A few days ago I was listening to A daytime radio talk show, and their topic was abortion, the host made a comment that there were over 75000 abortions in the state of Texas in the year 2006. This number seemed to be extremely high to me so I decided to check it out for myself, and sure enough the number was close to the right figure, actually 77,374.
Then I did some research on the average birth weight in that same year for full term babies.that was 7.5 pounds per baby.
Then I mutiplied that weight by the number of abortions and the total weight was 508,305 pounds, had the pregnancies went to delivery.

Everyday I go to my blog "Where were you",to do A body count of the Americans killed in Iraq.http://hellbent.blogstream.com/
Today that figure was 3707 total. If you averaged their weight at 170 pounds per person,that weight would be 630,190 pounds.

I can't say with all certainty that these firgures are absolutely correct, however they do give you an idea of just how many pounds of flesh are exterminated by our society!

If a tractor trailor hauls 50,000 pounds of cargo per load, that would be 10 loads of babies just from Texas alone last year, and over 13 loads of American military from the war in Iraq.
No matter if you label yourself conservative or liberal you are complicit. Liberals prefer to exterminate human life up front, while conservatives are retroactive, so whatever label you wear, you still exact your pound of flesh!

The free market system, which generates great wealth, is running on a clutter of bizarre contradictions. Our nation is touted as a nation of abundance, and it is a nation in which scarcities are common, and man-made, because scarcity creates value. It is a nation united, and the country is cleft. Everybody benefits from America’s business, but the poor are paying the price of the success at the top. It is a nation founded on the notion of happiness, and anxiety abounds. A nation in which teamwork is urged and individual competition is urged. A nation which ships out surplus food, and has hungry people. It is a nation which touts itself as cultured and humane, in which ruthlessness and winning is openly prized. In a nation which claims to be given over to democracy, half the working population spends its days in business workplaces which are dreaded and sickening little dictatorships.
Compared with our bright founding papers, this is a foul outcome.

The greatest casualty is justice. The nation now runs less on justice than on wealth.


A second grievous casualty is the national intelligence. To placidly accept all these contradictions, and not be all-day nauseous that something is horribly askew, requires that we stop thinking. Actually, that possibility is not extreme. If we watch copious television, if we immerse in shopping, we swim in the new materialism and the new self-centeredness, we will not notice.

A main point in this essay is that these contradictions are possible if we are educated into certain theories. We routinely teach them in our schools. And they are possible if we scrupulously avoid certain other theories.

First, a theory that is hardly ever mentioned!

A basic puzzle, as philosophers see it: how do we reconcile the selfish nature of people with the good of society?

Small hordes of writers have filled books trying out solutions that involve economics, biology, God, sociology and politics. It turns out, there is no simple answer. But writers keep trying, because the implications of no answer are dire. The absence of an answer implies humans cannot live in societies.

If the share of the black vote that goes to the Democrats ever falls to 70 percent, it may be virtually impossible for the Democrats to win the White House or Congress, because they have long ago lost the white male vote and their support among other groups is eroding. Against that background, it is possible to understand their desperate efforts to keep blacks paranoid, not only about Republicans but about American society in general.

Liberal Democrats, especially, must keep blacks fearful of racism everywhere, including in an administration whose Cabinet includes people of Chinese, Japanese, Hispanic, and Jewish ancestry, and two consecutive black Secretaries of State. Blacks must be kept believing that their only hope lies with liberals.

Not only must the present be distorted, so must the past -- and any alternative view of the future must be nipped in the bud. That is why prominent minority figures who stray from the liberal plantation must be discredited, debased and, above all, kept from becoming federal judges.

A thoughtful and highly intelligent member of the California supreme court like Justice Janice Rogers Brown must be smeared as a right-wing extremist, even though she received 76 percent of the vote in California, hardly a right-wing extremist state. But desperate politicians cannot let facts stand in their way.

Least of all can they afford to let Janice Rogers Brown become a national figure on the federal bench. The things she says and does could lead other blacks to begin to think independently -- and that in turn threatens the whole liberal house of cards. If a smear is what it takes to stop her, that is what liberal politicians and the liberal media will use.

It's "not personal" as they say when they smear someone. It doesn't matter how outstanding or upstanding Justice Brown is. She is a threat to the power that means everything to liberal politicians. The Democrats' dependence on blacks for votes means that they must keep blacks dependent on them.

Black self-reliance would be almost as bad as blacks becoming Republicans, as far as liberal Democrats are concerned. All black progress in the past must be depicted as the result of liberal government programs and all hope of future progress must be depicted as dependent on the same liberalism.

In reality, reductions in poverty among blacks and the rise of blacks into higher level occupations were both more pronounced in the years leading up to the civil rights legislation and welfare state policies of the 1960s than in the years that followed.

Moreover, contrary to political myth, a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. But facts have never stopped politicians or ideologues before and show no signs of stopping them now.

Pelosi urged to impeach Bush
MICHAEL P. MAYKO Mmayko@ctpost.com
Article Last Updated: 08/09/2007 04:03:30 PM EDT

STAMFORD — Two dozen people armed with placards and petitions turned out today to beseech House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to push for impeachment of President Bush.
But Pelosi, a Democratic congressman from California, avoided the demonstrators by slipping into II Falco restaurant through a back entrance cordoned off by police.

"She doesn't like opposition," said Marilyn Bonoff of Stamford, one of those demanding that proceedings be launched to force Bush from office. "We are the people she represents. For her to dodge us is just not right."

Pelosi was in Stamford for a fund-raising luncheon benefiting U.S. Rep. Christopher Murphy, D-5. Several Democratic politicians including Mayor Dannel Malloy and state legislators from the area, attended.

Josh Raymond, a member of Murphy's staff, said Pelosi did not give a formal address during the 90-minute session.

But Murphy's support from Pelosi angered Steve Miller, a Bridgeport Democrat running for a council seat from the Black Rock neighborhood as a member of the newly organized Bridgeport First party.

"I'm here to let Chris Murphy know that I am angry he's crawling into bed with Pelosi," Miller said. "She made so many promises that she flip flopped on."

Miller vowed that progressive Democrats in the state will challenge Murphy, first elected last year, in 2008.

Meanwhile, Sal Liccione of Westport, the Connecticut campaign manager for U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, running for next year's Democratic

presidential nomination, said he gave Pelosi a petition signed by about 650 state residents demanding she push for impeachment."She didn't say much," Liccione said.

He also gave a copy to Murphy.

"He said he'll look it over," said Liccione.

You say that you are not a religious person,but I say to you that you have a god, whomever or whatever that may be.
There Are two major religions in the United States, and the majority of most adults belong to one of those.
They call themselves political parties,however they are religions to the voters here in this nation.

In every even year on our calendar in november we flock to the voting poles to elect the gods of our choice, that is done more diligantly than attending church, but you are not religious!
Then you spend the next two to four years complaining about the person that you voted for, but you are not religious!

Consider the fact that religion had very little to do with the Christ being crucified, it was politics and power that was to be lost by the Sanhedrin if Jesus gained A substantial following. this would also mean that money would be taken from the wealthy few that handed down the laws!
Absolute politics, but you are not religious!

Why are there American troops in Iraq, is it democracy and freedom of religion, no..its money and power.
Is there a religious war in Iraq, yes..but not for the purpose of sustaining any particular beleif, its to control the enormous wealth that their oil feilds brings to that country.
Before the vast oil fields the wars in the mideast were mostly tribal conflicts over territories which was most suitable for living.. when the cash started rolling in wars followed, each sect vying for control of the wealth.

What is Jihad?

As this suggests, jihad is "holy war." Or, more precisely: It means the legal, compulsory, communal effort to expand the territories ruled by Muslims at the expense of territories ruled by non-Muslims.

The purpose of jihad, in other words, is not directly to spread the Islamic faith but to extend sovereign Muslim power (faith, of course, often follows the flag). Jihad is thus unabashedly offensive in nature, with the eventual goal of achieving Muslim dominion over the entire globe

Its all about money, but you are not religious!