CNS News did some investigating, and Ed Morrissey came up with this analysis:

At least ostensibly, this is an unfunded mandate on the states, which run the exchanges. What happens when no insurer in the state offers abortion coverage? At the moment, 87% of all abortions are purchased outside of third-party payers, so this is not an academic question. Do the feds intend to shut down an exchange that doesn’t offer an abortion plan? Or do they expect the states then to cover abortions instead?

… Once Congress stops re-enabling the Hyde Amendment, the mandates in Reid’s Section 1303 will force the federal government to supply the coverage for abortion where state exchanges have none. It will give the federal government an entree into broader health-insurance offerings, and that will have one ironic effect: it will crowd out those few private insurance plans that offer elective abortion coverage. Where Stupak’s opponents insisted that his language would create a “price signal” that would encourage private insurers to abandon abortion coverage, this would all but guarantee the same result, as private insurers would get undercut by the federal plan that would come into play.

This is nothing more than a mandate for federally-funded abortions. How long would it take a court to make that same determination? I suspect that Planned Parenthood and NARAL already have their legal counsel preparing for it.

It’s not exactly a surprise that the health care bill would include funding for abortion. Feminists have been howling about the Stupak amendment, the abortion lobby has been furious. Liberals were bound to cave in to their demands, and they were bound to try to hide it from the federal public. It is typical of liberals. And it’s infuriating to anyone with any kind of morals or respect for the sanctity of life. It’s bad enough that abortion is celebrated as some kind of right in this country, like it’s glorious for a woman to be able to go and kill her baby. Feminists in particular revel in it, like it’s some kind of sacred cow. Apparently, you have to be a member of the “I <3 Abortion" club in order to be a feminist in today's world. There are currently about 1.3 million abortions performed a year, and this isn't good enough for feminists. They not only want abortion to be free and legal, they want it to be paid for by Americans whether they like it or not. It has to be taxpayer-funded.

It's important that we all understand this. It's not good enough for feminists just to have abortion be legal and freely accessible. Any woman who wants to can get an abortion. And there is already $300 million a year in taxpayer subsidies for Planned Parenthood. There's plenty of federal funding for abortion, but feminists always want more. It isn't enough for abortion to be legal, it isn't enough for it to be federally subsidized. How much do they want? Does every single abortion performed need to be taxpayer funded so that any woman who wants one never has to pay for it out of her own pocket? It's a disgusting state of affairs. Half the country is morally opposed to abortion. But liberals are a special group of people. If they believe in something, then everyone must be for it and it must be federally mandated and subsidized. If they don't believe in something, then no one should believe in it and it must be totally banned. And so, thanks to this mental outlook and the carping of the feminist/abortion lobby, we are now looking at forcing half of the people in this country to fund something to which they are virulently opposed.

Burn up that switchboard today. You can find contact information for your senators here.

Cross-posted from Cassy’s blog. Stop by for more original commentary, or follow her on Twitter!

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

If President Obama happened to glance at “The Rachel Maddow Show” last Monday, he might have winced.

And Maddow would have been thrilled, since she is barely averaging in a week what Bill O’Reilly gets per night

Ms. Maddow pretended to celebrate the passage of a health care overhaul bill in the House, calling it “potentially a huge generational win for the Democratic Party” — but then halted the triumphant music and called it an “electoral defeat.”

The Stupak amendment, she said, was “the biggest restriction on abortion rights in a generation.” Then she wondered aloud about the consequences for Democrats “if they don’t get women or anybody who’s pro-choice to ever vote for them again.” She returned to the subject the next four evenings in a row.

This is how it looks to have a television network pressuring President Obama from the left.

This is what it looks like to have people who believe that federal funds should be used to pay for abortions, rather then practicing personal responsibility. Disgusting thought: Keith Olbermann and Rachael. Shiver!

While much attention has been paid to the feud between the Fox News Channel and the White House, the Obama administration is now facing criticism of a different sort from Ms. Maddow, Keith Olbermann and other progressive hosts on MSNBC, who are using their nightly news-and-views-casts to measure what she calls “the distance between Obama’s rhetoric and his actions.”

Shocker! The hosts are far left Progressives. Now the funny part

MSNBC’s liberal points of view have made the channel an occasional thorn in the side of G.E., but the channel has also fostered a diversity of opinions that people like Adam Green, the co-founder of the Progressive Campaign Change Committee, say were lacking in the past.

Ms. Maddow, not surprisingly, agrees. “What looks like the middle of the country ought to look like the middle on TV,” she said in an interview this month.

MSNBC’s view of diversity, and the “middle of the country,” means they have liberals and progressives on! Reminds me of that line from The Blues Brothers: “what kind of music do you have here, Ma’am?” “Oh, we have both types. Country AND Western!”

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Last week Mary Fitzgerald argued that climate change is a feminist issue on the basis that population control is a way to prevent the situation spiralling out of control. And, she posited, this could be achieved by giving more women more autonomy over their own bodies, through improved access to contraception and abortion.

I’m not going to get into the arguments around whether population control is a good solution to climate change. Others have already done so; George Monbiot’s piece barely more than a month ago, for this newspaper, is a great place to start.

Ensuring all women have full reproductive freedom and reproductive justice is a necessary goal in its own right moving towards a more equal and just world. I get that it might be tempting to hitch this issue to climate change, which has so much political capital.

I thought she wasn’t going to get into that issue, which she discusses for two more paragraphs after the first three? Anyhow

But Fitzgerald is completely right that climate change is a feminist issue. Everyone stands to suffer if climate change is allowed to spiral out of control, of course, but a gender analysis of both the impacts and causes of climate change shows that globally women contribute less to the problem and yet are likely to be hit especially hard.

Poor people are likely to bear the brunt as the climate changes and 70% of the world’s poor are women. According to one estimate, 85% of the victims of climate disasters are women. Another study found 75% of environmental refugees are women. (Statistics from the Women’s Manifesto on Climate Change).

Gotta love the source of the study. Here’s a clue for you, Ms. Jesse McAbe: you enact all your crazy global warming plans, and the women in the poor countries will suffer way, way, way more.

After some more quibbling about how this is a feminsta issue, we end with

So, yes, climate change is a feminist issue; women are on the front lines of climate change impact and need to be part of creating solutions. And women all over the world are in dire need of access to full and real reproductive justice. But linking the two by advocating population control as a solution to climate change isn’t the way to achieve either of these aims.

Only in Liberal World can we link access to abortion around the world to globull warming. Sigh.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

IF ABORTION FUNDS ARE BANNED, THESE SHOULD BE BANNED TO….

The ban on federal funds for abortions is based on a religious morality, not science and certainly not any concern for women’s health. Where’s the concern for a woman carrying a baby with no brain stem, or some other incurable condition? If we are to allow women’s reproductive rights to be dictated by religious Christian extremists, then why not also allow the following:

Ban funds for vasectomies: These are birth control, and Catholics believe that’s a sin.

Prohibit money for Viagra: This encourages fornication, another sin. Accept impotence as God’s will.

No funds for implanting pig valves in human hearts: Muslims and Jews believe pigs are unclean creatures.

No circumcisions: Some religions don’t believe in this procedure, either.

No medical treatment for anybody at federal expense, since Christian Scientists don’t believe in medical care, period.

But let’s not stop there. How about cutting out funding for anything a religious or other minority doesn’t believe in – not just healthcare?

Quakers don’t believe in war. No more money for fighting them. (except that defense is actually in the Constitution, unlike abortion on demand)

Hindus don’t believe in eating beef. No subsidies for the cattle industry.

The Amish don’t believe in mechanization. No money for government-run fleets of vehicles or Amtrak.

Church of Christ members believe dancing is sinful, along with music from instruments other than the human voice. Stop funding wickedness through the National Endowment for the Arts.

Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t believe in celebrating holidays or birthdays. No more federal paid days off for Christmas, Thanksgiving, President’s Day, etc.

Deists believe the natural world is sacred. No more federal funds for destroying the earth – ban funds for logging, strip-mining, or anything that pollutes our holy earth.

Libertarians and neo-con Republicans believe public services should be privatized to save tax dollars. Stop funding firefighting, police protection, libraries and public schools.

Anarchists don’t believe in government. No more funding anything–not even salaries for Congress!

I started putting comments next to each one, then decided to leave Da Cwazy to stand on its own, except for one. Leave it to a DUmmie to completely miss the point and go truly overboard. And, of course, so many DUmmies commented with things like “great post!” and “yup, yup!” Though, I thought the one that said “BAN POSTS IN ALL CAPS, TOO!” was pretty awesome.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

At the last minute Representative Bart Stupak (D, Mich.) was successful in getting Speaker Pelosi and the House Democratic leadership to approve an amendment that would prohibit federal spending on abortion added to its nationalized healthcare bill passed and sent to the Senate over the weekend. But a senior Democrat says that the Stupak amendment will be stripped from the bill if the Senate returns the bill for approval.

Of course, the only reason that the House healthcare bill was passed out of the House at all was because of the Stupak Amendment, still left-wingers in Congress are vowing to strip the final bill of one of the only measures that appeals to moderates.

Far left Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D, Fla.) has vowed that the anti-abortion amendment will be gone by the time the bill comes up for a final vote after the Senate debate. Pro-abortion activist and Democratic Congressman from Colorado Diana DeGette has been passing around a letter to her far left colleagues vowing not to vote for a future healthcare bill that does not include abortion funding. She has announced that 40 House Democrats have signed her pledge.

The truth is that the House bill has bare support and without the Stupak Amendment it couldn’t have passed.

However, the vows of abortion advocates in Congress also proves another thing, here. It proves that “no” doesn’t always mean “no.” The Pelosicare version of Obamacare now says no abortion funding, but that is meaningless the next time the bill comes up for a vote. Congress may pass a nationalized healthcare system that does not include abortion funding but that doesn’t mean anything to a future Congress. Once healthcare become a federal matter, any future Congress can change the rules anytime it feels like it and slide abortion funding right into the rules. Maybe in the middle of night on a Saturday… just like Pelosi did to pass the bill this time.

And therein lies the problem. No matter what this bill says now, the matter is not and can never be settled. Federalized healthcare will be a permanent political football used to solicit votes from favored special interests all the way until the day that the federal government is bankrupted by its onerous financial burdens. No abortion funding may be the rule today, but next time they just might get it through.

It’s all because no leftist idea ever dies. It only sits quietly until another push secures victory. No never means no to a leftist.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

One of the jobs of the “Whip” position in Congress is to count votes so that the leadership has an understanding of what sort of support their legislative efforts have. These Whip counts are often made public knowledge (but not always) and The Hill has reported the latest counting of House Democrats and where they stand on the Pelosicare/Obamacare bill.

So, if one of your Congresscritters is on this list as a “yes” vote or is leaning “yes,” contact them immediately and voice your opposition.

As of noon on 11/06/09:

YES OR LEANING YES
Howard Berman (Calif.)
Leonard Boswell (Iowa)
G.K. Butterfield (N.C.)
Steve Cohen (Tenn.) Called the measure “America’s bill”
Gerry Connolly (Va.) Had expressed concern about tax provisions in initial bill
Henry Cuellar (Texas) Got tort provisions added, though still wary of costs
Kathy Dahlkemper (Pa.)
Sam Farr (Calif.)
Gabrielle Giffords (Ariz.) Leaning yes, would like to see more on tort reform
Debbie Halvorson (Ill.)
Alcee Hastings (Fla.)
Rep. Paul Hodes (D-N.H.) Yes
Steve Kagen (Wis.)
Marcy Kaptur (Ohio) Leaning yes
Dale Kildee (Mich.)
Ron Kind (Wis.) Voted no in Ways and Means Committee
Brad Miller (N.C.)
Dennis Moore (Kan.) Was target of death threat last summer over healthcare reform
Jim Langevin (R.I.) Opponent of abortion rights
Tom Perriello (Va.) Held many town halls this summer
Jared Polis (Colo.) Voted no in Education and Labor Committee
Earl Pomeroy (N.D.) Voted no in Ways and Means Committee
Nick Rahall (W. Va.)
John Salazar (Colo.)
Linda Sanchez (Calif.)
Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) Yes
Mark Schauer (Mich.) NRCC quickly pounced on Schauer’s support of bill
Dina Titus (Nev.) Voted no in Education and Labor Committee
Paul Tonko (N.Y.) Leaning yes
Tim Walz (Minn.) “I think we’re getting there.”
Diane Watson (Calif.) Praised bill in speech on the floor
Peter Welch (Vt.)

NO OR LEANING NO
John Adler (N.J.) A firm no, saying bill doesn’t do enough to control health costs.
John Boccieri (Ohio) Leaning no, citing cost-containment concerns
Dan Boren (Okla.) A firm no
Artur Davis (Ala.) Gubernatorial candidate says, “We risk a disaster if we get this wrong.”
Lincoln Davis (Tenn.) Wants changes to abortion-related provisions
Parker Griffith (Ala.) “I cannot support this bill.”
Bart Gordon (Tenn.) Science panel chairman is a no, citing public option and bill’s “financial impact on the state of Tennessee.”
Suzanne Kosmas (Fla.)”As the bill stands right now, I am not going to be able to support it,” Kosmas told the Orlando Sentinel.
Frank Kratovil (D-Md.) No
Jim Marshall (Ga.) A firm no
Charlie Melancon (D-La.) No
Walt Minnick (Idaho) Has bucked leadership on big-ticket bills
Collin Peterson (Minn.) Ag chairman has sharply criticized bill
Ike Skelton (Mo.) Ag chairman cites public option, concerns about rural providers
Bart Stupak (Mich.) Wants changes to abortion-related provisions
Gene Taylor (Miss.) Made it clear to constituents this summer he is a “no.”

UNDECIDED/REVIEWING BILL
Brian Baird (Wash.) Changed from “leaning no.”
Melissa Bean (Ill.)
Marion Berry (Ark.) Wants more aggressive action against HMOs, drug makers
Rick Boucher (Va.) Wary of public option; voted no in Energy and Commerce Committee
Dennis Cardoza (Calif.)
Yvette Clarke (N.Y.)
Jim Costa (Calif.)
Chet Edwards (Texas) A perennial GOP target; rejected climate bill
Keith Ellison (Minn.)
Bob Etheridge (N.C.) May run for Senate
Bill Foster (Ill.) “Encouraged” House is moving forward; voted no on climate bill
Bart Gordon (Tenn.) Republicans targeting Science panel chairman
Raúl Grijalva (Ariz.) Wants vote on “robust” public option
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (S.D.)
Baron Hill (Ind.)
Frank Kratovil (Md.) Voted yes on climate change bill; GOP targeting him
Dennis Kucinich (Ohio) He said he “will have trouble voting for anything other than robust public option.”
Daniel Lipinski (Ill.) Opposes abortion rights
Betsy Markey (Colo.) Has concerns with cost of the bill
Eric Massa (N.Y.) Fan of single-payer approach
Jim Matheson (Utah) Prefers Senate Finance measure; voted no in committee
Harry Mitchell (Ariz.)
Jim Oberstar (Minn.)
Solomon Ortiz (Texas) Voted no on climate change bill
Rep. Tom Perriello (D-Va.) undecided (I’m not commenting. But he reportedly told MSNBC Morning Joe yesterday “I’ve moved a lot closer to yes,” but I haven’t been able to check this)
Ciro Rodriguez (Texas) Voted no on climate measure
Loretta Sanchez (Calif.) Has gone from “yes” to undecided
Heath Shuler (N.C.)
Zack Space (Ohio) Voted yes on Energy and Commerce Committee
Betty Sutton (Ohio)
Harry Teague (N.M.) Skeptic of public option

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

For Constitution Day this year at Sacramento City College Associated Student Government (ASG) President and student Steve Macias arranged for a group named Genocide Awareness Project, an anti-abortion group, to participate on campus in the Constitution Day activities.

The group was approved for participation by the ASG and set up its booth at the appointed time. And then the world came to an end. Pro-Infanticide groups such as Planned Parenthood set up their own, countering booths the next day and left-wing hatemongers in the student body immediately began to circulate a recall petition to have Mr. Macias removed from the Associated Student Government leadership.

There is also some speculation that this insane, un-American recall effort being visited upon Mr. Macias is being tacitly approved of by the College adviser overseeing the ASG.

Even the local press tried to pile onto an attack of Mr. Macias. The SacCity Express originally reported on October 13 that Macias presented the anti-abortion group under a false name when he submitted the group for the vote of the ASG board. On the 26th the paper printed a retraction admitting their “mistake.”

On his FaceBook site, Mr. Macias also reports that one of Sacramento College’s professors has engaged in a nasty email exchange with the student, too. “Why Do these teachers feel that it is there[sic] role to put us students down?” Macias asks. “I am deeply offended that an instutution[sic] that taxpayers pay for and pay to attend would allow this individual to clearly descriminate[sic] against people of faith. Calling Christianity ‘make believe.’ is unacceptable dialougue[sic] from Teacher[sic] to student. Especially when you seek out and attack the student.”

Amusingly, with her quote on the matter, ASG Vice President Debbie Dixon proved that her parent’s money is being sorrowfully wasted on her failed education.

“I am highly offended, I have rights, just as they have rights to not be offended!”

Sorry Debbie, dear, but there is NO “right” not to be offended. The Constitution safeguards political free speech but it does not safeguard your right “not to be offended.” No one has a right not to be offended because such a right would preclude everyone else’s right to free speech in the first place. After all, what one person feels is right and good to say, someone else somewhere will find offense contained therein. So, dear, dear, lil’ Debbie, no one has a right not to be offended. But, I do have to say, I am offended by your ignorance.

So, what we see with this dispiriting case is typical of the distempered left. All these caring, civilized, open minded, more tolerant lefties are in full attack mode trying to shut down the free speech of people with whom they disagree… as always. Sadly, that’s the fascist, Obamaesque sort of actions we are coming to expect from the extreme left and the bubble ensconced, pointy-headed, ivory tower dwellers in academe, isn’t it?

**UDPATE** 11/9/09

College launches attack campaign on student body president over pro-life group’s display

ADF letter: student officer was simply respecting group’s constitutional rights

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund Center for Academic Freedom have issued a cease-and-desist letter to Sacramento City College officials after the president of the Associated Student Government was subjected to an illegal recall election for refusing to censor a pro-life group on campus.

College officials targeted Steve Macias for retaliation after they attempted to censor the speech of an off-campus pro-life group that ASG had already voted to allow to participate in a campus event. Macias refused to censor the pro-life display on the grounds that doing so would violate the group’s First Amendment rights. The officials and ASG retaliated by subjecting him to an illegal recall election.

Full news release, quotes, and related media resources available at the following link:

http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/3397

ADF is a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations defending the right of people to freely live out their faith. Launched in 1994, ADF employs a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to protect and preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

The worst thing that you or I can do for the planet is to have children. If they behave as the average person in the rich world does now, they will emit some 11 tonnes of CO2 every year of their lives. In their turn, they are likely to have more carbon-emitting children who will make an even bigger mess. If Britain is to meet the government’s target of an 80% reduction in our emissions by 2050, we need to start reversing our rising rate of population growth immediately.

All children are bad, but Western children are particularly bad, because according to the Gaiaist religion,

the poorer you are, the less carbon you emit. By today’s standards, a cull of Australians or Americans would be at least 60 times as productive as one of Bangladeshis. …one less British child would permit some 30 women in sub-Saharan Africa to have a baby and still leave the planet a cleaner place.

As usual, the role model for liberals is communist China, which is praised for reducing its population by hundreds of millions by dictating to parents that they can only have one child — a policy that often results in infanticide for baby girls.

If communism and Nazism could leave tens of millions dead, what will be the death toll if the evil freaks driving the environmentalism movement get the leverage to inflict their anti-Western and anti-human fantasies?

In the US, we already have a Science Czar who has advocated putting sterilants in the water supply. Why not use poison instead? After all, it may only be a matter of years before global warming inconveniences the polar bears unless the human race is reduced to a few barefoot peasants cowering before their socialist overlords.

Hat tip: The Blogprof. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

In a case brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, an Arizona court found today that Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph Arpaio can no longer require inmates seeking abortion care to prepay their transportation and security costs before they can obtain an abortion.

Earlier this year, as part of a partial settlement in an ACLU lawsuit involving the right of women prisoners to obtain timely, safe and legal abortions, Arpaio agreed to follow a 2005 court order prohibiting Maricopa County correctional facilities from requiring inmates to obtain a court order before an abortion. However, in the course of settlement negotiations, Arpaio decided inmates must prepay transportation and security costs associated with obtaining the procedure. In his ruling today, Judge Robert H. Oberbilling of the Superior Court of Arizona indicated that requiring inmates to prepay security and transportation costs could be more onerous than the court order Sheriff Arpaio previously required.

“We are so pleased that Sheriff Arpaio can no longer pull a bait and switch by requiring women prisoners to pay transportation and security costs before obtaining an abortion,” said Brigitte Amiri, a senior staff attorney for the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project who argued the case today before the court. “Arpaio’s new prepayment requirement was yet another way for him to do an end run around the law and to interfere with a woman’s private decision about whether to end a pregnancy.”

In May 2004, on behalf of a woman inmate seeking an abortion, the ACLU challenged an unwritten Maricopa County Jail policy that required inmates to obtain a court order before officials would transport for abortion care. The Maricopa County Superior Court struck down the unwritten policy in August 2005, holding that it violated women’s reproductive rights and served “no legitimate penological purpose.” The Arizona Court of Appeals upheld that decision; both the Arizona and the United States Supreme Courts refused to hear the case.

Sheriff Arpaio defied these rulings and continued to require women to obtain a court order before an abortion. As a result, in August 2008, the ACLU asked the court to hold Arpaio in contempt. In the course of settlement negotiations in that case, Arpaio shifted tactics and began insisting that inmates who seek abortions must pay upfront for transportation and security costs. Inmates requiring transportation for other medical care are not charged for transport either before or after receiving services.

“Sheriff Arpaio has reached the end of the line here. The courts have already confirmed that Arizona prison officials can not put up roadblocks to abortion care simply because they do not agree with the decision to end a pregnancy,” said Alessandra Soler Meetze, Executive Director of the ACLU of Arizona. “It is time for Sheriff Arpaio to stop wasting taxpayer dollars to impose his own morality on women in his jails and to start upholding the law. Game over.”

SOURCE

Posted by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.). For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. To keep up with attacks on free speech see TONGUE-TIED. Also, don’t forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me here

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

In a poll released by Rasmussen Reports, 37% of voters would vote for a yet unspecified Republican candidate for Governor in 2010 versus 36% for an unnamed Democrat. 27% are yet undecided. This is HUGE for the DPRM.

From Rasmussen Reports…

Men like Republicans more, women prefer Democrats. Support for the GOP candidate is highest among voters ages 30 to 64.

Voters not affiliated with either major party prefer the Republican candidate by a more than two-to-one margin, but 55% of those voters are undecided. Married voters also go for the Republican by nearly two-to-one compared to those, unmarried.

Sitting two-term Democratic Governor Jennifer Granholm is facing forced retirement as the DPRM limits Governors to 2 terms.

Other news out of the DPRM poll shows that the Emperor’s Death Care scheme isn’t doing so well among the electorate in the DPRM. In a state which has been in the pocket of the liberal party for decades thanks to the overwhelming control of labor unions, support for the Death Care scheme is down to 45% with 48% opposed. This might seem like a tight split among those in the DPRM but when you take into consideration the strong weight that big labor and the Democrat Party play into the politics of that state, this is a stunning defeat for the Emperor in my humble but not-so-silent opinion. Nationally, the Emperor’s plan is opposed by 51% of the people with the same 45% support as garnered in the DPRM.

Economic conditions in Michigan are so bad that many are looking to leave the state.

More than one-out-of four voters (28%) in the state say they are at least somewhat likely to move out of Michigan, with 13% who say they are very likely to do so. But 67% say that a move as unlikely, with 39% saying it’s not very likely and another 28% saying it’s not at all likely for them.

The incumbent Governor’s numbers are dismal. Just 40% of the citizenry approve of Jennifer Granholm’s job performance and 60% disapprove. I think it’s telling that there are no undecideds in this area of the poll.

Those who strongly disapprove outnumber those who strongly approve by a 47% to 18% margin.

Some of you may ask why I call Michigan the Democratic People’s Republic of Michigan (DPRM). Michigan is the prime example of what happens when you leave the big government hounds of the Democrat Party in charge for too long and allow big labor unions to dictate political will. The people in Michigan are not so much an electorate as they are subjects. As in they are subjected to political abuse on a daily basis.

It’s not that I wish to belittle the people of Michigan but rather it is my goal to “nudge” them into seeing with their own eyes for a change. Prompt them to recognize the problems within their state and take action against the cause. Because the cause is liberal politics and big government.

In other news out of Rasmussen Reports, the Emperor’s Presidential Index is at -12 as his party is seen to be less trusted than Republicans on 10 key issues.

Health Care:

The people favor Republicans in the area of health care by a 6 point margin. 46% trust the Republicans to better handle the issue of health care as opposed to 40% for those pushing a government run system.

Education:

The people favor Republicans in the area of education by a 5 point margin. 43% of Americans trust Republicans with the issue of education as opposed to 38% who trust Democrats.

Social Security:

The people favor Republicans in the area of Social Security by a 8 point margin. 45% of Americans trust the Republicans to on the issue of Social Security as opposed to 37% trusting Democrats.

Taxes:

Here’s no surprise. The people favor Republicans in the area of taxes by a massive 15 point margin. 50% of Americans trust Republicans on the issue of taxes as opposed to 35% who trust Democrats.

Economy:

Again, no surprises here. The people favor Republicans in this area as well by a margin of 14 points. 49% of American trust the Republicans to better handle the economy as opposed to the 35% who actually are misguided enough to trust Democrats and their tax and spend ways.

Abortion:

The people trust Republicans more by a margin of 12 points on the issue of abortion. 47% trust that the Republican approach to the issue of abortion as opposed to the Democrats who are trusted by a mere 35%. So much for liberalism’s most central issue.

Immigration:

The people are more trusting in Republicans on the issue of immigration by a margin of 7 points. 40% trust Republicans over their Democrat colleagues on the issue with Dems snagging 33% support for their efforts.

National Security:

I know this is going to shock the hell out of your Obamabots, but the American people trust Republicans with National Security by a margin of 23 points. A full 54% trust Republicans more as opposed to the 31% who favor Democrat’s surrender in order for the world to like us policies.

Iraq:

Again, another shock for the defense-challenged liberals. Republicans again edge out Democrats by 19 points. For all their bitching during the Bush years about the Iraq war, the Dems haven’t make any progress in either war. Rasmussen’s polling numbers indicate that 50% of those surveyed trusted Republicans to handle the situation in Iraq as opposed to the dimwitted 31% who put their faith in the Party of pacifists.

Government Ethics:

In spite of all the “culture of corruption” rhetoric that still lingers from the 2006 midterms, the American people favor Republicans to better handle government ethics over Democrats by a margin of 4 points. Both numbers are rather dismal however Americans trust Republicans (33%) over Democrats (29%). Who is throwing around dangerous rhetoric now Nancy?

With Republicans being seen as more trustworthy on so many social issues, what does this say for the direction of the country? What does it say about Obamamania and the love affair with Democrats? I’m banking on the fact that said love affair is over and Obamamania is dead.

[Content Restricted]

Correction – In the original posting of this piece, I stated, “The people are more trusting in Republicans on the issue of immigration by a margin of 17 points.” This figure is incorrect. The spread is actually 7 points. It has been corrected in the body of the piece.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post