| Obama’s Budget Payback to the Homosexual Community | | Print | |
| Written by Laurence M. Vance | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Friday, 19 February 2010 09:30 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Nevertheless, although the Constitution doesn’t mention a federal budget, and it is ultimately up to Congress to decide how much the federal government will spend in any given fiscal year, according to the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, the president must annually submit a proposed federal budget to Congress by the first Monday in February. • Support Federal Employee Domestic Partner Benefits; • Expand and Focus HIV/AIDS Treatment, Care, and Prevention Activities; • Execute a National AIDS Awareness Campaign; • Support a Fair and Accurate 2010 Census. Photo of participant in San Francisco's Gay Pride parade: AP Images
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email This
Trackback(0)
Comments (8)
![]()
Jimmy Wolfe
said:
|
|
Wow Just when you thought the dumb couldn't get any dumber, this article appears. Move on. |
|
Flu-Bird
said:
|
OBAMA THE ATTROCIOUS Obama is the all time worse president in this nations history and even worse than that blundering nincompoop JIMMY CARTER |
|
Dave in L.A.
said:
|
... Your arguments against hate crime laws are all specious: 1) Motive and intent are already taken into account in the definition of many crimes. Intent distinguishes murder from manslaughter, for example, and premeditation distinguishes first degree murder. Hate crimes are merely a species of terrorism: the commission of acts that are already crimes (murder, assault, arson) with the intent to inspire fear in a target population. 2) Slippery slope arguments are inherently spurious. We already regulate speech in numerous ways (despite the very clear words "no law" in the First Amendment; one could argue that the slippery slope leads in the other direction, and that accepting this argument against hate speech would mean throwing out similar laws against obscenity, disseminating bomb-making information, etc. (And the notion that law enforcement would somehow be able to detect, let alone prosecute, "hate thought" is ludicruous.) 3) The American system of checks and balances provides the Judicial Branch to act as a check on the abuse of power by Executive Branch bureaucrats. (As well as on "mob rule" and "tyranny of the majority" by the electorate... that's what a "republican" form of government means.) 4) The Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has been the basis for most Supreme Court decisions upholding anti-discrimination laws. You should think before writing. |
|
Michelle Witt
said:
|
Unconstitutional Gov't Two of you completely missed the premise of this article. It is about the continuity of the gov't being unconstitutional in everything that they do. They want to become Big gov't. The checks n balances in our gov't only wok when there is bipartisanship. Right now Dems own the Senate, House of Rps and the White House. Obama is even trying to prevent any Republicans from being elected bc he sees his power being threatened. This country is so far away from how we were set up to be. All he is pointing out are the continued atrocities of this gov't. Get educated people. Just bc you don't agree doesn't make it wrong. It wouldn't be on here if it was a made up issue. |
|
Flu-Bird
said:
|
IMPEACH OBAMA Obama should be impeached and that gose not only for him but his entire cabnet of scoundrels and crooks |
|
JJ Suprise
said:
|
reply to Jimmy Wolfe Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Unbelievable!!! Well, in this day and age of unlimited unconstitutional Government and Government Indoctrination Centers providing the so called "education" of our society, I guess such a post is not all that "unbelievable"! |
|
Pip
said:
|
Proof that democracy is a threat to liberty As I read the posts critical of Mr. Vance's article, I see why democracy is so dangerous. Comments that immediately jump on favorite hot-potato topics (e.g., hate crimes), reflect a failure to understand the intent of the article. Further, jabs that degrade writers (i.e., "You should think before writing") are uncalled for and again underscore a failure to understand the conclusion of the article--the violations of the executive branch that threaten our federal government, particularly the ludicrous and unconstitutional budgets of the Executive Branch (Bush and Obama have laid the foundation for certain default of the US as to existing debts and bonds, either through direct default (highly unlikely) or the monetization of that debt to create sufficient inflation to "devalue" the existing instruments. Excellent article, Mr. Vance. |
|
http://www.jean-jeans.com/
said:
|
http://www.jean-jeans.com/ Find yourself perfect jeans at House of jean-jeans.com online. Next day delivery available from House of jean-jeans.com online.Latest denim for Men's Jeans, Women's Jeans. Denim Jeans, true religion jeans and seven jeans here. |
|




The imperial presidency that Americans have had to endure for as long as most of us can remember was not the intention of our Founding Fathers who drafted the Constitution. The powers of the presidency are very limited, as a reading of Article II makes very clear. It is also perfectly evident, according to Article I, that it is Congress, not the president, that authorizes all federal spending.
