Why is federal funding of abortion wrong?

Imagine if you will a Republican majority in Congress that decided federal funds should be used to prevent homosexual couples from adopting children. Republicans are generally opposed to homosexuals being allowed to adopt, and Democrats are generally supportive of it. Democrat’s conscience tells them that this is discrimination and that it’s wrong, and they CERTAINLY shouldn’t have THEIR tax dollars going towards such an initiative.

Hmmmmmm.

Republicans, and more importantly, Christians, believe that abortion is murder of a baby. In fact, ALL scientific fact and evidence supports this belief. There is not one single scientific argument that could ever be used to prove that a “fetus” is NOT a baby. Separate blood types, DNA, heartbeats, brainwaves… fetuses don’t share any of those things with the mother. It’s a seperate entity. And by genetic definition, it is HUMAN. If it’s a seperate HUMAN entity scientifically speaking, then how can anyone think it’s ok to kill?

Well, that’s irrelevant to the Democrats, because they’ve made it a PRIVACY issue, something that has virtually nothing to do with anything. We can’t prevent abortion because that violates the mother’s privacy? What? So by that logic we shouldn’t be allowed to prevent animal cruelty or serial killing so long as it’s occurring on private property.

Regardless, abortion goes against the conscience of a MAJORITY of Americans. THUS, we shouldn’t have to PAY for it.

End of argument.

Whatever else can be said about the foolhardy healthcare reform bills they are planning to vote on at 1:00 AM the week before Christmas when everyone’s asleep (hmmm again), we can say for sure that it will change our country forever.

Those of you who are for it, are you REALLY confident that this cloak-and-dagger bill is going to make things BETTER?

My logic was that just 30 years ago, scientists were SURE that the Earth was about to freeze into a solid chunk of ice, and they were actively attempting to MELT the polar ice caps.

Global Warming Scientists Cooking the Books

As it turns out, some prominent scientists who advocate global warming have been busted basically cooking all the numbers, trying to stifle any opposing thought, and just all around politicizing global warming. Like I’m surprised.

CRU, University of Pennsylvania, and several other prominent global warming “scientific” research centers are implicated in the scandal.

Now, in much of the mainstream media, you won’t find much on this topic. You’ll have to type in “Climategate” into Google and you’ll discover that most of the articles have been published in the UK. Hmmm. Very interesting.

ANYHOW, the long and the short is, the “scientists” were fudging the numbers, actively trying to prevent anti-global warming scientists from being published in scientific journals, CHEERING the death of one of the prominent anti-global warming scientists, and talking about “just how in the heck are we going to keep people from finding out that global warming stopped several years ago.”

Not making this up.

If you still think global warming is bringing on the destruction of planet Earth, you should consider looking up gullible in the dictionary. I hear that Webster decided to remove it.

Unions had a point in the beginning. It was workers banding together and saying “hey, we deserve to be safe and to earn a living wage.”

Since then, a lot has changed. Working conditions are monitored by government agencies. Workplace injuries are the responsibility of the employer, so there’s more incentive to keep things safe. Minimum wage means employers can’t just shaft people who are down on their luck. Thousands of other labor laws mean employers have to follow strict guidelines for discipline and firing.

To make a long story short, unions are no longer necessary. The government intervened to correct all of the problems that unions were created to fight.

Unions have evolved over the past few decades. Now, unions are powerful political lobbies. They are lucrative businesses with a bottom line of their own. Union members pay dues and line the pockets of union bosses who claim they’re just there to defend the workers.

Nowadays, union strikes are completely ridiculous. SEPTA, the transit authority in Philly, just had a transit strike. SEPTA offered the local 5,100 TWU 234 members an average increase of 3% guaranteed for the next 5 years, increased pension funding, and NO increase to healthcare costs, and GET THIS… a $1,250 bonus to workers just for taking the contract. The union said no, and went on strike.

Now, keep in mind, there is currently a deep recession. SEPTA wasn’t able to run, which put the city of Philadelphia on foot. That meant that the 89% of the people in Philly who still have a job were stranded. Many had to miss work, or were late, or had to walk 2 hours… a total mess.

The union claims it’s not about greed, that SEPTA made money last year so the workers are entitled to a bigger slice of the pie. To me, that’s the definition of greed, but hey – I am one of those people who has to actually EARN my paycheck.

But I digress.

10.2% of Americans have NO job. The average SEPTA driver makes $24.00 an hour, plus benefits AND pension. Could you live on that? I could.

Most Americans will not get any raise this year, including COLA, because there wasn’t any inflation. In fact, most Americans will just be happy to have a job when it’s all said and done. If you lose your job right now, it takes an average of 6 months to find another job. And those figures don’t include discouraged workers or underemployed.

So to summarize – in a time of economic crisis, the transit workers union 234 decided that guaranteed raises on top of their already too high pay, plus a signing bonus, plus pension, plus cheap healthcare – that wasn’t enough for them.

The school down the street from me is getting a facelift using “bailout” funds. Naturally, the local electrician’s union decided to go on strike, and like lemmings, all of the other unions walked off the job as well. All that “not crossing a picket line” crap.

There are millions of unemployed Americans who would happily take those jobs at those wages. I think it’s time for the “scabs” to inherit the Earth. I’m ready for unions to die the death they so richly deserve.

So my question is this.

If Democrats want my tax money to pay for something I believe is immoral, shouldn’t the Democrat taxpayers have to pay for something for me that THEY think is immoral? I’m thinking the government should hand out fully automatic machine guns to all Americans.

I’m pro-gun, and I think an armed society is a polite society. I certainly don’t have any girly notion that guns are bad. Democrats are always whining and wussing (yes, I did make up a new word) about guns, and I’d imagine they’d be pretty ticked if their tax dollars were spent arming people.

Then I thought about it some more. I believe a “fetus” is a baby, and now they’re planning to use MY money to kill babies. The gun idea isn’t really equivalent, because they are killing people and I’m just getting a new toy.

My second plan is to have taxpayer funding of mass-killing of homosexuals. (I hope you’re smart enough to get that I’m being sarcastic) A large percentage of the country seems to have issues with them, so let’s make it fair. You get to use my money to kill babies, but Conservatives get to use YOUR money to kill gay people.

Ridiculous, right?

That’s what we’ve come to in this country. Whatever bull-headedness W had is nothing compared with what the Democrats are up to now. Republicans have been completely shut out of the process.

But Pete, W took us to war that we all disagreed with!

Wrong. W had the backing of congress, and backing of the vast majority of Americans before invading Iraq. You just forgot you were in support of it because the spin doctors have been twisting the message for so long.

Stop rewriting history. Free insurance is not going to be free, you idiots.

Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are going to take this country to its knees before this is all over. I fear for our children.

Why don’t we just cancel the programs?

Well, because too many people feel entitled. Entitlement means those programs will never get cut, because politicians are afraid the backlash would leave them without a job.

After the August recess, congress will vote on nationalized healthcare.

If it passes, that’s it. You’re stuck with it for the rest of your life. No ifs, ands, or buts. The program will cost more than anyone expects, it will be more screwed up than anyone expects, it will have terrible consequences (rationed care, less doctors, government deciding if you can have an operation).

But whatever cluster@#$@ the program becomes…. you will never get rid of it.

If the Democrats botch this, which they are dead set on doing, you can kiss quality healthcare and relatively low taxes goodbye. Small businesses will have no choice but to lay people off to afford the new system (not because healthcare will cost more, but because small businesses will pay higher taxes to fund the program).

Mark my words. Once this is done, it’s done.

You and your children and grandchildren will be stuck with whatever ill-conceived, half-baked, cockamamie plan the Democrats force through. The bill will be well over 1,000 pages, and not ONE person in congress will read it before voting for it.

I speak the truth.

If we don’t find a way to stop this, the federal government will become the Borg. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

I know this is a sad day for many of us, who will now have to get hookers the old fashioned way… driving downtown to the ghetto and picking one up off the street corner. Sure, that’s more dangerous and I’d dare say more likely to give you AIDS (street-walking hookers are rarely hygienic). It has the added excitement of being in public where you can be busted by the cops at any moment, so that’s a plus.

On the other hand, it’s probably going to drive both the price and the quality of hookers downward. Posting an ad on Craigslist almost feels… professional, whereas street walking is just seedy and gross. Granted, both are hookers, but again… the type of woman who will stand on the corner is probably a meth addicted, disease infested mess. At least they’re cheap, right?

I’m an advocate of legalizing prostitution. Not because I want to start hiring hookers, but because I think the government should butt out. All that outlawing vices ever accomplishes is it makes the vice much more expensive, much more dangerous, and makes it unable to generate tax revenue.

In Nevada where it is legal, there hasn’t been once case of a hooker giving someone a disease. Ever. That’s because the women are all tested meticulously, they’re in a safe environment, and they use proper precautions. In places where it’s illegal, every hooker can set her own standards of safety and precaution. Some of them are probably just as careful, but there are plenty who simply don’t care because of addiction or whatever.

Regulate and tax. That’s what a free society would do.

As for the Craigslist thing… as long as there are local rag newspapers like the Pitch Weekly, there will still be prostitution ads. Why target Craigslist?

When you buy a bond, you expect that it’s a safe investment. You should get your principle back with interest. If the company goes bankrupt, you stand a good chance of getting a substantial portion of your investment back, because bondholders would be paid back right after secured assets. It’s not like stock – which in bankruptcy probably becomes worthless. A bond is basically a personal loan TO a corporation.

Bondholders had more than 27 billion invested in GM, the UAW around 10 billion.

Under Obama’s dictum, the bondholders will end up with a 10% stake in GM, and the UAW a 40% stake. It’s even worse at Chrysler, with UAW getting 55% (a controlling interest) in the company. Obama’s administration owns the rest of both companies.

Now, without putting on your Democrat hats, can anyone out there explain that math to me?

Of course you can’t. It’s a political restructuring of companies designed to redistribute wealth wherever Obama sees fit. In this case, it’s payback to the UAW for the many years of support, and philosophically it gives money back to the “hard working people” of the companies while screwing the “greedy corporate investors.” Never mind that it’s completely unfair and sets a precedent we won’t end up liking.

Who in their right mind would help a company by investing in bonds if the government can swoop in and give the company to someone else?

In bankruptcy, GM and Chrysler would have had a completely different restructuring, one that rewarded people for their ACTUAL investment in the companies rather than rewarding people for their contributions to a political campaign.

If you aren’t outraged, you aren’t paying attention.

I believe that unborn babies are babies. Thus, I believe it’s wrong to kill them. If you believe they’re not babies, then you’re entitled to your incorrect opinion, and your desire to let them be killed makes sense. If you believe they ARE babies and still think abortion is okey dokey, then you are a sick person.

But how does my belief that unborn are babies make me a right-wing extremist with potential to be a terrorist? Sure, back in the 80’s a couple of nutjobs bombed abortion clinics. Interestingly, the only portion of the clinics ever bombed were the lobby, and it was later discovered that some of them were done by PRO abortion activists and even staff of the clinics to give the pro-life crowd a black eye.

How does my belief that we should protect our borders from ILLEGAL entry into our country? I don’t have a problem with legal immigration! In fact, some of the smartest people I’ve ever met are LEGAL immigrants into the US. I’m proud to have them as my friends. How could it be EXTREMISM to think we should protect our borders from ANYONE being able to wander in – including REAL TERRORISTS!?

DHS has backed off their stance that vets coming back from Iraq are potential terrorists. Apparently that didn’t fly too well. However, they aren’t backing off their attack on conservative Christianity. It’s a blatant ideological attack on Christianity and conservatism. Blatant.

What about all the LEFT-WING nutjob extremists. How come they aren’t on the list? There are plenty of leftist activist groups that happily voice their discontent.

This may be the most blatant attack on Christianity in America ever. Believe what you will. Think Christianity is stupid and wrong. Think abortion and open borders are ok. But don’t think for one second that it’s ok to quash the voices that oppose your beliefs. That’s the most un-American thing you could ever do.

God help us all.

This is totally offensive to me on every level, in fact, I can’t even tell you how unbelievably wrong it is, both from a personal perspective and from the perspective of an American citizen. Aren’t we allowed to have personal beliefs anymore? Aren’t we allowed to express our personal beliefs anymore.

I really don’t have the desire to even write anymore about this.

Disgusted.

There’s just one slight problem. AIG has contracts to pay these bonuses. If they don’t pay them, they will undoubtedly get their pants sued off, and guess what money they’d have to use for their legal defense? You guessed it.

Let me preface this by saying that any company who is willing to take bailout money automatically deserves any bad thing that the government does to them. If they were truly capitalists, they would choose death of the company over letting the government tell them what to do. Clearly AIG is not run by capitalists. Apparently it’s run by the same type of morons who are running the government.

I agree it’s outrageous to use taxpayer money to hand out bonuses. Absolutely. I think it’s a stench, an outrage, a despicable thing.

I also think that AIG is pretty much blameless. Yup, you heard me.

Who are the morons who gave private companies taxpayer money with no strings attached? Was it AIG? Was it GM? Was it US?

No, it was the sleazy politicians who went AGAINST the public outcry and dolled out cash to whoever was running their business WORST. Never mind all of the small businesses who are struggling, making hard cuts, and in many cases going out of business. It wouldn’t make sense to help the people who run their businesses well. Instead, we give money to people who’ve already proven that they can’t run their business. Smart. And then we did it without oversight or conditions. Doubly Smart.

And then we wonder why they used the money that way? That’s where we the public have misplaced our anger.

AIG is running their business according to contracts they have in place. If breaking those contracts was a condition of taking bailout money, that would be one thing. But it wasn’t.

Our anger is deserved, but it should be aimed at the utter morons who decided to take OUR money and give it to BAD BUSINESSMEN. HELLO!

If we’re really capitalists, then people who are crooks and morons will run their business poorly and go bankrupt, and the people who are smart and honest will succeed. Do you really think if AIG or CITI went out of business that the world would end? Or would all of their competitors benefit and thus eliminate the burden on the economy of a poorly run business and replace it with a well-run alternative?

The best way to f%@# up your economy is to let the government have the reigns.

Be angry. Just not at AIG.