One big difference between Obama and Governor Perry is that Gov. Perry knows that abortions are the opposite of health care. That is why Gov. Perry recently and legally denied to distributed funds to Planned Parenthood for Texas’ Women’s Health Program. Obama responded by unlawfully cutting off funds for this program because of this move. I guess Obama feels that abortions providers hold a higher priority than the health of over 100,000 low income women in Texas. However, Governor Perry recognized the importance of this program and promises to fund it through state funds.

Below are some facts provided by AFP-TX about this fiasco:

• Texas’ Women’s Health Program has been in effect since 2007, and provides preventive health care, including breast and cervical cancer screenings to more than 100,000 low-income Texas women.
• Texas law prohibits tax dollars from funding abortion providers and their affiliates.
• Under federal law, states administer Medicaid and have the right to set the criteria for “qualified providers” in the program, not Washington. This is exactly what Texas has done, in accordance with Texas law. Texas law prohibits tax cheats or deadbeat parents from participating as a provider in Medicaid, even though federal law does not.
• There are more than 2,500 qualified providers in the WHP.
• Planned Parenthood represents less than two percent of providers in the WHP.
• Planned Parenthood’s cost per client is 43 percent higher than most other providers, according to the Texas Health and Human Services Commission.
• In FY 2010, nearly 80 percent of women served received WHP services from non Planned Parenthood providers. NOTE: PP serves 45% of WHP clients. BUT it’s also true that nearly 80% of the women get services at OTHER providers. That’s because many women seek care at multiple places during the year. So any question of, “can the program operate without PP?” – absolutely, as nearly 80% of the women received services from NON PP providers.

Tweet 

Are we done yet with the whole “War on Women” charade? Christian hospitals and universities fired the first salvo when they filed suit against the Obama Administration for requiring them to provide contraceptive choices those institutions deemed counter to their religious mission. Rush Limbaugh joined with his (vitriolic) attack on Sandra Fluke. Then, it was Rick Perry denying Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood, which lead the feds to cut off all Medicaid-based funds for family planning in Texas. Throw in a dash of Rick Santorum not favoring contraception at all and we’ve got ourselves a good ‘ol fashioned Woman Hatin’ Club—or so we’re told.

To put more simply, if you are against abortion, think contraception has negative side effects(see note at end), and/or do not think the government should force private businesses/institutions to do anything against their stated values, you are a soldier in the War on Women. Major Misogynist, reporting for duty!

How ridiculous! I could easily turn this argument on its head. If you are for each of these things, you support a War on the Unborn, a War on Sexual Morality, War on Religion, and a War on Freedom from Government Intrusion. Just because conservatives are against abortion or government subsidized contraception does not mean they are against women. It means they are against those respective policies. Can we legitimately argue that being against Social Security is an attack on the elderly, being against student loan forgiveness is an attack on the young, or being against auto bailouts is an attack on motor vehicles? No. There are policies, and there are individuals. The Democrats want you to focus on the individuals, not the policy, or the moral, governmental, or economic implications of said policies. If it is good for women, as determined by the Left, then we must support it or be at war against its benefactors.

The so-called War on Women is not a fight to knock women back to the Stone Age where men carry clubs and drag women around by their hair. The “battle”—and I use the term loosely because Americans are dying in real battles and wars—is a fight over the proper role of government. Should government be involved in a woman’s reproductive health? Should government interfere on behalf of the unborn? Should government force private entities to provide a service it finds objectionable? Should government provide a service that is available in the private sector? Is contraception a right, privilege, or responsibility?

I do realize this country has some inroads to make regarding women, such as equal pay for equal work, but the whole idea of the War on Women is not to ensure women have the necessary liberty to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. Its purpose is to divide via empty axiom without actually debating the foundational issue of the role of government.

---

(Yes, I understand birth control is used for things other than preventing pregnancy. I am simply articulating the position of many on the Religious Right regarding the ability of birth control to limit the chances of pregnancy, thus encouraging sexual promiscuity.)

Tweet 

Let me state this very bluntly at the outset, I have not determined who I will support in the Republican Presidential Primary (if we ever get to vote in Texas). All candidates have significant benefits and significant drawbacks. This post is not one in support of Rick Santorum for President. It is simply a comment on the troubling misuse of the word theocracy.

Santorum is clearly a Christian conservative. He embodies the principles of social conservatism; the protection of the unborn, the purpose and sanctity of marriage, and the role of God in the public arena. Time after time, I have read or heard commentators refer to him as a theocrat (here, and here). He has even been compared to Iran’s Ahmadinejad (here and here). He’s been ridiculed for bringing up God in his day-to-day decision making.

Let us understand two things. One, if you are in public office, you believe in God, acknowledge His presence in your life, and admit He influences your decisions, it does not make you a theocrat or the government you run a theocracy. Theocracies are not defined as states which allow God to be mentioned in the public sphere. Theocracies are states which force its subjects to conform to the stated theology of the state. For Santorum to be a theocrat in charge of a theocracy, he would need to be able to force Americans to church on Sundays, read their Bibles regularly, and hang crucifixions above their dinner tables. Santorum would have to punish those who refused to obey the state’s theological (not policy) positions.

Read the rest of this entry →

Tweet 

A couple of weeks ago, Craig James, ESPN announcer and former SMU running back, officially entered the race to seek the Republican nomination for the US Senate. He seems like a nice enough guy, but just like Rick Santorum he has a Google problem. If you Google “Craig James” something very interesting comes up before you can even finish typing his name. Apparently… he killed 5 hookers.

And what’s really amazing is that if you Google “Craig James killed 5 hookers” that there are 288,000 results!

To give Craig James credit he was never involved with killing 5 hookers or anything of the sorts. It seems disgruntled Texas Tech fans wanted to smear his name after he played a role in getting Tech’s head football coach fired. They started posting “Craig James killed 5 hookers” on every forum, blog, website they could find to help create this search result.

I wonder if voters will follow my lead and be googling this, instead of searching for his website.

Tweet 

This chart doesn’t say much about how our past presidents have handled the budget, but Obama has just gone off the deep end.

A special thanks to the Heritage Foundation for creating this chart. You can read more about their study here.

Tweet 

I couldn’t help myself. Enjoy.

Tweet 

Have you ever wondered what the “populist” Occupy Wall Street thinks of Christianity? It seems videographer Benny Johnson wanted to find out by setting up a nativity scene in the middle of the OWS DC camp. Let’s just say the reactions were mixed. Read more and watch the video from The Blaze below.

The response from the Occupiers was diverse. ”This ain’t a church, man,” one guy said. Another protester could be heard asking, ”Is that legal?” Yet another person, clearly responding to him said, ”No check — go check.”

Early on in the clip, a man with a bandanna covering his face, has a strong reaction as he addresses the actors in the nativity (starts around the :40 mark).

“I wouldn’t get up here and start preaching Islam to people.” he said. “I wouldn‘t because it’s not my place. It’s not your place either.”

Later, the same guy appears again and explains why he’s opposed. ”I’m a follower of Islam. I just think it’s in bad taste,” he explains. “The atrocities of the Christian faith…ravish humanity.”The response from the Occupiers was diverse. ”This ain’t a church, man,” one guy said. Another protester could be heard asking, ”Is that legal?” Yet another person, clearly responding to him said, ”No check — go check.”

Early on in the clip, a man with a bandanna covering his face, has a strong reaction as he addresses the actors in the nativity (starts around the :40 mark).

“I wouldn’t get up here and start preaching Islam to people.” he said. “I wouldn‘t because it’s not my place. It’s not your place either.”

Later, the same guy appears again and explains why he’s opposed. ”I’m a follower of Islam. I just think it’s in bad taste,” he explains. “The atrocities of the Christian faith…ravish humanity.”

You can read the full story at The Blaze.

Tweet 

During a visit to America in 1987, the Soviet Union’s Prime Minister Mikhail Gorbachev made the remark to President Reagan (and I paraphrase), “If those are slums, I’ll take ten of those.” This was testament about America’s greatness. It’s incredibly that a superpower leader (and sworn enemy) envied our poor to such an extent that he wanted them in his country, it’s usually the opposite. We’re not in the 1980′s anymore, but I have a feeling that Gorbachev would say the same thing he did then, today.

Why? Just take a look at the chart below…

I’m not showing you this information to make a point that America’s poor don’t need our help or shouldn’t be served. Because they do and we should help. I’m showing you this information to prove once again that despite all of America’s faults we live in the greatest country in the world. After all, our poor are envied.

A special thanks for TPPF for forwarding this information to me.

I’m sorry I haven’t been making more post lately, but I’m going to try and redeem myself by doing a TBF. Next week you should see more post too. Anyways, this week we are highlighting David Bellow’s blog, Texas Conservative News. His most recent post analyzes Gov. Perry’s controversial “War on Religion” TV ad. So how will it play with voters? You can find out by reading below…

New Perry TV Ad: I’ll End Obama’s War on Religion (Video)

Texas Governor Rick Perry has a new ad that will be hitting the airwaves in Iowa. The ad is titled “Strong.” This ad goes on the attack against President Obama. It is one of the most aggressive ads of the Presidential Primary Election.

Rick Perry has a very clear message in ad: “I’ll End Obama’s War on Religion and I’ll Fight against Liberal Attacks on our Religious Heritage”

You can finish reading the rest of his post by clicking here.

Tweet 

Each day the answer to that question gets a little more foggy. Nevertheless, that hasn’t stopped Tom Leppert from campaigning full steam ahead to win the Republican primary for the US Senate. He has recently purchased a large TV ad buy to tout his conservative record and to cover up his liberal past.

Unfortunately for him, I’ve documented how he tried to convince a group of Young Democrats to support his plan to build a $500 million taxpayer funded hotel by comparing himself to President Obama. I also broke the video of Tom Leppert not only campaigning in a ACORN office, but also signing ACORN pledges, while he was running for Dallas Mayor. All good things to do if he was a Democrat, but these actions don’t fly with Republican primary voters.

To add to Tom Leppert’s woes, a new video has surfaced of him marching in a gay pride parade. This will only further alienate the social conservatives that he is trying to court. You can watch the video below:

I just don’t understand why Tom Leppert thought he could slip all of these actions past Republican primary voters.