Monday, November 26, 2012

The Freedom Project is a PAC that backed Pence.

The Freedom Project usually backs federal elections, but, since Pence was a former recipient of their monies he received monies for his Governor's run. He spent twice the amount he raised, so he is now in campaign debt, which is not a good place for a new Governor to be.

The Freedom Project likes Speaker Boner and backs Republicans to be elected to the House. The Freedom Project is a GOP PAC.

The Freedom Project (click here) is a political action committee (PAC) established in 1995 to provide assistance to Republican candidates for federal office. Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) serves as honorary chairman. The Freedom Project is committed to a better America based on freedom and security, empowered citizens and personal responsibility. Our mission is to strengthen the Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives that's focusing relentlessly on jobs and the economy....

Pence Donors also includes The Koch Brothers (click here).

$762,575 Campaign Debt

$354,395 Campaign Funds received by Pence.

Pence currently has a little over $71,000 which I am sure is all set aside for his inauguration as Governor. So, if any business is waiting for payment by the Pence Campaign they might want to act to receive their monies before it all goes for beer kegs and champagne bottles.
Add caption

I found this interesting, too. Pence had a huge amount of fundraising arrive at his disposal in 2010 compared to his peers. Can't help what happened to those funds after he was re-elected to the House.

Indiana's Post-Election Flip Flop. It is impossible to trust them.

They never live up to their campaign promises. There should be a study to the outcomes of Republican administrations compared to their campaign promises. They always have a faux face to the public.

...Kathy Saris, (click here) an Indianapolis restaurant owner and lesbian who was on the GOP platform committee, said the platform change was "a big step" for her party.
She said the silence on same-sex marriage -- coupled with the inclusion of a statement saying Republicans "embrace, encourage and will work to ensure the opportunity for full participation of ALL citizens in government" -- will help the party reach out to younger Republicans.
"They view marriage as something that should be open to everybody, " Saris said.E...

What happened in between is the election of Mike Pence, the social issue nightmare. He advocates a theocracy, not a democracy.

"Marriage between a man and a woman is the most enduring human institution. Marriage was ordained by God, confirmed by law, and is the glue of the American family."
--Congressman Mike Pence
Marriage is the backbone of our society and a sacred institution established by God between one man and one woman. Numerous studies confirm that marriage between a man and a woman makes for strong families and strong families make for a strong nation.
Unfortunately, many activist judges across America are undoing this very fabric of our society by changing the traditional form of marriage between a man and a woman. As a result, I am sponsoring the Federal Marriage Amendment (H.J. Res. 56), a bill that would define marriage in the Constitution and protect it from being radically redefined by activist judges who overstep their constitutional boundaries.
This bill will hold unelected judges to account and prevent them from redefining marriage. It also allows for state voters and legislatures to determine if they wish to grant these types of unions, without imposing on the rights of other states.

Pence was never a good legislator in the House, why did they elect him to the Governorship? Amazing.

5:40 PM, Nov 26, 2012
INDIANAPOLIS A report researched (click here) by a group of Indiana University students finds that 614 laws in Indiana provide rights or responsibilities to Hoosiers based on marriage and family, which could make them unavailable to same-sex couples under a proposed constitutional amendment.

The report — released Monday by Indiana Equality and students from the Indiana University Maurer School of Law — comes just weeks before lawmakers are expected to take up a proposed amendment that would put a same-sex marriage ban in the Indiana Constitution and prohibit laws that grant rights that are similar to marriage to unmarried couples....

What came first the chicken or the egg?

The chicken.

Without the genetic content of a warm  blooded ovum, there would never be an egg.

In any form of creation and/or evolution the adults existed before any young.

Reproduction is a function, not a constitution.

American children do not have the same rights as American adults.

The Republican stand on personhood rights does not carry through as a right a child has before they are born with the right as a citizen.

The laws of the USA governing child rights are primarily criminal in application. Even when a child is earning money as a child model or owns property the laws that exist surrounding their rights are protective and criminal of the people taking care of them.

So, when Republicans state a fetus should have the same right as a USA child it is glamorizing the content. The Republicans are doing nothing but criminalizing pregnancy. They are adding murder to abortion law. The fetus has no extraordinary rights that parents don't provide. The very nature of a child is dependent upon parental or guardian care. The idea a child stands alone as a citizen is not correct. Heck, it isn't even correct when one asks a pediatrician how they view the treatment of a child. Most pediatricians realize the outcome of a child's treatment depends on the compliance of the parent to rendering the treatment. Frequently, pediatric medicine does not view a child as an autonomous person, but, a child in treatment with their parent(s). 

The idea a personhood amendment is realistic is contrived. It is not adding rights to a fetus, it is criminalizing pregnancy. Pregnancy by its nature is not an autonomous ability of a fetus, but, the dedication of the mother to carry the fetus to term. So, the entire concept is bizarre. It removes the 'parent-child' relationship from the 'state of being pregnant.' It is hideous. A fetus does not have a pregnancy, a woman does.

A uterus does not transfer its ownership to a fetus because it is conceived. A uterus belongs to the woman. It always belongs to the woman. The placenta, is an organ belonging to the woman and acts between the fetus and the woman. The umbilical cord belongs to the woman as a means to support the fetus. There is nothing here viable to the idea a fetus has an autonomous right to dominate the ownership of the woman's body.

A constitutional amendment criminalizing abortion as a means to personhood is not based in reality and lends itself to act in ways that separates a woman's body from her habeas corpus. Did I make that clear?

A woman has habeas corpus. When a constitutional amendment removes her body away from her for the purpose of birthing a fetus, it acts against the writ of the USA Constitution.

A woman has habeas corpus that cannot be removed to the contrived right of a fetus. The fetus has no right to habeas corpus until it is autonomous in its ability to live on its own. Up to that point, the woman has control over her body. It is very simple.

...Recalling that, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, (click here) the United Nations has proclaimed that childhood is entitled to special care and assistance,
Convinced that the family, as the fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members and particularly children, should be afforded the necessary protection and assistance so that it can fully assume its responsibilities within the community,
Recognizing that the child, for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality, should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding,
Considering that the child should be fully prepared to live an individual life in society, and brought up in the spirit of the ideals proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, and in particular in the spirit of peace, dignity, tolerance, freedom, equality and solidarity,
Bearing in mind that the need to extend particular care to the child has been stated in the Geneva Declaration of the Rights of the Child of 1924 and in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child adopted by the General Assembly on 20 November 1959 and recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (in particular in articles 23 and 24), in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (in particular in article 10) and in the statutes and relevant instruments of specialized agencies and international organizations concerned with the welfare of children,
Bearing in mind that, as indicated in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, "the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth",...

There are universal understandings a child is conceived to be part of a family, not a matter of an autonomous citizen of personhood. The entire mess of a USA Constitutional amendment removes the 'identity' of child as partnered with parent(s). It is simply "W"rong and a political ideology. It is not remotely recognized as a viable option of a society to demand for a woman to choose pregnancy over not. It is ultimately the mother's option to continue a pregnancy. 

Even the dynamics of unwanted pregnancy leading to unwanted children is socially devastating. Who would ever want a child to be born into circumstances where they are unwanted? That is not a good start and what occurs when parenthood is not in their future, but, simply a life of a child becoming an adult in an institutionalized setting? The entire dynamic is anti-social. There is nothing like a childhood abandoned at birth.

Don't tell me all children are adopted. That is a lie. That is a lie in the year 2012 and there is still abortion. It is a completely bizarre concept, political ideology and a cruel option for the USA.

Eric Cantor's latest 'Turd Blossom."

"The President needs to lead and put the Affordable Care Act on the table."

And where did he say it? The place otherwise known as "The Garden of Turd Blossoms," FOX News.

The Democratic Party won in the election of 2012. They need to be the champion of the Middle Class. No Compromise.

If the Democratic Party allows the dysfunctional Republican House demand completely unrealistic demands for concessions they are failing the public. The Democrats have to 'keep it real.' The 'politics as usual' is old methodology. The country wants the national debt addressed without compromising our seniors, our young or the promises of generations. 

We want our country back and allowing people like Eric Cantor to continue to float his turd blossoms is not protecting the vulnerable in this country.