It's Joe's turn in the Obama v. Joe main event. In recent history, it began with Arizona trying to stop its problem with illegal aliens (AZ passed an anti-illegal bill that garnered 70% approval nationwide). Obama immediately sued to stop the effort.
In round 2, Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona launched a very public investigation of Obama's birth certificate. If you only follow socialist media, you haven't heard about this, or only a whisper. The certificate was faked. You don't have to review Joe's findings to know the certificate is a fake, all you need is to understand 1% of Adobe Photoshop.
The fact that this isn't a major scandal getting wall to wall coverage is just one more brick in the wall the media has erected between the general population and negative stories about Obama. Remember the non-stop, critical coverage of the memo showing Bush weaseled out of National Guard duty? That was small story compared to the faked birth certificate. Incredibly, the memo lie backfired on socialist media, resulting in Dan Rather's disappearance.
The latest round occurred today, with Obama suing Joe directly. POTUS admin is saying Joe is racial profiling, which Joe denies. From Fox News:
- "If they sue, we'll go to court. And then we'll find out the real story," he said. "There's lots of miscommunication emanating from Washington. They broke off communications.
- "They're telling me how to run my organization. I'd like to get this resolved, but I'm not going to give up my authority to the federal government. It's as simple as that," Arpaio added.
2. Gay marriage
Yesterday Obama came out in favor of Gay marriage, which is a 180 degree flip-flop from his previous position. The press, comically, is calling this "evolution". Romney's examples of flip-flopping are called ... wait for it ... flip-flopping. Ah, the bias is funny for all its absurdity.
Another comical aspect is that the White House is crediting (blaming?) Joe Biden with forcing their hand in the issue. Biden came out in favor of gay marriage a few days ago. I cannot disprove this, but I do not believe it. These things are usually orchestrated to test the waters. Joe was instructed to make his views public and then the prez monitored the public reaction before jumping in the water. With this president one can never tell, though, with all his blunders. How many states did he visit during his first presidential campaign?
Speaking of states, Obama tried to soften the blow of his announcement of supporting gay marriage by saying states should decide. Of course states should decide, that's why we have states. I wonder why Obama didn't think states should decide on healthcare?
And now for the coup-de-grace: on the same day, the Republican controlled House voted to ban gay marriage on military bases -- Fox News story here. It's symbolic because such a thing will never get by the senate, and even if it did, it would never get signed by Obama. It's a deliberate slap in the face to Obama's going public with his new, "evolved" feelings on gay marriage. You have to admit, this back and forth nonsense is entertaining.
As for me, I don't oppose gay marriage. That's a bit different than supporting it. Truth is, I don't give a damn. I'm divorced and frankly feel that anybody who wants to get married is touched. Poll after poll, year after year, the exact same numbers are revealed: 75% of married men admit to cheating on their wives, and 50% of women admit to cheating on their husbands. The true numbers much higher, I would bet, because most people are going to deny such a thing -- lying in this case would make the numbers appear smaller than reality (obviously).
Tell me again why a lifetime of cheating and nagging and arguing is a good thing? If gays want that, let them have it. Besides, I don't believe the gay marriage issue has anything to do with marriage. There are other ways people can get the so-called benefits of marriage (and it's usually a penalty, tax-wise) without calling it marriage. It's about power, similar to the nomenclature thing about blacks. The NAACP and the United Negro College Fund prove that blacks never used to mind being called "colored" or "negro". Try that now and watch what happens. Why did those words change from okay to offensive? More to the point, why is it okay to refer to a black person as someone of color, but not "colored"? It has nothing to do with offense, and everything to do with power.