Congress Conducting Paid Protest Against Abortion

If you  need to understand the reason for the excessive rancor in congress, take this anonymous quote shared today by Chuck Todd (MSNBC's MTP Daily).

One particular conservative congressperson stated to him that they spend half of their time in Washington trying to convince people that they are not crazy, and the rest back at home trying to convince constituents that they are.

Whenever the electorate is found in a fury, they are looking for candidates who will give voice to it all.

This is the wave of dissent that seems to be driving the distorted campaign to defund Planned Parenthood, an organization that only receives 3% of its funding from federal dollars.

Poll after poll shows that Planned Parenthood has wide reaching bi-partisan appeal  and not only among the 2.7 million people that used these services last year. In fact, Planned Parenthood out polls every presidential candidate for the 2016 election and Barack Obama as well.  This persistent effort to take on a really old abortion battle by attacking a really popular health organization has way more downside than upside considering the fact that any resolution to defund would only survive the House and would die in the Senate or by presidential veto, but won't be forgotten by those who consider this an attack on the rights of the individual.

Yet, they press on, convinced that the danger of losing a re-election at home is much worse than the risk of a further divided nation.

Planned Parenthood president Cecille Richards, spent today entertaining a crowd in congress that convened another session to convince angry republican voters that they hear them and they are responding, even though this group of voters does not represent a majority of Americans or a majority view on abortion.

Might there come a day when the abortion fight finally turns in favor of those who refuse to let it go?

No!

There is no reasonable expectation that really smart women, who have already decided on their own ability to choose their own health care direction, will suddenly question their own intelligence and hand this decision over to congress.

In fact, there is a really strong expectation that Planned Parenthood, an organization that also funds advocacy and lobbying efforts to further their cause, will coordinate themselves against this opposition taking advantage of their popularity that has NOT diminished even with all of the negative publicity.

The Hyde Amendment itself (the abortion related bill that disallows most federal support of abortions) might be reconsidered since all of this conversation is revealing the lack of federal support that certain health clinics receive as a result of providing abortion services. An effort that began to defund abortions could essentially result in an expansion of fund access to other abortion providers who might seek to display a separation between the funding of abortions versus the funding of other services as Planned Parenthood does to maintain its federal support.

In other words, watch out republican party.  This is not a weak organization without resource or recourse when facing challenges.  Political ads created by this group have typically been powerfully influential and damaging to potential republican candidates.

Given our new found freedom of choice relative to health care, Richards capsulized her argument  before congress into an obvious truth.  If congress has a problem with Planned Parenthood, they actually have a problem with the 2.7 million that choose to use them versus other health care options.

Despite limited hours of availability at most locations, and limited access to certain types of screenings (i.e., mammogram machines), 2.7 million still would rather use Planned Parenthood over the overcrowded clinics that might offer more services but aren't always as clean or capable of meeting the rising demand for health care services.  Whether Planned Parenthood remains or not, America is clearly desperate to meet the growing needs created by expanded health care access from the ACA.

Who a woman chooses as a doctor (and most women seem to prefer their OB-GYN as their primary physician as well) is as personal a decision as is abortion, and as sacred as the right to worship and the right to bear arms.

Stated clearly, there is no potential for a political victory when you threaten to shut down government over an issue that polls so heavily in the other sides favor.  There is only the potential to force out a capable House Speaker in favor of an inexperienced puppet who will soon be in for a sad surprise. Keep in mind that the Speaker of the House sits behind the vice-president in line to the White House, yet- because of conservative infighting- few republicans in congress are remotely interested in this once esteemed post.

The impetus for all of this were these anti-abortion attack videos against Planned Parenthood, however, today's committee did not attempt to include the testimony of the video's producer who was not called by the committee chair and was reportedly unwilling to testify alongside Richards.

Fetal stem cell research had its day under congressional review back during the Ronald Reagan days, and it passed as an acceptable scientific practice that is not exclusively done with Planned Parenthood fetal donations.  Only two of Planned Parenthood's 500+ locations do fetal donations and only one sales the parts in order to offset the cost of the program itself. If the debate over stem cell research and abortion deserve to be taken up again in the halls of congress, there is a way to make this happen.

To Hell With Legislation

Is there an excessive amount of unusual waste in the realm of government?

Of course, but it came to be via a legislative journey that had value and purpose at the time, even if only to insure the full maintenance of "use it or lose it" funding attached to certain bill appropriations.

If you ask Senator Rand Paul, he believes that blocking funding should be the backdoor approach that his party should employ to destroy legislation that they don't particularly agree with instead of actually doing the legislative work that congress is elected and paid to do.

The roughly 60 million dollars of federal assistance that Planned Parenthood receives might not be a significant percentage of our entire wasteful budget, but it should be under the same scrutiny of waste that every area of government spending deserves.  Shrinking wasteful spending is noble and necessary, and if Planned Parenthood is truly an unnecessary expenditure for taxpayers, it should be included in our efforts to reduce the size of government.

Yet, by defunding only the things that a majority in congress doesn't particularly like, they render the path and process of legislation as moot and laws as malleable with back end funding fights designed to circumvent laws.

The Freedom Coalition?

What makes very little sense is why would congressional republicans build a coalition to defund America instead of using the same coalition that it will take to be successful in this effort to simply change the laws in the first place?

The reason is, they don't have the numbers (67 votes in the Senate) to get it done, they only have the numbers to be a nuisance.

Paid political protesters if you will, but hardly legislators.

Yes On 2A...Because (No Debt) College Matters

YES ON 2A...BECAUSE (no debt) COLLEGE MATTERS.  THAT'S IT. (link below)

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=jm#inbox/14ff0b40798b12ec?projector=1

Is Christian Hypocrisy Destroying The World & U.S.?

Before Pope Francis addresses America, I thought I
would offer this great nation a religious address of my own.

Gay marriage, or the war to stop it, is a religious one.

The war against aborted babies that may or may not be kicking on a table while clinging to life that is ironically, only being sustained for the proper harvesting of the brain from this particularly described- unwilling research donor- is a religious war as well, even if Carly Fiorina tells you its about the decency of all Americans.

Marijuana? Religious, even among  Catholics (Mexican, Irish, Italian...etc.) who drink for sport but abhor dope heads and question marijuana's medicinal value over that prescribed medicine waiting to potentially be recalled or over prescribed to a depressed PTSD soldier who is likely to die from the depression or the pill addiction but not the weed.

God knows that those hooded folks used religious justification to terrorize long before Dylann Roof thought it could kick off that religious race riot that way too many so-called religious folks promised was sitting on the edge of inevitability 20 years ago or more.

Religiously conservative Jews are now promising us all that Iran is the worlds great Satan while religious Iranians say similar things about Israel and America.  Regardless of who might be right, the mere references are a tug at the heart strings of religious folks who understand man's historical journey towards a manifest anti-Christ destiny, and the unwitting preemptive strikes from all sides that only help to prepare the necessary smokescreen for his comfortable arrival.

I could have titled this post, "Religious Hypocrisy" but that's not an accurate depiction of America's reality or my particular grievance.

Jews are already on record as describing JESUS AS A HOAX while anxiously waiting for the REAL Christ to please stand up and prove that previous Jewish rabble rouser a liar.

Love 'em or hate 'em, the Muslims are too deeply engaged in their own religious disagreement as a tenant of religion itself.  Sharia law could never come to exist without a faction of Muslims insistent on this caliphate mission. How gracious can Islamic Sharia Law pursuant's possibly be towards other religions while struggling to be tolerant towards the very people that they pray with every day and in the same way.

Although Muslims don't quibble with one another over the day, the necessity and quantity of prayer, worship and fellowship, they are at war over the importance of their religions founding prophet, Muhammad, whose family lineage and rebellious life journey pointed one direction for some Muslims, a different direction of thought and behavior from other Muslims, and that inevitable "third" group who can empathize with both sides of this war.

Islam and Judaism are Exempt from Grace

These two confused and thus confusing religions are actually free from the unequivocal call of Grace that asks but one thing from each and every Christian;

Exercise your faith in the gift of Grace by exercising your giving of Grace.

It puts Christians in the cat bird seat of religious pecking order relative to who and whom God expects to be the most gracious.

Might that be religious piety for a Christian (Me) to place a higher expectation upon the behavior of Christianity over every other religion?

I dare any Muslim or Jew (or atheist and agnostic for that matter) to battle EVERY Christian in a war to be gracious. I'll bring my crew and you bring yours, and we'll battle it out near the performance stage at Denver City Park next weekend.

As it stands, American Christian lawmakers, and the people they think they represent, aren't necessarily kicking butt in the battle to be gracious, especially towards desperate middle eastern refugees and migrants praying to God for a little American Christian Grace.

Long before Ben Carson's recent stupidity towards Muslims, Muslims questioned the full divinity of the prophet who inspires Christians to be gracious. Yet, this historically tolerant capacity of people inspired by Grace must have influenced a few of these refugees and migrants into death tempting sea voyages towards western/Christian refuge instead of more Islamic disagreement and violence.

For times like these.

At times like these, I often find myself confident that God needed black slaves in America.  Not so much for the reason that whites found valuable, but for value that would manifest itself in years and days after the scars solidified their shape on our backs.

The necessity of blacks in America and the necessity for America in the world is similarly linked, ordered and scarred to achieve tenacity and temperance when a balance is needed from both powerful forces. Insensitivity and intolerance on a macro or micro level is an entirely understandable human policy for the selfish, the weary or the scarred.

It's just not gracious.

For the Grace of God, trees made to nourish a nation have to grow up and take their place in the forest. Not only to realize the value of their purpose, but to stave off the proliferation of the selfish trees that evil uses to overtake the landscape and swallow up the rain and the sun from the rest of US.

If that analogy doesn't quite make sense to you, its likely because I'm talking to a different kind of Christian.

Will Women Confront Today's "Legislative Daddy's"?

Hillary is currently the only woman Donald has
not tried to destroy. Is he saving it for later?
Don't republican women have a problem with this?

If resiliency is the TRUE test of mettle that helps us to determine our president, than this is actually more of a coronation then any of us knew.

What we know about American politics has been shaken to the core.  First, by two terms of a Muslim named black president, and currently by the total inability to connect the dots on what will happen tomorrow.

Will Bernie "the Socialist" Sanders really keep rising in the polls as Hillary and Trump remain the most hated and likely candidates to represent their party in a general election?

Trump gets away with being utterly offensive towards key segments of the republican electoral path while Hillary gets beaten and battered for reasons we might take years to ever agree about cause we'll be too busy beating her still.

Will she eventually get the positive impact of all the negative press that she's getting when voters have to stand in a ballot box and decide who can actually handle the rigors of the job, realizing that an adversarial media is among the greatest of all human hurdles?

Sort of.

More accurately, the press is proving themselves to be  one part journalist' and two part predators of sensationalism above substance. Like the way in which they've clung like stink to crap on the story about The Donald who dared to describe another presidential candidates facial features as a reason for her inability to preside.

Did Donald actually say that  Carly Fiorina's mean mug and pursed persona makes her less capable of leading others?

No, but I GUARANTEE you that had Donald declared such a thing about any man, the automatic question that would have followed would have been:

"Do you feel that his facial features will hinder his ability as a president"

That question never came. During the interview or in post interview analysis of what he said or what he meant while trying to clean it up.

What also didn't happen....again, is the expected drop in poll numbers that would connect the dots between the behavior and the response that says Americans, primarily republican American women, care about electing a misogynistic president.

Did I just call out republican women?

Actually, all women- including my wife and 5 daughters and my momma, and grandma- are unfortunately squarely in my line of sight today because the more and more we really take a true examination of the REAL war on women (and it is a real war, rather you like it or not), some of the combatants are lobbing grenades at themselves from both sides of the battlefield.

Sorry ladies.  I say this with all of the due respect and humility that a male feminist represents.  The mere notion is an oxymoron and nearly moronic if you think about it.  How can the slave master pretend to be interested in ending slavery while benefiting from free labor and idly watching the systematic brutality that insures the future of the program?

Our women are victims of men. They are victims of our inability to understand their core motivations.  Where men failed to fulfill the role of leader/provider, women have done what was necessary.  Changing your duties doesn't necessarily change your core motivations but it will expand your capacity to do what otherwise had been expected of others.

Is it proper for women to be in leadership roles?

Is Nina Turner too passionate for her own good, or is she willing
to sacrifice anything and everything for the cause of  justice?

I grew up around churches that didn't know if women could be trusted to preach (so they took over testimony service, which is now mostly gone as a result), or be trusted in pant suits similar to the style a man commonly prefers.

Today, we still don't trust women to be smart enough about their own reproductive choices.  "What makes them think we need legislative daddy's to tell us what to do. We are grown 'A' women" said former state Senator Nina Turner of Ohio on Saturday's (9-12-15) MSNBC's Melissa Harris Perry Show.

In her always passionate refrain, Turner added, "If your hair is on fire, make like your hair is on fire" responding to the tacit response that women often choose to avoid the risk of agitating the fearful masses and risking their own existence.

Her words inspired me to wonder why I always run to the television when Nina Turner speaks, but don't necessarily feel the same heat from other women who undoubtedly feel the same burn Turner has.

To be Square and fair, black folks do this towards black folks and every group of challenged individuals picks sides in the struggle to either embrace or reject their plight.

Not just black on black crime, I'm talking black on black criticism, or white looking Mexicans who denigrate those who cruise and low ride during Cinco De Mayo.  

I listened to an interview with Dr. Damon Tweedy, a black doctor who recently describe how one elderly black patient rejected him as a doctor feeling that the hospital had passed the inferior black doctor upon an unwitting black patient. (NPR interview)

Self hatred examples are ample, but y'all women really need to do some reckoning.  Not because you are the sole cause of the problem, but because you are the focus of the change. Men can Lean In, but we have to bend our posture towards the cause of happiness for the women in our world and in our lives.

We know that our drunk and disgruntled daddy can do a lot to help cure the damage of our childhoods that we carry into our adult lives, but the real work is personal.  Sometimes drunk daddy isn't ready to help you in the healing. Yet heal you must.

Women must heal themselves from misogyny by addressing the misogyny that they do to each other, as we've long since realized that women mostly dress up for each other and hardly for us guys.  In kind, women criticize each others dress and hair style while we guys obsess over the hips and curves hiding behind all of the pomp and circumstance of being a woman.

 We've always known that women are notoriously skeptical of other women relative to the issue of rape. When it comes to Bill Cosby, I don't really want to tell you the lack of universal disgust among women, even in my house.

Donald can get away with being an ass because he knows what we all need to come to grips with.  Women are as tough on women as anybody.  Maybe worse at times.

Had Hillary's assistant been Anthony Weiner and  Weiner's wife was caught sending naked pictures on a phone, goofy looking Weiner would be a hero of sorts, especially if the nude woman involved was his rather attractive wife Huma Abedin, whose nude photos would only draw criticism from other women judging the size or the amount of firmness in her breast', or the presence of stretch marks if she's had children and/or a weight control issues.

This demand to be beautiful could also be blamed on men, but it loses its impact among wise women who know that men are attracted to ALL types of women, especially confident ones.

Whether she's elected or not, Hillary is going to win in the court of public opinion just because of the perseverance she gaining vis a vis this media butt kicking she's bravely enduring .   She won't get it from The Bern, who is too nice to go there, and Joe Biden is hoping that this email thing will hurt her instead of help her as it ultimately will when it comes time to actually vote for just one of these candidates on either side of the isle.

Americans notice the attacks, but not more than the camera which has a way of focusing itself over and over upon the person who eventually gets the nod.

Is Hillary Struggling With Women Too?

Hillary not only needs to actively court the support of women, she needs to actively court the vote of black women like Michelle Obama, Nina Turner and the 6 that are in my immediate family (all will be voters in #2016).

 While a coalition of black voters can be inspired to get out and vote by the Obama voter turnout machine, who they vote for (especially in the primary races) could be a mixed bag without some necessary female guidance.  

Some aspects of that guidance will need to softly inspire that segment of society that only a soft spoken black woman can push into action. Other parts will need to go Nina Turner all over this nation to inspire those people who only listen when passionate, trustworthy black women like Nina Turner challenge you with her vision and values.  Does that represent a form of my own male self hatred?  I won't pretend not to be more cautious around a smooth talking man versus a loud but loving lady.

Does Hillary need a "blacker" woman to lead her cause?

With rugged women, you may not always like what you see but you always trust that it is real.  That is the power of what it means to be a woman, and nobody seems to harness and utilize this power better than black women. Hillary needs a couple of strong voice, dark skinned (no offense Karen Finney. we insiders know you are black) black women to get out in front for her for the sake of both the female vote and the black vote, key reasons for 8 years of Obama.

Women must harness the breadth of their power for more than just silent control of unsuspecting men. Women can force the hands of justice by simply patting out the fire in each others hair and destroying all of the matchbooks of self hatred that starts many of them.

What does that mean exactly?  Push back at Trump's polling numbers until he lets up on Fiorina, and remind all of the other legislative daddy's that Roe .v. Wade was decided by a lot of smart adults, some of which were women.

Can You Win Any Election Without Women?

Even that cute skinny comedian who did the Fat Shaming video has a reason to join this cause since she will not be young and pretty forever, however, she MIGHT decide to remain a woman since she mentioned that being a man would have made her humor more funny or  more generally accepted. (But you knew you weren't a man going into the satire that you hoped would shamefully inspire people..........huh????)

Women could insure the wage equity that they seek as well, but not without bringing along other disadvantaged people (men) in the process.

Don't assume that I see women as some monolithic conglomerate of voting sameness? Hardly!

Yet, the attack of Carly Fiorina's face is an attack on the entire gender, regardless of political bend. And the cause of gender equality is ONE.

 This was a similar revelation that Dr. Martin Luther King faced when last he marched on earth.  How do we fight for the conditions (via policy) that impact blacks the most without fixing the greater impact on poor people as a whole?

How can ONE woman rise above beauty as a pre-requisite if so many other women tacitly support these trappings of beauty and popularity?

You can't do it, so don't try.

News Flash: Huckabee Racing To Campaign On Davis

Mike Huckabee has been vocally using Kim Davis to do a reset on his candidacy, so this really wise judge, who put Davis in jail with no bail to begin with, is letting her out before Mike Huckabee can use her for further grand standing.

On a brighter note.  Kim Davis is polling at 7% support, twice that of Mike Huckabee and several other GOP presidential hopefuls.

If you can't cherry pick from Donald Trump's supporters then you settle for the Kim Davis voters.

One reporter for MSNBC, when confronted with
the details from this poll, seemed hard pressed to agree with the numbers as she stood out in front of the Kentucky County detention center with throngs of Kim Davis supporters, not realizing that the nearly all of the 7% were the throngs surrounding her.

With Uncertain American Presidential Election Looming, Why Should Iran Trust U.S. Commitment?

Required listening:The chairman of Iran's parliament, Ali Larijani, spoke with NPR's Steve Inskeep in New York last week -


In classic NPR fashion, they've landed a key interview exposing another perspective on the Iran deal.

While it is fairly easy to know exactly what many Americans, primarily those in Congress, feels about this Iran nuclear agreement, most Americans have little clue about the sentiment from the other side of the deal.

Sure, we get those death to America pieces of propaganda that are easy to find from Iran, but WE had that open letter to Iran from congress, and WE've got plenty of television commercials that are still running on American television, even though the numbers to dismantle the deal have never materialized, and the president is likely to push this deal through by virtue of a weak opposition force instead of strong support.

"Push" is the only accurate description for how this round deal will make it through the square hole of opposition, which is why some in Iran are just as skeptical of the U.S. as WE seem to be of them.

And why not?!

Lindsey Graham and other presidential candidates have taken the more sanctions rhetoric route to destroy Iran's courage in our commitment and encourage a better deal, or at least encourage voters to believe that a better deal remains to be had.

The quality of the deal is basically connected to the reality of Iran's future.  If they intend to cheat, any deal would free them up to get started, dismantled reactor or not.  If they intend to do as they've seemingly done for a century- work with the world to control middle eastern nukes- America has totally won this deal complete with the power to sanction for suspicion.

Historically, America has been seen as the more aggressive party between the two nations, and many Iranians with a view of this historical timeline are curious about our distrust of them.  After all, before we had to destroy Iran's sworn enemy, Saddam Hussein, we supported him against Iran and chiseled the tenor of our relationship into stone.

Follow this timeline (from the NY times) on the past century of  U.S. relationship with Iran.

Even stone crumbles, and old sentiments die away if you allow them.  Iranians feels totally on the bad side of this deal because they have shut down a nuclear reactor in order to achieve it, and pushed themselves to a place that they could not instantly snap back to even if the U.S. instantly snap backs sanctions for real or assumed violations.

Stated more clearly, Iran will never be exactly where they were, however, sanctions could put them back where they didn't want to be when they decided to make a deal in the first place.  In addition, it is the U.S. presidential candidates, some who are Senators, with the power and will to threaten congressional snap back of sanctions just to thwart the deal.

Not that opponents of the deal will listen to the details that matter, but for those who do, it might matter to know that Iran is mostly afraid of a weak deal that leaves them eerily close to the edge of sanctions again.

In other words, Iran is afraid of sanctions.

If history tells us anything valuable about this moment in time, it might be that REAL sanctions really work.

Never Forget: One Man Can Change The World

I'm not really sure what it is you are going through right at this moment.

But God told me to remind you that when you are weak, he is strong.  Whatever it is, it is not the crucifixion.  It soon shall pass.

God Bless.