The Progressive War on “Christianity.”

Michael Fell
February 16, 2012 Posted by Michael Fell mjfell@hotmail.com

In the last few past weeks, Susan G. Komen for the Cure announced a decision to stop funding Planned Parenthood.  Their decision was based on the fact that to a large measure, the business of Planned Parenthood is abortion.  A determination substantiated by a statistical analysis of Planned Parenthood’s services.

http://liveaction.org/blog/38-4-of-pp-health-center-income-is-from-abortions/

Planned Parenthood continues to insist that they provide badly needed healthcare services to low income women.  Never mind that 38.4% of Planned Parenthood health center income comes directly from aborting unborn children.  This may come as quite the shock to Americans whose political views reside on the left end of the spectrum, but pregnancy is not a disease.  Abortion doesn’t cure anything.  In the caring, non-savage world, reproductive healthcare means keeping expectant mothers and their unborn babies healthy, not killing the unborn babies.

This became a huge, front-page news story that led the nightly national television news cycle.  Public pressure from left wing politicians like Nancy Pelosi and “progressive” activist groups managed to coerce The Komen Foundation into reversing their courageous decision. The politicizing of this decision was clearly out of bounds, since The Komen Foundation is a private organization that is free to operate their charity as they see fit.  This is yet another example of the “mainstream” media’s persistent pattern of aiding and abetting leftist positions.

Prior to that, ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC all ignored the Department of Health and Human Services decision that by Aug. 1, religiously inspired hospitals, schools and charities that hire outside their faith must offer insurance coverage for sterilization, abortifacients and contraceptives without deductibles or co-pays.  What this means is, the Catholic Church will be forced to either comply with a Congressional law prohibiting the free exercise of their religion, a clear violation of the First Amendment, or close down hospitals, universities and charities.  That the media would fail to report on this unconstitutional power grab by the United States government stands in stark contrast to their open eagerness to defend “progressive” agenda items like abortion.

http://www.energypublisher.com/a/PVVGGKTVZD33/67638-Obamas-war-on-Christians

It’s easy to identify where, when and why a clearly biased media openly takes sides in an unprecedented government assault on Christianity.  But the blame doesn’t reside solely within the “progressive” Party Pravda.  If you’re a pro life Christian who voted for “progressive” politicians and their empty promises of hope and change, you are partly to blame for their war on Christianity.

The remedy is both simple and obvious.  In November 2012 “progressive” politicians must be voted out of power.

Tags: , ,

19 Responses to The Progressive War on “Christianity.”

  1. Spaceghost on February 16, 2012 at 10:22 am

    >> Their decision was based on the fact that to a large measure, the business of Planned Parenthood is abortion.

    Sorry, no, wrong. You’ll forgive me if I trust this Washington Post article over some biased pro-life blog:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/what-planned-parenthood-actually-does/2011/04/06/AFhBPa2C_blog.html

    THREE percent for abortion. SEVENTY PERCENT on contraception and STDs.

    Aren’t facts fun?

    >>What this means is, the Catholic Church will be forced to either comply with a Congressional law prohibiting the free exercise of their religion, a clear violation of the First Amendment, or close down hospitals, universities and charities.

    No, it doesn’t, and no it isn’t. It’s incredible how you guys at this site all say the same stupid, wrong crap. HOW IN THE WORLD does having health insurance at, say, a Catholic hospital cover contraceptives prohibit a free exercise of their religion? Show me one Catholic who is less able to practice their religion as a result of what health insurance covers for employees of Catholic-run hospitals. ONE.

    >>It’s easy to identify where, when and why a clearly biased media openly takes sides in an unprecedented government assault on Christianity.

    Oh yes, poor you. Poor Christians. You really have it rough, you’re really down-trodden. All those hate crimes against Christians. All those holidays you don’t get off and everybody ignores, like that Christma-whattayacallit? All those churches that everyone gets so upset about whenever you want to build one.

    Seriously, how do you handle the misery of being so horribly oppressed?

    • Michael J. Fell on February 16, 2012 at 12:13 pm

      Wow, how impressive

      You “counter” information from a “biased pro-life blog” with information from a biased anti-life blog from a biased rag. I’m equally impressed by the gullibility you exhibit in believing that the Washington Post tells the truth. They get their talking points from the same place as do the rest of the “progressive” Party Pravda and the White House: Media Matters. Ah…Media Matters…that well known “progressive” lie machine “think” tank that’s funded by renowned America hating, Nazi sympathizing secular Jew turned atheist George Soros.

      Catholics will not and cannot be forced to violate their conscience. That you fail to perceive that being commanded by the government to violate your conscience is a violation of the First Amendment show’s how little you know about the Constitution…not surprising, coming from a “progressive” who parrots Media Matters.

      Seriously, how do you handle being so utterly clueless, angry and hateful?

  2. Spaceghost on February 16, 2012 at 12:30 pm

    >>You “counter” information from a “biased pro-life blog” with information from a biased anti-life blog from a biased rag.

    The Washington Post??

    >>I’m equally impressed by the gullibility you exhibit in believing that the Washington Post tells the truth. They get their talking points from the same place as do the rest of the “progressive” Party Pravda and the White House: Media Matters.

    So I’m understanding this right:

    The Washington Post…one of the most long-standing (since 1877), respected, award-laden (47 Pulitzer Prizes) newspapers in the country, the one that exposed Watergate and I don’t have room or time to list the rest…gets its “talking points” from Media Matters. That’s what you’re saying? You really just typed that? With a straight face?

    Okay. So you’re insane, and you like making shit up. Glad we clarified that.

    Incidentally, what’s your case against Media Matters? They take actual quotes and video clips of conservatives saying stupid, hateful crap, and let them speak for itself. What exactly is to impugn there?

    >>renowned America hating, Nazi sympathizing secular Jew turned atheist George Soros.

    Okay, I’m begging you now…PLEASE show me the evidence that George Soros is a Nazi sympathizer. Please, please, please do that.

    I should warn you, though: A newspaper that said that had to issue a retraction and apology.

    http://www.torontosun.com/comment/2010/09/17/15388356.html

    But whatever. Knock yourself out!

    >>That you fail to perceive that being commanded by the government to violate your conscience is a violation of the First Amendment show’s how little you know about the Constitution…

    Irony of ironies. Once again, for the truly slow: Here is EVERYTHING the Constitution, specifically the 1st amendment, says about Freedom of Religion:

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

    Seriously, THAT’S IT. THAT’S THE WHOLE THING! Nothing about violating one’s conscience. Not a single word. (How could it, anyway? How would the courts determine when a conscience was violated?)

    Now please stop freakin’ schooling people in shit you know nothing about, and once again, I’m all ears if you want to try to explain how having religion-run institutions cover contraception in their health care plans constitutes prohibiting anyone from practicing their religion.

    Whenever you’re ready.

    >>Seriously, how do you handle being so utterly clueless, angry and hateful?

    It’s actually more like this:

    Because you folks are CLUELESS about the actual wording of the 1st amendment and you obey all the GOP talking points to the letter, you stand right in line with their HATEFUL war against women and the rights they’ve had to fight so hard for over the centuries, and it makes me ANGRY that there are so many of you, and you’re all so stone-cold stupid that you can’t even interpret a single half-sentence from the 1st amendment without fucking it up.

    Happy now?

    • Michael J. Fell on February 17, 2012 at 9:08 am

      That the White House, Media Matters and “progressive” media outlets are working in collusion is documented. Greg Sargent of the Washington Post is clearly implicated:

      Inside Media Matters: Sources, memos reveal erratic behavior, close coordination with White House and news organizations

      http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/12/inside-media-matters-sources-memos-reveal-erratic-behavior-close-coordination-with-white-house-and-news-organizations/

      As a matter of fact, the Washington Post defended Media Matters financier Soros by attacking Beck for exposing Soros on national television. The Washington Post went after Beck with an attack by hatchet man and “progressive” smear specialist Dana Milbank.

      As for Soros being a Nazi collaborator?

      George Soros Interview On 60 Minutes

      When the Nazis occupied Budapest in 1944, George Soros’ father was a successful lawyer. He lived on an island in the Danube and liked to commute to work in a rowboat. But knowing there were problems ahead for the Jews, he decided to split his family up. He bought them forged papers and he bribed a government official to take 14-year-old George Soros in and swear that he was his Christian godson. But survival carried a heavy price tag. While hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews were being shipped off to the death camps, George Soros accompanied his phony godfather on his appointed rounds, confiscating property from the Jews.

      (Vintage footage of Jews walking in line; man dragging little boy in line)

      KROFT: (Voiceover) These are pictures from 1944 of what happened to George Soros’ friends and neighbors.

      (Vintage footage of women and men with bags over their shoulders walking; crowd by a train)

      KROFT: (Voiceover) You’re a Hungarian Jew…

      Mr. SOROS: (Voiceover) Mm-hmm.

      KROFT: (Voiceover) …who escaped the Holocaust…

      (Vintage footage of women walking by train)

      Mr. SOROS: (Voiceover) Mm-hmm.

      (Vintage footage of people getting on train)

      KROFT: (Voiceover) …by–by posing as a Christian.

      Mr. SOROS: (Voiceover) Right.

      (Vintage footage of women helping each other get on train; train door closing with people in boxcar)

      KROFT: (Voiceover) And you watched lots of people get shipped off to the death camps.

      Mr. SOROS: Right. I was 14 years old. And I would say that that’s when my character was made.

      KROFT: In what way?

      Mr. SOROS: That one should think ahead. One should understand and–and anticipate events and when–when one is threatened. It was a tremendous threat of evil. I mean, it was a–a very personal experience of evil.

      KROFT: My understanding is that you went out with this protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted godson.

      Mr. SOROS: Yes. Yes.

      KROFT: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.

      Mr. SOROS: Yes. That’s right. Yes.

      KROFT: I mean, that’s–that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?

      Mr. SOROS: Not–not at all. Not at all. Maybe as a child you don’t–you don’t see the connection. But it was–it created no–no problem at all.

      KROFT: No feeling of guilt?

      Mr. SOROS: No.

      KROFT: For example that, ‘I’m Jewish and here I am, watching these people go. I could just as easily be there. I should be there.’ None of that?

      Mr. SOROS: Well, of course I c–I could be on the other side or I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense that I shouldn’t be there, because that was–well, actually, in a funny way, it’s just like in markets–that if I weren’t there–of course, I wasn’t doing it, but somebody else would–would–would be taking it away anyhow. And it was the–whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So the–I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt.

      —–

      Soros called it the happiest time of his life.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ2U6Rl98PM

      As for the First Amendment, being able to copy and past doesn’t mean you are able to comprehend the meaning of the words “free exercise thereof”.

      Your response was typically clueless, misinformed, angrrrry and hateful. SOP for “progressives”.

      • Spaceghost on February 18, 2012 at 12:48 am

        a) Did you even READ that “60 Minutes” excerpt? He tells how he ESCAPED the Nazis (whom he calls “evil” more than once), that he walk around with his godfather by posing as a Christian. How does that make him a Nazi sympathizer? Am I to understand that you don’t actually know what “sympathizer” means? What else is one to think?

        b)
        >>As for the First Amendment, being able to copy and past doesn’t mean you are able to comprehend the meaning of the words “free exercise thereof”.

        Hey, I’m all ears. Explain to me how having a religion-owned institution’s health plan cover birth control prevents the “free exercise” of one’s religion. Show me someone – like, seriously, ONE PERSON – whose ability to exercise their religion is hampered by that.

        Go on, I’ll be right here.

      • Spaceghost on February 18, 2012 at 12:52 am

        >>That the White House, Media Matters and “progressive” media outlets are working in collusion is documented.

        Yes, by right-wing rags.

        Are you really unaware that when you attempt to discredit sources using sources that have demonstrably less cred than the sources you’re trying to discredit, all you actually accomplish is confirming that you’re a genuine, 24 karat idiot?

        Just making sure.

        • Spaceghost on February 18, 2012 at 8:44 am

          Oh, and while you’re at it, you can explain to me how being a 13-year-old Jew pretending to be a Christian so the Nazis won’t take you to a concentration camp and murder you or starve you to death is being more of a “Nazi sympathizer” than actually being a member of the Hitler Youth, as was…the Pope. You know, the head of the church that’s causing all this anti-contraceptive claptrap?

          Whenever you’re ready.

  3. Spaceghost on February 16, 2012 at 10:24 pm

    Oh, and incidentally…

    You want to put the Washington Post thing aside as “biased”? Fine.

    How about Factcheck.org?

    http://factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/

    Q: How much of Planned Parenthood’s services are dedicated to abortions? Does the federal government fund those procedures?

    A: Abortions represent 3 percent of total services provided by Planned Parenthood, and roughly 10 percent of its clients received an abortion. The group does receive federal funding, but the money cannot be used for abortions by law.

    Again: Facts are fun!

    • Michael J. Fell on February 17, 2012 at 7:57 am

      Factcheck is funded by the Annenberg Foundation. Barack Obama was a founding member, chairman, and president of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which was also funded by the Annenberg Foundation.

      Yep, sounds pretty unbiased to me…

      (sarcasm off)

  4. Spaceghost on February 17, 2012 at 8:41 am

    You’re an idiot. First of all, Factcheck.org is renowned for their non-bias. They check BOTH SIDES with equal rigor. Conservatives refer to their findings all the time. Dick Cheney famously referenced him during the ’00 VP debate. Here they are fact-checking an Obama speech:

    http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/factchecking-obamas-budget-speech/

    Here’s a list of the awards they’ve won for their professional journalism:

    http://factcheck.org/awards/

    Seriously, you think your anti-abortion site is a more reliable source of facts than Factcheck.org?

    What the hell is wrong with you?

    • Michael J. Fell on February 17, 2012 at 2:59 pm

      FactCheck.org Bias

      FactCheck claim: “Obama is proposing no …ban” on use of firearms for self-defense in the home.

      FactCheck is wrong. Obama supported local handgun bans in the Chicago area by opposing any allowance for self-defense. Obama opposed an Illinois bill (SB 2165, 2004) that would have created an “affirmative defense” for a person who used a prohibited firearm in self-defense in his own home.

      As FactCheck notes, the bill was provoked by a case where a Wilmette, Ill. homeowner shot an intruder in self-defense in his home; the homeowner’s handgun was banned by a town ordinance. (After the U.S. Supreme Court found Washington, D.C.’s similar ban unconstitutional, Wilmette repealed the ordinance to avoid litigation.)

      The legislation was very plainly worded, but as limited as its protection was, Obama voted against it in committee and on the floor:

      It is an affirmative defense to a violation of a municipal ordinance that prohibits, regulates, or restricts the private ownership of firearms if the individual who is charged with the violation used the firearm in an act of self-defense or defense of another …when on his or her land or in his or her abode or fixed place of business.

      If a person cannot use a handgun for self-defense in the home without facing criminal charges, self-defense with handguns in the home is effectively banned.

      Even aside from SB 2165, Obama’s support for a total handgun ban (see below) would be a crippling blow to defense in the home, since (as the Supreme Court recently affirmed) handguns are “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family.” (District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 2818 (2008)).

      For what it’s worth, I note that the NRA is relying on Barack Obama’s past support of bans as evidence that he still favors such bans. That seems to be overstating their case. Just as FactCheck.org is overstating their case by flatly stating he does not suport any such ban. He has in the past. What assurances do we have that he won’t again?
      Also – handguns aren’t bad for home defenss, but if portability isn’t an issue I recommend the Mossberg 590 pump-action shotgun.

      FactCheck claim: Obama “did not …vote to ‘ban virtually all deer hunting ammunition.”

      FactCheck is wrong. Obama voted for an amendment by longtime ammunition ban advocate Sen. Edward Kennedy (S. Amdt. 1615 to S. 397, Vote No. 217, July 29, 2005), which would have fundamentally changed the federal “armor piercing ammunition” law (18 U.S.C. ‘ 922(a)(7)), by banning any bullet that “may be used in a handgun and that the Attorney General determines…
      to be capable of penetrating body armor” that “meets minimum standards for the protection of law enforcement officers.”

      Federal law currently bans bullets as “armor piercing” based upon the metals used in their construction, such as those made of steel and those that have heavy jackets. (18 U.S.C. ‘ 921(a)(17)). The Kennedy amendment would have fundamentally changed the law to add a ban on bullets on the basis of whether they penetrate the “minimum” level of body armor, regardless of the bullets’ construction or the purposes for which they were designed (e.g., hunting).

      Many bullets designed and intended for use in rifles (including hunting rifles) have, over the years, been used in special-purpose hunting and target handguns, thus they “may be used in a handgun.”

      The “minimum” level of body armor, Type I, only protects against the lowest-powered handgun cartridges. Any center-fire rifle used for hunting, target shooting, or any other purpose, and many handguns used for the same purposes, are capable of penetrating Type I armor, regardless of the design of the bullet.

      Obama also said, on his 2003 questionnaire for the Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization, that he would “support banning the sale of ammunition for assault weapons.” (source)The rifles banned as “assault weapons” under the 1994 Clinton gun ban fire cartridges such as the .223 Remington and .308 Winchester – the same ammunition used in common hunting rifles.

      It’s true that in 2005, Sen. Kennedy denied his amendment would ban hunting ammunition. But in a floor debate on an identical amendment the previous year, Kennedy specifically denounced the .30-30 Winchester rifle cartridge, used by millions of deer hunters since 1895. “It is outrageous and unconscionable that such ammunition continues to be sold in the United States of America,” said Sen. Kennedy. (Congressional Record, 2/26/04, p. S1634.)

      Isn’t it FactCheck’s job to be skeptical of politicians’ claims, especially when the plain language says otherwise?

      The case is clear on this issue: FactCheck.org really is completely wrong.

      FactCheck claim: “Obama says he does not support any … handgun ban and never has.”

      FactCheck is wrong. Obama has never disavowed his support for a handgun ban. On Obama’s 1996 questionnaire
      for the Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization, he clearly stated his support for “state legislation to …ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.” Although Obama first claimed he had not seen the survey, a later version appeared with his handwritten notes modifying some of the answers. But
      he didn’t change any of his answers on gun issues, including the handgun ban.

      FactCheck itself cites Obama’s 2003 questionnaire to the same group. When asked again if he supported a handgun ban, he could simply have said, “No.” Instead, as FactCheck notes, he “avoid[ed] a yes-or-no answer” by saying a ban on handguns “is not politically practicable,” then stated his support for other restrictions.

      The 1996 and 2003 positions are not at all contradictory. Many anti-gun groups, such as the Violence Policy Center and Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, support total bans on handguns but also support lesser regulations that are more “politically practicable.”

      Again: seems pretty open-and-shut to me.

      FactCheck claim: Saying Obama supports gun licensing is “misleading.”

      FactCheck is wrong. Obama’s fancy election-year
      footwork – claiming he doesn’t support licensing or registration
      because he doesn’t think he “can get that done” – isn’t enough to get
      around his clear support for handgun registration and licensing.

      What’s really misleading is the idea that handgun registration isn’t really gun registration. Handguns are about one-third of the firearms owned in the United States, and American gun owners know better than to think registration schemes will end with any one kind of gun.
      Another one that is open to some nterpretation. Is supporting registration of 1/3rd of all firearms supporting firearm registration? I wouuld say so.

      http://kiriath-arba.blogspot.com/2008/09/factcheckorg-bias.html

  5. Spaceghost on February 17, 2012 at 10:44 am

    >>Factcheck is funded by the Annenberg Foundation. Barack Obama was a founding member, chairman, and president of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which was also funded by the Annenberg Foundation.

    Incidentally, this is idiotic on an additional level, in that the Annenberg Foundation is HUGE, and you can connect pretty much anyone to it. Do you know about Sunnylands?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunnylands

    “President Richard Nixon wrote his 1974 State of the Union Address at the house and, after leaving office, was a guest at Sunnylands when President Gerald Ford pardoned him for any wrongdoing in the Watergate scandal. Ford and his wife Betty were frequent guests as well. President Ronald Reagan and Nancy Reagan were close friends of the Annenbergs and visited every New Year’s for 18 years. President George H. W. Bush hosted a state dinner at the house for Japanese Prime Minister Toshiki Kaifu in 1990.”

    Catch that?

    THE REAGANS WERE CLOSE FRIENDS OF THE ANNNENBERGS.

    Seriously, you guys make this too easy.

  6. Michael J. Fell on February 17, 2012 at 3:04 pm

    Just so you might be able distinguish the difference, The Annenberg Foundation is not the same as the Annenbergs. That’s like comparing lousy service at Hilton Hotels to the Hilton family personally.

    Nice try, oh bitter, clueless, misinformed, angry, hateful one.

  7. Spaceghost on February 17, 2012 at 3:12 pm

    You are a genuine abject moron.

    Gee, where’d that article come from? A BIASED WEBSITE, maybe?

    How much fucking clearer could it be that Factcheck.org is not some Obama-biased rag? It’s an award-winning, widely respected source of fact-checking that is equally critical of BOTH PARTIES, and it’s funded by a foundation started by a man who was, again, CLOSE FRIENDS WITH RONALD REAGAN, and clearly friendly with many other Republican leaders as well. And what do you make of all the fact-checking it does on Obama’s speeches? Is that just part of the disguise?

    And what about the website where you got YOUR figures? It doesn’t even PRETEND to be unbiased, it’s blatantly anti-abortion. How in the fucking world could you possibly, with a straight face, point to THAT as a more credible source than Factcheck?

    Seriously, man, out of all the fucking idiots writing for this website, I think with this one, you take the crown.

    Congratulations!

    • Michael J. Fell on February 17, 2012 at 3:22 pm

      I’d be far more interested in seeing how you counter each cited instance where Factcheck shows clear bias in support of Obama than in being entertained by your attempts to hurt my feelings by calling me names.

      • Spaceghost on February 18, 2012 at 12:37 am

        Sorry, no. The onus is not on ME to prove Factcheck as a credible source, because the fact that it’s a more credible, unbiased source than some anti-abortion rag is so mind-bogglingly obvious that it goes without saying to even the most slack-jawed yokel. Again: CONSERVATIVES refer to it as a credible source. DICK CHENEY referred to it as one on national TV, because it posted articles about him that REFUTED arguments that he was profiting from the war. I’ve had columnists at THIS VERY SITE refer to it in arguments with me. It has WON PRESTIGIOUS AWARDS for its unbiased journalism. It has more than enough fact-checking OF OBAMA to prove beyond all argument that IT’S NOT AN OBAMA-BIASED RAG, FOR THE LUVVA CHRIST.

        Sweet Jesus, where do they find all you village idiots? Was there a convention?

  8. Spaceghost on February 17, 2012 at 3:15 pm

    >>Just so you might be able distinguish the difference, The Annenberg Foundation is not the same as the Annenbergs. That’s like comparing lousy service at Hilton Hotels to the Hilton family personally.

    It’s more like saying that the Bush Library has a blatant anti-Bush agenda.

    And incidentally? Even if you WERE right? Even if that chart was totally bogus and Planned Parenthood actually was profiting as much as you say they are from abortions? Wouldn’t matter. Your argument still sucks. There is no “progressive war on Christianity”, this is not a “constitutional power grab”, and in no freakin’ way does it impinge on anyone’s First Amendment rights, as you would know if you ever read the damn thing.

    In short: Either way, you’re an idiot.

    • Michael J. Fell on February 17, 2012 at 3:25 pm

      I know, you’re right and I’m wrong…because

      YOU SAID SO!

      How like a bitter, clueless, misinformed, angry, hateful, tantrum throwing child.

  9. Spaceghost on February 18, 2012 at 12:25 am

    >>I know, you’re right and I’m wrong…because

    YOU SAID SO!

    No, you’re wrong because here’s everything the entire Constitution says about freedom of religion:

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

    Seriously, that’s it. That’s all it says. No laws establishing any religions, and no laws against practicing any religions. Bang, zoom, done. THAT’S IT.

    And not a single one of you morons who keep insisting that this is a First amendment issue and crying “Freedom of religion!” has even ATTEMPTED to explain how having a religion-owned institution cover birth control in their health care plans even remotely resembles making a law that prohibits practice of any religion. Not even ATTEMPTED. You can’t even muster up the energy to say something STUPID along those lines, is how bad your argument is.

    That’s really it. Everything else is just gravy. That you think a blatantly anti-abortion site has more journalistic cred than Factcheck.org, for example. Or that you haven’t even thought this shit through, that the harder it is for women to get contraceptives, the more unwanted pregnancies there will be, which inevitably means a) More abortions, and b) More children born to people who can’t afford them, which means higher unemployment and poverty rates, more money going to safety net programs like welfare and food stamps and unemployment, and of course, higher taxes. Both of which you guys HATE. Or do you hate birth control more?

    Whatever. As I say, that’s the gravy. The bottom line is that you’re free to keep calling me hateful and angry and bitter, because that’s admittedly how I get when dealing with such serious idiots, but as for “clueless” and “misinformed”…Okay, man. The floor’s yours. Show me the specific part of the First Amendment that supports your case. Show me how this prohibits anyone from practicing their religion. Since you’re so brilliant and I’m so dumb, this ought to be a cakewalk for you. Knock yourself out.

    I’ll be right here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Feature

Will Obama Leave the Democratic Party Better Than He Found It?

Has President Obama served or hurt the Democratic Party in his six years in office. Any basic review of the facts gives a...

Bill Maher, Ben Affleck and Islam

On Last Week's Bill Maher show, an interesting this happened. Liberal Maher took on Ben Affleck and his liberal views on Islam. ...