I just came across a post attacking me for what I wrote in the school newspaper.  So much for the free and open exchange of ideas! They use one of their best liberal tools: personal attacks, not actually attacking the facts.

They say they had a feminist physician come on campus to talk about women’s health issues.  I hope she talked about the incredible link between abortion and breast cancer! But since planned parenthood and Susan G Komen share board members and liberals refuse to acknowledge the proof, I’m guessing she didn’t.

A few months ago I posted a rude email that I recieved from an alumni and she didn’t like it! Instead of just personally asking me to take off of the website, she had a lawyer contact me and try to bully and scare me into taking it off. Well after consulting with my lawyer, she informed me that there is no reason we can’t expose these kind of people! So this is what I got in response to an email asking for support from JMU alumni:

From: “Jeanne Barnes”
Date: Mar 20, 2011 8:18 PM
Subject: Re: JMU College Republican News
To: “JMU College Republicans”

I don’t know how you got my email, but I hate to tell you that I really enjoyed the “preaching” of my professors and their “liberal agenda” when I was at JMU. Give me a break. And get used to the dirty looks. Those don’t go away once you leave the safety of your little college harbor. Good luck with the fundraising.

For at least a week, I walked around school hanging posters for my event, which school employees admitted  that they threw away, and students even bragged about tearing down my posters on a school sponsored feminist blog.  I was viciously attacked on feminist websites, in the newspaper, and even on facebook.

In the midst of all this I made a huge mistake.  I showed up at the wrong time for an exam.  Well my self proclaimed liberal professor who is the head of our liberal school paper got his revenge on me!

As a conservative, I would have accepted my mistake, except my professor told me he wouldn’t allow me to take my exam even though he might allow others to because I didn’t deserve it.  He said I was a trouble maker, I had a bad attitude, and I was a bad student, despite having been on the dean’s list every semester.  Despite having contact many people in the administration at JMU, no one will give me a reason as to why other students are allowed to take missed exams but I am not!

On the bright side, I was able to go on Glenn Beck and talk about assistant Professor Grundmann!

See more at my organization’s website: www.jmucollegerepublicans.com

Well one obvious answer is that these democrats simply use the poor minorities as numbers and pawns to win their game.  Isn’t that reminiscent of their sudden embrace of African Americans during the civil rights movement, when civil rights had historically been a republican platform?

My guess is that these wealthy democrats use their political party as charity.  Instead of acting charitably, they count on their government to provide charitable acts instead.  They ease their guilt by reminding themselves that they are democrats, and not republicans who hate poor people.

My problem is this: Charity should be a voluntary act, committed out of love of others.

By participating in wealth redistribution, the government is taking away from charitable giving.  Taking care of the sick of the poor is the responsibility of individual citizens, not the government.

The other problem with wealth redistribution is that by taking money that someone else has earned you are essentially forcing them to work for you for free.  This is a form of slavery, and it is not a right of the government.

Take the words of President Grover Cleveland in addressing welfare, “I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering…Though the people should support the Government, the Government should not support the people.  The friendliness and charity of our country can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. “

Article taken from Perspectives – http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=948956

David Smith

Like many Americans across the nation, I watched intensely as Congress debated and ultimately passed the onerous healthcare “reform” bill Sunday evening. One main point of contention is the idea — affirmed by some radically “progressive” lawmakers — that healthcare is a “right.” This is nothing short of socialistic propaganda.

The implicit claim in the assertion that healthcare is a “right” is that it is a constitutionally protected right. All experts agree that healthcare is neither a constitutional nor a legal right. In America we understand that our rights to the free exercise of religion, to speak freely, to bear arms, and to be secure from unwarranted search and seizure come from God.

To see the difference in government-mandated healthcare and real rights, look at how they are exercised. Historically, American citizens have been free to exercise their real, constitutionally protected rights — or not — as they see fit.

For example, the government does not compel citizens to attend church in the name of religious freedom. The government does not compel citizens to own a gun in the name of the Second Amendment. And the government does not force citizens to engage in the political process in the name of free speech.

In contrast, our radically “progressive” friends are eager to compel every American using the heavy hand of government to exercise their so-called “right” to healthcare. Should we celebrate the passage of a bill that in the service of non-existent rights actually diminishes our liberty?

What is really at issue is not whether healthcare is a “right,” but whether citizens have a right to taxpayer-funded healthcare. What other cherished American “right” has ever required that we diminish another’s liberty? Does the right to free speech require newspaper owners to print every op-ed and editorial? Does the right to bear arms require the government to arm its citizenry? Does the freedom of religion require government-funding of churches, mosques, and synagogues? Of course not!

Why then, does this “right” to healthcare require the government to take from some to give to others? When in the history of our country have we had to secure a right by trampling on the liberties of others?

Make no mistake…that is exactly what is happening with this government takeover of the healthcare industry. This new healthcare “right” will be forced on every American; and it will be made possible — in the words of Karl Marx — by taking from citizens “according to their ability” and giving to others “according to their needs.”

According to U.S. Representative John Boehner (R-Ohio), this legislation will create 160 new governmental boards, commissions, and mandates, and will require $500 billion in tax increases to pay for it. Of course, that will be only the beginning, as additional taxpayer funds will most certainly be needed.

Healthcare lawyer and policy analyst John S. Hoff illuminates the troubling questions left unanswered by the phrase “right to healthcare,” which he argues “does not address the relevant issues that must be considered in considering taxpayer subsidies for healthcare”:

How much healthcare is to be paid for by the taxpayer, for what beneficiaries, and under what circumstances? Does it include the most advanced or experimental treatment?

Indeed, what is healthcare? Long-term care? What are the parameters of self-responsibility? Should there be taxpayer subsidies for smokers, drug abusers, and dare-devils?

And which taxpayers should be paying? Should the working young and low-income workers subsidize the healthcare costs of those who are wealthier and sicker?

These are political judgments that we have barely addressed, and they are camouflaged by invocation of a broad principle of a “right” to healthcare.

President Obama and many in Congress are celebrating the passage of this ominous legislation — legislation that forces American citizens into the newly created, socialized healthcare system. Sadly, the costs of this new government program are much higher than we think. Although the financial cost to taxpayers is substantial, the cost to personal liberty is incalculable.

Anne Coulter, currently on a speaking tour in Canada, claims that she was a victim of a hate crime after she was sent an email by the University of Ottawa warning her to watch her language and after the protesters outside of her speaking arrangement were so dangerous that she was not able to enter the building to speak.

God forbid it was an African American, a muslim, or even a communist speaking- then liberals around the world would be screaming “hate crime”.  But a white, blond, American woman being the victim of a hate crime? This is a new one.

Way to go Anne! give them a taste of their own medicine!

“I’m pretty sure little Francois A-Houle does not need to travel with a bodyguard,” said Coulter. “I would like to know when this sort of violence, this sort of protest, has been inflicted upon a Muslim — who appear to be, from what I’ve read of the human rights complaints, the only protected group in Canada. I think I’ll give my speech tomorrow night in a burka. That will protect me.”

It’ s hard to take the “other side” seriously when they constantly are always claiming to have been victimized by intolerance, but are readily intolerant of anyone conservative.

“It’s almost like there is one standard for Conservatives and one completely different one for Liberals,” she said. “A word is either offensive or it’s not. In a world of political correctness, all words are banned unless they’re used against conservatives.”

So it passed 219-212….

As a Catholic, I’m disgusted that anyone who calls themselves either pro-life or Catholic voted for or supports this bill.  As of today there will be no taxpayer money going to fund abortions, but this was simply an executive order, not actual legislation, therefore it can be repealed today, tomorrow or any time down the road.  But even if this executive order stays, the government can still give money to private organizations that fund abortions, therefore; this bill will fund abortions.

As a woman….I just hope I never get breast cancer or else I may be screwed.

And I’m just stumped as to why liberals love to say ” we need to save the environment for future generations”.  So if you care about future generations, why are you planning on having them pay for your health care?

What does everyone else think? leave a comment!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/35901602#35901602

Attorney General Eric Holder recently said that we’ll be reading Miranda Rights to the corpse of Osama bin Laden, saying that the likelihood of bin Laden being captured alive is “infinitesimal.”  When asked in Congress whether he would put Osama on trial, he responded that the reality of the situation was that there will never be a trial because bin Laden will have already been killed.

I agree with Mr. Holder in the fact that he will not be taken alive, I believe that either we will kill him in the attempt to capture him, or his own people will kill him to prevent us from capturing him.  I think that the killing of Osama will not be as satisfying to many Americans as opposed to the capture, trial, and then execution of the most wanted man in the world.  When Saddam Hussein was captured, he faced trial and was able to “answer” for his crimes, and when he was executed it was much more satisfying rather than a death in the field.

The circumstances that Attorney General Holder said this was when he was being questioned about the KSM trial, being asked if he would put bin Laden on trial. There has been great controversy over the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed trial in New York City.  I am still on the fence on this issue.  On one side, I believe that the U.S. court system is more than adequate to handle prosecuting a terrorist. Also, we were able to do it for domestic terrorists like Timothy McVeigh and Theodore Kaczynski.   However, on the other side, I see that these terrorists aren’t American citizens, and they are enemy combatants.  My fear is they are brought to trial in standard court, they can simply say that they were abused and mistreated, which under the law, the prisoners would have to be released.

“The only reason a bee can fly is because that bee believes it can fly”