New Hampshire used to have a significant number of female state Senators, including 11 Democrat women, all on the take from the abortion PAC’s abortion PAC, Emily’s list. Most of the rest of New Hampshire’s Democrat women suffer from a similar ailment, including Jeanne Shaheen, Carol Shea Porter, Anne McKluster and so on. So they all defend abortion from conception to birth because, they are told to say, it essential to a woman’s health. It is sometimes a woman’s reproductive health, but they have since changed it to just "women’s health". They also added ‘Freedom’ to "Reproductive," giving us the phrase reproductive freedom, which has nothing to do with reproducing and everything to do with not producing anything, something the observant among us will note is identical to their jobs programs and most, if not all, of the Democrats economic policies.
If you are a Democrat, destroying production is where it’s at.
This might explain these same un-aborted lumps of womb tissue toeing the Democrat party line on the environment. (And of course environmental rights means they take something away from people.) Each of these Democrat women, and damn near the entire Democrat party
support things like RGGI, cap and trade, and have no problem telling people who assume they live in a relatively free society what energy to use, what light bulbs to buy, what car to drive, how far to drive it, what fuel is best, that their breath is poison, and so on. And they will insist that they are doing this for our own good, based on the slim chance that human activity might warm the earth a fraction, and on the even flimsier assumption that this small increase might not in fact be beneficial.
Recent revelations demonstrating wide spread fraud among un-aborted members of the pro-anthropogenic climate science community have not deterred the lefts "experts" and line-toers alike, from continuing to insist we waste billions of other peoples dollars to prevent something that is not happening. This may well have something to do with being on the receiving end of the "billions we are wasting" yet not a one of them thinks that a conflict of interest. (See also "public sector unions support democrats" for a similar unresolved conflict.)
Proof that the IPCC report on which the bulk of this fraud is substantiated is nothing more than a collection of biased assumptions and wild guesses, collated by un-aborted, Eurotrash-socialist politicians, to advance a specific, destructive, high-tax-grow-government agenda, have not deterred them from emulating this policy path.
And despite the mounting (actual) scientific evidence, that warming is natural and driven by factors other than un-aborted human activity, these same left-wing Democrats insist we should continue to take millions of dollars from hard working taxpayers every year so that they, their taxpayer-funded experts, and hordes of un-aborted-unaccountable bureaucrats, can finance policy to examine and correct the non-problem indefinitely.
Why? Because they claim to be convinced that there is some slim risk, despite many unknowns and contradictory research, that this might cause harm to someone, somewhere, someday.
But would they feel just as much of a commitment to save lives, specifically women’s lives, if we had more proof that abortions are detrimental to a woman’s health, and quite a bit more so than global warming? This abortion thing is all about women’s health after all and we are talking about women protecting women’s health, and if that is true then health should come before abortion, yes?
Friday, August 19, The
Since 1948, the oldest data BLS has, there have been 46 months in which the unemployment rate has been 9% or higher. Twenty six of them have occurred during the 31 months of the Obama administration.
Instead of running on the theme of Hope and Change, Obama can run on the theme of More in 2012: More unemployment, More government, More debt, and More guns for the Mexican drug cartels.
The unemployment figure of “9.1%” is the media-agreed-upon figure from the Procrustes Economics Institute™. Procrustes, you will recall, is the ogre-innkeeper in the story of Theseus who had a remarkable bed that fit everyone—because if any of his guest hung over the edge of the bed, he lopped it off.
The “9.1%” figure has remained reasonably constant because, like Procrustes, those reporting on unemployment constantly lop off from the unemployment figures those who have totally dropped out of the work force, and those who are no longer unemployed because they are underemployed, i.e., cannot find jobs comparable to the ones they lost and so have taken lower-level jobs simply to have some vestige of income.
The “9.1%” is bad enough so that the media look as if they are reporting something with a nexus to reality—they are admitting the economy is bad—but nevertheless conceals the true magnitude of the disaster….