Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has a funny way of expressing his appreciation for our troops this Memorial Day. Rather than honoring our soldiers with the funding they need, the Senate is stuffing the war supplemental bill with pro-abortion paybacks for groups like Planned Parenthood. By fattening up the legislation with controversial earmarks, the leadership has not only jeopardized the timetable for the bill's passage but raised the possibility that it will not pass at all. Despite the urgent needs of our servicemen, Reid and his liberal allies are more concerned about funding the war against the unborn than the war in Iraq. The bill is rolling in pork, including a provision that would give groups like Planned Parenthood a big discount on contraceptives and Plan B, which can act as an abortifacient. It would also be a massive cash cow for university health centers, which would also be eligible for a discount on such drugs. Keep in mind that these clinics already make profits on the pills when they mark them up for resale. Nor are many of the recipients suffering in the financial department, thanks to a hefty investment of your hard-earned tax dollars. So the $165 billion question is: What does any of this have to do with Iraq? Absolutely nothing. Reid's personal political agenda is exposing our active-duty troops to new risks as they wait on Congress to duke out the abortion provisions. The bill is bloated with millions of dollars in other unnecessary pet projects for infrastructure, health care, NASA, and more. Until Democrats put their anti-war vendetta aside and both parties rein in spending, the supplemental faces failure on the floor or due to the President's veto pen. Contact your Senators today and remind them that this is no time to make a political statement. Now is the time to support our troops!
After a brief period of judicial restraint, California voters watched in horror this afternoon as judicial activism returned with a vengeance in one of the most egregious rulings in American jurisprudence. It took just four activist judges to overturn the historical definition of marriage, not to mention the vote of more than four and a half million Californians, as the state supreme court issued a much-anticipated ruling on the question of same-sex "marriage." By a 4-3 margin, the justices struck down a law, adopted by 61 percent of voters in 2000, which defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. By imposing same-sex "marriage" on voters, the California Supreme Court knowingly usurped the right of the people to effect change in public policy. This outcome is even more troubling than Massachusetts', in that California voters had already won the right to put a marriage protection amendment on the ballot in November. If the court cared at all about the democratic process, it would have stayed its decision until the people's voice was heard on the November amendment. Instead, these justices trampled on the legislature and created same-sex marriage by judicial fiat. This is nothing more than a judicial shotgun wedding that forces a redefinition of marriage on the people of California and potentially the rest of the nation. We trust that the voters of California will act in November to correct this exercise in judicial activism and to permanently enshrine the traditional definition of marriage in the state constitution. Clearly, this decision highlights the need for a federal amendment defining marriage in the U.S. Constitution. Only then will this campaign to shatter the family's foundation be ended once and for all.
This blog contains links and articles that contain conservative views in politics that line up with my views. Some of the articles were not written by me. The links to other sites may contain advertisements and/or articles that do not reflect my personal views and values.