Unfortunately, while I may have taken the month off, Thad hasn't. So here is a quick roundup of May's happenings:
- Thad's trying to scare up the election year wedge issue of gay marriage. Rep. McCotter is one of 29 Republicans co-sponsoring Rep. Paul Brown's constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in the United States. This follows the California Supreme court's decision to legalize gay marriage in that state. It guess it is no surprise that Thad would take such an intolerant position. In supporting the bill, Thad aligns himself with such agents of intolerance as Virgil Goode and Steve King.
- Thaddeus called the sitting Speaker of the House a dictator. “It’s not a dictatorial strength, which is what people were used to from [former Republican Majority Leader] Tom DeLay and Nancy Pelosi now.”
- Also, Thad has a new mailing going out around the district. In it, Mr. 15% from the League of Conservation Voters calls for conserving our Earth. He also has the gall to say that he supports expanding S-CHIP after he voted against it. He also failed to mention Iraq.
So Thad's been busy. Again, I promise less sporadic updates come summer.
Posts
6 comments:
What about Iraq?
Let's get started by taking a look at some of the facts about the War in Iraq and how it came about.
Perhaps the most pervasive of the five myths holds that the United States only toppled Saddam Hussein because of his alleged possession of WMDs. Since no such weapons have been uncovered, this allows the Left to accuse President Bush of "lying" about their existence to precipitate a war. (See lie #1.) However, the possession of WMDs was never the full rationale for hostilities. The actual cause for the war was Saddam Hussein's violation of more than a dozen United Nations Security Council resolutions about his program during his "decade of defiance." These actions invalidated the ceasefire agreed to at the end of the Gulf War. As a 1998 law declared, Iraq was at that time in “direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire.” It concluded:
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations, and therefore the President is urged to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.
President Clinton signed that bill on August 19, 1998.
Shortly thereafter, Clinton signed Public Law 105-338, "The Iraq Liberation Act," which "expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, which precipitated the present war, authorized the president to "strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts" and to "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions." The president did so by passing UN Security Council Resolution 1441, declaring Saddam "in material breach" and demanding his compliance or assuring he will face "serious consequences." Had Saddam Hussein verified his compliance, there would have been no war; instead, he turned in another false report. Hostilities ensued.
President Bush explained to the United Nations on September 12, 2002, that Saddam Hussein must act, or the UN must force him to act, but "Security Council resolutions will be enforced." Ironically, this "unilateral, go-it-alone war" was fought to uphold the integrity of the United Nations.
This is a good place to get started and develop some dialogue around these facts.
Well, some of us still try to live by conservative principles.
Why am I called intolerant if I agree with McCotter that there should not be legal for gay to marry, when those gay people are intolerant of MY viwes?
How low do you want to bring America?
The sad thing is that one of the two Democratic nominees for the 11th backs the same constitutional amendment (Larkin).
Cristina, you can have your views. This is America. And I have the freedom to disagree with you. You want gays to be in the closet and second-class citizens. I'm against codifying and constitutionalizing your bigotry.
What are conservative principles? Bush II?
@lindsay:
I do not want gays to be second-class citizens. What they ask is "special" rights, not EQUAL rights, because ALL of us have same equal rights. This country was based on Christian principles, and I would like to keep it that way. I know that many people want to bring this country's morals as low as possible. History shows that all empires without godly morals brought them down.
What "special" rights do gays want?
I guess I made a mistake in thinking that you had disdain for gays. But then in the next sentence you equate a gay lifestyle with bringing the country's morals down as low as possible.
My mistake. You're very tolerant.
Post a Comment