The poll’s focus – and that of its media examiners – has been the increase in the number of Americans that now view Obama as a Muslim. Pew also compared the president’s job approval numbers with respect to the religion question: unsurprisingly, respondents with a favorable view of Obama’s job performance are more likely to believe he is a Christian, while those that disapprove are more likely to believe he is a Muslim.

But the questions Pew declined to ask were “Does President Obama’s religion matter to you?” and , “Why are so many people unsure of what religion the president practices”?  Back in the 1960’s there was much controversy over the fact that John F. Kennedy was a Catholic. People were concerned that Kennedy would have a conflict of interest between his faith and his obligations to all Americans. There were those that thought Kennedy would have to consult with the Pope over decisions that might conflict with Roman Catholic doctrine. Ultimately, Kennedy was elected as this nation’s first Catholic president and few would argue that his religion – while it must have played a role in his decision making process – did not cause any upheaval in America.

We have had presidents from 11 different religious dominations and 2 with no church affiliation (though they believed in God). What religion each president practiced had little to do with how they governed, what political party they represented, or how the American people as a whole viewed them or their performance in office.

So why do so many Americans today seem confused s to Barack Obama’s religion? Some point to the fact that Obama’s father (who he barely knew) was a Muslim, who later became an atheist. Others point to the fact that Obama attended an Islamic school while he lived in Indonesia (something that being a child he did not choose) as evidence that he is a Muslim. Still others see his constant apologies and “outreach” to the Muslim world as reasons to believe he is a follower of the Quran.

But what about the fact that the president attended Reverend Wright’s church in Chicago for 20 years of his adult life? Steeped in Black Liberation Theology, that church is where President Obama claims he found Jesus Christ. Unlike his childhood experience in the Muslim school, spending years in Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s church was the deliberate choice of a grown adult, as is his friendship with Father Phleger- a Catholic priest who also is a believer in Liberation Theology.. Much of the rhetoric Obama uses in his speeches – which many have labeled as socialist or Marxist — can be traced to Black Liberation Theology. More significantly for our nation, the same is also true for several of the policies he has put forth since taking office.

So does it even matter what religion Barack Obama does or does not practice? Do the American people even have the right to know what the religious beliefs of their elected representatives – even the president – are? Is there anything more personal and private than a person’s faith? We elect a president to represent all of the people, no matter their faith- or lack of faith- in a deity or higher power.

The First Amendment says in part, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” As long as President Obama does not violate the First Amendment for instance, by attempting to make Sharia Law a part of our system, or establish any religion as an official government sanctioned faith, is his religion pertinent? If his beliefs become a part of his public policy decisions does that give the American people the right to demand answers about the president’s faith?

This article is not intended to draw any conclusions as to the relevance of President Obama’s religious beliefs, whether they are pertinent, or the right of the American people to know what they are. Rather, the intent is to step back from the issue and let people examine their points of view on the matter from a broader perspective. Each of us must consider three very important questions. First: Is the president’s religious affiliation any of our business? Second: Are the president’s personal religious beliefs any of our business, or are they simply a distraction from much more critical issues? Third: Are Barack Obama’s religious beliefs becoming part of his administration’s public policy?

Steven Rosenblum is the Republican nominee for Florida State House, District 89

The first flag that was raised by the opposition was a prospective infringement of the right to practice religion.  There are two huge holes in this debate. First there is not infringement in the right to practice because with every real debate against it, there has been follow up with suggestions of other locations not only closer to the majority Muslim population but also cheaper and even in some aspects available alongside governmental assistance. Second, the Tea Party and conservative organizations, although much smarter at times than the Government, are not the Government.

If its rights that the Mosque supporters want to discuss, let’s start with the Freedom of Speech. Not only are the freedoms of these groups being attacked but Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has gone as far as to place a bulls’ eye on their funding and not the funding of the mosque which is still unknown.  Staying on this subject, not only is the related religion, size and location should result in the questioning, but also the leadership. Feisal Abdul Rauf discusses the Mosque in one breath and attempts to show blame toward America for 9-11 attacks in the second through statements such as “the US has more Muslim blood on its hands than al-Qaeda has on its hands of innocent non-Muslims.”  Refusing to label Hamas a terrorist organization as well as already having a smaller mosque connected to his organization which, not only is nearer to the majority of the New York Muslim but could use some of the money he plans to use the Mega Mosque.

When it comes to the right to practice religion, this activity is in no way barred.  A city that was still trying to continue its daily life saw the possibility of a prayer center involving the same religion the attackers professed seemed to reel many back to that tragic day.  First, this is a city which day in and day out has to live with the memory and is still trying to rebuild from it even today.  Families are fighting with medical bills and many employees, from small businesses to the State of New York, are still touched in some way by the tragedy.  Looking at the aspect of National it is in no way evading any rights when opposition occurs for the good not only of the sanctity of a hallowed ground but also for the rights for the nation to protect such property.

Nontheless, no matter how you look at it, almost immediately the support of these citizens not only seemed lacking but the response if any seemed to be not only negative but attacking.  Mayor Bloomberg, agreeing with the recent comments of our own President, went as far as to call anyone against the action bigots.  Further, placing aside the fact that this nation should protect its own first with our rights, this atrocity is also an unneeded factor of their religion, location wise, in the first place. Not only is the Muslim majority no where near the area chosen, but prospective members will have to pass other Muslim mosques to even enter the parking lot of this proposed location. Despite this situation being a cause for debate and one that has probably for many opened up some wounds, the positive is that we as a nation are seeing the true colors of many leaders. President Obama has not only approved of the mosque, but has stated despite backlash he does not regret his comments.  Nonetheless, the spit mark this will leave on many heroes’ faces should not occur.  There is no need for it for the religion as there is no need for us to protect others with our rights while ignoring the sacrifices of our own and our responsibility to respect their memory.

Russia is not our friend

Russia is not our friend

Iran is f*cking crazy (they mass murder homosexuals, kill rape victims and amputate you for misdemeanors)

Russia is not our friend

Only a year and half into President Obama’s administration, Pamela Geller of the blog Atlas Shrugs, along with Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch, have already found enough deeply disturbing information about Obama’s presidency to fill a book. No relevant subject is left untouched. The book covers in detail his close ties to radical Islam, his unsettling views on Israel and Jews, his socialist leanings, and his attempts to subvert U.S. authority to internationalism.

The theme of The Post -American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America, is how Obama has at best changed, at worst destroyed the presidency; he has taken American exceptionalism (which ironically got him where he is today) and replaced it and the concepts of good and evil with equivocation and moral relativism. (p. xiv) In characteristic Geller style, the book is sprinkled throughout with predictions from Ayn Rand that are now taking place.

Many of Obama’s actions will be familiar – Obamacare, refusing to characterize the Fort Hood, Texas massacre as an act of by a terrorist jihadist, banning phrases like “War on Terror,” appointing new government “czars” unaccountable to no one but himself. But all too many anecdotes come as a surprise to the average reader; having received little national media coverage.

The expose on how Obama treats Islam, Jews/Israel and Christianity is one of the best parts of the book. While president, Obama has been quietly promoting Islam using the government in a way that would have the ACLU screaming if it was Christianity instead. (p.189) Obama has promoted Islam much more than any previous president ever promoted Christianity, but it is all flying under the mainstream media’s radar.

Obama has developed an unsettling pattern of putting pressure upon and supporting laws that target Jews while benefiting radical Islam. He does not treat the two fairly, although he’s been able to fool liberal American Jews like Sarah Silverman who cheerfully promote him. His associates and benefactors include many with ties to anti-Semitism. (p. 82) There are so many examples of Obama’s disparate treatment documented in the book one wonders why Obama has not been labeled as anti-Semitic.

Similarly, Obama favors the Islamic world over the U.S. “The policies Obama has pursued since he became president give an ominous cast to his tendency to exonerate the Islamic world and blame America for the conflict between the two.” (p. 186) He is eager to offer to dismantle our nuclear arms in exchange for nothing concrete in return; meanwhile rogue nations continue to develop theirs. (p. 162) His putting down of the U.S. has emboldened countries like Iran to step-up their offensive efforts, successfully testing a missile in April 2009 that could reach Israel and U.S. bases in the Middle East. (p. 141) He belittles the dangerous evil of jihadic terrorists by calling them “embittered children.” (p. 233)

One of the most egregious examples of Obama putting Islamic interests over others occurred when as president, he had the Department of Justice file a lawsuit against Essex County, New Jersey for not allowing a female corrections officer to wear a hijab covering – essentially enforcing sharia law in the U.S.! (p. 212) As columnist Mark Steyn points out, Obama overlooks the real right of women in the Western world not to wear the hijab. (p. 186)

He has strayed from the Bush administration’s hardline position on Iran and avoids taking sides in Iran. (p. 143) He has naively agreed to unilateral talks with Iran and set a deadline for our U.S. troops to leave both Iraq and Afghanistan. This is foolish since there will be no way of determining whether or not we are successful when we leave. (p. 173) He is more concerned with alleged U.S. abuses of human rights at GITMO than he is human rights abuses by Islamic countries around the world, something the Cairo Institute for Human Rights complained about in December 2009. (p. 222)

The next most fascinating part of the book is the mass of evidence the writers have collected confirming that Obama is a socialist. So many pundits on the right are afraid to label Obama a socialist, concerned they may be viewed as fringe. The vast amount of information provided in this book provides ample ammo for anyone who needs to defend that assertion.

The sheer dishonesty of Obama revealed is jarring. Most suspect he twists the truth, exaggerates, and omits, but he has done much worse. During the presidential campaign, his Fight the Smears website declared, “Fact: Barack was never an ACORN trainer and never worked for ACORN in any other capacity.” (p. 309) In reality, Obama has become synonymous with community organizer. Toni Foulkes, a leader in Obama’s ACORN chapter, wrote an article in which she spoke proudly about Obama’s role as an ACORN trainer, emphasizing that Obama’s Project Vote activities were done in conjunction with ACORN.

Obama is using many methods to quietly bring the U.S. under international rule. When he cannot find a way to accomplish this through U.S. channels, he does what former U.S. Ambassador John Bolton (who wrote the forward for this book) calls “norming.” He takes the issue to the international community to have them create international standards of behavior which then put pressure on the U.S. to conform. (p. 2) It is all done very diplomatically, so the American people are not even aware what is really happening.

Obama’s attempts to squelch free speech in the U.S. are alarming. Obamacare protesters are falsely labeled as racists in order to discredit their protests. (p. 243) In November 2009, the White House warned a prominent Democrat strategist that he better not to appear on Fox News again or he would lose clients. (p. 251) No wonder Obama was so eager to meet and hug Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez. Chavez took over all the media in Venezuela. (p. 238) There are plenty more examples documented in the book.

Some of the statements Obama has made are bizarre or even false, and clearly reflect his post-American presidency viewpoint. In a speech to the Turkish Parliament in April 2009, he said the Islamic faith has done much over the centuries to shape the world – “including in my own country.”  How has Islam shaped the U.S.? The authors note there were no Muslims who drafted the Constitution or fought against slavery. This leaves the 911 attacks as the only significant event that has shaped the U.S. related to the Muslim faith, which has changed the way we deal with airport security, detaining of terrorists, and other security measures.(p. 204-206)

Obama claims he has found “moderate” versions of various Islamic extremist groups to work with, but there is scant evidence that so-called moderate versions exist. As newspaper editor Muhammad Qaseem Akhgar declared, “‘Moderate Taliban’ is like ‘moderate killer.’ Is there such a thing?” (p. 170)

He has stated that Islam has a “proud history of tolerance,” citing the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. The only problem is even that society treated Jews and Christians differently than Muslims; they were required to pay an extra tax and to observe a number of restrictive regulations, such as forbidding the display of crosses. (p. 188)

Obama has surrounded himself and his administration with numerous socialists and Muslim sympathizers who have disturbing ties to terrorism and Islamic extremism. Some, like the socialist black radical Van Jones, have been exposed and forced to resign from the administration. Others like Carol Browner, appointed as global warming czar, have been able to quietly distance themselves from their socialist ties. Browner was a leader of the Socialist International Commission for a Sustainable World Society, but resigned right before Obama appointed her.

The book ends with a powerful observation made on January 29, 2010 about the new post-American world by Lech Walesa, Solidarity hero and former Polish president who was instrumental in bringing freedom to his country and ousting communism: “The United States is only one superpower. Today they lead the world. Nobody has doubts about it – militarily. They also lead economically, but they’re getting weak. They don’t lead morally and politically anymore. The world has no leadership. The United States was always the last resort and hope for all other nations. There was the hope, whenever something was going wrong, one could count on the United States. Today, we lost that hope.” (p. 329-330) Welcome to the Post-American Presidency; this is the change Obama has brought.

Click here to buy the book from Amazon

Watch the video promo

h/t Politico:

The “Agenda Project,” of former DNC activist Erica Payne, rolled out the f*ck tea line of apparel on 8/12 morning. In so doing, the group’s founder proved both that cussing-as-persuasion is a commandment in liberal orthodoxy and that she failed Marketing 101: Your whole message, or even most of it, cannot be formed around bashing the other guy.

Their three-color “teas” come in men’s and women’s sizes, but here’s the great part: They’re also available for babies, because nothing else says “MENTAL PROBLEMS COMING SOON” quite like having a mother or father that would deck you out in clothing with all the class of a dead walrus.

Parcbench hasn’t even started its clothing line yet and already we kick more ass.

This mosque—the brainchild of the Cordoba Initiative and controversial Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf—is an affront to the victims of the 9/11 attacks and their families. While the imam claims the project, “aims to achieve a tipping point in Muslim-West relations within the next decade, steering the world back to the course of mutual recognition and respect and away from heightened tensions”, nothing could be farther from the truth. Its actual effect has and will be to cause an even larger rift and foment even more anger and distrust of Islam in the United States.

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has declared his intention for the U.S. to be “more Sharia compliant”, that American foreign policy was to blame for the 9/11 attacks and that Hamas is not a terrorist organization. Those radical statements and the questionable funding sources for the mosque, along with its proximity to Ground Zero, have led to a tremendous outcry against the project.

We’re constantly barraged with exhortations about the need for Americans to be sensitive and tolerant of Islam, yet no one ever seems to demand that Muslims reciprocate the same courtesies toward Americans. Particularly in this instance, if the Cordoba Initiative’s intentions were truly honorable, their desire to bridge the divide between so-called “moderate” Islam and the West sincere, why wouldn’t they take note of the pain they’re causing and voluntarily move the project to another location?

In the Muslim faith building a mosque at the site of a military victory is a way of claiming that spot for Islam, the mosque becomes a marker to that victory. The original Mosque of Cordoba was built atop the ashes of a Christian church that a Muslim army had destroyed in the city of Andalusia around 711 A.D, as a way of marking the victory. Thus using the name Cordoba is not a coincidence and only makes this project’s intent even more questionable and its construction that much more objectionable.

The construction of this mosque, using this name, at this location would be akin to the Israelis attacking Mecca, destroying the Masjid al-Haram (the largest mosque in the world) and then building a synagogue in its place—and we all know the Islamic world would never tolerate such an act.

While we’re on the subject, let’s be honest: these so-called “tolerant, sensitive Muslims” would never allow for the building of a Jewish synagogue or a Christian church anywhere in Muslim-controlled countries, much less on or near hallowed ground. Make no mistake, Ground Zero is hallowed ground and should be treated as such. The only memorials or markers that should be built in or around the site of the World Trade Center should be to those that were murdered there, including the brave men and women of the New York City Police Department, the New York City Fire Department and the Port Authority Police of New York and New Jersey.

As someone that lost a family member in the North Tower of the World Trade Center on September 11th, 2001, I must say that I am appalled at the insensitivity of, not only the people behind the Cordoba Initiative, but of Mayor Michael Bloomberg and all the other New York politicians that are supportive of building this mosque so close to Ground Zero.

This, once again is political correctness run amok. There may be no legal reason to block this project. But there are certainly moral, ethical and common sense motivations for preventing it from ever coming to fruition at the site of the worst attack on American soil.

It should be noted that the New York City Landmarks Commission’s decision was not on whether or not the Cordoba Initiative’s project should move forward. It was simply a vote on whether or not the current building should be designated a landmark. This writer disagrees with the commission’s decision and believes that the fact that an engine from one of the planes that struck the World Trade Center came to rest there is reason enough to designate the building a historical landmark.

Update: Greg Gutfeld, the host of Fox News Channel’s ‘Red Eye’ has announced that he intends to open a “Muslim friendly gay bar” next door to the mosque. The bar will not serve alcohol, which is not allowed in the Islamic faith, but will serve “72 virgin” drinks. Gutfeld says he is serious about this and has interested investors for the project. This author applauds Mr. Gutfeld for his creativity and for testing the Cordoba Initiative’s claims of tolerance.

Representative Charlie Rangel of New York was charged with 13 ethics violations, including failure to disclose assets and income, nonpayment of taxes, having 4 rent-controlled apartments in NYC and doing legislative favors for donors to a college center named after him.

Then we learned that Representative Maxine Waters of California will be charged regarding a conflict of interest involving a bank, which her husband owned stock in and whose board he had served on, that was seeking federal aid.

Of course ethics violations aren’t confined to Democrats or to federal office holders. We know that former Republican Party of Florida Chairman Jim Greer has been indicted for fraud and was forced out of the Party. His buddy, former Republican (turned independent), Charlie Crist may well be involved as well, though no charges have been filed as yet.

It seems that those whom the public has elected to represent them, those whom we have put our trust in to do the right thing, have in many cases let us down. That would be bad enough, but the mechanisms to deal with these breaches of the public trust are often perceived as being woefully inadequate.

In the case of Rangel and Waters in Congress, the mechanism is the Ethics Committee, which is made up their fellow members. While the committee is truly bipartisan, with equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans, it is still the foxes guarding the hen house. The initial recommendation for Charlie Rangel’s punishment, for 13 violations- some of which are federal crimes- was merely a reprimand. That’s the mildest possible punishment that Congress can level against a member.

When Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats took control of the House in 2006, the Speaker claimed that she would have “the most ethical Congress ever”, she also claimed that they would “drain the swamp”. Well the swamp is still not drained 4 years later. And while Congress remains a cesspool of unethical behavior, we have gained a White House, which Michelle Malkin has pointed out, is entrenched in a “Culture of Corruption”.

But we, the voters, that elect-and reelect- these unethical people to office need to take some responsibility for this problem. We need to look carefully at the people we put in office and we need to continue to watch them after they are elected. Far too many people say they are not interested in politics and can not even be bothered to vote, much less learn about the candidates before casting their ballot. We get the government we deserve when we fail to do any research on the people we vote for. Perhaps it is actually be better for an ignorant person not to vote. Voting is a right, but it is also a privilege that Americans seem to take for granted.

Term limits can help to reduce the corruption and ethics violations by limiting the temptations, but ultimately We The People must do our part by not returning the same people to office over and over again.

The old saying is still very true, “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts, absolutely”. Most people that run for office, initially do it to serve their constituents. But the temptations of authority and power are difficult to resist, especially when you are surrounded by people whose livelihoods are tied to your continued tenure in office. Some people may be able to avoid the pitfalls, for a time, but ultimately even the best people can lose their way in the swamps and sewers of politics.

As things stand today, if they were going to make a movie about ethics, or the lack thereof, in Washington, D.C., it would probably be called ‘The Swamp Thing Lives’.

Proposition 8, an initiative that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and which was passed by California voters, was recently held unconstitutional by a homosexual judge in the most overturned Circuit in the country.

In Judge Walker’s order, he laments that one plaintiff said he wants to marry his homosexual partner because marriage has a “special meaning” for them and that another plaintiff said that “marrying [her same-sex partner] would make them feel included in the social fabric.”

However, the idea that a feeling of inclusion will result from the legal recognition of a relationship that is completely unnatural is unfounded, especially considering the people of California clearly do not accept the idea that two members of the same sex should marry one-another. That being considered, no matter what the law says, such a union will always be unnatural, always vile, and most importantly, always sinful.

Judge Walker highlighted the testimony of a few experts with which he arbitrarily agreed (in other words, the ones who testified against Proposition 8). Historian Nancy Cott, explained that marriage is “a couple’s choice to live with each other, to remain committed to one another….” On the contrary, Gregory Herek, “explained that homosexuality is a normal expression of human sexuality; the vast majority of gays and lesbians have little or no choice in their sexual orientation….”

Herek is wrong. There is nothing normal or natural about a homosexual lifestyle and even Judge Walker admitted that one’s sexual orientation is a choice. In fact, he stated, “an individual’s choice of romantic or intimate partner based on sex is a large part of what defines an individual’s sexual orientation.”

Thus, the question is really, what choices are permissible. Obviously, the majority of Californians were willing to clearly define what they thought was normal and permissible. Additionally, during the course of the trial, those defending Proposition 8 provided quite  a few reasons for the proposition, including: marriage is traditionally the union of a man and a woman; in order to act “incrementally and with caution when considering a radical transformation to the fundamental nature of a bedrock social institution;” to increase “the probability that natural procreation will occur within stable, enduring, and supporting family structures;” to increase “the probability that each child will be raised by both a father and a mother;” and to ensure “that California marriages are recognized in other jurisdictions,” just to name a few.

Based on similar arguments, and contrary to what Judge Walker found, the courts of a number of states have found that states do have a legitimate interest in defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. This is partly because of the slippery slope that will likely result from broadening the definition of marriage to include unnatural relationships. For example, if, like homosexuality, bestiality and pedophilia are simply choices, who’s to say that a forty-year-old man named Jack couldn’t wed his favorite dog, Spot, or that thirty-year-old Jane shouldn’t be allowed to marry her nine-year-old neighbor, Jessie.

Who and what to love are choices. How to love is also a choice.

There are four types of love, agape (sacrificial love, such as from God), philia (dispassionate virtuous love, such as between friends), storge (affectionate love, such as between family members), and eros (physical love, such as between spouses). There is a place for all types of love in each individual’s life; however, the expression of eros between individuals of the same sex, siblings, adults and children, and persons and animals, is the appropriation of physical love where philia and storge should be expressed.

Normalizing incest, homosexuality, bestiality, pedophilia, and other improper relationships will eventually cause the break-down of the family unit, which is the bedrock of society.

Despite this slippery slope, the biased Judge Walker, in an effort to validate his own sexual orientation, failed to apply the law and refused to find, as other courts throughout the country have found, that there is a legitimate governmental interest in defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

By so ruling, Judge Walker added to the litany of cases that have caused the federal courts in California to be the most overturned courts in the country. And, just as many California cases have before, this case will make it to the Supreme Court, and there, it too will be overturned.

In what may be the most transparent example of liberal jurisprudence in recent years, Judge Susan Bolton has struck down key provisions of the “controversial” (to whom, one wonders) Arizona immigration law SB 1070. Apparently, Bolton is concerned that putting convicts in prison tends to increase “police surveillance” of them, and that allowing such a thing to happen is on par with allowing the Spanish Inquisition (or, rather, the “learn English instead of Spanish” Inquisition) to run rampant throughout American society. We must put a stop to this hideous miscarriage of justice or all is lost!

Ah, but, you say, police surveillance is inevitable once you’ve been arrested, so really this concern about it is a nonstarter of an argument. Well, if you’re such a fascist that you believe criminals should be dehumanized via the presence of people who make sure they don’t do criminal things again, not to worry. Judge Bolton has another point for you, which is that this law is a fiasco because it pre-empts the Federal immigration scheme, thus putting Arizona’s legal system before the famously stringent Federal immigration authorities, who are evidently so concerned about illegal immigration that they can’t even be bothered to sue sanctuary cities under the same logic! Terrible!

But…wait. Arizona is “pre-empting” the Federal Government? Granted, I’m not a lawyer, but I do speak English, and the word “preempting” implies doing something before another entity has a chance to. But the Federal Government has had a chance to do something about immigration, and you know what it’s done? I’d say nothing, but that’s too kind because actually, if it’s done anything, the Federal Government has more or less granted blanket pardons to everyone who’s committed a crime by immigrating to this country. And not only that, but it’s point blank refused to give enough military aid to the border for enforcement to mean anything. So what process is Arizona “pre-empting?” The process of granting blanket amnesty? Would that we were so lucky.

And another thing. How exactly is putting a law on the books which is almost exactly the same as Federal immigration law “pre-empting” the Federal government? And even if it was, don’t we already tolerate this routinely? For instance, murder can be a Federal crime, in instances such as drug busts or serial murders, but the FBI doesn’t handle every murder case even when they do have jurisdiction, and they certainly don’t just let every murderer state-level authorities capture loose because that state was “pre-empting” them. So what gives with immigration?

Well, fine, if you’re such a states’ rights loving, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, classist, puppy-kicking pig that you don’t see how letting states handle their own law enforcement is a violation of the separation of powers, Judge Bolton has one more argument for you. According to Judge Bolton, the Arizona law is a scourge on the Republic because it would “divert resources from the federal government’s other responsibilities and priorities.” How would it do this, you might ask? Well, if Arizona catches illegals, that means the Federal immigration authorities have to spend money processing them, which means that if the law catches a lot of illegals, then the Federal Government would have to actually spend money sending them back to Mexico instead of doing something more humane like giving them free health care, free education, amnesty and the right to vote! And we can’t have that, I mean, come on, this is a progressive country!

But…hold on. Let’s go back to the murder example again. Just because the Justice Department and the FBI have to spend money prosecuting serial murderers who are caught by states, that doesn’t mean that states shouldn’t try to catch them. And how exactly is it bad for the Federal government to have one of its actual responsibilities take precedent over others? Isn’t that the point of dealing with a crisis, which is what we have with immigration? Maybe I have this completely wrong, but the argument seems to be that Arizona’s law is bad because it might actually be effective.

But hey, what do I know? I’m just a dehumanizing, states’ rights loving, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, classist, puppy-kicking fascist pig! Just ask La Raza, Mecha, and all the other people who Judge Bolton listens to when no one’s watching.

The wounds that resulted from the back-stabbing pro-life republicans received from Representative Bart Stupak and Senator Ben Nelson during the healthcare debate are, no doubt, still healing, and one must wonder if they’re reopened every time the Obama Administration approves a taxpayer funded high-risk insurance pool that can be used to pay for abortions.

Stupak’s dagger was pulled from the sheath of the Executive Order Obama signed. The same Executive Order that legal scholars said wasn’t worth the paper it was written on, a lack of value that has been proven by the Administration’s approval of plans that cover abortions in Pennsylvania, New Mexico, and Maryland.

Though the healing process is slow, because the wounds of dagger run so deep, a few members of the House of Representatives have created a salve that could help speed up the recovery process. On July 29, 2010, Representatives Chris Smith and Dan Lipinski introduced legislation that would permanently ban taxpayer funded elective abortions. Smith and Lipinski have been joined by 162 bipartisan cosponsors.

The bill, which is called the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, does what the Obama Administration attempted to deceive Americans into believing the Hyde Amendment could do for the healthcare legislation during the Healthcare debate. Thus, where the Hyde Amendment only applies to funds appropriated through legislation that the Hyde language is incorporated into, and it was not incorporated into the healthcare legislation, this Act will apply to all “funds authorized or appropriated by federal law,” and even prohibits the IRS from granting tax benefits for abortions by preventing individuals from receiving a credit or deduction for the cost of an abortion.

This piece of legislation is a huge step in the right direction. While abortions may (currently) be legal, it is imperative that pro-life Americans not be taxed to pay for the abortions of others.

Polls have shown a drastic increase in the disapproval of abortions, especially abortions paid for by taxpayers. As Americans become more educated about conception and the earliest stages of human life, as we learn new and exciting details about the development process, our collective position on abortions become more clear. The majority of Americans disagree with abortion.

So, to represent his constituents, and really, pro-life taxpayers everywhere, Representative Smith introduced the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, and, not too long ago, he also introduced the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2010, an Act that requires physicians to notify the mother that at just 20 weeks old, while still in the womb, babies can feel pain.

Representative Smith has been a champion for pro-life causes, now if he and other like-minded members of Congress could convince the others to stop funneling our tax dollars to Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in America, we’d be in good shape (at least on this issue).