Liberal Forum

We need AR-15s to shoot roaming gangs of black people. I call it the Zombie Theory. These folks want protection from the inevitable coming of the zombie hoard. All cons love zombies...I don't get it but it's true.

I call it the Zombie Theory. These folks want protection from the inevitable coming of the zombie hoard. All cons love zombies...I don't get it but it's true.

Iraqi oil was going to pay for everything. That's what they said.These same Republican hypocrites are now whining over Obama's 'run-away' spending, while they turned a blind eye to the billions of dollars in waste fraud and abuse in Iraq, and just as surely in Afghanistan too.No oversight, no accountability.The Bush Republican Oversight Failure in IraqI thought I had read that Cheney's Halliburton company was contracted to rebuild Iraq. Was that just leftist propaganda?You would think, though, that we should get some free oil out of the deal. It doesn't make any sense that we would do it all for free. Although, I wouldn't mention it to the Iraqi people, our ratings have to be about zilch or worse by now. Hard to make friends with people when you've probably killed one or more of their family members.I call it the Zombie Theory. These folks want protection from the inevitable coming of the zombie hoard. All cons love zombies...I don't get it but it's true.there you go, you must have picked that up on Red States website.Hogsnot.Don't get confused.Being dominated is a sexual kinkWoah! TMI Misty!!!Yea, it seemed funny for one second.

Hard to make friends with people when you've probably killed one or more of their family members.We didn't exactly win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people did we?According to Dick Cheney, they were supposed to greet us with flowers and candy.

We didn't exactly win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people did we? According to Dick Cheney, they were supposed to greet us with flowers and candy. Flowers and candy, or a mushroom cloud? Pretty easy choice, when you put it that way.

Depends on the position, of course. You guys need to meet in the middle on this one. I've said it once and I'll say it again. It's not just about abortion, it's about contraception. The GOP wants to take women back to the 1950s. I hope you are posting that outrageous accusation from your kitchen, little missy. A bunch of Jackholes. They also put something in the bill to defund ACORN, despite the fact that it had already been stripped of federal funding, and has been defunct for nearly three years. I plan to keep kicking little hawk from time to time. Fallen foes are just easier prey. Goes with being a coward. I wonder which the insurance industry would prefer? They prefer pit bull owners to have guns on hand. the reason law enforcement doesn't take it as serious as they might, is because so many women either lie about the $h!t; or....they just keep going back to these abusive men. i really have very little sympathy for the woman who continues to put herself in an abusive situation like so many do. i'd be rolling my eyes at that $h!t if i was a cop, myself. i'd be like...."well, damn woman. this is only the 3rd call i've had from you this month. ever think it's not your brightest move to stay with this piece of $h!t?" I won't look twice at a chick who isn't putting the makeup on with a trowel. I like em insecure and needy. That way they don't have enough guts to call me on my drinking. yeah. but most men don't like to see women abused. i don't. but if a woman keeps going back to the $h!t? what the f**k is anyone supposed to do about it? MIND THEIR OWN BUSINESS AND LEAVE LITTLE HAWK'S FAMILY ALONE!!! For a variety of reasons, women don't always have a choice. Did you know that the most dangerous time for a victim of domestic abuse is when she tries to get away? That's when she's most likely to be killed. I always cite that statistic to my women.

MIND THEIR OWN BUSINESS AND LEAVE LITTLE HAWK'S FAMILY ALONE!!! The expression 'beating a dead horse' comes to mind. LOL

The expression 'beating a dead horse' comes to mind. LOL I prefer "kickin em while they're down," but it's all in keeping with the defund acorn motif. Solidarity with the republikkkan underdogs..

Wonket Sexclusive: Totally Blameless Crime-Stopper James O'Keefe To Pay $100,000 To ACORN CriminalJames O'Keefethe blonde bombshell who set the conservative world of hidden-camera YouTube movies ablazehas just agreed to a $100,000 settlement to calm down the unjustly fired (and weirdly litigious about it) ACORN employee Juan Carlos Vera. According to a copy of the deal, obtained late last night by your wonkettes and viewable after the jump, O'Keefe has also agreed to ink an 11-word non-apology apology, that sources close to reality are calling "insincere" and "suuuuuuuch ****."According to the final 5-page agreement, signed by O'Keefe and his legal counsel Mike Madigan this past Tuesday, the boy detective now publicly "regrets any pain suffered by Mr. Vera or his family." O'Keefe and his counsel have also consented to fork over the $100,000 within 30 business days of the settlement agreement's being signed.For the benefit of readers who are neither bitter and aggrieved former ACORN employees nor forum moderators at Democratic Underground, a short summary: ACORN was a community organizing group that became the locus of phantasmically baroque conspiracy theorizing in the build-up to the 2008 presidential election, first by the usual sad idiots, but inevitably by the seemingly rational journalists who must cover the sad idiots to pay their mortgages. ACORN attracted this negative attention, in part, because of its large and effective voter registration drives, which enfranchised record numbers of minority and low-income voters, who are demographically likely to vote for Democratic Party candidates. The sad idiots believed there was a collusion scheme between ACORN and a former employee of the group, who happened to be that year's Democratic Presidential candidate: a ferocious IRA terrorist-sympathizer named Barrance Hussein O'Malley. In reality, ACORN's decades-long campaigns to raise the minimum wage and their battles against predatory lenders had simply invited the animus of powerful business interestswho fund the media activities of sad idiots and rule the planet for like-minded reptilianoid pedophile Illuminatus from the 4th Dimension.Juan Carlos Vera worked at the National City offices of ACORN in California.In 2009, two twenty-something conservative activists, James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles, hoped to expose criminal malfeasance at ACORN by filming Vera without his consent, themselves violating section 632 of the California penal code in the process. Vera sued both parties over this and the wild misrepresentation of his activities in the edited version of the undercover video, posted online. (Giles settled with Vera and his attorneys this summer.) The episode is a quintessential example of a wholly original term, which we have just coined: journalistic malpractice.But wait! "Those goldurned trial lawyers!" literally ALL OF YOU are swearing. "James is an honest man! He's the president of a 501 3 nonprofit committed to modern-day muckraking! What kinda carpetbagging shakedown is this?!?!Well, counterintuitively, this is a shakedown of all the delusional pensioners, mom-and-pop charitable givers and deranged millionaire philanthropists who have given to James O'Keefe's Project Veritas and continue to donate.Since at least the spring of 2011, Veritas has contracted its fundraising efforts to the direct-mail marketing firm American Target Marketing. (atm!!! u guyz i just realized ha.) ATMs founder and owner Richard Art Viguerie is literally on his fourth decade running the operation as an aggressively for-profit entity; it frequently nets more than half of the money raised for its nonprofit or political clients, to cover its own opaque "operational expenditures." Even Marvin Liebermanwho employed Viguerie as an executive director of the equally sketchy student group Young Americans for Freedom in the 1960shas gone on the record as saying Viguerie and his firm "rape the public." Personally, your wonkettes are sick to our little stomachs awaiting the inevitable email blast from Project Veritas screaming, "Were Under Attack! The Tort-Happy, Bloodsucking Lawyers And Liberal Media Vultures Are After Us AGAIN!!!! Only That Money You Were Saving To Fix The Lincoln Towncar On Cinder Blocks In Your Front Yard Can SAVE AMERICA!!!! Abortion!!!"Still, as Veras attorney Gene Iredale suggested to us in a telephone interview, O'Keefes willingness to pay this exorbitant sum is, by itself, a tacit admission of guilt. The sum is $35,000 more than James received from Andrew Breitbart for his "life rights" based on the top-shelf (derp-derp) quality of the ACORN videos in the first place. So, a limited amount of justice has been served.It is also illuminating to know that O'Keefe and his handlers have determined that it was worth at least $100,000 to avoid publicly losing a court case, and thus further tarnishing the James O'Keefe "folk hero" fundraising brand with a guilty verdict directly related to sloppy journalism. If you do the math, this diversion of funds could have paid for two Project Veritas "investigations" on the scale of their seemingly never-ending Voter ID project last year.Yet, while the size of the payout is revealing of O'Keefes perceived further utility to the conservative movement, it also leaves many pertinent questions unanswered.Has representing James O'Keefe been the most embarrassing case for Mike Madigan since his stint on the old Clinton Whitewater investigation with Ken Starr? Or MORE embarrassing? Can Clark Hoyt, Zev Chafets and the New York Times Magazine suck a cold bag of dicks for legitimizing O'Keefes ACORN videos in "the paper of record" YEARS after they were discredited? What would YOU do with a $100,000 settlement?If we were awarded a $100,000 settlement, we'd take you people out to dinner, like, at the very least.James O'Keefe....the Borat of the right wing.

Republicans now blaming MSNBC for 2012 election losses.On Thursday nights edition of "The Rachel Maddow Show," host Rachel Maddow welcomed former senior adviser to President Barack Obama David Axelrod, who joined her in a discussion of election 2012 and how some Republicans are now trying to blame the loss on Maddows network MSNBC.She began by discussing how the weeks two big Republican stories have been President Barack Obamas dinner with some newer and lower-ranking members of the House and Senate earlier this week and Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)'s 13-hour filibuster of the nomination of incoming CIA chief John Brennan. Both stories involved people going around the Republican leadership rather than respecting the party's chain of command."But in the middle of all that today," said Maddow, "we learned that the autopsy that the Republican Party commissioned to figure out why they did so badly and what is wrong with them as a party, that autopsy is done."RNC Chairperson Reince Priebus told right-wing talk radio host Hugh Hewitt on Thursday that party heads will be releasing their findings March 18 at the National Press Club. Priebus gave a preview, however, of what the report will say.The party, said Priebus, needs to work on "controlling the debate process, getting involved in moderators and networks and all of these other issues so that we dont have chaos. I mean, we just cant have MSNBC hosting a debate at the Reagan Library only to have their network make the commentary afterwards for three hours about the debate of the Republican Party. I mean, its ridiculous.""We were the reason you guys lost?" Maddow asked incredulously. "We're what needs to be fixed in the Republican Party, seriously? I find this to be excellent news."Read more at link in title.As Rachel Maddow said on her TV show, does Reince Priebus think that if the Republican debate was hosted by another media outlet MSNBC would not have done any commentary on it?

As Rachel Maddow said on her TV show, does Reince Priebus think that if the Republican debate was hosted by another media outlet MSNBC would not have done any commentary on it? They are employing conflicting memes, as usual. On the one hand, they scoff at MSNBC's viewership numbers, ridiculing the network as irrelevant and preaching to a tiny choir. On the other hand, they charcterize it as an evil megalith that dominates the public perception with bias and liberal-elite lies and misinformation. It's like their stance on hot man-on-man action: They just can't make up their minds. They are, to coin a phrase, ripped and torn by gay sex.

we don't allow injuns on this forum, tonto. unless you share your whiskey. Me always share whiskey with lews - him good for party, always talk good smack. Other white man - Crimson Gulf - he make good squaw. Me hit that, many time.

lol

Balanced Budget Dispute Is Fiscal and PhilosophicalWhat is so special about a balanced budget?That question is at the heart of the warring Republican and Democratic budget plans coming out this week with Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin vowing to eliminate the federal deficit within 10 years, and Senator Patty Murray of Washington State setting a more modest goal of bringing spending closer in line with revenue over time.While economists generally agree that narrowing the government's deficit and limiting the size of the debt are necessary in the long run, most argue that balancing the budget would not restore the nation's still-weak economy to health in the near term. Indeed, rushing to do so with unemployment still elevated and the economy growing at only a sluggish pace could even set back the effort to reduce the deficit."There's nothing magic about exact balance," said Alice M. Rivlin, a Democratic economist at the Brookings Institution who has worked with Republicans like former Senator Pete V. Domenici on bipartisan deficit-reduction proposals. "The really important thing is to keep the debt from growing faster than the economy."The question of whether to balance the budget and when is a new staging ground in the long-running fiscal fight between Republicans and the White House. Mr. Ryan, whose previous budget proposals did not bring spending below revenue for decades, vowed this time to do so by 2023, in part to satisfy the demands of the more conservative members of the Republican Caucus.Democratic proposals - both the Senate Democratic plan to be released on Wednesday and the White House budget coming next month - are both expected to narrow the deficit substantially without balancing the budget or running a surplus.This week, each side accused the other of fiscal imprudence. Republicans accused the White House of "never" balancing the budget, and Mr. Ryan argued that ending deficits would foster a healthier and faster-growing economy."This is an invitation. Show us how to balance the budget," Mr. Ryan said. "If you dont like the way we're proposing to balance our budget, how do you propose to balance the budget?"Democrats argued that Mr. Ryan's budget would balance only on the backs of the poor, cutting taxes for the wealthy while eviscerating the social safety net. Mr. Ryans plan does not "plausibly deal with deficit reduction," Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, said Tuesday. "It is important to bring our deficits down and to reduce our deficit-to-G.D.P. But they are part of - those goals are part of the broader purpose here, which is to grow the economy and strengthen the middle class."Economists offered more nuanced views. Closing the budget gap over the longer term could be vital to sustaining economic health, some stressed, by ensuring that the government did not crowd out private investment and by helping to keep interest rates low. But that does not make it an immediate necessity."Over a long period of time, you'd have a higher standard of living if you moved to a balanced budget and stayed there," said Joel Prakken, a senior managing director at Macroeconomic Advisers, a forecasting firm in St. Louis. "But you suffer some short-run pain, and you dont want to inflict that when the unemployment rate is already high, the economy is still recovering from the legacy of the Great Recession, and the Federal Reserve has used up most of whats in its quiver."Other goals - including stabilizing debt as a proportion of economic output, rationalizing the tax code and tackling the long-term fiscal challenge posed by entitlement programs - might prove more important in the coming years, several experts said."We need to do fundamental reforms to the system, and if we did fundamental reforms to the system, that would help so much that we wouldnt need to worry about the deficit as much," said Kenneth Rogoff of Harvard.As sensible as a balanced budget might sound much like a balanced checkbook for a family - countries are generally able to run modest deficits for years on end while still keeping debt stable as a share of economic output. One years deficit is effectively paid off by later economic growth, especially if a government is investing in public goods like roads and schools.But several right-leaning fiscal experts described a balanced budget as a tool to force a fractious Congress to tackle the nations long-term budget problems."It is important to reduce the debt, and balancing gets you there faster," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office and a prominent Republican economist. "Thats paramount."He said a balanced budget is a goal everyone could understand. "It gives Congress a way to say no," he said. "Transparency and political buy-in are important, and people understand balanced budgets. It has a lot of virtues."The Senate Democratic proposal does not balance the budget, but it does reduce deficits to below 3 percent of economic output - a level that would stabilize the debt, economists said. During the 10-year budget window, the debt would start to shrink as a proportion of the economy.Mr. Ryan's budget balances by 2023. It keeps the current levels of projected tax revenue, and makes ambitious if lightly detailed cuts in a wide variety of domestic government programs, including turning the Medicaid program into a block grant to states.A broader question, economists said, is the long-term effect the countrys debt load might impose on the economy. In the past few years, a number of broad-based studies have suggested that having government debt equivalent to or greater than about 85 or 90 percent of economic output might eventually cut into growth. Currently, public debt in the United States is about 76 percent of the size of the economy. Including debts the government owes itself, like in the Social Security Trust Fund, the total load is in fact bigger than a whole years economic output."The people who say the debt is irrelevant - thats going too far," said Mr. Rogoff, who along with Carmen Reinhart of Harvard produced a study of the interplay between debt and growth. "Its a very rarefied air that we're in already. And it could be a problem. You can't turn your debt around in a year, and you cannot reduce debt quickly and easily."The handful of balanced budgets achieved in the past four decades have tended to be the result of a strong economy. The surpluses of the late 1990s, for instance, came about in no small part because of unexpectedly strong economic growth and a bubble in the stock market, as well as tax increases and spending cuts during the Clinton administration.Now, how and whether to get back to a balanced budget seems to be a new fight between Democrats and Republicans."It will generate a debate over the appropriate goal of long-term fiscal policy," wrote William A. Galston of the Brookings Institution in an analysis of Mr. Ryan's budget plan. "Is it to eliminate the deficit and the debt, to ensure that the debt does not rise as a share of G.D.P., or something in between?"What is this fixation the Republicans have with balancing the budget?The new Republican talking point is 'families have to balance their household budgets, so why shouldn't the government have to balance theirs'?But that's not exactly true. Families also have debts, like mortgages and car payments.And if every family had a balanced budget, there would be no such thing as credit card debt.Of course too much debt is not good, and we should work to lower it, but a balanced budget is not really necessary.

What is this fixation the Republicans have with balancing the budget?The new Republican talking point is 'families have to balance their household budgets, so why shouldn't the government have to balance theirs'?But that's not exactly true. Families also have debts, like mortgages and car payments.And if every family had a balanced budget, there would be no such thing as credit card debt.Of course too much debt is not good, and we should work to lower it, but a balanced budget is not really necessary.They are always born again fiscal hawks - when they lose the checkbook. VERY machur.

GOP Congressman Says Supreme Court Doesnt Actually Get To Decide Whether Laws Are ConstitutionalStill smarting over last year's ruling upholding Obamacare, freshman Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-OK) dismissed the idea that the Supreme Court decides whether or not laws are constitutional."Just because the Supreme Court rules on something doesnt necessarily mean that that's constitutional," Bridenstine said in a Daily Caller interview posted Sunday. After accusing Democrats of "stacking the courts in their favor" five of the current nine justices were appointed by Republican presidents - Bridenstine dismissed the idea that Congress must write laws within the boundaries set by the Supreme Court. "Thats not the case," the Oklahoma congressman said.The interviewer, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's wife Ginni Thomas, didnt have the heart to correct Bridenstine's peculiar view of the Courts role.BRIDENSTINE: Just because the Supreme Court rules on something doesn't necessarily mean that that's constitutional. What that means is that that's what they decided on that particular day given the makeup of the Court on that particular day. And the left in this country has done an extraordinary job of stacking the courts in their favor. So what we have to do as a body of Congress is say, "look, just because the courts" and I hear this all the time from Republicans - they say that the court is the arbitrator and after the arbitration is done, that's the rules we have to live under and we can go forth and make legislation given those rules. That's not the case. A perfect example is Obamacare. Obamacare is not constitutional, the individual mandate.Watch video at link in title.So Bridenstine thinks that the Supreme Court doesn't get to decide which laws are constitutional.He's either an idiot or a liar. Or more probably both.He accuses 'Liberals' of stacking the courts, when the majority of the SCOTUS Justices were appointed by Republicans, and Obama has had a hell of a time filling judicial vacancies.Only 28 of the 219 people the president has nominated to the bench have been confirmed.Shame on Ginni Thomas for not correcting this pinhead. She knows better.

'Dirty War' Questions for Pope Francis I By Robert Parry If one wonders if the U.S. press corps has learned anything in the decade since the Iraq War - i.e. the need to ask tough question and show honest skepticism - it would appear from the early coverage of the election of Pope Francis I that U.S. journalists haven't changed at all, even at "liberal" outlets like MSNBC. The first question that a real reporter should ask about an Argentine cleric who lived through the years of grotesque repression, known as the "dirty war," is what did this person do, did he stand up to the murderers and torturers or did he go with the flow. If the likes of Chris Matthews and other commentators on MSNBC had done a simple Google search, they would have found out enough about Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio to slow their bubbling enthusiasm. Bergoglio, now the new Pope Francis I, has been identified publicly as an ally of Argentine"s repressive leaders during the "dirty war" when some 30,000 people were "disappeared" or killed, many stripped naked, chained together, flown out over the River Plate or the Atlantic Ocean and pushed sausage-like out of planes to drown. The "disappeared" included women who were pregnant at the time of their arrest. In some bizarre nod to Catholic theology, they were kept alive only long enough to give birth before they were murdered and their babies were farmed out to military families, including to people directly involved in the murder of the babies' mothers. Instead of happy talk about how Bergoglio seems so humble and how he seems so sympathetic to the poor, there might have been a question or two about what he did to stop the brutal repression of poor people and activists who represented the interests of the poor, including "liberation theology" priests and nuns, during the "dirty war." Here, for instance, is an easily retrievable story from Guardian columnist Hugh OShauhnessy from 2011, which states: "To the judicious and fair-minded outsider it has been clear for years that the upper reaches of the Argentine church contained many 'lost sheep in the wilderness', men who had communed and supported the unspeakably brutal Western-supported military dictatorship which seized power in that country in 1976 and battened on it for years." "Not only did the generals slaughter thousands unjustly, often dropping them out of aeroplanes over the River Plate and selling off their orphan children to the highest bidder, they also murdered at least two bishops and many priests. Yet even the execution of other men of the cloth did nothing to shake the support of senior clerics, including representatives of the Holy See, for the criminality of their leader General Jorge Rafael Videla and his minions." "As it happens, in the week before Christmas [2010] in the city of Crdoba Videla and some of his military and police cohorts were convicted by their country's courts of the murder of 31 people between April and October 1976, a small fraction of the killings they were responsible for. The convictions brought life sentences for some of the military." "These were not to be served, as has often been the case in Argentina and neighbouring Chile, in comfy armed forces retirement homes but in common prisons. Unsurprisingly there was dancing in the citys streets when the judge announced the sentences." "What one did not hear from any senior member of the Argentine hierarchy was any expression of regret for the church's collaboratio ... in these crimes. The extent of the church's complicity in the dark deeds was excellently set out by Horacio Verbitsky, one of Argentinas most notable journalists, in his book El Silencio (Silence)," which alleges Bergoglios complicity in human right abuses. The Guardian article stated: "The most shaming thing for the church is that in such circumstances Bergoglios name was allowed to go forward in the ballot to chose the successor of John Paul II. What scandal would not have ensued if the first pope ever to be elected from the continent of America had been revealed as an accessory to murder and false imprisonment." "One would have thought that the Argentine bishops would have seized the opportunity to call for pardon for themselves and put on sackcloth and ashes as the sentences were announced in Crdoba but that has not so far happened. Cardinal Bergoglio has plenty of time to be measured for a suit of sackcloth perhaps tailored in a suitable clerical grey." Now, instead of just putting forward Bergoglios name as a candidate for Pope, the College of Cardinals has actually elected him. Perhaps the happy-talking correspondents from the U.S. news media will see no choice but to join in the cover-up of what Pope Francis did during the "dirty war." Otherwise, they might offend some people in power and put their careers in jeopardy. In contrast to the super-upbeat tone of American TV coverage, the New York Times did publish a front-page analysis on the Pope's conservatism, citing his "vigorous" opposition to abortion, gay marriage and the ordination of women. The Times article by Emily Schmall and Larry Rohter then added: "He was less energetic, however, when it came to standing up to Argentina's military dictatorship during the 1970s as the country was consumed by a conflict between right and left that became known as the Dirty War. He has been accused of knowing about abuses and failing to do enough to stop them while as many as 30,000 people were disappeared, tortured or killed by the dictatorship." Well at least he's not a Hitler Youth like the last guy.

Family Research Council: Unmarried People Should Be Denied Birth Control And Punished For Having SexThe right-wing Family Research Council which uses its advocacy muscle to try to block comprehensive sexual health programs in public schools is now going a step further, suggesting the young Americans who have premarital sex should be punished because they dont deserve the right to engage in sexual intercourse.According to senior FRC fellow Pat ***, the Supreme Court's first assault on marriage was a 1972 case that overturned a state law banning unmarried people from purchasing birth control. *** claims that court decision effectively sanctioned premarital sex, brushing aside thousands and thousands of years of wisdom, tradition, (and) culture. Appearing on a radio show with Tony Perkins, the head of the organization, *** asserted that society never gave young people that right, and instead has an obligation to stop, punish, and shame that type of sexual behavior:***: The court decided that single people have the right to contraceptives. What's that got to do with marriage? Everything, because what the Supreme Court essentially said is single people have the right to engage in sexual intercourse. Well, societies have always forbidden that, there were laws against it.Its not the contraception, everybody thinks its about contraception, but what this court case said was young people have the right to engage in sex outside of marriage. Society never gave young people that right, functioning societies don't do that, they stop it, they punish it, they corral people, they shame people, they do whatever. The institution for the expression of sexuality is marriage and all societies always shepherded young people there, what the Supreme Court said was forget that shepherding, you cant block that, thats not to be done.In fact, a full 80 percent of unmarried evangelical Christians report that they are having sex. Despite the emphasis on abstinence within the evangelical community a misguided approach to sexuality that typically shames young adults about their bodies, ignores the existence of the LGBT community, and fails to equip adolescents with the resources they need to effectively manage their sexual health its clear that premarital sex is the norm, not something that threatens the very fabric of modern society.And ignoring the reality that teens are having sex has had serious consequences across the country. The states that push ineffective abstinence-only health classes have higher rates of teen pregnancy, higher rates of STDs, and higher concentrations of HIV infections. Even the evangelical community itself has started to realize that denying teens sexual health resources isnt working, and has begun to move in the direction of supporting contraception and sex education.The United States' teen birth rate has actually recently plunged to a record low but that wouldn't be the case if *** had his way and unmarried Americans were denied access to birth control. According to the Guttmacher Institute, that decline in unintended teen pregnancies is almost exclusively the result of more young people using contraception.Hear that all you unmarried people? Society never gave you the right to engage in sex outside of marriage, and you should be punished and shamed for it.Don't forget that the Family Research Council uses its advocacy muscle to influence legislation.

The Right Wing freak show known as the Conservative Political Action Conference or CPAC, opened today. The first contribution comes from crazy Louis Gohmert (R-TX)‘Vietnam Was Winnable’

Hear that all you unmarried people? Society never gave you the right to engage in sex outside of marriage, and you should be punished and shamed for it.Don't forget that the Family Research Council uses its advocacy muscle to influence legislation.When I have sex out of wedlock (which is when I have sex), I am usually pretty ashamed afterwards. Or else I didn't do it right.