats and House Democrats believed that most of us Americans behaved badly this Christmas season and therefore left us tax bills in our Christmas stockings in the form of Health Care Reform. Ignoring the poll numbers, ignoring the tight economic times and ignoring the worry and displeasure of the majority of Americans that our Country’s debt is already too high, they passed and wrapped up this piece of legislation and placed it under the tree before leaving for their Holiday break. What were they thinking? Where can we return this gift? What did the majority of us do to deserve this lump of coal in our stocking?
Well, given the fact that we heard the Speaker Of The House Nancy Pelosi call town hall voices of dissent un-American Americans, I guess we were bad. I also think that our President’s latest polling numbers fell and again most American were responsible for that, and we were bad. You might also say that the Tea Party rallies throughout the year at different cities across the country were Americans pouting, crying and shouting knowing Santa was coming to town, and we were bad.
So…most Americans did not want Health Care Reform to be quickly decided and railroaded passed a long and necessary debate with only one party’s voice (Democrats) writing the legislation but what else is new since we gave Democrats the Presidency and the majority in 2008. We have many unwanted gifts this year from Washington from the Stimulus Plan to now Health Care Reform.
I hate to look a gift horse in the mouth and undo all my gracious social upbringing but this Santa Congress deserves to be told that its gifts are rejects and its naughty and nice lists are upside down.
I’m making a new list and checking it twice and making sure that those Democrats and any line crossing Republicans will get what they deserve at the ballot box in 2010, Ho…Ho…Ho!
Monday, December 7, 2009
SACRAFICING THE TRUTH!
SACRIFICING THE TRUTH!
By; The Speaker in the House
Claudia Roazen
The latest scandal involving the fudging of Global Warming temperature data is being ignored and or dismissed by those wanting America to go green. I was always taught in school that the difference between opinion and truth was scientific fact. We trusted science to always give us the truth regardless of political pressure or are own lying eyes. The earth rotates on its axis while orbiting the sun whether we can see or feel this motion because science has proven it to be a fact and so we believe. Science does not start with a premise and then seek only the data that supports that premise for that would not be science but instead would be …propaganda?
There are three points of view on the subject of global warming. One, those that say it does not exist, period. Two, are those that say that Global Warming exists without man’s involvement. Third, are those that say Global Warming is caused by man and I will refer to them as the (Gore-U)? Then of course there are three solutions offered, one, do nothing and nothing bad will happen, two do nothing because nothing man could do would impact or change Global Warming or three the Gore-U, that say stop all man’s greenhouse gas emissions and it will or (might) stop Global Warming. This is why our brain-trust in Washington is proposing Cap and Trade Legislation.
That means driving less and then driving tuna-fish can cars, eating more tuna and no red meat, reading by candle light because you’d be paying high priced electric bills, re-outfitting your home costing thousands of dollars for insulation and green energy saving appliances and see American slowly become a third world country in which tourism and the Service Industry are the only jobs available while countries like China huff and puff away eating our lunch.
I have a serious problem with the Gore-U’s theory because if science has taught me anything about nature it is; that most natural phenomenon that occurs is cyclical. What if Global Warming is a natural cyclical climate changing event that has been occurring on our planet since it first took orbit in our solar system? Locust and insect invasions, disease and pandemic viruses, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and weather patterns are all cyclical events. Some of these events we can predict with approximate accuracy while others we can only predict that they will occur eventually. When our sun becomes a Black Hole the earth will be sucked in and earth will perish but we really don’t have a hard date to predict it happening. Our planet has and always will live under the threat of being hit by a large meteor and wiping us out but again we can only speculate its occurrence. What if we do everything we think is right and yet nature spits in our face.
Man only thinks it has conquered nature because it can cut down trees, bulldoze the earth, wipe out animal and plant species, kill bacteria and viruses, cultivate and cross breed new agricultural products and defy gravity by Jumbo Jet air travel but the truth is nature is, and has always been in charge of us. The trees grow back, the buildings sink in the ground, the animals and plants find a way to survive, the bacteria and viruses mutate to be drug resistant, the crossbred products create new and greater hazards (Killer Bees) and oh yes sometimes little birdies in the sky take down to the ground man’s huge iron winged monoliths. The problem with Gore-U followers and other environmentalists groups is that they revere nature religiously much like the Inca, Mayans and Native Americans’ spiritual belief system. The difference however is twofold between the Gore-U and all other nature spiritualists. One, today’s Gore-U’s believe with hubris that they can change and manipulate nature’s course while the other groups only strived to respect nature’s power. Two, Gore-U’s believe nature is benevolent and only malevolent if it is angered by man while the other groups understood that there were good Gods and bad Gods and if the Gods were angry then offering up a human sacrifice might temper and satisfy them so as to stop the drought or the flood or any ill wanted natural phenomenon that was plaguing them at the time.
Wow, I just got a great idea! We could solve this Global Warming issue quickly and with very little pain for most of us. Forget about Cap and Trade legislation that would hurt all of us with no assurance that it would make a dent of difference on Mother Nature’s warming temper. How about if we offer a human sacrifice to appease the Global Warming God? Perhaps one of those corrupt scientists would volunteer to have their name live in infamy? Maybe the Global Warming Guru himself would entertain the idea of sacrificing himself for the cause? “What do you say Al…we’ll even re-write the history books and give you credit for inventing the internet like you always wanted?”
By; The Speaker in the House
Claudia Roazen
The latest scandal involving the fudging of Global Warming temperature data is being ignored and or dismissed by those wanting America to go green. I was always taught in school that the difference between opinion and truth was scientific fact. We trusted science to always give us the truth regardless of political pressure or are own lying eyes. The earth rotates on its axis while orbiting the sun whether we can see or feel this motion because science has proven it to be a fact and so we believe. Science does not start with a premise and then seek only the data that supports that premise for that would not be science but instead would be …propaganda?
There are three points of view on the subject of global warming. One, those that say it does not exist, period. Two, are those that say that Global Warming exists without man’s involvement. Third, are those that say Global Warming is caused by man and I will refer to them as the (Gore-U)? Then of course there are three solutions offered, one, do nothing and nothing bad will happen, two do nothing because nothing man could do would impact or change Global Warming or three the Gore-U, that say stop all man’s greenhouse gas emissions and it will or (might) stop Global Warming. This is why our brain-trust in Washington is proposing Cap and Trade Legislation.
That means driving less and then driving tuna-fish can cars, eating more tuna and no red meat, reading by candle light because you’d be paying high priced electric bills, re-outfitting your home costing thousands of dollars for insulation and green energy saving appliances and see American slowly become a third world country in which tourism and the Service Industry are the only jobs available while countries like China huff and puff away eating our lunch.
I have a serious problem with the Gore-U’s theory because if science has taught me anything about nature it is; that most natural phenomenon that occurs is cyclical. What if Global Warming is a natural cyclical climate changing event that has been occurring on our planet since it first took orbit in our solar system? Locust and insect invasions, disease and pandemic viruses, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and weather patterns are all cyclical events. Some of these events we can predict with approximate accuracy while others we can only predict that they will occur eventually. When our sun becomes a Black Hole the earth will be sucked in and earth will perish but we really don’t have a hard date to predict it happening. Our planet has and always will live under the threat of being hit by a large meteor and wiping us out but again we can only speculate its occurrence. What if we do everything we think is right and yet nature spits in our face.
Man only thinks it has conquered nature because it can cut down trees, bulldoze the earth, wipe out animal and plant species, kill bacteria and viruses, cultivate and cross breed new agricultural products and defy gravity by Jumbo Jet air travel but the truth is nature is, and has always been in charge of us. The trees grow back, the buildings sink in the ground, the animals and plants find a way to survive, the bacteria and viruses mutate to be drug resistant, the crossbred products create new and greater hazards (Killer Bees) and oh yes sometimes little birdies in the sky take down to the ground man’s huge iron winged monoliths. The problem with Gore-U followers and other environmentalists groups is that they revere nature religiously much like the Inca, Mayans and Native Americans’ spiritual belief system. The difference however is twofold between the Gore-U and all other nature spiritualists. One, today’s Gore-U’s believe with hubris that they can change and manipulate nature’s course while the other groups only strived to respect nature’s power. Two, Gore-U’s believe nature is benevolent and only malevolent if it is angered by man while the other groups understood that there were good Gods and bad Gods and if the Gods were angry then offering up a human sacrifice might temper and satisfy them so as to stop the drought or the flood or any ill wanted natural phenomenon that was plaguing them at the time.
Wow, I just got a great idea! We could solve this Global Warming issue quickly and with very little pain for most of us. Forget about Cap and Trade legislation that would hurt all of us with no assurance that it would make a dent of difference on Mother Nature’s warming temper. How about if we offer a human sacrifice to appease the Global Warming God? Perhaps one of those corrupt scientists would volunteer to have their name live in infamy? Maybe the Global Warming Guru himself would entertain the idea of sacrificing himself for the cause? “What do you say Al…we’ll even re-write the history books and give you credit for inventing the internet like you always wanted?”
Monday, November 9, 2009
My Nine Husbands
My Nine Husbands
By: The Speaker in the House
Claudia Roazen
Maine recently defeated a homosexual marriage law that was enacted by our State Legislature, obviously without voter approval. It was promoted as a civil rights issue by those for Gay marriage and an education fear issue (that gay sex would be taught in schools to our young children) by those against, in the recent voter campaign. I do not think the voters were persuaded by either specious argument when they chose to keep marriage to its long history of tradition.
The real question should be is marriage a civil right or a civil privilege? I know my husband is privileged but I’m wondering that if I have a right to be married why then I needed a license and a blood test to marry. Driving is a privilege not a right which is why the State can require standards. Therefore if marriage is a right then why is the State allowed to screen my blood and require that I am not related to my intended spouse? My right to marry whomever and as many of whomever I desire should be without State rules and regulations to hamper, diminish or deny me my marriage civil right, even if it is with Mr. Wrong. Then that must mean that the State views marriage as a civil privilege to which it can set standards of acceptance and approval and or deny approval. I wonder why they don’t revoke marriage licenses as they do the licenses of bad drivers. (Come on, on a bad marriage day you have thought of it too!) “Sorry Dear… but the State has suspended our marriage, so until further notice you are welcome to stay in the room above the garage for a nominal fee.”
The State requires you to get a marriage license but when your marriage is once performed and properly witnessed then they issue you a marriage certificate. A certificate is a paper reflecting a truth of certified fact. You receive a birth certificate which verifies the fact of your identity, you receive a diploma which certifies the fact that you have earned a degree but you never earn a driving certificate. The State thus confuses the issue by making marriage a privilege before you marry and a certified fact after your married. Marriage is not an inherent right or people would be allowed to marry their pets or even inanimate objects like say a boulder. (Then you could honestly say that your relationship was as solid as a rock.)
Therefore the whole argument that homosexuals have a right to marry say over polygamists or any other non-traditional groups is not just opening the barn door for marriage to become a civil right but the State would no longer be able to justify any guidelines at all. It could not allow gays but disallow polygamy. (I wonder if women would like to have eight or nine husbands like the Mormon men use to have in wives. I think we would enjoy it but not for sex and or variety but more to get all the chores done around the house.) If marriage is an intrinsic civil right then no one could be denied taking union with anyone, in any number or anything. If marriage is a privilege then the State has the right to set a single standard and deny all else. The real secret is that the State wants to keep marriage as it is defined for two primary reasons one; the State realized long ago that supporting marriage was financially beneficial as most citizens with families were more productive and therefore more taxable, two; the state relies heavily on the religious institutions and churches to handle the majority of their clerical functions. The pastors, priests, rabbis’ and ministers provide procedural information to the engaged couple as well as witnessing and then filing the proper paperwork to the proper jurisdiction. If the State had to perform all marriages in this country there would be a long waiting list and or if certain religious institutions refused to officiate State marriage papers, a lot of couples would be married by their churches but unknown to the State creating a nightmare breakdown of an already overloaded Family Court system.
Civil Union was the option created to appease the inequity created by federal joint tax filing and family health insurance and other (so called marriage benefits) denied to same sexed couples. Separate legislation could fix any and all so-called inequities. Why is Civil Union not good enough? Why is there a push for changing the marriage definition? One must wonder what Gay Rights agenda is really all about? Some say it is to proselytize our children about the normality of homosexuality but maybe it runs deeper than that? Maybe it is to get the State out of social lawmaking completely taking a libertarian view, in which all social engagements should be outside government control.
If that is the case then I do ... and I do and I do… (Repeat six more times) whimsically think my nine husbands would come in very handy. Gosh when I think of it... I could marry a super wealth guy, a doctor, a car mechanic, a hairdresser, a fashion designer, a butcher, a baker, a chef and still keep my husband. Oh what the heck let’s add a lawyer and make it a simple ten count, because if thing don’t work out with some of these guys then I’ll need number ten’s services.
By: The Speaker in the House
Claudia Roazen
Maine recently defeated a homosexual marriage law that was enacted by our State Legislature, obviously without voter approval. It was promoted as a civil rights issue by those for Gay marriage and an education fear issue (that gay sex would be taught in schools to our young children) by those against, in the recent voter campaign. I do not think the voters were persuaded by either specious argument when they chose to keep marriage to its long history of tradition.
The real question should be is marriage a civil right or a civil privilege? I know my husband is privileged but I’m wondering that if I have a right to be married why then I needed a license and a blood test to marry. Driving is a privilege not a right which is why the State can require standards. Therefore if marriage is a right then why is the State allowed to screen my blood and require that I am not related to my intended spouse? My right to marry whomever and as many of whomever I desire should be without State rules and regulations to hamper, diminish or deny me my marriage civil right, even if it is with Mr. Wrong. Then that must mean that the State views marriage as a civil privilege to which it can set standards of acceptance and approval and or deny approval. I wonder why they don’t revoke marriage licenses as they do the licenses of bad drivers. (Come on, on a bad marriage day you have thought of it too!) “Sorry Dear… but the State has suspended our marriage, so until further notice you are welcome to stay in the room above the garage for a nominal fee.”
The State requires you to get a marriage license but when your marriage is once performed and properly witnessed then they issue you a marriage certificate. A certificate is a paper reflecting a truth of certified fact. You receive a birth certificate which verifies the fact of your identity, you receive a diploma which certifies the fact that you have earned a degree but you never earn a driving certificate. The State thus confuses the issue by making marriage a privilege before you marry and a certified fact after your married. Marriage is not an inherent right or people would be allowed to marry their pets or even inanimate objects like say a boulder. (Then you could honestly say that your relationship was as solid as a rock.)
Therefore the whole argument that homosexuals have a right to marry say over polygamists or any other non-traditional groups is not just opening the barn door for marriage to become a civil right but the State would no longer be able to justify any guidelines at all. It could not allow gays but disallow polygamy. (I wonder if women would like to have eight or nine husbands like the Mormon men use to have in wives. I think we would enjoy it but not for sex and or variety but more to get all the chores done around the house.) If marriage is an intrinsic civil right then no one could be denied taking union with anyone, in any number or anything. If marriage is a privilege then the State has the right to set a single standard and deny all else. The real secret is that the State wants to keep marriage as it is defined for two primary reasons one; the State realized long ago that supporting marriage was financially beneficial as most citizens with families were more productive and therefore more taxable, two; the state relies heavily on the religious institutions and churches to handle the majority of their clerical functions. The pastors, priests, rabbis’ and ministers provide procedural information to the engaged couple as well as witnessing and then filing the proper paperwork to the proper jurisdiction. If the State had to perform all marriages in this country there would be a long waiting list and or if certain religious institutions refused to officiate State marriage papers, a lot of couples would be married by their churches but unknown to the State creating a nightmare breakdown of an already overloaded Family Court system.
Civil Union was the option created to appease the inequity created by federal joint tax filing and family health insurance and other (so called marriage benefits) denied to same sexed couples. Separate legislation could fix any and all so-called inequities. Why is Civil Union not good enough? Why is there a push for changing the marriage definition? One must wonder what Gay Rights agenda is really all about? Some say it is to proselytize our children about the normality of homosexuality but maybe it runs deeper than that? Maybe it is to get the State out of social lawmaking completely taking a libertarian view, in which all social engagements should be outside government control.
If that is the case then I do ... and I do and I do… (Repeat six more times) whimsically think my nine husbands would come in very handy. Gosh when I think of it... I could marry a super wealth guy, a doctor, a car mechanic, a hairdresser, a fashion designer, a butcher, a baker, a chef and still keep my husband. Oh what the heck let’s add a lawyer and make it a simple ten count, because if thing don’t work out with some of these guys then I’ll need number ten’s services.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
THE FOX IS IN THE N-HOUSE.
THE FOX IS IN THE N- House.
By: The Speaker in the House
Claudia Roazen
We know that the first Amendment to our Constitution granted citizens the right to a free press and that it was the first thought of the colonists in asserting and insuring that the rights of the people were not dismissed and or diminished by accepting our new Constitutional government. We codified our right to dissent without our government’s ability to either mute or enact retribution for speaking our mind be it in praise or be it in criticism of government and or officials. We have a long history of expecting that our journalist (The Press) be loyal to the people, the truth and nothing but the truth. The press was and is expected to be independent and skeptical of government to protect us from propaganda and worse. Where is the independent, skeptical, truth- seeking journalists today?
Well it seems that they are not writing for the New York Times, they are not broadcasting at CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS or MSNBC because these print and broadcasts journalists have not criticized or questioned the current administration and have been behind as well as apologists for stories and scandals brought to light by others namely FOX news.
The press has been hated by many past administrations because it has consistently refused to accept only the official account, been unwilling to not report and or quash stories for the government and would ask the tough questions of our officials over and over until sense could be made of the truth. Now both the administration and the rival news organizations are ganging up and condemning FOX news and all other independent journalists who dare be critical of the current administration.
It would appear that Fox News is the only hated news organization today and that should make them proud and we should champion their success and encourage more and new media to follow their example and get back to the first Amendment’s mission. We should not be lambs, hens or turkeys so close to the Thanksgiving season that we ignore the significance of who is being invited to the White house dinner table and who is not.
By: The Speaker in the House
Claudia Roazen
We know that the first Amendment to our Constitution granted citizens the right to a free press and that it was the first thought of the colonists in asserting and insuring that the rights of the people were not dismissed and or diminished by accepting our new Constitutional government. We codified our right to dissent without our government’s ability to either mute or enact retribution for speaking our mind be it in praise or be it in criticism of government and or officials. We have a long history of expecting that our journalist (The Press) be loyal to the people, the truth and nothing but the truth. The press was and is expected to be independent and skeptical of government to protect us from propaganda and worse. Where is the independent, skeptical, truth- seeking journalists today?
Well it seems that they are not writing for the New York Times, they are not broadcasting at CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS or MSNBC because these print and broadcasts journalists have not criticized or questioned the current administration and have been behind as well as apologists for stories and scandals brought to light by others namely FOX news.
The press has been hated by many past administrations because it has consistently refused to accept only the official account, been unwilling to not report and or quash stories for the government and would ask the tough questions of our officials over and over until sense could be made of the truth. Now both the administration and the rival news organizations are ganging up and condemning FOX news and all other independent journalists who dare be critical of the current administration.
It would appear that Fox News is the only hated news organization today and that should make them proud and we should champion their success and encourage more and new media to follow their example and get back to the first Amendment’s mission. We should not be lambs, hens or turkeys so close to the Thanksgiving season that we ignore the significance of who is being invited to the White house dinner table and who is not.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Shakespeare and Elvis are Alive and Well!
Shakespeare and Elvis are Alive and Well!
By; The Speaker in the House
Claudia Roazen
Many adults taught me as a child that name calling was a classless as well as ignorant way to try and win an argument. They said that you must debate people with the art of disagreeing agreeably. Respecting another’s opinion doesn’t make your argument weak but name calling definitely makes both you and your argument small. I took this training to heart and both when still a child and now as an adult I agree to disagree and disagree agreeably. I also remember adults making the comment that politics was a “dirty” sometimes they would say “filthy business”. I wondered what they meant but that was when I still was naïve enough to think that all adults followed the same rules of decorum and respect that I was taught to follow. The current political rhetoric certainly supports the negative cynical view that most people have about politics.
Whether from the Democrats, Republicans, news media or private citizens the pejoratives, name-calling and disrespectful taunting has been increasing in both bold disregard for decorum and outlandish analogy with the intent to smear and dishonor the other’s argument and is small minded. Calling the President a liar in the middle of his speech on the House floor is tactless and rude to say the least. Calling the President a communist or calling the angry town hall citizens un-American is muting and discrediting your argument and not gaining one anything except a discounting roll of one’s eyes. Decrying all voices in opposition to the President’s policies as racists is not only offensive to those to whom it’s aimed but shows an arrogant ignorance of opposing views and demonizes discontent. “We can’t go on together with suspicions and lies.”
Our forefathers in their wisdom understood that the majority opinion while respected wasn’t always necessarily correct or considered omnipotent. It carefully considered the rights of the minority and understood that sometimes the minority opinion was the better as well as wanting to ensure that majority did not alienate the minority to then foment civil unrest. It’s hard to see a true majority and or a true minority in today’s political tug of words because the country seems as equally politically divided between Red States and Blue States, Democrats and Republicans. You would therefore think that because neither political side could claim to have the majority opinion that there would be more reason to sit down at the non-partisan table and reasonably debate the issues and come to compromised agreements for the benefit of all or at the very least do nothing until the political tide changed to a clear majority leaning opinion. I do not think our forefathers envisioned an equally divided congress and populace being dismissive of each other. They probably assumed that that would be the perfect set of conditions for reasonable compromise by both sides. Instead, the political rhetoric has become the Hatfield’s versus the McCoy’s or the house of Montague versus the house of Capulet. The sword pens and the lashing tongues are the prelude throughout history for the worst to follow. Romeo where for art thou? Juliet where for art thou? Love and respect where for art thou? Alas poor political civility you are dying. We be or not be civil and respectful while in disagreement. That is the over arching question.
By; The Speaker in the House
Claudia Roazen
Many adults taught me as a child that name calling was a classless as well as ignorant way to try and win an argument. They said that you must debate people with the art of disagreeing agreeably. Respecting another’s opinion doesn’t make your argument weak but name calling definitely makes both you and your argument small. I took this training to heart and both when still a child and now as an adult I agree to disagree and disagree agreeably. I also remember adults making the comment that politics was a “dirty” sometimes they would say “filthy business”. I wondered what they meant but that was when I still was naïve enough to think that all adults followed the same rules of decorum and respect that I was taught to follow. The current political rhetoric certainly supports the negative cynical view that most people have about politics.
Whether from the Democrats, Republicans, news media or private citizens the pejoratives, name-calling and disrespectful taunting has been increasing in both bold disregard for decorum and outlandish analogy with the intent to smear and dishonor the other’s argument and is small minded. Calling the President a liar in the middle of his speech on the House floor is tactless and rude to say the least. Calling the President a communist or calling the angry town hall citizens un-American is muting and discrediting your argument and not gaining one anything except a discounting roll of one’s eyes. Decrying all voices in opposition to the President’s policies as racists is not only offensive to those to whom it’s aimed but shows an arrogant ignorance of opposing views and demonizes discontent. “We can’t go on together with suspicions and lies.”
Our forefathers in their wisdom understood that the majority opinion while respected wasn’t always necessarily correct or considered omnipotent. It carefully considered the rights of the minority and understood that sometimes the minority opinion was the better as well as wanting to ensure that majority did not alienate the minority to then foment civil unrest. It’s hard to see a true majority and or a true minority in today’s political tug of words because the country seems as equally politically divided between Red States and Blue States, Democrats and Republicans. You would therefore think that because neither political side could claim to have the majority opinion that there would be more reason to sit down at the non-partisan table and reasonably debate the issues and come to compromised agreements for the benefit of all or at the very least do nothing until the political tide changed to a clear majority leaning opinion. I do not think our forefathers envisioned an equally divided congress and populace being dismissive of each other. They probably assumed that that would be the perfect set of conditions for reasonable compromise by both sides. Instead, the political rhetoric has become the Hatfield’s versus the McCoy’s or the house of Montague versus the house of Capulet. The sword pens and the lashing tongues are the prelude throughout history for the worst to follow. Romeo where for art thou? Juliet where for art thou? Love and respect where for art thou? Alas poor political civility you are dying. We be or not be civil and respectful while in disagreement. That is the over arching question.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)