It never ceases to amaze me how many conservatives don’t understand political strategy.

I recently wrote a post about the outrageous assertions by Democrats in the Texas legislature that a GOP-led bill to place new restrictions on abortion. In it, I detailed the process of reporting a rape and how it is investigated. I said that once a forensic nurse finishes her exam, the victim is given several prescriptions, one of them for the morning-after pill. This process tells the truth about the Democrat claims that SB5 would “virtually ban” abortion in Texas because the GOP refused to add an exception for cases of rape and incest. Whether by ignorance or on purpose, Democrats preyed heavily on the emotions of those who believe women should have the right to have an abortion if they are raped. The claim was outrageous on its face, but the GOP missed a crucial opportunity.

The Texas GOP adamantly refused to add exceptions to the bill for instances of rape and incest. As previously mentioned, the argument falls flat when you know what really happens, but that matters none. A lie, repeated often enough, becomes truth – and the Democrats had not only their followers but those on the fence and the independent voters in their pocket as well because they kept beating the same drum over and over again.

They had an opportunity to shut them up by adding such exceptions. SB5’s author, Jodie Laubenberg, made a major faux pas when she claimed that a rape kit contained a procedure that would “clean you out”, thus avoiding pregnancy – while on the right track, she was still off the mark and the mistake was an embarrassing one. The Democrats ended up using it in their favor. Wendy Davis, representing the Fort Worth area, announced, planned, and carried out an 11-hour filibuster to avoid the vote taking place before the end of the special session.

Even people I know who are more conservative than anything else in their political views held up her actions as nothing short of heroic. They didn’t know the truth about her claims, but they knew what she and Senfronia Thompson were claiming. This bill wouldn’t have come anywhere close to “virtually banning” abortion in Texas, but the Democrats led everyone to believe it, all because the GOP refused to budge on the issue of making exceptions for rape and incest in the bill.

Will the bill pass in the next special session? As long as Wendy Davis doesn’t hold out for another 11 hours, it likely will. It is absolutely criminal that the Democrats in Texas are so ardently against a bill that would enact stringent requirements for abortion clinics, safety measures that are badly needed. They wailed and moaned about an abortion ban forcing women to choose unsafe methods for terminating pregnancies, but none of them are willing to face the reality that a lot of abortion clinics are already very unsafe – with unsanitary conditions, unsterilized instruments and untrained staff that are acceptable because there are almost no requirements at all for abortion clinics. The Democrats, however, will oppose any such bill on principle alone because they can’t stand the idea of there being any limits on what they call “a woman’s right to choose.”

What the GOP did in their stalwart refusal, however, is far worse than just stand their ground. They couldn’t properly articulate their stance on the rape exception and as a result fell flat on their collective face. In so doing they gift-wrapped an amazing opportunity and practically hand-delivered it to Wendy Davis.

Davis has ambition to go much further than the State Senate. With this moment in her pocket, she stands a very good chance of one day landing a stint as governor. That’s not something I’m sure I want to live with. The conservatives in Texas seem to think that their majority can never be broken. Conservatives in Colorado once believed the same thing, and now their state has passed among the toughest gun control laws in the country. In short, the Texas GOP set her up for future victory. All because they can’t stand the thought of giving an inch of ground in one simple battle.

Was the Democrat argument silly? Yes. Were they wrong in their claims? Yes. Those two facts have not stopped the Democrats from gaining a foothold, however small it may be. Fellow conservatives from my home state are mad at me right now, calling me an “underground moderate” and telling me, “we’re conservatives, Mel. We don’t play games.” Unfortunately, the liberals in this case ARE playing games. Because they’re better at strategizing, they’re winning that game.

Adding an exception wouldn’t have been appeasement. It wouldn’t have even been the “moderate” thing to do. It would have taken the wind out of the Democrats’ sails. Now, if the bill doesn’t pass in the next special session without making that exception, it will still be seen as a loss. They have no choice but to make certain they pass it as is. As time goes on, Wendy Davis will be waiting for the next moment of stubborn weakness so she can play the game some more. The GOP needs to learn how to play this game or we’ll all be sent home.

This Isn’t What You Think It Is

My home state, Texas, is currently considering a major abortion bill. It passed the State House overwhelmingly yesterday and is being voted on by the State Senate as I type. The bill would ban abortions after 20 weeks – it would also require abortion clinics to be licensed surgical centers.

I don’t see a problem with this. 20 weeks is five months – a fetus born after only five months’ gestation would have a tough time surviving and need delicate care for a few weeks in a NICU, but it is still a viable fetus. It is still a life. I have a serious problem with the ease with which anyone can get an abortion – rather than using it as a last resort, it is used as birth control. That should never have been acceptable. Never mind adoption or the fact that most states allow you to give up a baby safely within a certain period of time after it is born without having to fear criminal reprisal.

As for the requirement that all abortion clinics obtain certification as surgical centers, I believe this is extremely important. Not having such a requirement leaves women vulnerable to unsanitary conditions and unsafe practices. One already has to be a licensed doctor to practice in an abortion clinic, but there are doctors like Kermit Gosnell lurking in every state – animals willing to hire untrained medical techs in lieu of nurses and won’t hire a cleaning staff, won’t use sterilized instruments, and engages in peddling narcotic analgesics (and allowing the staff to do so as well) to make a little extra money. Those types of people tend to prey on the poor and often operate in neighborhoods full of uneducated minorities who are desperate to avoid having a child.

Nearly half of all states have had to raid and close abortion clinics within their borders, but you don’t hear about them on the news. Why? Abortion-rights advocates don’t want the truth getting out. Before the Texas House debate on the current bill, Rep. Senfronia Thompson (D-Houston) gave an impassioned speech against the bill, asking, “do you wanna return back to the coat hanger? Or do you wanna give them an option to be able to terminate their pregnancy because they have been raped?”

Mrs. Thompson completely skips over reality with her statement. She, like many liberals, uses hysteria and misinformation to drum up opposition for the bill. She also completely ignores the fact that using a coat hanger is actually probably safer than going to a clinic like the one run by Kermit Gosnell; a woman is far less likely to end up with MRSA that way.

The way nearly every major municipality in America works, when you are raped, the first thing you should do – whether or not you require immediate medical attention – is call 911. Don’t call your friends or your parents, you should call 911, tell the dispatcher where you are, tell them you’ve been raped and they will send police and paramedics. Don’t eat or drink anything, don’t shower, don’t brush your hair – if you must, wrap yourself in a blanket, but don’t discard your clothing. Don’t allow anyone to touch you. If you do require medical attention for life-threatening injuries, you’ll go to the hospital and a forensic nurse will meet you there. If your injuries are not life-threatening, you’ll go to a family advocacy center or something similar; a police officer will have to stay with you at all times. A forensic nurse will collect what is famously referred to as a “rape kit” – it is a pre-packaged kit that directs the collection of vital evidence (like bodily fluids containing DNA) and take pictures of your injuries (cameras can often capture injuries that the naked eye cannot). When the exam is over, the nurse will give you a packet of information on getting tested for HIV and other STDs along with prescriptions for several drugs that will help ward off the initial symptoms of any STDs your attacker may have had.

Among those prescriptions will be one for the morning-after pill. It will be your decision whether to take it. A rape kit is not meant to be paid for by you, nor are the prescriptions.

What happens following a rape is fairly simple. It’s easy to obtain a morning-after pill and I have no problem with that in cases of rape and incest. A coat hanger is a solution that would not become a viable one until at least 12 weeks following a rape. Generally, victims have time to do something well before that point. Unless you’re being held captive by your attacker, there is no excuse not to report a rape and get help to make sure you’re taken care of.

And, quite contrary to what shills like Senfronia Thompson would have you believe, the overwhelming majority of women trying to get an abortion at a clinic aren’t there because they were raped. They’re there because of their own choices. They don’t want to live with the consequences of their own actions. They either didn’t have enough respect for themselves to say no or they knew how easy it was to get an abortion and decided to have a night of fun because it felt good at the moment. Our prisons are full of men and women who did things for the latter reason, yet we allow abortions for this reason. We turn around and dress it up as “a woman’s right to choose”.

I’m sorry, but you made your choice when you jumped into the back seat of your lover’s car and went to town. If THAT was your choice, then there should be another consequence that doesn’t involve ending a life. Since I’m certain that abortion will never be illegal again in the modern age, I think it’s important to have limits on it and require “providers” (if that’s what you can call them) to keep a sanitary, safe environment for their “patients”. The fact that anyone can excuse opposing those kinds of common-sense rules is appalling to me.

I am aware of what Rep. Jodie Laubenberg said in defense of the bill. Yes, she actually did say that a rape kit performed in an ER would “clean you out”. That is incorrect, and I’m not willing to excuse her ignorance on the subject – she is not, however, anywhere near as ignorant as Todd Akin was (he was unforgivably stupid and he was rightly called out by most of the very embarrassed GOP). I am also not willing to call her completely stupid about it. She was on the right track even if she wasn’t prepared to properly articulate the reason for the bill. Yes, I wish she had been a little more educated on the subject, but she is not anywhere near the same ball park as Akin.

The Great Planned Parenthood Lie

I’m sick to death of big names in American culture trying to have me believe that, as a woman, I should be a pro-abortion liberal who screams for forced coverage for contraceptives. Scarlett Johansson is a beautiful and talented young woman. So is Eva Longoria. But the fact that they are lined up with other starlets to push their “vote with your ladyparts” campaign is disgusting and extremely off-putting.

In the newest ad, Hollywood is climbing all over Romney and Ryan for promising to de-fund Planned Parenthood. Their choice of words comes across as being dishonest, though – the Obama campaign is accusing Ryan of backing laws that would “allow employers to deny women access to cancer screenings and contraceptives.” In the Hollywood ad, Johansson makes an absolutely deplorable statement: she claims that “we have the GOP trying to re-define rape!”

Oh, yes…she did. She, like Cameron Diaz before her, is trying to accuse conservatives of wanting to undo laws that make rape – particularly marital rape – a crime. There is no evidence of this at all. No meetings or hearings, no drafts of bills being considered in committee, not even the slightest hint that Republicans are actually trying to do such a thing. She is accusing me, my family and most of my friends of trying to decriminalize one of the most outrageous personal crimes that can be committed. As a fire/rescue/EMS worker who has helped rape victims, I am furiously insulted.

As for the meat of the argument, I’m always the kind of person who wants both sides of a story, so I went looking. Michelle Malkin recently quoted a report by Live Action that showed 30 Planned Parenthood offices in 27 states had no direct programs for mammograms. One staffer openly admitted that they don’t provide those services at all. The Alliance Defense Fund asked the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for information on how many PP centers are certified to perform mammograms. HHS said they had no such documentation for PP.

When I wanted to read investigative pieces from the other side of the argument, I couldn’t find any. I found plenty of op-eds, for sure, but none of them offered any tangible evidence to back their argument. Stephanie Todd, writing for The Examiner, quoted PP president Cecile Richards in claiming that 97% of all services provided by PP are “preventive care” medical services. What she didn’t do was ask for proof to back up Richards’ claim – and since she got the quote from a Joy Behar interview, we all know why no probing questions were asked. A Huffington Post article claimed in its headline that “women rely on PP for critical breast health care – period.” That article turned out to be written by Rachel B. Fleischer, who happens to be the Managing Director of Communications for the PP Action Fund. She comes out and admits that PP’s staff OB-GYNs and nurses do not perform mammograms, though she never addresses cervical cancer screenings. She says that PP gives referrals, which she says you need to get a mammogram (this is untrue, as family history can dictate that a mammogram before age 40 is important, as it is in my case). She, like President Obama, claims that PP is vital to women who are underinsured or uninsured.

What none of the PP cheerleaders have mentioned is the CDC’s National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP). This program “provides access to breast and cervical cancer screening services to underserved women in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, 5 U.S. territories, and 12 tribes” (that’s straight from the website). There’s no information immediately available for how much money is spent on the program, but the website boasts that in 2011, 333,302 women were screened for breast cancer, with 5,655 diagnosed. 253,312 women were screened for cervical cancer, with 4,695 diagnosed. With those numbers it’s not hard to believe that between the tests themselves (which run anywhere from $75-$120 apiece) and funding for staff, equipment and facilities, funding likely runs into the $300M range.

With PP, the numbers have to be read carefully. If you’re looking directly at their numbers, they they don’t add up. Cecile Richards claims that only 3% of PP’s business comes from abortions. Here’s how their pie chart breaks it down: 35% of services were for testing and treatment of STD’s, 35% for contraception, 16% for “cancer screening and prevention” (which, we’ll talk about shortly, takes place largely through referrals outside the organization), 10% “other” women’s health (which is undefined by the report), 3% for abortions and 1% for “other” (also undefined). Even those figures are doctored, as other notes in the same report show that out of three million people who walked through their doors in 2009 (the latest year I could find expense reports for), 332,278 went for abortions. That would, in reality, be one out of every nine people, or 11%. Also, their revenue shows that 37% comes from actual income from their “health centers” (read: abortions). They recorded a total revenue of $737M (aside from government funding) and recorded net assets of $994.7M.

We the taxpayers gave them $363.2M that year.

Everything that I found showed that PP doctors and nurses give referrals when someone comes in for a mammogram. Who do they refer these women to? Well, bless me – they refer them right back to NBCCEDP! That’s the government program that funds cancer screenings, pelvic exams, biopsies and referrals for treatment. Rachel Fleischer also says that PP works in conjunction with other organizations to provide mobile mammography sites. Considering what’s likely spent on the CDC’s current program, the government could transfer all of the money they’re giving PP to the CDC and expand it so those poor women who are going to PP right now can go to another participating doctor.

And we’re supposed to believe that electing Mitt Romney to the presidency is going to put PP out of business and deprive women of affordable cancer screenings?

It frightens me that those who stand on society’s pedestals are so willing to lie just to support their chosen political candidate. I would never have lied for Bush, nor would I lie for Romney or Governor Palin. I would hope that none of them would ever ask me to – and if they found me doing it, would insist that I stop. I would hope that Obama would have some shred of honesty, at least enough to ask his high-powered followers not to go so far as to claim that the opposition is attempting to de-criminalize rape. That is reprehensible.

If you’re not willing to actually research all of the facts, don’t throw your hat in the ring. Just because you have an emotional reaction to something you’ve heard or read does not mean you’re right.

The Stupak Betrayal

Watching the “Health Care Reform” debate on CSPAN yesterday was agonizing.  As Mel noted, it made my head want to explode.  But what made it even more unbearable for me personally was the concession made that allowed the Dems to garner the votes necessary to pass the legislation.  The GOP’s hopes of defeating this abomination hinged on the opposition of the Democrats’ pro-life dozen including their leader, Rep. Bart Stupak (MI).  As states, it was an easy fix for Pelosi….

Until Sunday, the Michigan Democrat had insisted that he wouldn’t support healthcare reform until Congress voted to rescind language widely interpreted as allowing the expenditure of public funds to pay for the abortions.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi knew that changing the language would cost the support of other Democrats, however. So she kicked the controversy back down Pennsylvania Avenue to the president, who issued an executive order declaring that public funds would not be spent for abortions.

That last-minute move apparently gave Stupak the cover he needed to support the bill.  Even Stupak knows that Obama’s executive order was meaningless.

Nationally, pro-life advocates and even some Democrats objected that the president’s executive order would be virtually meaningless. It can be rescinded at any time by another presidential order, either by Obama or his successor. Also, by law, a presidential executive order cannot countermand congressional legislation. That means the provisions passed by the House will be the law of the land.

I can take a traitor, but a traitor who poses as a person of principle on an issue that I hold dearly is beyond my ability to forgive and forget.  And I’m not alone.

Susan B. Anthony List Candidate Fund President Marjorie Dannenfelser said the group was revoking its “Defender of Life” award to Stupak, which was to be awarded at its Wednesday night gala.

“We were planning to honor Congressman Stupak for his efforts to keep abortion-funding out of health care reform. We will no longer be doing so,” Dannenfelser said. “Let me be clear: any representative, including Rep. Stupak, who votes for this health care bill can no longer call themselves ‘pro-life.'” 

Bart Stupak is a fraud and a liar.  He doesn’t care one iota about the sanctity of life.  He is one of the lowest forms of human life.  At least you know what you are getting with Pelosi and those on the left who advocate for abortion rights.  But Stupak was a pretender.  His resolve on behalf of the unborn was either a farce or it was not strong enough to withstand pressure.  So he is either a liar or he is a weak-spined individual with no sense of principle.  In either case, Stupak must be defeated.  I would revel in his defeat more than I would in the defeat of Nancy Pelosi herself.

Stupak’s most formidable GOP challenger is Dr. Ben Benishek (although the primary has not been decided yet).  Stupak’s performance on Sunday did not go unnoticed by voters and others who revere life .

Benishek, an Obamacare opponent and political novice running in Michigan’s first congressional district GOP primary, says his phone started ringing before Stupak even completed his remarks.

“Before he was even done talking, people started calling me. They didn’t even want to talk to me much. They just wanted to confirm that I was the guy running against Stupak, and how could they send me money. I just couldn’t believe it,” Benishek tells Newsmax.

Messages of support suddenly flashed onto Stupak’s Facebook page.

“I’m not in Michigan, but even those of us in New York realize YOU have to beat Stupak in NOV!!!!” one visitor wrote.

“I live in Hawaii but I’m sending you my check today,” another stated. “Stupak must go. Please help us take back our beloved country.”

The Benishek for Congress Facebook page, which had gone largely unnoticed, added over 13,000 new members overnight. That compares to Stupak’s Facebook page, which boasts 2,056 fans.

Benishek, a pro-life conservative, says Stupak “obviously caved in” to political pressure, said that within three hours of Stupak’s announcement he had received 2,000 e-mails from newfound supporters. His Web site,, got so many hits that he says it crashed.

Once the primary is decided in that district, I will be donating money to his opponent.  I have a feeling that Stupak really put this race into play by embracing a fix that even he acknowledges is meaningless. 

This is just one more example of what is wrong with Washington.  I hate to sound like a cliche, but it really pains me and angers me.  I think it’s naive to believe that we will ever eliminate the backroom deals and bargaining that seem to be inherent in politics.  But when the bargaining chip involves potentially thousands or millions of unborn babies, things have gone too far.  Stupak will have to live with that fact.  It might bother him one day if he ever really cared.

***  Beneshik has a link on his facebook page where you can donate.  Or you can mail a check.

Pro-Choice, but for who?

The hypocrisy coming from feminists and pro-abortion fanatics is astonishing with regard to the Stupak amendment.  The Stupak amendment was passed on Saturday with bipartisan support – just in case the travesty bill known as HR3962 passed (which it sadly did).  Basically, it prohibits the use of public funds for abortion by women.  Sounds reasonable, doesn’t it?

Not according to Planned Parenthood and NARAL.  Tonight on Joy Behar’s show, the ultra-liberal pro-choice host had on a few of these women along with Congresswoman Maxine Waters.  To say these women stretched the truth is a huge understatement. 

When people take advantage of a public option to anything, they succumb to big-government bureaucracy.  It’s always been that way, it always will be.  Who votes for these politicians who support big-government bureaucracy?  Why I do believe it’s the same liberals who are angry about the Stupak Amendment!?

What angered me about Behar’s show (not that I expect journalistic integrity out of her) is how uniformed she herself was as the fanatics proclaimed that women would still be denied abortion if they paid for their own policies.  She, of course, was appalled as the same fanatics continued to blame “anti-choice” members of the House. 

“Paying for their policies” doesn’t grant them that right if they are paying for their policies out of the exchange.  Why?  Because if a woman purchases an insurance policy out of the public option and pays $100 per month for a policy which she would have paid $300 per month for from Blue Cross Blue Shield, this means that two-thirds of her insurance policy is subsidized by the American taxpayer.

It’s the same concept with Section 8 or public housing.  Folks pay a small sum of money – say $150 per month – and the government covers the remaining $600-$800 per month.  In my county, such recipients are constantly put through the most rigorous procedures.  They have to send in pay stubs every month, they get their house inspected every two months, their kids’ clothes are inspected and beds are checked, personal questions about the dating lives of the recipients are asked, etc. etc. etc.  Every aspect of their lives from A to Z is violated.  There is no privacy when you sell out to big government and wear one of their numbers.

What about the “choice” anyway?  Any liberal who complains about this Stupak amendment is a total hypocrite.  What about the choice of taxpayers who have to pay for the bill (considering it passes the Senate)?  Do they have a “choice” of whether or not to pay for it?  Miraculously, Planned Parenthood or NARAL doesn’t seem to mind that, nor do liberal politicians, nor do the voting liberal base.

They selectively apply “choice” and “privacy” to matters that are only important to the radical left-wing.

Here’s a little newsflash for them (and feminists alike): this is only the beginning!  Every aspect of your life is going to be uncovered, there will be an answer to them for everything you do, and they WILL have the control over your life that they have always wanted.

And you know what?  You deserve it. 

You want your precious privacy?  Good!  You might have just taken your first step to being a conservative!

Pointing the Finger

Yesterday morning, Scott Roeder walked into a church in Kansas and shot Dr. George Tiller to death. Tiller was well-known for being one of only three doctors in the entire country who provides late-term abortions (abortions performed after a fetus reaches 21 weeks). I’d heard of Tiller many times on the news and thought what he did was ghastly, but never would I have ever thought it justified to kill him. I still don’t think he should have been murdered.

A quick summation of my views on abortion: I am mostly pro-life except for my belief that morning-after pills are acceptable in cases of rape. I believe that once a fetus forms a brain and a beating heart it is a child, and terminating that child is murder. In particular I believe that late-term abortions are a heinous crime that never should have been legalized, as it has been proven that late-term babies are capable of understanding that their life is in danger (the belief that it’s a reflexive action to try to escape an abortion doctor’s suction tool does not negate that fact). I believe that this sort of abortion is little more than society’s way of absolving us of accepting responsibility for our actions, because we all know that a very likely consequence of having sex is pregnancy–and a woman’s right to choose can be exercised before it gets to the point that she decides she doesn’t want this child to ruin her life.

That said, I still wholeheartedly condemn Scott Roeder’s actions. The law expressly forbids vigilantism. Taking the law into your own hands and meting out justice as you see it is every bit as illegal as the original crime, and with good reason. If vigilantism were legal innocent people would routinely be targeted. But in no way does any fact justify Dr. Tiller’s murder. My heart goes out to his family.

Now, liberals, you have a prime example of a conservative condemning this action. I have read countless comments on multiple blogs from liberals who have already tried and condemned all Christians and conservatives for Dr. Tiller’s murder. It is a crime to do so this quickly, every bit as it was a crime for Roeder to pick up a gun and pull the trigger in a church to take vengeance in his own way. By pinning this on all of us is as hypocritical as you claim we are. You scream for tolerance, yet you cannot tolerate our beliefs. The crime scene hadn’t even been fully processed before you were all pointing the finger at us for this crime. Within hours, a reader named Dave posted a comment on my post Stop the “Christian Taliban?”:

“When christchuckers continue to kill gynecologists and fertility doctors; then celebrate that murder; while condemning their own gay sons and daughters they will be referred to as the Christian Taliban. If you don’t like it, get the f*** out of my country and move to Saudi Arabia.”

I have a major problem with this. First of all, the last time an ABORTION doctor (note, they are not gynecologists or “fertility doctors”) was murdered was 1998. That was eleven years ago. Right now, liberals are talking about this as if it happens all the time, and it’s simply not true, so please stop that angle. Second, not one sane Christian in this country has celebrated any of the acts that have ever been committed against abortion doctors; it is only the fringe groups who badly misquote and take the bible completely out of context who attempt to use their religion to justify their actions. Just because a handful do that does not mean that I’m at fault for their stupidity. Finally, not one person has been able to give a single accurate reason for labelling Christians the Taliban, because Christians in America don’t beat and execute women for being caught without a male escort in public. Don’t preach at us about extremism when that is the tactic you’re using to discredit us.

This incident has already proven my point about emotion vs. reason. A reasonable, rational person is capable of stopping before reacting and thinking about what would and wouldn’t be appropriate. Liberals, for the most part, react to everything based on an emotional gut reaction and they speak and act before they even try to think about the insinuations they’re making. We wonder why we aren’t getting anything done, well, here’s the reason, staring us dead in the face: too many are too unwilling to see anything from the other side’s perspective before they write the other guy off. Like it or not, libs, it’s usually YOU refusing to talk to US. You’ve just proven that.

If you really want to get the ball rolling to being a more tolerant society, stop pointing the finger at someone else and take a long look in the mirror. If we take little else away from Dr. Tiller’s murder we can at least learn that lesson.

Hypocrisy Always Swings to the Left

Thanks to Ann Coulter and the WSJ, this little tidbit has been displayed for Americans to read with regard to Obama’s appearance at Notre Dame.  Enjoy!  Courtesy of


The [Boston] Globe notes that not all Catholics are unhappy with Notre Dame’s plan to give the president an honorary degree:

“There are some well-meaning people who think Notre Dame has given away its Catholic identity, because they have been caught up in the gamesmanship of American higher education, bringing in a star commencement speaker even if that means sacrificing their values, and that accounts for some of this,” said the Rev. Kenneth Himes, chairman of theology department at Boston College.

“But one also has to say that there is a political game going on here, and part of that is that you demonize the people who disagree with you, you question their integrity, you challenge their character, and you brand these people as moral poison. Some people have simply reduced Catholicism to the abortion issue, and, consequently, they have simply launched a crusade to bar anything from Catholic institutions that smacks of any sort of open conversation.”

Now read this 2006 Associated Press dispatch: Nearly 100 faculty members at Boston College have signed a letter objecting to the college’s decision to award Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice an honorary degree. The letter entitled “Condoleezza Rice Does Not Deserve a Boston College Honorary Degree,” was written by the Rev. Kenneth Himes. . . .

“On the levels of both moral principle and practical moral judgment, Secretary Rice’s approach to international affairs is in fundamental conflict with Boston College’s commitment to the values of the Catholic and Jesuit traditions and is inconsistent with the humanistic values that inspire the university’s work,” the letter said.

Himes, it seems, is an expert on demonization.

I’m Mel Maguire, and I Just Turned In My Ovaries!

In the midst of a debate about Democrat vs. Republican beliefs on abortion, commenter DavATA had this to say:

OMG MelMaguire I think you need to turn in your ovaries. Some of my female friends have said I can be sexiest at times, but I would never, ever think a woman asked to be raped! Your party is going to be in the minority for a long time with views like that. And by the way, since you claim to respect the law–last time I checked abortion is legal in the USA.

My comment was that women can prey on men just as easily and that I’ve met women who do. Never in my comment did I mention rape; click on the link and read the conversation. But since DavATA was gracious enough to bring up the subject…here’s what I think. Some are likely to think by what I’ve said so far that I’m not a good lesbian OR feminist. Give it a chance before you make up your mind, though.

Those who support abortion say that they don’t necessarily condone it, but that a woman should have the right to decide what to do with her own body. They particularly favor abortion in cases of rape. My argument is that if you’re raped, you should go to a family advocacy center where the rape kit and morning-after pill are free; in every center I’ve worked with, the decision to file a police report is left to the victim. So if you shouldn’t need an abortion in the case of a rape, I don’t think abortion should be legal once the fetus forms a beating heart.

Contrary to some arguments, rape is not the only circumstance under which a woman can become impregnated. Just because a woman finds herself with an unwanted pregnancy does not mean it was all the man’s fault, either. I have known women who got pregnant while on the pill. I have known many more who got pregnant when their partner was using a condom. There is not a single prophylactic device in creation that is 100% effective. Sometimes, the failure to avoid pregnancy is deliberate. I’ve met more than a couple of women who deliberately set out to get pregnant–for the sole purpose of getting extra money.

Whether it’s hush money, child support, or any other form of monetary compensation, women daily tell men they’ve slept with that they’re pregnant. Sometimes it’s just because they want a child (this usually happens in the cases of young girls who haven’t given much thought to what it takes to raise a child). I have even seen women lie and tell their lovers they’re preggers and asked for money to pay for the abortion they didn’t need. I’ve heard one brag openly that she got pregnant on purpose, and that she’d slept with three men…and she had lied to the one she said was the father because his family had money. There are many, many cases of women preying on men, putting them in situations that are completely unfair.

Why? Because our society has long believed that because men don’t carry the children, they should bear the brunt of the responsibility. A woman’s body goes through major changes during pregnancy, and once the child is born there is a great deal of work that has to go into raising it. Having a child isn’t cheap, either. Because it is easy for men to simply walk away, they become the easiest scapegoats whether they wanted the situation or not.

I’m not for one instant trying to make an excuse for all men. I’m not calling all women whores or baby factories. Far from it. I simply want the truth to be understood. I’ve seen guys I know try to abandon women and children as often as I’ve seen women deliberately put men in those positions. Personally, I think any man who has the cowardice to rape a woman should be subject to castration. Just my opinion. And men who sleep around and don’t care what chaos they cause should be held accountable for their callousness. Women who victimize, however, are out there and they deserve to be left to fend for themselves.

As for the “since you respect the law” comment, I’m cracking up. I love this: “since you say you respect the law, last time I checked abortion is legal in the USA.” Guess what, folks? A lot of things are legal, including discriminating against gays and lesbians in many states. It was completely legal to add Proposition 8 to the California ballot, and it’s completely legal that it was voted into law and is now observed. But I see an awful lot of GLBT folks pitching a hissy fit over these things because it’s discrimination. Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean it’s RIGHT.

I’ll never forget sitting with a buddy of mine a few years ago at my favorite local pub and listening while he wept about his girlfriend deciding without asking him to get an abortion. He’s never really gotten over it. Nobody would ever be able to tell he’d been through that because he’s an awesome guy. He refused to pay for it, and I support to this day his right to tell her no.

Oh…and I like my ovaries just fine where they are, thank you very much.

Let’s pay for their abortions, too!

You can put one rose in Hussein’s corner from the abortion ladies, that centrist Bill Clinton even refused to sell out.

Today, it was announced that B. Hussein Obama was going to sign an order to make our tax dollars available in other countries for the purposes of abortion.

The “Mexico City Policy” has been a tug-of-war issue between Republicans and Democrats for years.  Reagan was the originator who said that we could give assistance to other countries, but abortion was not included in the deal.  The Clinton administration came along and decided against that one rule. 

Reagan’s common-sense rule was enforced again by the Bush administration when GW Bush re-instated the non-abortion stipulation.

So, I have to say this isn’t a big surprise in terms of ideology.  Republicans want to prevent abortions, Democrats want more of them.  Republicans discourage excess spending, Democrats encourage it.

What I am surprised about is that just like B. Hussein Obama’s inaugural costs, he’s this blatant about it.  We are in the middle of an economic crisis, he has the most expensive inauguration in history.  Average Americans are losing their homes, but not only was the wealth spread around to pay for his bash, now it’s going to other countries to make sure women have abortions while families and children here are out in the cold.

Mel, you were right.  B. Hussein Obama used his power with the media to keep conservatives calm.  Newsweek published an article the day after the election explaining why Guantanamo would be difficult and risky for the long term if we closed it down – but he signed an executive order anyway not knowing where these terrorists are going to go.

Now, he wants us to pay for other countries’ abortions.  That is a slap in the face to hard-working Americans.

All in the name of: “Yes, we can!”

Laughable Liberal Women: Why They Really Hate Sarah Palin


Wow – after two days of tax school; preparing myself for the upcoming filing season, I was exhausted, came home, and fell asleep and now I’m sitting here in the wee hours totally energized and scanning the net on various “news” stories.  This one; posted on The Harvard Crimson by Claire Guehenno really attempts to go further than any smear-article ever could on Palin.  You can read the article but be prepared to vomit.  I have decided to begin with a quote from the article and paste the comment I left on the web site:

“Gov. Sarah Palin has disappeared from national politics and returned to her governorship in Alaska—at least until the 2012 campaigns get going—and I couldn’t be happier.”

Are you blind, deaf, or both?

Let’s see, she did a two-day interview with Matt Lauer, a two-day interview with Wolf Blitzer, a three-day interview with Greta Van Susteran, and is having her door blown down by Oprah Winfrey, Barbara Walters, and Larry King as well.

In fact; even profound writers like Claire Guehenno cannot seem to shut up about Gov. Palin.  Gee, I wonder why.

The oppressed, modern-day liberal women are terrified that a conservative woman can be accomplished.

Sarah Palin is a college graduate (oh, and she’s pro-life, too!).

Sarah Palin was mayor of Wasilla giving her executive experience (oh, and she’s pro-life, too!).

Sarah Palin was elected governor of Alaska in a landslide victory (oh, and she’s pro-life, too!).

Sarah Palin’s tenure as governor gave her the highest approval rating as a governor ever in this country and even more executive experience (oh, and she’s pro-life, too!).

Sarah Palin has one (yes, only one!) husband (yes, a husband!) who’s never cheated on her, who she loves with all her heart and had five gorgeous, beautiful, polite, and patriotic children with (oh, and she’s pro-life, too!).

She lowered spending, gave up Governor luxuries like a private jet and chef, did right by her constituents; because, after all this is why people should choose public service which is to serve with a servant’s heart.

Of course liberal women are going to support Hillary Clinton: a woman who sacrificed her self-respect as a woman to allow her sleaze-dog husband to cheat on her repeatedly and stay with him for the sake of staying in the public eye, a woman who still has no executive experience whatsoever, but manages to support the worst abortion procedures ever.

The fact is that Sarah Palin is a total representative of feminism.  The strongest, self-sufficient woman available in this country who can fight with the boys, get dirty, and make pointless liberal women cry over elk, polar bears, and wolves while they celebrate 40 million abortions.

While supporting 40 millions abortions, they cry over hardened criminals on death row, terrorists held at Guantanamo, and hairy uncivilized creatures in Alaska.

The difference in the “choice” is the types of life both sides are fighting for.  Babies are innocent and maybe just one of those 40 million aborted could have had the cure for cancer, could have been the next Van Gogh or Martin Luther King. 

Palin chooses the quality, while liberal women choose the garbage.

The same can be said for their sex lives.  I guarantee you, Todd Palin will never need to use viagra.  The Palins will never have to advertise for extras or swingers to come in to “spice up their love life.”  They will never need the use of pornographic materials to make eachother’s toes curl.  They won’t need toys operated by batteries to do the job.

There’s something about trust and fidelity that seems to trump those modern day quick solutions.

The bottom line: today’s women’s groups are not “pro-woman.”  They are “pro-abortion.”  Sarah Palin is a better person than any liberal woman could ever be, both inside and out.

They hate her because she’s gorgeous, because she’s appealing, because she’s pro-life, and because she knows how to hunt.  Everything feminism originally stood for, she plowed right through.

And if you think this is the last time you will write anything about her, you’re sadly mistaken.

You can keep hating her if you want, or you can simply join her by becoming a better person.