Conservative radio host Dennis Prager went on Larry King live and debated Perez Hilton on the issue of same sex marriage and whether it is right to change the definition of marriage. While Hilton made one or two good objections against the idea of keeping traditional marriage, he was no match for Prager’s intellect and experience. Prager systematically countered Hilton’s objection without getting ugly or offensive: a skill that is much needed today in debates.
By now the fuss over the Miss America pageant is at an all time high. After pageant judge Perez Hilton asking Miss California her thoughts on gay marriage, he opened himself up to quite a bit of controversy.
The best response I have seen to this controversy is by a man named Roland Martin who works for CNN. I have placed his response to the incident here. To view the original article follow the link below.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/22/martin.miss.california/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
(CNN) — A lot of folks are always saying they like to keep it real, that they want authenticity and straight talk. Yet when someone actually does it, there is hell to pay.Welcome to the world of Miss California, Carrie Prejean, who, since she answered a question regarding same-sex marriage in Sunday’s Miss USA pageant, has been savagely attacked by those who oppose what she had to say.
Leading the burn-her-at-the-stake parade is media opportunist Perez Hilton, the self-described gossip queen, and the individual who kick-started this controversy by asking the initial question as to whether the issue of same-sex marriage should be left up to the states.
It seems that Hilton, who is gay, was none too pleased that Prejean chose to actually give her personal opinion on the issue, and ripped her on his blog after the show, using crude obscenities as he continued to attack her at every turn on his media blitz.
Hey, Hilton, from a real journalist to a wanna-be who traffics in gossip: Never ask a question if you’re unprepared for the answer!
Frankly, this whole story is pretty stupid. Isn’t the whole point of asking a question to get someone’s true feelings, rather than the plastic and superficial answers we are all used to receiving?
Sure, Prejean could have gone the safe route and given one of those answers that reveal nothing and is hard to decipher — you know, the ones politicians give all the time — but no! She actually gave her real opinion, and is now being torn to shreds for it.
She opposes same-sex marriage. OK, fine. So what if she had said, “Hey, I’m in full support of same-sex marriage.” Would she now be celebrated on gay-focused blogs, magazines and Web sites? Would her detractors actually be saying how open she is and that she’s a great person?
Same-sex marriage is undoubtedly a hot button issue. And being from California, the site of Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that voters approved outlawing same-sex marriage, Prejean has surely had to hear the debate go back and forth. But her remark isn’t outside the mainstream. A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll shows that 55 percent of Americans are against same-sex marriage, and Proposition 8 did pass in her state 52-48 percent. iReport.com: Prejean ’should step down’
What’s interesting about this is that many of the same folks who are slamming her for her remark voted for President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, who both have the same belief: that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
Even Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made it clear that she has the same view, and it was her husband, President Bill Clinton, who signed the In Defense of Marriage Act, the federal law that forbids states from having to recognize gay marriage in other states.
In other words, four of the biggest liberals in the country have the same belief as Prejean, but a beauty pageant winner is being torn to shreds. Hello, hypocrisy!
Those who criticize Prejean have the same right as she does to express their viewpoints. But enough with all the political correctness, where someone says she should have danced around the issue, smiled and move on. iReport.com: ‘Thank you, California!’
At the end of the day, we all have to be true to ourselves. Whether it’s a gay gossip writer who favors same-sex marriage or a heterosexual woman who is against same-sex marriage. The day we condemn folks for speaking honestly is the day we become a bland society.
Maybe we’re already there.
I stumbled across this video and thought it was well worth watching. Not only does it explain how everything happened, but explains who is responsible for the mortgage meltdown.
-J. Heffley
I stumbled across this video on Wednesday night and really could not believe it. Personally, from a Buddhist’s point of view, I did not even think it was possible for Buddha to be reincarnated. After all, I thought he was the “perfect one” who was divine, thereby, eliminating his wrongs leaving no reason to be reincarnated. The entire essence of Karma is that if you do the right things you will keep being reincarnated until you reach Nirvana: then you’re done. Well if “the enlightened one” who you have been basing your life around isn’t even good enough to get in to Nirvana, what makes you think you’re going to make it? But then again, maybe he isn’t the Buddha.
Personally, I do not believe in reincarnation. I hold to the biblical Christian view of one life, death, and then judgment (Hebrews 9:27).
However, three years without food and water is pretty impressive, but I don’t think that should be it to be labeled a deity. If I had to make a checklist of accomplishments that future deities of my made-up religion had to perform, it would be a little harder. No food and water for a few years? That one is a gimme. Try walking on water and flying. Raise a guy from the dead, then we’ll talk. The ultimate test is being killed and coming back from the dead. If I see Buddha-boy do that, then (and only then) might I pay attention to what he is saying (or in this case not saying).
-J. Heffley
As I am sure you have already heard, America has elected its next President. That man is Senator Barack Obama. While I am not glad that he was the choice of the people, I am glad that the power of choice is still in the hands of the people. Although I disagree with the choice of the people, I am happy with the results of any free election because it shows the strength of our Republic.
I would like to congratulate Senator Obama and his supporters for a victory that they have worked hard for. And when he is elected, I will support him as President because he will be my commander in chief and the leader of this nation. Will there be disagreements between his decisions and my beliefs? Absolutely. But the fact remains that after each election, we are all still Americans. I would encourage the readers of this blog to not confuse criticism of an idea or policy with the criticism of the man himself. You can disagree with and even debate someone without demonizing the person. With the issues facing this nation, Conservatives and Liberals must unite against our common enemies.
I love this country and will do everything I can to make sure that it stays strong, holding true to its founding principles. This means that Conservatives are going to have to work harder than ever before. There is a great amount of work ahead, the road will be hard, but we will come back. We have before and we can again.
While we live and work in the present, we must set our eyes on the future. We cannot let the discouragement of this election make us let go of the dreams that we have for this nation. When you willingly give up hope, you sacrifice your will to continue the fight. Now is not the time to give up, it is the time to carry the fight to our enemies.
-J. Heffley
I’m following Mr. Eichenberger and posting some humor on Friday. I originally heard this on the Rush Limbaugh show and it is fantastic. I could only find it as a youtube video but the effect is the same. Enjoy!
From 3:00-3:30
This is more of a personal rant than a serious commentary on politics. Today I was watching a scene from the “View” because they had Academy Award Winning Actor, Richard Dreyfuss on talking about his new movie “W.”(I am a big Dreyfuss fan). But as the conversation between Dreyfuss and the hosts moved on they began talking about politics and the issue came up whether the executive branch should be stronger than the legislative and judicial or vice-versa.
Dreyfuss begins speaking of Dick Cheney’s (whom he plays in “w”) view of the Executive branch and how he believed it should be stronger than the other branches. To this, one of the “View” hosts replies “Which is the opposite of the founding fathers.” After agreement from Dreyfuss, the conversation moves on.
The thing that makes me mad about all of this is that more and more on television the phrase “that’s what the founding fathers wanted” (or something similar) is just thrown around without giving any factual evidence to support it. In fact, this issue of the power of the executive branch was one of the key intellectual theories that divided our founding fathers. The federalist party believed in a strong, central executive branch where the anti-federatlists (republicans) believed in a stronger representation of the people through their elected officials (Congress).
The point I am trying to make is not to believe someone who says “that’s what the founding fathers wanted” unless they provide proof of the statement along with the founding father who said it. In most cases, it will only be a few founding fathers that believed in the proposed statement and most likely, it will be an issue that was divided federalist vs. republican. So always ask for the truth and never just accept a statement because supposedly our founders believed it. Our founders were highly educated men with many different views on life and politics. The miracle of our country’s origin is that they were able to come together and create one government from many different influences. This is could be another possible meaning for “E pluribus unum” but I can’t say for sure, it may not have been what the founding fathers meant.
I know that it has been over a month since my last post (in an election year, too!) and for that I apologize.
The one event of last week that I have not been able to get out of my mind is the endorsement of Senator Barack Obama from Colin Powell. After I saw him endorse Senator Obama, I was dumbfounded and could not understand how he, of all people, could endore Obama. I have a theory on why this is the case.
Personally, I think it is part of a power game. Senator Obama has offered Powell a cabinet position if he wants one: this will give Senator Obama a chance to show how he is uniting democrats and republicans within his administration and it will keep Powell influential (and in power) within political circles. This is the only reason that makes sense why a man whose career has been defined by serving conservative leaders would turn and support a liberal.
Now Powell did give a few reasons why he was supporting Senator Obama, but a few of them I find hard to believe. (1)The first was that with Governor Palin coming on to the Republican ticket, it had gone too far to the right for him. Too far to the right? Powell was the National Security Advisor for President Reagan!
But more importantly, we have Senator McCain on our ticket. Does anyone else but me remember the constant criticism he got during the primaries for not be conservative enough? This concept of having a representative from both sides of the party is called balancing the ticket and has been occuring since the birth of our nation. You bring in moderate and a conservative to win both sects of the party in hope of more votes.
Now don’t get me wrong. I have a great deal of respect for General Powell and I wish him the best with the rest of his life. I just think he made a terrible mistake. But we’ll see…
-J. Heffley
Up until now, I have never had a reason not to like Whoopi Goldberg, probably because I do not watch the View (but after all, who didn’t like Sister Act?). But after seeing this clip from the View, I cannot but be amazed at the stupidity of some people in this world. Ms. Goldberg’s question about whether she should be worried about being made a slave is ridiculous.Usually I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, but I cannot do that here. There is simply too much ignorance for one person to deal with.
In the context of the discussion, the conversation was about Roe Vs. Wade. Senator McCain said that he disagreed with the decision, not mainly because it deals with abortion (although that is an important reason), but because the Supreme Court violated its boundaries of power and made a decision that became a law. This issue of legislating from the bench, is outside the Constitutional boundaries given to the courts. Senator McCain was saying that if an abortion law was needed, it needed to come through the proper channels. Those proper channels are as follows: the people express their concerns to their Representatives, the Congress makes a bill and passes it, then the President signs it into law. This is how a law is made: from the people, not from 4 or 5 judges who think they know what is best for the country. Senator McCain then said that if it was overturned, the decision would be left up to the individual states (an opinion in line with Amendment 10 of the Constitution). Good job Senator, for standing up for what the Constitution actually says.
In this context, Senator McCain says that he would appoint judges that have this strict view of the Constitution and would interpret the law, as it was intended by the authors. Somehow, Ms. Goldberg took that to mean that Senator McCain wanted to bring slavery back. If Ms. Goldberg actually read the Constitution, she would know that the 13th Amendment clearly states: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude…shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
The irony in this is that only a strict Constitutionalist would interpret that as freedom from slavery.
But Senator McCain is not free from criticism here. At the end of this, he says “I understand that, and get that. Thank you.” But Senator, it does not make sense, and no one else seems to get it and you should have said so. You should have told her why that statement was wrong. Come on Senator, where is that Maverick spirit everyone hears so much about?
-J. Heffley
Last night, night number two of the Republican National Convention, there were two speeches given by two vastly different Senators. Starting out, former Senator and conservative Fred Thompson gave a fantastic speech about John McCain’ record. Thompson eloquently discussed McCain’s history: ranging from his early life, military career, and stances on issues. Thompson did an excellent job making the case to the American people that Senator McCain is the man for the job. After his speech last night, I am surprised that he did not do better in the primaries. I encourage everyone interested in politics to go and listen to Thompson’s speech, I believe that it will be one of the best coming from this convention. Here are a few quotes from Thompson about Senator McCain.
After former Senator Thompson came Senator Joe Lieberman. Even though Sen. Lieberman used to be a Democrat (I’ll forgive him for that) I must admit that he did an excellent job supporting McCain in this speech. He talked of McCain’s record from personal experience (he has been with McCain in the Senate for twenty years). He then contrasted McCain’s experience of bringing together republicans and democrats for the better of the country to Senator Obama’s lack of experience. Overall, Lieberaman gave a good speech and I appreciate him being willing to go against party for the good of the country, more politicians need to start doing that.
In addition to these two speeches, the GOP played a tribute to President Ronald Reagan and his achievements in office. I believe that honoring the loss of such a great man was fitting for this event and I salute the GOP for honoring the death of a man who did so much for his country. As time moves on, I believe that historians will continue to grasp the magnitude of the accomplishments that occurred during his administration and will see him as one of the greatest Presidents in our history.
It’s just too bad that more faces can not be added to Mt. Rushmore.
Tomorrow night, McCain’s vice presidential pick, Governor Sarah Palin will be giving her acceptance speech. The only other main speaker that I recognized was Governor Mike Huckabee so I will be putting up a post about these speeches also.
-J. Heffley
 | dev on The green zone in Iraq’s… |
| dev on Israel On The Offensive |
 | anonymous123 on “Colin, What Happen… |
 | squigs on The Worst Question I Have Ever… |
 | drew donaldson on The Worst Question I Have Ever… |
