The False Narrative

One of the biggest obstacles conservatives must overcome is the false narrative being pushed by the DNC and the Obama regime with a lot of help from their sycophants in the media. So “what we have here, is a failure to communicate”, on behalf of the RNC and I am hoping that this week we can turn that around. The false premises that are being pushed out there include, but not limited to:

– Medicare – Obama wants us all to believe that Medicare “as we know it will end” under Romney’s plan, and will unnecessarily hurt seniors, which is just completely false. Romney’s plan to give people under 55 a choice to remain on the current program or choose another option, does not effect seniors one bit, and actually strengthens Medicare for future generations. Obama’s plan to do nothing ensures it’s bankruptcy.

– Abortion – The party with the extreme position on abortion is the democrats. They currently support federal funding, partial birth, and live birth abortion, and essentially the right to kill the unborn without question at anytime. This position is far out of the mainstream, and voters need to know this. Conservatives support life with the rape/incest exception, which is optional, and that position is actually the real pro choice position.

– Racism – Honestly the political party that harbors racists, are the democrats. Most of them simply believe that people of a darker skin color are victims of this society solely because of their pigmentation, and that without government help, they are incapable of living a productive life. This mindset is deplorable and offensive. They also believe apparently that they need to be the protectors of our first black President, because obviously he is unable to withstand criticism of most any kind, due once again to the color of his skin.

– War on Women – Once again, the political party that is waging war against women is the democrats. How offensive is it for most women to know that Obama and Sandra Fluke believe that women are incapable of providing for their own contraception needs? How hypocritical is it for liberal feminists to say “keep your hands off my body” but then expect us to pay for their abortion and healthcare needs? How denigrating is it to believe that a pregnancy is an obstacle in a woman’s life? The fact is, women are incredibly strong and more than capable of determining, and paying for, their way through life without anyones help.

Since Obama can not run on his economic performance, the DNC is hoping to push the false narrative on these social issues to win the election. Let’s not let that happen. In 2012, Conservatives need to take a page from Obama back from 2008:

“I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face.”
— Barack Hussein Obama, addressing Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN)

Get in their face indeed.

GTFO 2012!

Advertisements

55 thoughts on “The False Narrative

  1. GMB August 27, 2012 / 12:31 pm

    ” Conservatives support life with the rape/incest exception, which is optional,” You are painting “conservatives” with a very broad brush there. The Bible that is read in my Church has no such exemptions for either rape or incest. The only exemption is for the life of the mother. God does not demand that the elder life be sacrificed for the new.

    Considering that social conservatives such as myself make up a large part, if not a majority, of the voting conservatives, I would ask, how many of you believe that these exemptions are justifiable for murdering an innocent child and should the republican party support this.

    Abortion is murder. It ends a life. In this there is no debate.

    • Cluster August 27, 2012 / 2:10 pm

      That is my position and I believe the position of Romney/Ryan. We can agree to disagree

      • Amazona August 27, 2012 / 2:37 pm

        Cluster, it is my opinion that the sexual nature of rape is what affects men—I don’t think the emotional compliance with ending a human life would be as strong if the origin were not a sexual violation of a loved woman.

        And that is what makes the question so volatile—It IS a sexual violation, it DOES hit us in ways that other violent assaults do, and so we apply different emotional criteria. The intimacy, the personal violation, seem to make the “solution” of abortion more acceptable.

        And I understand that.

        I also understand the pervasive nature of the past few decades of incessant hammering of the idea that carrying the child of a rape is unbearable, insurmountable, an act of utter cruelty to the woman. It is hard to get past that.

        As a woman, who has known many many women of all ages who have had to deal with unwanted and unexpected pregnancies (though, admittedly, none involving rape) I know that the intimacy of carrying a human life inside one’s body, and the growing acceptance of it as a pure and innocent life unconnected to anything else, generates a personal connection with and love for an unborn child that is unique to women. Even the girls I knew who did not WANT these babies, who wanted them gone and out of their lives, found themselves deeply in love with them by the time they were born, even while knowing that adoption was the only reasonable option.

        You know who never made that transition? Their fathers and brothers, who never found any emotional connection with the babies at all. They merely saw them as evidence of sexual activity of their daughters/sisters.

        I believe that the woman experiencing this undergoes a change in perception of the child, while a man, who is simply watching from the outside, so to speak, not having the same intimate connection with the child, is more incapable of separating it from the method by which it was conceived.

        And I think this is why it is easier for a man to say he would support aborting a child conceived by rape.

      • Cluster August 27, 2012 / 2:41 pm

        I agree with everything you said. And I have stated before, that the only reason I do reluctantly support the abortion exception is because I am a man, and I simply can not in anyway put myself in the shoes of woman who has been subject to rape/incest. And I would never even try.

        That is between them, their doctor and their God and I don’t factor into that equation.

      • GMB August 27, 2012 / 3:18 pm

        You are right. You can not nor can I put ourselves into the shoes of a woman who has gotten pregnant by rape or incest.

        Neither can you put yourself into the shoes of the murdered baby either.

        That is my position and I stand by it. Support murder all you want but do so without making blanket statements that all “conservatives” share your view.

      • Amazona August 27, 2012 / 3:22 pm

        Cluster, not that this is the proper venue to go through this again, but…

        How do you feel about the fact that in cases of incest, the pregnant girl is usually very young, making the sex act a crime, and that she is not only not old enough to take on the responsibility of ending a human life but the abortion destroys the evidence of the crime?

        It seems to me to be a double whammy. On one side we are saddling a young and vulnerable and emotional young girl with a lifetime of guilt for being responsible for the death of her baby (and if you think this is hyperbole, think of the last time you were in a car with a 13-year-old when you ran over a bunny or a squirrel) and on the other we are eliminating the proof that she was attacked and violated, freeing the criminal to act again.

        There is no easy or right answer to the questions of abortion in cases of rape or incest, but I think it is important to go beyond the I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT GO AWAY !!!! stage and ask the tough questions and point out the inconvenient truths of both sides of the argument.

      • Cluster August 27, 2012 / 3:22 pm

        I respect your position. Please respect mine.

      • Amazona August 27, 2012 / 3:34 pm

        And as a woman who has known many girls who got pregnant and gave up their babies for adoption, as well as a 29-year-old newly divorced woman with a daughter whose first giddy fling with single status resulted in a pregnancy her situation could not support, I contend that although the stresses of a few months of unwanted pregnancy can be difficult, they result in a far more healing experience than the immediate gratification of an abortion.

        The girls I knew, and my adult friend, were empowered by their experiences, proud to have had the courage to do the right thing, grateful for the ability to know they were responsible for the fact a new life was created, and none of them, looking back, would have done it any other way. That is a powerful testament to surmounting a difficult challenge.

        There is no pride, no sense of accomplishment, no courage or nobility connected with, an abortion. It is, no matter what the circumstances at the time, a brutal act chosen to spare the female the costs of a continued pregnancy, without a fair evaluation of those costs weighed against the benefits. And it is, no matter what the circumstances at the time, a statement that a human life is considered less valuable, less important, than the transient feelings of someone for a short and finite period of time.

        Abortion is a permanent decision, made under extreme stress, and it is irreversible—something considered improper to discuss with a newly pregnant woman or girl. Or her husband, boyfriend, father or brother.

      • Amazona August 27, 2012 / 3:35 pm

        Cluster, I do respect it. But that does not mean ignoring the other side.

      • Cluster August 27, 2012 / 4:35 pm

        I can’t say this any more emphatically. I detest abortion and oppose it strongly. But I will never impose my views on a woman who has been victimized. That just will never happen.

        Would I like to catch the perpetrator? Of course.

      • Amazona August 27, 2012 / 8:56 pm

        Cluster, I apologize if you think I am haranguing you. This is not my intent. I agree, it would be wrong to force your opinion on a frantic and frightened woman. I am sorry if I have come across as someone who thinks you should.

        My point is that when a woman or girl finds herself faced with this decision she has very little to balance the common societal position that abortion is really the only logical choice. I think it would be kinder and more loving to present an alternative that is more than just “But it’s WRONG!”

        I think there are alternatives to abortion that can comfort and appeal to a confused and scared woman facing such a multitude of terrible emotional reactions—the trauma of the act itself, the news of an unwanted pregnancy, etc. It seems that a woman or girl in this position really is faced with only two ways of looking at it—MUST GET AN ABORTION or ABORTION IS WRONG.

        I think it sad that so little attention is given to the positives of facing the problem with another perspective, and that perspective is what I was trying to present. It is seldom if ever discussed.

        The common approach is that the pregnancy would be horrible, terrible, a punishment, and I have always thought that a harsh and cruel paradigm—kill a baby or be punished and forced to suffer. I have always thought it would be a real comfort to hear that these are not the only two options, not an either/or, but that the pregnancy could have some very positive and healing aspects.

        Perhaps I got so caught up in examining these alternatives that I came across as a lecturer, and for that I apologize.

      • Cluster August 27, 2012 / 9:09 pm

        No need to apologize about anything. I get your point and would hope that the adoption option is available as well.

  2. Retired Spook August 27, 2012 / 12:50 pm

    One of my favorite Democrat memes is their repeated attempts to paint the GOP as the “anti-choice” party. But, thanks to the current occupant of the White House, we know exactly which party is anti-choice

  3. Amazona August 27, 2012 / 1:56 pm

    The false narrative I find most disturbing is the hijacking of the “values” theme of the last election, and the new tactic of the Left announcing that Conservatives are really pretty ‘decent’ people, they just have “different VALUES”—and then going on to say that the Left’s “values” are clean air, clean water, an end to racism, health care, respect for women, etc. Well, gee, if THEIR “values” are all these wonderful things, and OUR “values” are different, then obviously our “values” are dirty air and water, etc.

    I heard SlowJoe use the word “values” in this way several times in one speech, going so far as to say there is a “STARK DIFFERENCE” in the “values” of the Right—and then going on into the claims that this difference is, of course, that the Dems’ values are all that is good. This false paradigm leaves the Right’s values as all that is bad.

    What ticks me off is that we are letting them get away with it. Not once have I heard a conservative stop this narrative in mid-bleat and say “Wait just a minute here, and quit lying. The question is NOT whether we “value” the same things, the question is how best to address those issues, and it is grossly dishonest to claim that we stand for different goals. It is a cheap and transparent effort to demonize your political opponents and we are not going to let you get away with it.”

    It is an insidious and pervasive tactic, and will succeed if we don’t call them on it every time they try to pull this.

    And this is why I keep saying we should be careful about depending on “issues” because “issues” can be hijacked and distorted and spun. But basic ideology cannot.

    • Retired Spook August 27, 2012 / 2:52 pm

      the new tactic of the Left announcing that Conservatives are really pretty ‘decent’ people, they just have “different VALUES”—and then going on to say that the Left’s “values” are clean air, clean water,

      Amazona, I’m going to slightly disagree with you on this, in a nuanced sort of way, heh. The Dems will ALWAYS be for cleaner air and cleaner water than Republicans until we get to the 100% mark, which, of course, is unattainable. The difference is that Republicans, particularly Republicans with business backgrounds, recognize the law of diminishing returns — Democrats don’t. If it costs, for example, $10 billion to achieve a 99% level of air quality, water quality, etc.(and Republicans are satisfied with that), and $20 billion to achieve each 10th of a percent beyond that, that’s an issue that’s ready made for Democrats. It is a battle we will never win, because the people who are fooled by such a tactic into voting for Democrats aren’t smart enough to have it explained to them.

      And this is why I keep saying we should be careful about depending on “issues” because “issues” can be hijacked and distorted and spun. But basic ideology cannot.

      On this I could not agree with you more.

      • Cluster August 27, 2012 / 2:57 pm

        But the fact is, we need to learn how to fight and win on the issues too, because we are on the right side. We just have to educate the populace and teach them how to read past the headlines and think for themselves. A tall order to be sure but it has to be done.

      • Amazona August 27, 2012 / 3:12 pm

        Spook, I agree with you on the FACTS.

        I am talking about the PERCEPTION created by saying “our values are just soooooo different—for example, WE believe in clean water”.

        It is a relatively subtle attack—subtle for the pit bulls of the Left, anyway—but I think it has a cumulative effect. When it is prefaced by a smarmy bow to the “decency” of the Right, it is a one-two punch—“See how generous and nice we are to the Right, and just look at how their values are so different from all that is good”.

        The alternative to this, of course, is the opposite—the Right is mean and the Right’s values do not include anything that is good.

        I do disagree with you a little on the goals of the Left. Yes, there are starry-eyed utopians who would sacrifice millions of human lives to “save the Earth” and who would find no cost too great to achieve perfection. But I think the hard-eyed ideologues of the Left have absolutely no interest in any of these airy-fairy things (or wouldn’t hard-core Leftist regimes have the cleanest air and water, etc.?) but recognize them as powerful political tools, with which to hammer the opposition and manipulate their base.

  4. Amazona August 27, 2012 / 2:25 pm

    I love the “ending Medicare AS WE KNOW IT” meme.

    Yeah. But AS WE KNOW IT is a car that not only has had the “check engine light” on for the past decade, the low oil light is flashing and the overheating alarm is sounding, the tire are bald, it’s running on three cylinders,and there is an ominous knocking sound under the hood.

    The Dems are telling us we are crazy for wanting to get an alternative to this decrepit vehicle up and running before it completely shuts down. They are trying to make it sound as if AS WE KNOW IT is a new luxury car with all the bells and whistles, that will not only go forever but in comfort and safety.

    And they are lying. Yes, LYING. They are telling people that the Ryan plan is to tell seniors that they MUST purchase private health insurance. It is, quite simply, a LIE.

    I am wondering just what issues the Complicit Agenda Media hacks, otherwise known as Debate Moderators, will have to avoid in their questioning. The last thing they will want is giving the floor to Romney or Ryan to point out this lie. Or the one claiming that they want employers to block women’s access to health care and contraception—-I’m still wondering just how that would work. The “outsourcing” whine is dangerous, as Obama has handed billions of dollars of taxpayer money to foreign firms and inhibited domestic oil and gas production while funding and encouraging it in other nations. Could be a little touchy……….

    You know they are not going to come right out and accuse us of wanting a return to enslavement of black people, so that might not be on the table, or for that matter any overt comments on racism.

    I’m just trying to figure out if there ARE any safe questions for Barry and Joe.

    In the meantime I am reading a book called The Last Boy, about Mickey Mantle, and there is a scene where a pitcher pitching to the unknown rookie from Oklahoma drops a pitch really low and to the outside, trying to sucker the kid into going after it. Mickey did go after it, stepping out of the batter’s box to do so, and sent the ball over the back fence.

    This is my imagery of Romney and Ryan—being thrown what are supposed to be unhittable questions, or comments low and to the outside to try to get them to swing and miss, and having them all knocked out of the park. And I predict they will be cheerful and upbeat and confident, while Barry and Joe will be mean and sour and surly.

    Gotta love the box seats provided by television…….

    • dbschmidt August 27, 2012 / 4:10 pm

      The other point that has me irritated as part of the I love the “ending Medicare AS WE KNOW IT” meme (among others) is that they (MSM, candidates, and their surrogates) all bring up the Ryan plan–first effort.

      But we are not talking about the Ryan plan as Romney is at the top of the ticket (or soon will be.) Look and discuss the Romney plan for each of the points–even Ryan is now that he has been selected but the MSM, et.al. cannot because Romney’s plan (and even Ryan’s second plan) corrects some of the oversights of Ryan’s first plan.

    • Bob August 27, 2012 / 8:42 pm

      It might help to note that the Medicare Advantage option, which has been available for several years now, allows currently retired citizens who are eligible and paying for Medicare coverage to have their medicare fee sent to a private insurance company for a private policy that will reimburse them for some of their annual medical expenses by doctors who are willing to accept Medicare patients. These companies provide excellent benefits, handle the paper work, and give very complete and timely reports of their services and its costs. Our benefits were increased this year for the established Medicare fee. Our insurance agent helps us to select the best provider from various private companies who offer this service. It works!

    • Amazona August 27, 2012 / 3:14 pm

      This is so funny, in a sad/sick kind of way.

      But it’s probably all that is left to someone who just can’t find a way to say “I put Neil Armstrong on the moon”

  5. Cluster August 27, 2012 / 2:52 pm

    More evidence of the democrats war on women:

    The Charlotte Observer reports that children will not be allowed access on the floor of the Democratic National Convention and that daycare will not be provided for delegates who bring their kids.

    Silly women. Don’t they know that they should have aborted those babies?

    http://charlotte.cbslocal.com/2012/08/27/womens-groups-upset-dem-convention-banning-kids-from-floor/

    GTFO 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  6. Count d'Haricots August 27, 2012 / 5:19 pm

    I heard NPR this morning with “Snarky” Roberts commenting on the GOP from Tampa. It was a scant few months ago that Cokie was advising us that Mitt “has a problem” with Republicans because he’s a Mormon. This morning she was advising us that Mitt “has a problem” with Independents because of his lack of “likability”.

    Cokie went on to explain that the Romney/Ryan campaign has “failed” to stick to their message on the economy with all of their distractions, such as the Missouri Senate Race and “legitimate rape”, Mitt’s tax returns and focusing on the Republicans’ “Medicare problem”.

    According to Cokie, “last week was disastrous for Republicans” and they must now regroup and try to figure out how to stay on message.

    Is this the soft narrative of an agenda?

    • neocon1 August 27, 2012 / 5:51 pm

      alinsky 101
      delivered by drooling, stupid, ideologues. posing as the MSM.

      • neocon1 August 27, 2012 / 6:22 pm

        RNC Chair Fires Back at Chris Matthews After Tense Exchange: Took Prize for ‘Biggest Jerk in the Room’

      • neocon1 August 27, 2012 / 6:23 pm

        If “more than ten people actually watched his show I’d actually care.”

        Badda Bing!!

      • neocon1 August 27, 2012 / 6:29 pm

        ‘Fauxcahontas’

        Elizabeth Warren Staffer Roughs Up Cameraman: ‘You’re Messing With the Wrong People’

      • neocon1 August 27, 2012 / 6:55 pm

        Ya gotta love the Newt…..

      • Cluster August 27, 2012 / 7:42 pm

        I have personally emailed Chris Matthews on several occasions asking to come on his show to debate him. He is the biggest racist moron in the country. I despise the man.

      • Amazona August 27, 2012 / 9:02 pm

        Isn’t Mathews awful? He and his kind remind me of the guy who, looking at a Rorschach test, sees filthy sex in every single ink blot, and when the shrink comments on it replies “Hey, YOU’RE the dirty mind that made the test!”

        He sees racism in every possible comment and is too clueless to realize this is a reflection of HIS mental problems.

      • Cluster August 28, 2012 / 11:02 am

        I could easily dismiss Matthews in a debate. He relies on false premises and racism of which he pushes out to morons like you. I have the truth. It’s an easy win.

  7. Cluster August 27, 2012 / 7:53 pm

    Hurricane Isaac has once again proven that Obama has failed, and failed miserably.

    “This was the moment that the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal” – Barack Obama 2008

    Look if he can’t stop a simple hurricane, what good is he?

  8. Cluster August 27, 2012 / 7:55 pm

    Elizabeth Warren Staffer Roughs Up Cameraman: ‘You’re Messing With the Wrong People’

    That’s hilarious! Who could possibly be afraid of Warren? With the exception of a college admissions department

  9. dbschmidt August 27, 2012 / 9:27 pm

    It is time to remember what this election is about and the best way to put it is in the words of Ronald W. Reagan, 40th President of the United States of America:

    “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

  10. Stephen August 27, 2012 / 9:42 pm

    Racism and stupidity exist on both sides. For a nice summary of Obama’s tacit defense of black racism against whites, see http://tinyurl.com/8tzcy5w

    • neocon1 August 28, 2012 / 7:27 am

      Racism and stupidity exist on both sides wholly on the DONK side.

      fixed.

  11. sarahbloch August 29, 2012 / 6:51 am

    Abortion—The facts on this are simple. The Democratic Party supports a woman’s right to choose when she has a child. Thereby, a woman to the Left has a right to choose to have an abortion that takes place within the time allotted by federal law. I repeat federal law dictates the time span of fetal development where an abortion is legal. In some cases, where the life of the mother is in jeopardy, an abortion is medically necessary beyond this federal limit. I woman cannot, in any jurisdiction in the United States of America have an abortion procedure beyond 21 weeks simply by saying she wants and abortion. I do not know anyone who supports partial birth abortion on demand. I also understand the law that says any viable fetus born alive even in an abortion clinic must be kept alive or the physician and anyone attending can be charged with murder. What you have written is hyperbole for the conservative base and nothing more.

    Racism—It is easy to throw this term around but I find this very dangerous. I think America has progressed concerning race more in the period from 1950 to 2000 than it has at any other time in its history. Since 2000 however, there has been a turn from the institutionalized racism of the last century to a reactionary bigotry over the last 12 years. One has to understand the difference between bigotry and racism to even engage in this conversation. Racism needs power to fuel it. The power comes from politics. If those in charge all come from the same racial demographic then it is far more easy to keep another racial demographic at bay with laws that segregate them. The post Civil War Democratic Party in the South, made up of the most ardent conservatives of the time, saw the opportunities they had once the Reconstruction ended to initiate laws that would secure them power for what they thought would be forever. Those conservative Democrats could not have seen the Federal Government ever exercising its power below the Mason-Dixon line again and for over one hundred years they were right. So instead of having the vision for the future that Grant held blacks were put into a lower caste by the ruling white elite in the South and life for them remained that way until 1946 when the first stirrings for a second emancipation began. By the time the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed and signed by President Lyndon Johnson the white powerbrokers in the South realized they needed a new strategy, one less embarrassing than the overt bigotry supported by racist thinking that has been broadcast to the world by CBS News night after night. It took four years for a savior to come to the conservatives in the South who while Democrats were more than willing to shed that label to keep the suffering status quo in regard to the Negro. President Nixon utilized the animus between working class white and working class blacks in the South to march to victory in 1968. Reagan in his very first campaign speech did the same in Neshoba County, Mississippi and reinforced the new ethic of conservative views on race with his alliance with the Moral Majority in 1980. Race was cast aside in the late 1980s by President George H. W. Bush in the name of continuing economic prosperity. Demographers, however, knew that in a generation a great decline was going to take place among the white electorate. Younger white voters were becoming more and more liberal. Black voters had allied squarely with the new Liberal post-Kennedy Democratic Party led by Northern Liberals and Midwestern moderates. The GOP once a party of Ed Burke of Massachusetts and Barry Goldwater was now the party of Strom Thurmond and David Duke. The overt race baiting politics of the 1930s and 1940s no longer had a place among the Conservatives as it was no longer socially acceptable. The bigotry had to come from a dedicated and older bloc of conservative voters who see blacks and Latinos as a drain on their wealth [keep our taxes low], see minorities as a violent threat to their personal security [flash mobs] and demand that any leader of the country be able to prove he is American even if it is clear he was born in the US [birtherism]. Conservatives don’t need Racism because as their demographics shrink over the next 20 years, with the dying off of the Baby Boomers having begun in earnest, the power base that would have driven it too will have died off. Young Conservatives will take a new more inclusive tack. They will put the moralizing and religious traditionalism behind them and work to make their party a more populist and albeit nationalist simulacrum of the moderate wing of the Democratic Party. The next fifty years will be very interesting politically for America. On December 31, 2064 the last Baby Boomer will be 100 years old. The country that you know now will be long gone. I imagine it will still be prosperous but that prosperity will be dominated by Liberal married couples made up of majority that is composed of those that conservatives most fear the most. Educated white women will marry outside their race more as more and more blacks and Latinos earn higher education degrees in a truly level playing field. Gay and Lesbian couples will become full citizens as their marriages will be recognized as marriage in every state in the Union. Abortion will become rarer as government provided contraception is made cheap and widely available as Obamacare proves to be as effective for the young worker as Social Security is for the elderly. Churches will once again be filled with people of Faith rather than peasants of Fear. I feel that America in 2064 might be in the shining diamond midst of a new global golden age and she cannot be that with retrograde racial thinking but only by the continuing efforts of Progressives to keep up the pressure on the wobbling old man of Conservatism.

    The War on Women—Post Clinton America finds itself in that phase the demographers of the 1980s warned conservatives about. Not to beat the issue to death but the pro-life position on abortion, as a political issue, while cloaked in the sweet intentions of preserving life is really nothing more than the most desperate reaction to a societal failure by white conservatives. The birth rates of Latinas and black women outpace that of white women nearly 8 to 1. Double that number for college educated white women over the age of 30 while the same demographic of black and Latinas is still a 4 to 1 advantage. It is politically perfectly understandable why a group of people who wants to stay in power, to have the America that they want would turn to issues of abortion and contraception when they are being beaten in the breeding race by such a wide margin. Also, marrying race with gender, this gives the Right another canard they can use—that women are to blame for the loss of white conservative political power through their desire to hold positions of power in a world they see as a man’s domain. American women don’t like this and they don’t like Mitt Romney no matter how many times Ann Romney begs for America to get to know her husband.

    Qu’ul cuda praedex nihil!

    • Amazona August 29, 2012 / 9:52 am

      sarah, your screed gives a vivid picture of the mishmash of false narratives that DEFINE people like you on the Left.

      The political ideology of the Left is one thing—the various tools it uses to get people to support it are something else again. The ideology is one of collectivism, of a massive and all-powerful central government unrestricted as to size, scope or power.

      Among the issues the Left uses to gain support for it political agenda is that of abortion. People like you are quite willing to support a political system that, when fully implemented, is oppressive and brutal, because you are so passionate about one of the bait issues.

      By using abortion as a bait issue, the Left has cleverly and callously divided the nation not according to what kind of government it wants but according to its stance on something that should not be a political issue.

      In a rational nation, all who believe that the nation should be governed according to our Constitution and its restrictions on the size, scope and power of the federal government would vote Republican—-and then, within that political system, would work on achieving goals important to them.

      Sadly, your post proves that this is not only NOT a rational nation, but that too many have taken the bait, swallowed the lies, agreed to be mouthpieces for those lies, and remain utterly clueless about the reality of the system you support while trying to destroy an Opposition you have grotesquely misunderstood and misrepresented.

      You clearly have a good basic IQ—you write clearly and coherently and express yourself well. It’s just that your intellect has been co-opted by appeals to various emotion-based needs, biases and areas of vulnerability, to the point that you are clearly and coherently expressing garbage.

      • sarahbloch August 29, 2012 / 10:11 am

        Amazona,

        I don’t think Liberals support their ideology with their votes. Liberals believe that a woman has a right to choose when she has a child. In a free country, the opposition has a right to bring to bear all the non-violent methods at their disposal to counter that position. Sadly, over the decades since Roe the Right has resorted to violence in response to a woman’s right to choose. I don’t feel that it is collectivism Liberals disagree on a wide variety of issues but they value freedom over being controlled by an opposition that feels their traditional values, race and religion should rule over people who do not believe the same.

        Women support contraceptive rights because having those rights is more healthy, economically and physically, than not having them. I doubt if modern Progressivism will be either oppressive or brutal unless you as a conservative feel oppressed by not being able to control the lives of others while yet still being free to chart your own course. The same standard applies to brutality. In a rational nation you are correct and I believe that the Constitution is the bedrock of American freedom. It is not gospel however and those who live in modern times must have the right to self determination. You could shrink the federal government down significantly by cutting the defense budget in half yet that is an untouchable for conservatives even in an age when technology and a return to a peace time military size would save hundreds of billions and there are fewer nation state threats to the US than ever.

        This has nothing to do with America being rational. Being rational does not mean that people would suddenly awake to the wonders of conservatism. Your brand is woefully damaged by bigotry and misogyny. Just yesterday two attendees at the convention in Tampa threw peanuts at a black female CNN camerawoman and shouted, “This is how we feed animals!” That story was picked up and confirmed by The Blaze not some left wing journal. Of course you will trot out Allen West and Mia Love as a sign of GOP “inclusiveness.”

        Trust me Amazona my intellect hasn’t been co-opted by anything other than watching many, many years of history grinding down to the point where America will be leveled as a playing field for all people. As I said in my comment, by 2064 the nation you live in now will no longer exist. No one will look back at the current times with nostalgia because the nature of political debate dumbed down into dog whistles and racial code phrases will be a source of shame for anyone who is born on Election Day 2012. Simply because you don’t agree with my opinion doesn’t make it garbage anymore than yours is garbage. I don’t want your guns or your Bibles or even more of your tax dollars. I don’t need them because the one thing conservatives can’t control will take care of all these issues that make conservative hearts beat faster in the next 50 years.

      • Amazona August 29, 2012 / 11:21 am

        “Sadly, over the decades since Roe the Right has resorted to violence in response to a woman’s right to choose.”

        Oh, bull! I never know if you are lying or actually believe the silly crap you post. “The RIght” has done no such thing. A few, a VERY few, individuals have acted with violence, and immediately been sharply criticized by the Right for not representing our beliefs, our values, and our approach to dealing with issues.

        “I don’t think Liberals support their ideology with their votes”

        That’s because you don’t UNDERSTAND what your votes are doing!!! Why can’t you grasp this simple concept?

        First, you have no ideology. You just have a muddled up grab-bag of emotion-based utopian wishes, corrupted with lies and congealed into a strange pseudo-political witches’ brew of hysteria masking itself as political idealism.

        The Left is about how they think the nation should be governed. PERIOD. All the corollary issues that have you so wound up are nothing but bait, to get you passionate and committed to voting—but you are not voting for what you think you are, you are voting for a political system.

        YOU ARE VOTING FOR A POLITICAL SYSTEM.

        And you are so blinded by your visceral reactions to the various lies fed to you by your manipulators you don’t even realize this.

        “Just yesterday two attendees at the convention in Tampa threw peanuts at a black female CNN camerawoman and shouted, “This is how we feed animals!””

        And YOU decide this happened BECAUSE she is black, not just because she was an annoying, intrusive, representative of a media outlet overtly hostile to conservatives and routinely found to be lying.

        “I doubt if modern Progressivism will be either oppressive or brutal unless you as a conservative feel oppressed by not being able to control the lives of others while yet still being free to chart your own course. ”

        Then why don’t you stop screeching about feelings and start talking about POLITICS. Or do you not realize that “Progressivism” IS A POLITICAL SYSTEM???

        Why don’t you examine the political model that is Progressivism, and as you are suddenly modifying the label with the word “modern” tell us what MODERN Progressivism is.

        Not the social ornaments hung on it to make it all shiny and glittery and pretty to people like you, but the actual political MODEL.

        Tell us what Progressivism WAS, and then tell us what it IS, now that it’s all “modern” and all.

        Keep in mind, this is only about its blueprint for governing the nation. It is not about all the emotional baggage you have piled on it.

        “:I believe that the Constitution is the bedrock of American freedom. …..”

        BUT??????

        Oh, yes, here it comes…

        “…It is not gospel however”

        No. It is the law. It is the law of the land. It is the rule book by which the nation must be governed. And its core is the repeated insistence that the size, scope and power of the federal government be severely restrained, and the bulk of all political power be reserved to the States, or to the People.

        While you are researching the Progressive Movement, then or now, you will find that it is based upon a totally anti-Constitutional precept—that is, that central power be unrestrained, regarding size, OR scope, OR power. Check it out.

        “…those who live in modern times must have the right to self determination.”

        Well, your definition of “modern times” must include the latter half of the 18th Century, because that is when the Constitution was conceived, debated, discussed, written and ratified—and its entire basis was that of self determination.

        You appear to be totally ignorant of the origins of our nation, of the philosophical underpinnings of its earliest efforts to define its governance, of the goal of the Founders as they strove to write a governing document that would guarantee self determination.

        They were convinced that self determination could only exist in a nation where the central government was not allowed to interfere with it, so they carefully crafted a brilliant form of governance that created a central authority that absolutely, in no uncertain terms, could not exceed the few duties specifically assigned to it.

        They were so insistent upon this being the lynchpin of the new government that they expressed it in two parts—the first part enumerated those duties, and the second limited it to those duties and ONLY those duties. Period.

        When you support the Leftist political system, which you do when you vote for the Left because you have been sucked in by the bait they have laid out for you, you support a government system that is the antithesis of the Constitutional model, advocating a large central government which can, and does, exert power in every aspect of the lives of the citizenry.

        You can deny this all you want, but all you do is reinforce the image of you as a dupe, sucked in by emotional issues and ignorant of what is going on behind the curtain.

        And not even seeing the stupidity of voting AGAINST an Other you know only from what you are told by your minders,defined by their rhetoric, instead of making an educated and informed decision.

    • Amazona August 29, 2012 / 10:48 am

      “The Democratic Party supports a woman’s right to choose when she has a child. ”

      Anti-abortion people support a woman’s right to choose when to become pregnant. We also support the inherent right of any human life, once it has been created, to the same life, liberty and pursuit of happiness guaranteed by our Constitution, and we find life-ending discrimination based upon age to be even more vicious and brutal than other forms of discrimination, as it is always fatal to the victim.

      “I (sic)woman cannot, in any jurisdiction in the United States of America have an abortion procedure beyond 21 weeks simply by saying she wants and (sic) abortion.”

      Yes, she can.

      “I do not know anyone who supports partial birth abortion on demand.”

      Is this a serious comment, or one carefully parsed with the addition of “on demand”? Well, many support partial birth abortion, which by the way a completely false description trying to mitigate the horror of inducing labor, manually manipulating the child into a breech position, allowing it to be born but then stopping its exit from the body of the gestational female while its head remains in the birth canal, thereby preventing it from taking a breath and preserving the lie that it is OK to kill it because it has not breathed, and then butchering it by stabbing it in the back of the skull and sucking out its brains. At the moment of the murder the child is 99% born, and five seconds would allow its head to emerge, at which time it can be taken to a real woman who will nurture it.

      Given all these FACTS, all you have to do is check out the times the issue has come up for a vote, and look at who have stridently, vociferously, supported it.

      As for the disclaimer of “on demand” there is the charade of having to have the procedure agreed to by a graduate of a medical school. (The idea of applying terms like “woman” and “doctor” to people like this is distasteful.)

      “I also understand the law that says any viable fetus born alive even in an abortion clinic must be kept alive or the physician and anyone attending can be charged with murder. ”

      Wrong. Check it out. It still happens, particularly in Chicago, and no one is ever charged, much less prosecuted. And Barack Obama voted to make it officially legal.

      “One has to understand the difference between bigotry and racism to even engage in this conversation. Racism needs power to fuel it. The power comes from politics.”

      This is the most insidious. vicious, malignant lie promulgated by the Left, and your entire premise is based upon this falsehood, this distortion of fact, this callous and calculated strategy to split this nation into so many disparate and mutually distrustful factions that it cannot function as a nation.

      To engage in any conversation about racism, one has to understand the vile, base and completely false nature of this claim, and the strategy behind it. You clearly do not. You, clearly, have something in your personal makeup that is drawn to this kind of hate-mongering, though to your credit you need some kind of cockamamie pseudo-intellectual rationale for it, while many just wallow in the hatred for its own sake.

      As it is, your racist rhetoric and your elaborate “explanations” for your bizarre fantasies can’t be addressed one by one because each and every one of them is based on a lie.

      “Gay and Lesbian couples will become full citizens as their marriages will be recognized as marriage in every state in the Union”

      Gay and lesbian couples are already full citizens, if in fact they are citizens at all, and slapping a legal definition onto their unions will do nothing to change the fact that they are sad and pathetic efforts to pretend to be what they are not. The frantic pursuit of that one WORD makes clear the underlying shame of homosexuals and the sad belief that this one WORD will make it all go away. I suggest that the problem lies in self-hatred and not in the use of a WORD but the word will be applied, and it will not change anything.

      “Abortion will become rarer as government provided contraception is made cheap and widely available..”

      Are you truly claiming that abortion is necessary now because of the lack of easy availability of birth control? Really?

      “…….as Obamacare proves to be as effective for the young worker as Social Security is for the elderly.”

      Ah, yes, as Big Brother watches over us all, providing for our every need. But I’d be careful about the last part of that wistful Utopian dream, as Social Security is already sadly incapable of providing a good standard of living for the elderly and it is faltering.

      “It is politically perfectly understandable why a group of people who wants to stay in power, to have the America that they want would turn to issues of abortion and contraception when they are being beaten in the breeding race by such a wide margin. ”

      This is just plain nuts, mingled with a certain degree of dishonesty. If “Conservatives”—-and I use the term as you erroneously use it, not referring to the belief in Constitutional governance—-are in fact frightened about being “beaten in the breeding race”, then why do they object to so many black babies being killed? You have veered off into the Wacky Weeds on this one, even farther afield from sanity than usual.

      And it is the LEFT trying to make an issue out of contraception. Name a “Conservative”—real or your fantasy version—who objects to women using contraception. (Hint: there are none.) But this is a classic example of a head-fake by the Leftist minders, and its mindless lemmings following it.

      The Left purposely created a bogus fuss by bringing in a overaged girl to engage in theater, quaveringly “testifying” in a fake hearing, about the ANGUISH and CONFUSION and BEWILDERMENT and FEAR, blahblahblahblahblah, of an adult woman, a third year law student at a Catholic school, SUDDENLY AND WITH NO WARNING AT ALL learning that Catholics will not support contraception. Oh, the HORROR!!!!!

      It was Leftist theater at its best, with drama and hysterics, with a fluttery VICTIM and a big meanie VILLAIN —-of course, the villain was religion—and a lot of drum beating and carrying-on by the Usual Suspects. There was wailing and hair-tearing, there was the spectre of a woman FACING DEATH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! because suddenly, out of nowhere, she was expected to pay for her own birth control—it was quite a performance.

      You were evidently taken in by this charade.

      Yet the facts, buried in the shrill rhetoric, were quite opposite the claims. In FACT, there is not and never was the slightest objection to or interference in any student’s use of contraception. This attitude carries through the entire Conservative movement. Some people find it morally wrong so they won’t do it and they won’t pay for someone else to do it, but no one—NO ONE—hinted, suggested, or implied any restriction on the right or ability of anyone else to use it.

      In fact, non-Catholic opponents to the taking of a human life for the convenience of another wish, ardently wish, most sincerely and passionately wish, that contraception would be used more. It was not a Conservative “expert” hired year after year by the Boulder Colorado School District to speak at mandatory high school assemblies who advised students to engage in sex, lots of sex, “boy on girl, boy on boy, girl in girl, it’s all good” and who also told them that condoms take a lot of the fun out of it,just don’t “feel as good”.

      Your hyperbole reaches a shrill crescendo with this nugget of total insanity: “marrying race with gender, this gives the Right another canard they can use—that women are to blame for the loss of white conservative political power through their desire to hold positions of power in a world they see as a man’s domain. ”

      OK, I admit that when you take each word on its own, each word does mean something. But the bizarre way they are linked together forms ideas that are simply so far beyond the limits of even delusion well into the territory of F’n nuts, that the whole sits as an example of Leftist insanity.

      Is this the kind of crap you people listen to, read, absorb, live by?

      No wonder you sound like escapees from the loony bin.

      I know you want to find meaning in your lives, but really, girl, you need to look somewhere other than the demagogues of the radical Left who see you as intellectual cannon fodder—-and who, evidently, entertain themselves with “Good one, Lennie! I didn’t think they’d swallow that! Let’s see if they’ll buy into THIS!!”

      • sarahbloch August 29, 2012 / 12:50 pm

        I have discovered, in my years of reporting and social activism, that how you phrase a question is just as important as the answer. If you were to ask 1,000,000 people in the USA, “Are you for or against abortion?” nearly two thirds would say they are pro life. Of this, I am sure. If you ask the same group of people do you think your position on abortion should be the law of the land an equal number would say no. Conservatives have often called judges that rule against their worldview activists but I doubt that’s really accurate. Judicial appointments even to the SCOTUS won’t get Roe overturned because that is decided law. I believe people should be allowed to die with dignity but I don’t support assisted suicide or euthanasia very likely for the same reasons you are pro life. Fertilized eggs and fetuses are not people and don’t have a constitutional right to anything other than the rights granted them by state governments regarding the assault of murder of the woman carrying them. Conservatives thought those laws would be the last straw to have abortion declared illegal but that has worked about as well as fetal personhood bills have. See Mississippi for clarity on that matter.

        I apologize for the typo. That statement should have been 26 weeks not 21 weeks. The partial birth abortion on demand issue isn’t something I made up it’s been a major talking point of the pro-life movement since 1995. There has been a ban on these procedures known as a D&X since 2002. I know what the procedure entails and I also know one of the chief arguments against it is that it is never medically necessary. There was an article in The Hill just this morning written by a conservative that makes this argument that the DNC supports partial birth abortion on demand. The Born Alive Infants Protection Act makes it a felony to not care for a living child born via a botched abortion. If they’re doing this in Chicago they are guilty of infanticide. One has to keep in mind there are doctors out there that will do anything for the money they need to maintain their lifestyle. I am aware of the case in Chicago and as well one in Florida and Philadelphia totaling 10 children murdered out of more than 900,000 abortions. Very small percentages there.

        On racism once again Amazona you conflate your vehement disagreement with my opinion with a certainty that my opinion is ill informed. That’s simply not true. I choose not to use the term racism for people like neocon1 who is in my opinion a race baiter—a bigot, because he has no power to affect the wider demographic of black people in America. And of course I understand that because I am a white woman to side with the blacks makes me a traitor in the eyes of some. My own sensibilities tell me that I am on the side of Progress and full citizenship and the respect that comes with it for all Americans—even you Amazona. To you Amazona to have a serious conversation about race means that I have to forget 300 years of white bigotry in the name of profit and accept you as the good person that you are as the only example of conservatism in America; that is an irrational argument and worse than that it is historical revisionism. I imagine you find that a little too pseudo-intellectual?

        Members of the GLBTQ community in America are not full citizens because they don’t enjoy the same civil rights as you do. You can marry any male you please as long as he’s mentally fit, in some states, of majority age for the jurisdiction and not already married. You could even marry a man you’ve corresponded with in prison in many states. But in more than 40 states in the Union two women cannot enjoy the benefits of committing to each other through marriage. This is unconstitutional. And there’s no need to pour out your heart about the divinity of the union between one man and one woman. If these were such a divine unions there would be no need for divorce. Marriage is a social contract set in the traditional trapping of the joy found in love and commitment and it should be a right for all.

        Yes I do claim there are many women who cannot afford birth control and it may come to you as a shock that most sexually active teens can’t get birth control without the permission of a parent. This is a very big problem in the rural American South. Quelle surprise! I still advocate for comprehensive sex education beginning at grade 6. The old canard about if you tell them what sex is they will do it is beyond out dated. If you teach them the consequences of doing it unprotected you would have fewer pregnancies, abortions and sexually transmitted diseases.

        Social Security was never meant to provide a good standard of living. It was meant to keep the elderly from starving to death when they could no longer work as pensions were being denied to blue collar non union workers in the Great Depression.

        Amazona it’s not the black babies being aborted that’s the concern. Out of the 50 million abortions performed legally since Roe more than 20 million would have been white. Consider how many of them would have children now? Politically, as white America gets older and white women get more educated and achieve corporate empowerment the breeding race is one conservatives cannot win. That ship has sailed.

        On Conservatives opposed to contraception try these Newt Gingrich, Marco Rubio and Rick Santorum to start. I could go on and name all the GOP members of the Mississippi State House who supported zygote personhood. And then there are all those Catholic bishops.

      • Amazona August 29, 2012 / 2:44 pm

        If Roe is overturned, abortion would not be made illegal. All it would accomplish would be a move back toward states’ rights and that self determination you seemed so happy about, a little earlier.

        “And of course I understand that because I am a white woman to side with the blacks makes me a traitor in the eyes of some.”

        You are so full of it you reek. I am also a white woman, and I also “side with the blacks” though I would never use that demeaning phrase which lumps all people of dark skin into one amorphous identity. I am and always have been completely in favor of colorblind society in which skin color is irrelevant and I find the Left’s focus on skin color to be a particularly vile and insidious form of racism as it isn’t even honest about its identification of people based on their color but postures as being above that.

        “To you Amazona to have a serious conversation about race means that I have to forget 300 years of white bigotry in the name of profit ”

        Again, BULLS**T. It WOULD mean, however, discarding your own bigotry and the so-called “soft racism” of lowered expectations and standards for people of color, and the sense of power you gain from diminishing people of color so you can then posture as their protector and savior.

        Substituting black bigotry for white bigotry seems to be considered progress only if you are a Progressive.

        The bleating about so-called “rights” for whatever alphabet is being used now is a lie. It is not about “rights” but about a WORD. If it was just about equal TREATMENT—which is not a “right”—-under the law for certain unions, that could have been dealt with years ago.

        You skirt credibility, every now and then, but then you blow it with utter crap such as “And there’s no need to pour out your heart about the divinity of the union between one man and one woman” What a load! No one has ever described any union of one man and one woman as “divine”. Perhaps Hell doesn’t have a dictionary……

        “On Conservatives opposed to contraception try these Newt Gingrich, Marco Rubio and Rick Santorum to start.” —AND all those Catholic bishops. Personally against it, yes. Believe it wrong, yes. Find it against their religious beliefs, yes. Wanting to enforce a ban on contraception for others—-NO.

        And you know this. It has been addressed, over and over, ad nauseum. You simply ignore the facts because they don’t fit into your bigotry.

        You seem quite obsessed with this “breeding race” you have invented. You also seem quite obsessed with labeling everyone with a color tag.

        “One has to keep in mind there are doctors out there that will do anything for the money they need to maintain their lifestyle. ”

        Thank you for admitting that abortion is really about money.

        “Fertilized eggs and fetuses are not people…..”

        So what are they? Ducks? Of course not—they are human beings, at a certain level of development. Just as a young girl is not yet a woman but will be if no one kills her off first, a fetus is an early-stage human being, who will become a fully developed human being if no one kills him off first.

        And the “…not really people…” excuse is the same one used to try to justify myriad atrocities committed against populations later agreed to be, yes, PEOPLE. That is, women, black, Indians, East Indians, gypsies, Jews………

        “…..and don’t have a constitutional right to anything…..” as long as you can deny their humanity through semantics.

        How too too tolerant and inclusive of you.

    • Amazona August 29, 2012 / 11:35 am

      Just a tip, here—-for credibility, it is usually a good idea to not have a fake name, a fake persona, a fake job at a fake newspaper, a fake identity as a demon, a fake address in a fake Hell, and a fake language.

      • sarahbloch August 29, 2012 / 12:55 pm

        Of course Amazona it is easier to kill the messenger than it is to deal with the message. That tactic and the “No true Scotsman” defense of conservatives that fall from grace by speaking from the heart are staples.

      • Amazona August 29, 2012 / 2:52 pm

        Not killing anyone here, sarah—just pointing out that when a person goes to so much trouble to establish herself as a juvenile role-playing ninny, probably with some serious psychological issues regarding identity and reality, it’s pretty hard to then try to don an I’M REALLY A SERIOUS THINKER hat.

        And when the “serious thoughts” are strange and convoluted distortions of reality, outright lies, or mere regurgitation of political manipulations, that hat looks sillier all the time.

        Let’s face it, sarah…you started off with a major disadvantage, thinker-wise, when you admitted to being a forker, and nothing you have said has elevated you above that very very low standard.

        Decent syntax and a good vocabulary do not compensate for being profoundly wrong, desperately misled, and terminally confused.

        You don’t even understand that Progressivism is a political movement representing a political system for governance! All this emoting and pontificating, and you still think Progressivism is about clean water and warm fuzzies for all!

  12. Amazona August 29, 2012 / 12:26 pm

    sarah, Hillsdale College is having a seminar on Progressivism. You might use that as part of your study on the Movement, and then you can decide if it refers to Old Progressivism or Modern Progressivism.

    There are plenty of research sources available—do get back to us with an analysis of the political goals of Progressivism, old or new.

    • sarahbloch August 29, 2012 / 1:00 pm

      I can tell you that I am not an old Progressive [one who supported preventing blacks from voting in the 1920s], but a Modern Progressive—clean environment, GLBTQ rights, the rich paying their fair share and so forth.

      • Amazona August 29, 2012 / 2:21 pm

        That’s all real sweet,sarah, but as none of it has anything to do with actual GOVERNANCE it is all just “issues” and not “ideology”.

        And BTW, you are employing the false paradigm created by the Left as a manipulative tool–that is, that the Left and Right just have “starkly different VALUES” such as clean environment, etc. Honest people understand it’s not the goals that are different, it is the plan for achieving those goals.

        The GLBTQRST “rights” issue is a red herring. These people already have the same rights that anyone else does, with the very very slight difference of different tax status for couples, which can easily be dealt with.

        Since “the rich” are now paying 79-90 % of income tax depending on how you define”rich” it’s hard to figure out what a “fair share” might be.

      • tiredoflibbs August 29, 2012 / 3:30 pm

        Ama, I see that velma has guzzled the “Romney is too rich to understand the middle class” kool-aid! She has regurgitated that dumbed down talking points like a good little mindless drone. It is amazing that rich liberals like Kerry they tried to portray as one who was in touch with the middle class.

        Then you have the forker who is using the “zygote” and “fertilized eggs” that are not people so it isn’t murder argument. Funny, how they screech and squeal about protecting nesting grounds for endangered species. They view those eggs as the endangered animals!!! They don’t use the same argument there when demanding the government protect those areas.

        If only these drones would be consistent every election cycle…….

        …pathetic.

Comments are closed.