Pro Life?

Perhaps, no other single issue has so divided Americans. I used to not really know how I felt on this issue and frankly, at one point, I did not even care. We should look back historically at this term and realize that this term has indeed changed over time. The people and groups that opposed abortion were at one point referenced as anti- abortion and the people that supported the right to choose were called pro-choice. The religious crowd and their political gurus got involved and decided that the term anti- abortion was a negative term and they wanted to change the term to pro-life. They also wanted the pro choice folks to be called pro-abortion. This change was made through the so called “liberal “media and was pushed by pastors and churches and through the exploding medium known as conservative radio. The change was such a success that no one seems to even remember the former terms. My first comment would be that I am a male and as such, I feel that I am not qualified to decide what is best on this issue. Until a man can have a baby, I don’t think that we should be making these decisions for women. I can guarantee you that if men were the ones that got pregnant, then abortion would not only be legal, you would be able to get one at any grocery store 24 hours a day. I do agree with President Clinton when he said…”abortions should be safe, legal and rare”. I also would like to dispute the perception that abortion is used as birth control. There is simply no truth in women using this embarrassing procedure as a way to control pregnancy. What person in their right mind would want the cost and health risk and self guilt of going through this process over and over? My last question would be the same as I asked a group of conservative Christian people recently. I simply want to know if these same people supported the war in Iraq? The obvious answer is of course they do. My next question would be, you are anti-abortion as well? Again, the answer is yes. The final question would be, how can you be pro-life and yet support the killing of thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands of innocent lives in Iraq? I was shouted down after this question and was told that we were justified in killing the people in Iraq because that was keeping us safe. How could this be because the facts have been blurred? Iraq had nothing to do with 911 and had no way to harm us as a Nation. I’m afraid that these same people have been brain washed by the Bush administration and right wing media and somehow believed the propaganda about Iraq. If you have any doubts, simply perform a Google search and view the myriad of articles and interviews that admit such by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and all the others involved in the march to war. The point I want to make is, if you are a pro-life person, how can you support the killing of innocent people anywhere in the world? How can you care about an unborn baby but no care after they are born and how can you ever not support the right of every American to universal health care? Who would Jesus deny coverage to? I think that what we are looking at here is a case of ironic behavior. The same people that support small Government and keeping Washington out of your lives are more than happy to have the government involved in your life in the case of abortion, homosexual behavior and generally trying to dictate morality to others. If you are so against abortion, simply don’t have one. If you are anti abortion, then don’t be a war monger and don’t preach such hate that it cost a doctor, a nurse or a patient their lives at an abortion clinic. In my view, the hate merchants that constantly wink at violence against anyone in the legal women’s health profession, are nothing more than domestic terrorist and should be treated and prosecuted just like any other terrorist. Seems like lots of these folks also support torture and water boarding, maybe these treatments would be good for them if they plot, plan, preach or support any violence in the name of God. These issues will never be solved by your conservative leaders because they need a bogey man to unite the base. If the conservatives had any intention of changing the law, they would have done so on the many occasions that they had total control over the congress and the Presidency.

The White House

The White House

Weiner To Republicans: "You Guys Have Chutzpah" | The New Republic

Weiner To Republicans: "You Guys Have Chutzpah" | The New Republic

Recovery Act at Work

Route 66 in Tennessee. Recovery Act in action. This is proof positive that the recovery act is putting folks to work in the South. The next time that you hear a conservative saying that the financial rescue package did not make any difference, you can rest assured that they are lying. It's funny that the same political hacks that say that the stimulus was a waste and has done nothing are far to happy to hold up the big checks and pose for a photo and take credit for the money coming in to their counties.

Foxy Terrorist...

from ThinkProgress....

Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal owns a 7 percent stake in News Corp — the parent company of Fox News — making him the largest shareholder outside the family of News Corp CEO Rupert Murdoch. Alwaleed has grown close with the Murdoch enterprise, recently endorsing James Murdoch to succeed his father and creating a content-sharing agreement with Fox News for his own media conglomerate, Rotana.

A brief history lesson will reveal that most of the attackers on 9-11 were from Saudi and so is Bin Laden. Seems like I remember someone......Palin....accusing Mr. Obama of hanging around with terrorist but now I think it is clear that Fox News is the one that is aiding the real terrorist. And where does Mrs. Palin get a paycheck from now?....of yea...Fox News. Anyone else connecting the dots? Think about it.

Big Tent Party

The Democratic Party has been referred to as having a big tent. I’m glad that the tent is large enough to allow all walks of life. The tent includes all races, sexual orientation and ages. This is the party of diversity and that is the way it should be. In recent times, the tent has another sect included and that is Conservative Democrats. The decline of the Republican Party as a whole and the fact that they are becoming a Southern and White Party makes me ask 2 questions. Should the Republican Party even exist? If the Democratic Tent now includes Conservatives, why don't the reasonable Conservatives simply come into the Democratic Party? We could then have one political party with a Conservative wing and a Liberal Wing. Instead of having the Democratic and Republican Parties, there would be the Conservative Democratic Party and the Liberal Democratic Party. Of course there are bunches of inherent problems with this in that there would be zero room for tea bag people or political terrorist….i.e. religious nuts that believe in killing abortion doctors or for racist people. These folks would have to go form other fringe parties to show themselves for who they really are. Imagine the below as a list of political parties to vote for in the future….

Democratic Liberal / Progressive
Democratic Conservative
Southern Tea Party…Sweet Tea Party
Green Party….Ralph Nader if you must
Libertarian
Christian Party….very exclusive I guess


Of course the other question that I have is…has the tent gotten too big? Democrats find themselves in rare territory in that because we include all points of view, we often find it hard to vote as a block on issues and that allows the Republicans and Conservative Democrats to obstruct true reform and change. The Republicans seem to always vote in lock step but I suppose it is easier to do so when you represent a narrower viewpoint. Just food for thought, please leave your thoughts in the section below.

Believe it or not!

I have said that meeting a Democrat in South Carolina is like seeing big foot. It is a rare occurance and the majority of folks don't beleive that you saw one. The history of the Democratic Party in SC is interesting. Below is a quote from www.270towin.com.

South Carolina, one of the original 13 colonies, attained statehood in May 1788 and has participated in every presidential election except 1864, when it had seceded from the Union. South Carolina has had eight electoral votes since 1932. Like many other southern states, South Carolina voted almost exclusively Democratic from the time of Reconstruction through the early 1960s, before turning Republican largely in response to civil rights legislation. South Carolina was one of only six states to vote for Barry Goldwater in 1964 and has voted Republican since, except in 1976 when it voted for fellow southerner Jimmy Carter.

Although, the Republicans would like to ignore the Democratic Party in South Carolina, you might be suprised at the final total in the last Presidential election. The state did give 8 electoral votes to Mccain but the percentage was closer than should be comfortable for the big elephant party.

2008 / voting / South Carolina- 54% Mccain and 45% Obama.

Suddenly, I don't feel like such a Yeti or Bigfoot anymore. It makes you think that there may actually be hope for the little guy after all.