War on Terror: Al-Qaida Gaining Strength

The Bush Administration announced on April 30, 2008, key statistic related to the War on Terror:

US Report Says al-Qaida Gaining Strength

Looking beyond the headline there are four key facts that everyone should pay close attention to:

• More than 22,000 people were killed by terrorists around the world in 2007
• Attacks in Iraq dipped slightly between 2006 and 2007, but they still accounted for 60 percent of worldwide terrorism fatalities
• About 13,600 noncombatants were killed in 2007 in Iraq, the report says, adding the high number could be attributed to a 50 percent increase in the number of suicide bombings
• The report identifies Iran as the world's "most active" state sponsor of terrorism for supporting Palestinian extremists and insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq, where it says elements of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps continued to give militants weapons, training and funding

Jennifer Horn: New Hampshire's Next Congresswoman

Jennifer Horn, a well-respected talk show host in New Hampshire, and mother of 5, is running for the US House of Representatives. Ms. Horn is hoping to unseat first term Congressional Representative Paul Hodes.

Ms. Horn is running because she is concerned about the lack of direction demonstrated by the 110th Congress. Jennifer Horn wants to secure a tax code that is fair, but in no way detrimental to working families. Jennifer Horn believes that it is important to ensure fiscal accountability at the federal level. Jennifer Horn will strive to guarantee America’s safety through sound foreign and military policies.

What you will not hear about Jennifer Horn are any endorsements from organizations such as NOW, Feminist Majority Organization, Center for the Advancement of Women, or any other of the countless feminist organizations. Why? Because Ms. Horn happens to be a Republican.

We often hear about the need for equality, and the call for more women to serve, to which Ms. Horn is uniquely qualified; but many of these organizations will ignore Jennifer Horn because she is an independent thinker. Progressives are quick to point out the need for equality, but only if it follows their agenda.

Jennifer Horn is a model citizen, an award winning radio host and author, who has spent a lifetime devoted to her community and her family. In every regard, Ms. Horn represents the achievements that we all should strive for, women and men alike, regardless of party affiliation. Ms. Horn embodies the best New Hampshire has to offer; someone all of us would be proud to send to Washington to serve our State.

Take the time to visit Jennifer Horn for Congress at her website (http://www.jenniferhorn.org/), or attend one of her appearances.

Newsbusted: Voting While Intoxicated, 6 More Weeks of Hillary, R&B Artist Keyes Blames White’s for Gangsta Rap

Supreme Court: Democrats Wrong Again - Indiana Voter ID Law Upheld

The United States Supreme Court sided with the State of Indiana, and its people, in their efforts to protect the integrity of the voting booth:

AP: Indiana Voter ID Law Upheld

Numerous other States are preparing similar legislation to ensure that each vote is valid. The Democrats have been opposed to any voter identification programs from the beginning. They have stated that these type of measures do not prevent voting fraud, or that it is part of a “grand” Republican strategy to disenfranchise certain voting blocks from entering the polls.

We have heard from the Democrats that the Indiana law was never about eliminating voting fraud (because it never existed?), but about preventing Democrats from voting. But the Democrats arguments will only show them to be paranoid or impertinent, or both.

Facts:

1. The law received overwhelming support from the citizens of Indiana
2. The Democrats who sued to block Indiana's law in 2005, did not name a single plaintiff who had been barred from voting because of the law
3. Legal voters, of all backgrounds, support voting integrity incentives. When asked by pollsters (Rasmussen Reports/The Washington Times), "Should voters be required to prove their identity by showing a government issued photo ID before they're allowed to vote?"

• 67 percent of responders answered "yes," while just 23 percent said "no"
• Fifty-eight percent of blacks, 69 percent of whites and 66 percent of other ethnic or racial minorities said voter ID laws are reasonable
• Among women age 40 and over, 70 percent said they support the idea of requiring a photo ID, and 66 percent of men 40 and older agree
• 99 percent of Indiana's voting-age residents already possess the necessary ID. Those that don’t have a State sanctioned identification may apply for one, and if need be, will not be charged any fee

Many Democrats have stated that Indiana (or for that matter any State in the Union) does not have a problem with voting fraud. Really, then please explain the following:

AG of Indiana: Vote Fraud Catches Up to 8 for Acts in ’03 Primary Election

AG of Indiana: Fraud, Forgery, False Witness

AG of Indiana: 37 Convictions -Including Aiding Fraudulent Application

What this law does is affirm that no dead people, or illegal immigrants, or voters not in good standing, try and sway an election. You need an identification to cash a check, to collect government entitlements, to pickup a prescription, should we expect anything less when casting a ballot?

Fair Pay Restoration Act Fails - Let The Revolution Begin (Again)!

I was watching CSPAN on the evening of April 23, as my ears perked up when the speaker on the floor called for a REVOLUTION! A very angry Maryland Senator Barbara Mikulski called for the women of America to unite, not for a shopping spree, but to fight a perceived injustice. Sounding less like Abigail Adams, and more like Carrie from Sex in the City, Mikulski asked the women of America to "Put your lipstick on, square your shoulders, suit up" and get ready to fight.” Maybe it is just me, but that was a less-than inspiring rally cry.

Mikulski's declaration came after the defeat of a Senate Bill known as the “Fair Pay Restoration Act ” (S. 1843). S. 1843 was born from the fairytale that women make less money than men for doing the same work (The Myth of Equal Pay). S. 1843 was in response to a recent Supreme Court case, Ledbetter v. Goodyear (US Supreme Court: Ledbetter v. Goodyear) that flew in the face of the feminist agenda.

The litigant (Ledbetter) was employed by the Goodyear Tire Company for over 10 years, and she claims that while some of her male counterparts were receiving raises, Ledbetter was being denied the same level of increases because of her sex. Ledbetter won her initial lawsuit in front of a jury, but the decision was overturned in the Federal Circuit Court, which in turn was upheld by the US Supreme Court, 5-4.

S. 1843 was sponsored by Senator Teddy Kennedy, which always makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand on end. S. 1843 was in response to what the Senate “felt” was a misinterpretation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the act used to bring the lawsuit against Goodyear.

The appeal filed by Goodyear was based on the fact that a plaintiff has 180 days from the discovery of the first act of discrimination to file a complaint, to which Ledbetter did not comply with. The dissenting judge, Justice Ginsberg, felt that although the letter of the law had been followed (which should be the only thing the Supreme Court should be concerned about), it was her opinion that it was never the original intent of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (Justice Ginsberg is also a mindreader). Ginsberg’s own dissent stated, “small pay discrepancy (as was the case with Ledbetter) is often difficult to recognize” It was Ginsberg’s statement that prompted Kennedy to take action.

1843 is being called the Fair Pay Restoration Act, but you cannot restore something that never was there or taken away. 1843 “amendments” the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include new language; language so vague that it could be interpreted a millions differed ways. 1843 was only going to make it harder for judges to rule. Additionally, if 1843 had passed, it would have been retroactively applied to all cases filed in the past, which most likely would have led to a mass of “re-filings” from previously lost cases, including Ledbetter’s case.

There was one other fact that was lost in everyone’s haste to pass 1843. The Supreme Court sided with Goodyear’s contention that the complaint was not filed as required by law, but the Supreme Court also stated that Ledbetter never proved her case. That’s right, she never proved discrimination.

Ledbetter was subject to the same process as her peers in regards to the awarding of raises. Raises were awarded based on merit, which was derived from one’s annual evaluation. Mind you Ledbetter isn’t claiming she did not received raises, just that her raises were not on par with her peers. You may have the same job title as a fellow employee, but merit pay means some people get less money and some people get more money. Ledbetter’s case was unable to withstand the scrutiny of TWO impartial appeals.

Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co and S. 1843 were being held up as another attempt to falsely correct the myth of unequal pay in the workplace. I read counter arguments by the ACLU and NOW stating that 1843 was necessary because of the difficulty woman have identifying and reporting discrimination. But in reality this bill was never about equality and was perpetuated on a fallacy. But like I always say, why would Progressives every let the facts get in the way of the truth.

Wall Street Journal: More on the Fair Pay Act

You Might Be A Liberal

I recently noticed a bumper sticker that featured the definition of a Liberal and a Conservative:

There’s tolerance for you! The bumper sticker got me thinking (I know, we conservatives aren’t suppose to be capable of free thought!) - What is a liberal? Searching the web, I found many examples that wouldn’t fit on a bumper sticker, but fit just fine here:

• You think that consenting adults can engage freely in every activity except capitalism
• You think the really alarming violence takes place outside the abortion clinic.
• You’ve ever referred to the “root cause” of something
• You think we never gave peace a chance
• You had to be told that “Manhattan,” “menopause” and “boycott” were not sexist words
• You begin sentences with the words “I feel”
• Your driver’s license has a hyphen because for you one last name just isn’t enough
• You think it takes a village
• You are a man and you hate yourself
• You hate your dad
• Someone offers you a Draught, you heard Draft, and headed for Canada
• You’re a woman and you don’t shave
• You think tofu is food
• You think the Daily Show is “news”
• You think that the words “to promote the general welfare” in the Constitution mean to promote welfare generally
• You reach the limits of your talent and then complain that you ran into a glass ceiling
• You think that the really dangerous McCarthy was Joe, not Eugene
• You think that if someone is getting richer, someone, somewhere, must be getting poorer
• You think that protestors outside nuclear power plants are dedicated activists, but protestors outside abortion clinics are dangerous zealots interfering with a legal activity
• You believe that more federal regulations will make your life better
• You believe that even though the top 20 percent of taxpayers pay 80 percent of income taxes, that the rich are not paying their “fair share
• You believe in global warming today just as firmly as you believed in global cooling back in the 1970s
• You believe that there was never, ever a problem with biased news coverage until Fox News went on the air
• You believe that Mikhail Gorbachev deserves more credit for losing the Cold War than Ronald Reagan deserves for winning it
• Your parents gave you an acre of preserved rain forest for your first birthday
• You cannot name a single NASCAR driver
• You mentally subtract 100 points from someone’s IQ if the person speaks with a Southern accent
• You think that the phrase “separation of church and state” is in the Constitution
• You pride yourself on your global awareness, global sensitivity and global outlook, but can’t name your state legislator or school board representative
• You believe that a woman should make it on her own, without depending on her husband (except for Hillary Clinton)
• You believe that rich people should not be allowed to contribute so much money to candidates for office (except for George Soros)
• You believe that government should make a special effort to hire members of traditionally oppressed groups, such as African-Americans (except for Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice)
• You feel a deep sense of common cause with oppressed groups, such as Hispanic immigrants (except for Cuban Americans fleeing Castro)
• You think people in south Florida, who can’t figure out how to work a butterfly ballot, ought to have the final say in choosing the president of the United States
• You have no problem with Hollywood movie starts flying around in private jets to give speeches on the evils of SUVs
• You think that raising taxes will reduce the budget deficit
• You deplore prejudice and bigotry in all its forms, but think that everyone in the “red states” is an idiot
• You are more concerned, more often, with the rights of convicted felons than you are with the rights of small business owners
• You uphold a woman’s right to choose, unless a woman chooses adoption, chooses to be a stay-at-home mom, chooses to homeschool, or chooses to start a business
• You have used the phrase, “in Europe, the government pays for health care and vacation,” without irony
• You are worried about how the French view Americans
• You believe that nativity scenes should be banned from public view, but that anyone objecting to pornography “only has to look the other way”
• Your father wore flowers and your mother wore army boots in the sixties
• Your FIVE-YEAR-OLD tells YOU what to do!
• And finally, you are almost certainly a liberal if you refuse to admit that you’re a liberal, and accuse anyone of calling you a liberal of McCarthyism

Free Speech For Profit?

A lawsuit was filed by Robin and Michael Read of Greeneville, Tenn., which accuses Dan Frazier of Flagstaff of "intentionally inflicting emotional harm" by including Spc. Brandon Michael Read's name on casualty lists printed on "Bush lied - They died" T-shirts without permission and ignoring a demand to remove their son's name.

Parents Sue "Free Speech" Profiteer

Frazier is claiming he is protected by the 1st Amendment, and believes that the “message” is too important to ignore. Frazier is also claiming that he is donating $1.00, of every shirt purchased to "an organization that helps families" of soldiers killed in Iraq. However, he does not name the organization.

Frazier is an intorlent Leftist who sells products to other misguided liberals. I guess that is what you call “Progressive Capitalism.”

President George Bush Is A Monkey

Art truly is in the eye of the beholder, as demonstrated by a recent political “art show” on display at Linn Benton Community College, in Vermont:

"Free" Thinking Artist

To the best of my knowledge this art show did not feature any “controversial” displays of prominent Democrats. A search of the web did not produce any news story related to the exhibition.

This is just a recent series of contentious art exhibitions we have seen over the past month (Maine Student Uses The American Flag As Art, Yale Senior: Abortion As Art), and are symptoms of what is “ailing” higher education today.


Progressive's speak of “tolerance,” but what they actual mean is tolerance for their thoughts, protest, beliefs, and lifestyles. Imagine the outrage if a conservative artist (hell, even a liberal artist) decided to create a monkey statue with the likeness of Senator Obama. What do you think the response would be?

Democrats Upset…Shocking!

Democrats across America are “disappointed” with ABC handling of the Clinton-Obama Debate held on April 16. Democrats have been using old stand-bys such as “unfair,” “ unbalanced,” and my all time favorite “tabloid journalism” to dismiss the poor showing of their candidates, especially Obama. The threatened fallout of a possible boycott against ABC is just the type of typical juvenile behavior we would expect from Progressives, and proves once again that the ranks of the Democratic Party has way too many sniveling, cry-babies.

We Don't Like ABC News Anymore

My favorite quote was “Peter Jennings would have NEVER done this.” Your right. Jennings would have done what the rest of the media did and throw softball questions at the Democratic candidates. Associations with Reverend Wright and William Ayers , and callous remarks that are “misunderstood,” are all fair game, as they should be. Democrats would be wise to remember the old expression “That which does not kill you will only make you stronger.”

In year when we have seen a snowman ask a questions about global warming, and the planting or the misrepresentation of audience members credentials, the Democrats are now starting to realize that neither of their remaining Presidential hopefuls can stand-up to the type of scrutiny Republicans are use to. If Senator McCain had a close associations with a former (unrepentant) KKK member, how do you feel the media would handle that? What about the Democratic Party, would they just walk past it?

All we have seen from the Democratic debates is fluff, rhetoric, class envy, and negativity. Debates, serving as an extension of intense public examination, should be a right of passage that every potential Presidential candidate should survive. There was nothing unfair about the ABC debate, and what we are witnessing is the reaction from an immature electorate, initially excited by empty talk, and are now forced to lash out at anyone who tries to bring them and their candidate down to Earth.

Democrats to ABC: Tough Questions for Republicans Only!

Obama’s Terrorist Acquaintance

Billy "The Kid" Ayer's Mugshot

Steve Chapman, of the Chicago Tribune, recently wrote an editorial explaining why a candidates associations are key to their character, and are valid questions to ask:

Our "Friends" Are Who We Are

This is not a matter of “Swift Boating,” as many have suggested. Who we are is defined by our actions. How our character is developed is defined by the people we choose to call friends and confidants.

Newsbusted: April 18, 2008

Scientist Warn That Puss N’ Boots Will Take Over the World

Forget global warming, man is facing a more sinister evil in the form of a cute, little fur ball. Don’t be fooled by that seemingly innocent purr, for behind those adorable eyes lays mankind’s downfall:

Here Kitty, Kitty

This could be Al Gore next Noble Prize. I can only imagine the unsubstantiated headlines now - “Roaming gangs of cats are responsible for reduction in the polar bears population” or better yet, “Increased cat flatulence is the leading cause of greenhouse gases.”

The Language of Life

In honor of the Popes visit to America, pro-life Senator Sam Brownback offered a resolution on the floor of the Senate. But the esteemed Senator from the State of California, Barbara Boxer, would have none of that.

Citing objections over the use of the following offensive language, Mr. Boxer held up the resolution throughout the day:

"Pope Benedict XVI has spoken out for the weak and vulnerable, witnessing to the value of each and every human life"

The “offensive language” was removed so as to not create a controversy that would only serve to embarrass the people of America. So I ask you, do you feel that Senator Boxer was right?

Barbara Boxer: How Dare You Speak of the Value of Life

A Miscarriage of Art

Yale Art Student Aliza Shvarts thought that it would be funny to pull a little joke on the campus newspaper:

Abortion as Art

The hoax was confirmed later in the day by the New York Sun (Art Project a Hoax)

This was in bad taste, and shows a lack of restraint and respect. Four years of an Ivy League education, and this was the best that Ms. Shvarts could do?

Update:

Ms. Shvarts is now claiming that the original story of her grotesque art display was in fact true:

Student Claims Abortion Art Not A Hoax

Shvarts has had her 15 minutes of fame, and it is really time for her to find a job at a coffee shop or a chain book store, because that is about all she is qualified for.

New Hampshire Impeachment Update: Resolution of Ineptitude

House Resolution 24 crept into the chamber of the NH House of Representative, and nothing was accomplished. The NH House, minus a few Republicans who chose to leave the floor, voted 227-95, to table the resolution. Tabling the resolution means that it is not dead, and could be resurrected, as political pandering requires.

WMUR News Report: Politics of Dancing

In a week in which we learned that the NH deficit is approaching $300 millions dollars, the best the Democratic leadership could do was take no action on a resolution they do not support. But what would you expect, House Speaker Terie Norelli is stuck between a rock and a hard place.

If Norelli allows the resolution to be voted on, and it passes, she exposes the Class of 2006 as a partisan group of malcontents. If it doesn’t pass, she risk alienating the fringe elements that make up the Democratic Party. Both outcomes playing right into the hands of the Republican Party. If HR24 had passed it was facing an uphill battle just to make it out of NH, let alone appear on the floor of the US Representative. The Constitutionality of the resolution would have been challenged, and it would have lost.

The House Leadership is only fanning the fire of this lunacy more by allowing HR24 to hang around. As long as HR24 is still alive, every ill-informed “impeachment nut” will cling to their delusions that HR24 is the “Holy Grail” that will help finally rid the world of the evil President Bush.

But the Republicans aren't above petty politics either. NH Rep. Al Baldasaro, Londonderry, introduced an equally incompetent piece of legislation in retaliation to HR24. Mr. Baldasaro's amendment called on the U.S. House to expel Democratic U.S. Rep. Carol Shea-Porter from Congress. Mr. Baldasaro was just as wrong as Rep. Hall, (along with their supporters) for having turned the floor of the NH House into a three-ringed circus, featuring Terie Norelli as its ring master.

Petty squabbling and politically charged legislation is no way to run a government. The ignorance of those that claim to represent the people far outweighed their good intentions.

New Hampshire To Vote On Impeachment

In February of 2008, I wrote a column about New Hampshire State Representatives Betty Hall’s attempt to force the US House of Representatives to initiate impeachment proceedings against President Bush and Vice-President Cheney (More Impeachment Pie, Please!). The entire NH House will vote on Ms. Hall resolution, New Hampshire House Resolution 24, on on April 16, 2008. There are several factual and political misrepresentations on the part of Ms. Hall that makes HR24 invalid.

The Constitution of the United States does not provide for any direct input into impeachment by the States, which Ms. Hall so callously suggested in HR 24. Impeachment is the purview of the House of Representatives and the Senate, and the oversight is afforded to the chief justice of the Supreme Court. The passing of HR24 does not mandate the U.S. House initiate anything. At best, it instructs our U.S. Representatives as to a course of action they could take, but Ms. Shea-Porter and Mr. Hodes are under no obligations to carry the message of HR 24 onto the House floor. Anyone suggesting such a power exists is woefully misguided.

As to Ms. Hall's resolution. From the very beginning, it is a poorly written declaration and reeks of political bias. Ms. Hall tries to legitimize HR24 by referencing a manual written by Thomas Jefferson called "A Manual of Parliamentary Practice," in particular Section 603. Guess what, there is no 603, nor was there ever. Jefferson covered impeachment under section 53 of the manual. Section 53 affords no such impeachment recourse on the part of the states. The Manual of Parliamentary Practice was never intended to be used as a replacement to the Constitution of the United States, as Ms. Hall is attempting to do with HR24.

As to the charges listed within HR24. They are vague at best, political tripe at worst. If it is the intention of the NH House to present a resolution to the US Congress, then HR24 is inadequate to merit any consideration beyond a select group of fringe supporters.

The NH House must be aware that there are articles of impeachment currently sitting in committee (U.S. HR333). Do you know whose names are absent from HR333? Our very own Ms. Shea-Porter and Mr. Hodes. Why then would the N.H. House ever waste time on HR 24, when there are already articles to impeach sitting in committee that New Hampshire’s own sitting Representatives have not signed on to support?

Ms. Hall is using a flawed process for political means. There is no integrity in House Resolution 24, and its text is taken almost verbatim from the pages of MoveOn.org and Code Pink, as well as other progressive propagandists.

Grandpa Obama

While speaking at a town hall style meeting in Pennsylvania, Senator Obama was posed with a question regarding AIDS/HIV, STD, and sex education in our schools. During his response, Obama made the following statement:

"I've got two daughters -- 9 years old and 6 years old," Obama said. "I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. ... So it doesn't make sense to not give them information."

Many have focused on the words “punished” and “mistake,” and rightly so. Whether intentionally or not, Obama pretty much summarized the sentiments of many Progressives, that every unwanted pregnancy should be looked upon as a mistake, and the only cure is abortion.

Most have ignored the fact that Mr. Obama referred to the punishment as a “baby,” which is a far cry from cold and heartless term fetus, the preferred name of the pro-abortion movement (wouldn't want people to actually think that a woman had a little human growing in their stomach.....noooooooo). There is no debate that when you use the word “baby,” you are talking about a human being, a living soul deserving of our protection. Maybe it was a “Freudian Slip,” a causal lapse of memory, but Obama forgot to use the “Official Pro-Choice Terminology Handbook,” and acknowledged life within the womb. The greater mistake is knowing that we have the power to protect a living miracle, choosing instead the killing of a child, and in the case of Obama, his grandchild.

The fact that Senator Obama was so willing to allow his grandchild to be killed is a mystery to me, and I am sure to millions of Americans. How can Senator Obama say out of one side of his mouth that children are a miracle, but speak of abortion as the answer to an “unwanted” miracle?

But what about those who support Senator Obama's comments, or abortion in general? What are they saying? Their callous and uncaring words are like cold water to the face while asleep:

From thecarpetbaggerreport.com:

On April 2nd, 2008 at 1:47 pm, Gregory said:

Badly played by Obama’s campaign. Obama’s phrasing was clumsy, but what has the wingnuts’ knickers in a twist is that Obama noted, correctly, that the anti-sex forces’ agenda is in fact to punish women for having sex. Looked at holistically, the conclusion is inescapable. His campaign should continue to drive that wedge — that the so-called “pro-life” forces seem much more about punishing women for having sex than pursuing any kind of rational policy, and indeed they oppose rational policy — such as contraception and sex ed — as “radical.”

It’s time to move the Overton window away from the anti-sex kooks.

On April 2nd, 2008 at 1:49 pm, Shalimar said:

Complaining is what conservatives do, and they will continue on this issue day after day until they find something new to be “outraged” about. IMO, they’re just mad because Obama’s language hit upon the crux of the conservative anti-abortion agenda. For most of them it has nothing to do with helping babies, it’s all about punishing women for having sex.

On April 2nd, 2008 at 2:00 pm, Coltrane said:

I really hope they keep with this criticism; most people, including many that are pro-life, understand through their own experience that children are a great burden, and that considering them to be a ‘punishment’ is not as outrageous as the few loudmouths are making it out to be. I mean, honestly, let’s face it, many americans will look at their own children and think to themselves “Yup, I am being punished.”

Cynical take, I know, but I really don’t think this is going to do anything to hurt obama except among people that wouldn’t ever vote for him based on the fact that he is pro-choice. It actually serves to dilute the general message against him into a bit of ‘noise’ I think.

On April 2nd, 2008 at 2:07 pm, Jay said:

Uh. Don’t the religious right people think that a woman should be punished with a baby for engaging in sex? Isn’t their position “Oh well. You should have thought of that before you had sex”? That’s punishment.

NOTE: Up next.............. statistics! The truth (Gallup poll): 35 percent support abortion rights when the woman or family cannot afford to raise the child (the leading reason abortions are performed in America!).

On April 2nd, 2008 at 2:27 pm, Shade Tail said:

What a lot of people don’t seem to realize is that the country is overwhelmingly pro-choice. If I recall correctly, the numbers are something like 70% pro-choice. Even registered republicans tend to be pro-choice. And the pro-life sheep who would take this “controversy” seriously are the same people who would never vote for a democrat in the first place.

So I think that if Obama stands up to this and throws it back in their faces, it could backfire on them magnificently. And he already has a history of doing just that with GOP smears and talking points.

NOTE: The delay between the posting times was because this group of “free-thinkers” couldn't stay on topic and starting debating who lied more, Clinton or Obama.

On April 2nd, 2008 at 4:23 pm, Rowdy said:

Can we please stop using phrases like “abortion rights”? It’s a “woman’s right to choose.” No one is “pro-abortion” we’re “pro-choice.”

Words matter.

NOTE: See, they really do have an Official Pro-Choice Terminology Handbook.

On April 2nd, 2008 at 5:20 pm, karen marie said:

the christianists are a mind-boggling group. sadly, they are also dangerous in that they sincerely believe that the bible is a greater authority than the united states constitution. their insistence that any indication of nono-alignment with their belief system is not only unacceptable but a direct attack on them leaves the rest of us with no choice but to reduce theiir participation in any discussion which lies outside of the four walls of the church and the immediate homes of their members.

if there were any justice in this country, there would be NO tax exempt status for ANY religious organization and only organizations which contribute in a practical way — food to the hungry, education scholarships, etc — would be tax exempt. political contributions would also be specifically prohibited from any tax exempt status.

if the rule is going to be that you have to pay to play, well, then, let’s just make that the rule across the board.

NOTE: Ahhhh, gotta have a little Christian bashing to prove we are “free-thinkers.”

The rantings of self professed intellectuals on this website, as well as others, are representative of a group of people blindly promising to bring “Hope” and “Change” to America, but at what cost?

Newsbusted: April 5, 2008

Remembering Dr. Martin Luther King

There are events that standout in our lives that help shape our character; the assassination of Dr. King was one such event for me.

Sitting in my living room watching television as my mother was ironing clothes the TV suddenly froze, the screen became consumed with an eerie darkest. Without warning the darkness was accompanied by a high-pitch squeal, and the words “Special Report” flashed on the screen. The announcer simply stated, without emotion, that Dr. Martin Luther King had been killed. And there it was, a lifetime of achieved reduced to a 30 second announcement.

I remember thinking – “Why would anyone want to kill this man.” Asking my mother this question her only reply was – “I don’t know honey, I don’t know.” My mother stopped ironing and sat down to listen to the rest of the news story, silent.

Dr. King stood for justice, peace, and compassion for all Americans, for all humanity. We honor his life by remembering his legacy and dedicated ourselves to his message.

Support Peace, Plant a Bomb

We are often told by those on the Left that it is not “the Troops” they do not support, it is the “War.” We see lawn signs and bumper stickers that proclaim “I Support the Troops, Not the Mission,” or “Support the Troops, End the War.” We are told that a person can be in support of those in harms way, but at the same time be openly critical of the the war itself. There is some truth in that statement, but only if a persons motives are pure, and the manner in which the opposition is presented is with respect to the cause. The real truth is that many anti-war protesters came to the movement due to their hatred of President Bush, or their warped sense of “Progressive Patriotism.”

I am of the opinion that many anti-war groups did not want to get caught up in the quagmire that occurred after the Vietnam War. Many returning Vets were ridiculed and insulted while serving in Vietnam, and upon their return to the States. The Anti-war movement of the 60's showed a serious lack of compassion for their fellow countrymen, so much so that many of the scars still have not healed.

Today's neo-Progressives started out by trying not to repeat the mistakes they made during the Vietnam War. But let's not be fooled, many of the same 60's radicals who burned they draft cards 40 years ago, are the same leaders of todays anti-war movement. These aging hippies, suffering from the affects of all the drugs they took in college, wanting desperately to relive their glory days, are now trying to influence a new generation to follow in their failed footsteps.

What started with the irresponsible actions of the Berkeley City Council and Code Pink has given way to a front more closely in line with the anarchist movement:

Report: Increase Attack on Military Recruiting Stations

Sedition Report

The anti-war movement has never been able to contain “its emotions,” eventually resorting to (warning....oxymoron alert!) destructive actions in the name of peace. Notice how quickly the anti-war movement abandons their “Support for the Troops” propaganda when their cause is not getting daily headlines. Like little children that resort to “violently lashing out, because nobody is listening,” the modern anti-movement have once again shown their true colors, and they aren't Red, White, and Blue.

Newsbusted: March 31, 2008