Didn't he promise to defend the constitution, uphold the laws, all thst good stuff, back in January? And didn't he campaign on that sort of idea for the year or so before, during the election process?
Or was there some sort of disclaimer, in very fine print, that said he didn't have to pursue anything he didn't agree with, or that radical groups might not like? Like the DOMA, (Defense of Marriage Act,) passed by Congress, restricting certain benefits, etc, to married couples, i.e., one man and one woman, not to pairs of same-sex couples. Too bad they don't like it, but they have enough influence, (read $$$$$$$$,) to get a presidential proclamation, or resolution, or whatever he decided to call it, to allow them certain benefits. Not enough to really make them happy, but a start, and a basis to do more for them again later. I wonder what part of "one man, one woman" they don't understand?? It seems to be very fuzzy in their thinking.
Of course, his recent running around the Middle East and Europe, apologizing for all sorts of 'transgressions' in past years, like overcoming the Nazi's takeover, and things like that, weren't really condoned or encouraged by the oath of office either, are they? Or did I miss more fine print that I thought???
We are in trouble!!!!!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment