Coat-Hangers belong in the Closet, not a Vagina!

Before you proceed to read this article, be aware that it is graphic, it depicts the different type of ‘home-made’ abortions and back-alley abortions women had to endure before Roe vs. Wade (410 U.S. 113, 1973). I will not try to make it suitable for the weak at heart because if I did, it would not be showing the horrors of those practices; if abortion gets banned again, not only will we be going backwards to the previous century undoing what so many women fought so hard and died for but the practice will be used once more by desperate American women.

Prior to 1973, abortion was illegal in the United States that is, unless a doctor would deem it necessary in order to save the woman’s life and in order for that to happen her life had to be in danger or, for her to be lucky enough to come across a doctor that would falsify the information to help her; but doctors that were willing to do that were not abound and even if they were, women did not dare ask a doctor to lie for her since this was illegal and it could have cost them their license to practice medicine.

At that time when women were confronted with an unwanted pregnancy they did not have a safe place to go to such as Planned Parenthood; most of the times they waited (trying to find a solution to their problem) until the end of the first trimester or even worse, the second trimester. Many times, they had experimented with concoctions suggested by other women, these concoctions consisted of brews they would prepare in their kitchens and that they would drink – some of them were even poisonous – in an effort to induce an abortion… but when all failed, they resorted to the infamous ‘coat hanger’.

In desperation and as I said, after trying everything imaginable – from riding horses and falling from high places, drinking all type of potions, hitting themselves in their abdomen etc. – women would take their attempts a bit further. Some had the courage and attempted to perform the abortions in the privacy of their home, without any anesthesia or help. Alone in their bathrooms these women would insert into their cervix any object long enough to break the placenta which would induce an abortion: bottles, knitting needles, crochet needles, scissors and the well-known coat-hanger. Most times they succeeded in aborting, the problem was, they also killed themselves; many mothers left their children orphaned because by performing the abortions themselves, they punctured their uterus, their intestines or both. There were many cases where women had to be rushed to a hospital with the coat hanger still stuck to her uterus, I even read of a woman that was taken to the hospital with part of her intestine hanging from her vagina… in an attempt to pull out the coat-hanger that had perforated and was stuck in her intestines she pulled the hanger and by doing so, she pulled her intestines out. Now, whoever says that this is not an act committed out of sheer desperation doesn’t know what desperation really is. Those that performed abortions on themselves without any help were not only desperate, but brave. The pain these women must have endured I wouldn’t wish it on my worst enemy.



Instruments of the Trade

 Of course, there were those that decided to go to an abortionist who performed these procedures out of a kitchen in a rented home or apartment, usually in the worst area in town; often, these places were a roach infested and filthy kitchen where a man or woman who probably had never studied medicine would perform the abortion. The instruments used were a little more sophisticated than a coat-hanger but still rudimentary and often times unhygienic – as there was a line of women waiting to have the procedure done from what it was probably the only abortionist in the area. But this ‘doctor’ would provide you with anesthetics, which even today, if administered at the wrong dosage, can kill you and used a long instrument to break the placenta, another one to force the embryo or fetus out and yet another instrument to ‘clean’ the walls of the uterus by scrapping it, all of this was done by an unprofessional and unethical person, with little or no hygiene and you were sent home. You were sent home without a prescription for antibiotics, without painkillers and without a follow-up visit since this was an illegal practice done by an underground practitioner to a woman that wanted no one to know what she had gone through. Most women developed a fever after a self-induced abortion or a back-alley abortion, the price these women paid was extremely high, many of them died in the process, others damaged their uterus to the point that they could never have children again, for a woman that perhaps was trying to end a pregnancy because she was unmarried and the man that impregnated her left (which at the time made the woman a whore to society) but that didn’t mean she didn’t dream of getting married and having children; too often women didn’t abort the whole fetus and pieces of it rot inside her, causing an infection that would later kill her… but not before a long and prolonged illness and a painful death.

The coat-hanger has become a symbol of Roe vs. Wade and the pro-choice movement. We must never return to those times, those were dark times for women. Banning abortions will not stop abortions, banning abortions will only make them illegal and women would have to resort to the same barbaric methods – except the rich women of society who have always been able to do it but in a nice setting, whether here by paying enough money to hospitals and doctors to falsify the procedure or, as most did, by traveling to Europe and having it done there… telling everyone at home they were vacationing in, let’s say, Switzerland. Banning abortion will only be a problem for those who can’t afford to have any more children: the poor. Banning abortions will only kill poor women, not the wealthy. Banning abortions will not stop the killing of "babies" (embryos and fetuses to be exact), banning abortions will produce more deaths, that of the fetus and that of the woman. Bravo pro-lifers, if you continue in your puritanical ways you would have succeeded in sending more people to heaven! No wonder pro-lifers care so much about the fetus and embryos (not the babies), after all … they do believe in life after death, for the first time I understand what “Life” they’re talking about… it’s the after-LIFE, not life as we know it.

Can someone pass Santorum a bucket?

----------------------

“I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.”

- John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Greater Houston Ministerial Association, September 12, 1960

----------------------

Back in December 4th, 2010, Rick Santorum publicly rejected the separation of Church and State in a speech delivered at the St. Thomas More College of Liberal Art’s Symposium, referring to John F. Kennedy’s famous speech delivered on September 12, 1960. Recently when CBS host, George Stephanopoulos, asked Santorum about his speech, Santorum went as far as to say that he felt like throwing up when he first read Kennedy's famous speech script. Apparently, the reason for this repulsion was that John F. Kennedy (a Senator running for President at the time) stated in front of a Protestant congregation that his Catholicism was not going to be an impediment in his Presidency because he firmly believed in Separation of Church and State. It seems that Santorum has a "weak" stomach and even weaker intelligence.

Santorum said that “Kennedy chose not just to dispel fear, he chose to expel faith.” He went as far as to affirm that there was no separation of Church and State, “The idea of strict or absolute separation of church and state is not and never was the American model. It’s a model used in countries like France and until recently Turkey, but it found little support in America until it was introduced into the public discourse by Justice Hugo Black in the case of Everson v. The Board of Education in 1947.” It is not only sad but shameful that a person, any person, running for the highest position of the United States to be so misinformed and to know so little about the history of the country he or she is seeking to represent. It is his complete and utter ignorance about the history of this great nation that might have urged him to say that “the First Amendment was designed to protect churches from the government and nothing more.” How can a person be so ignorant and misinformed and be running for President? That is beyond my comprehension.

For those of you that might agree with his point of views, I have to implore you to read the history of this great country. I do know that most of you hate history and therefore don’t bother to read it and prefer just to repeat what others say, as long as you agree with it; but history has been written so we don’t repeat the same mistakes, for future generations to know what, why and how it happened and for all of us to understand it.

To begin with, many affirm that this nation was founded by Christians and that is not entirely true. Not all the Founding Fathers were Christians; actually, the majority were Deists. I will not try to proof or disproof this since that will lead us nowhere. However, the idea that they wanted to have religion as part of our way of government it’s completely false, quite contrary, they made sure to keep Church and State separate and I will try to prove this, not with my opinion which is just as good as yours, but with facts.

What John F. Kennedy said back in 1960 was and still is completely correct. Our Founding Fathers wanted the separation of Church and State – after all, the Separatist Pilgrims came to this country fleeing from England escaping religious persecution from the Church of England. That is the first unsubstantial proof; the Pilgrims were seeking religious freedom, from a Church not a government. When the Founding Fathers wrote Article VI of the Constitution stating that “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” I am certain that they were reinforcing that religion shouldn’t be part of or a requirement to hold a position in government. Actually, nowhere in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights or any other document drafted by the Founding Fathers you will see that the Bible was needed to take the Oath or Affirmation; actually not all presidents have used a bible  when taking the oath and the above article is the only mention of religion in the Original Constitution. You will think that if religion was that important for the Founding Fathers they would have mentioned religion or God more often, but they didn’t. Further, this separation is ratified by the First Amendment (adopted on December 15, 1791 and the one Santorum mentioned and used to reinforce his opinion) which reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” It is unbelievable that Santorum interprets this Amendment as the Church being protected from government but not the other way around. This Amendment is clearly separating the two, government can’t enforce a religion because we are free to worship as we wish, hence, government can’t worship, can’t be affiliated, associated or related to any religion. It is extremely difficult for me to understand why Santorum or the extreme religious people of this country can’t understand something as simple as this, except that fanaticism blinds them. I do know that those people will argue that they do know what the Founding Fathers wanted, how Christians were they, etc. You see, they tend to interpret things their own way, just like they do with the Bible… The problem is that, unlike the Bible, there are documents from the time, LEGAL DOCUMENTS, that destroys those arguments completely and without a trace of a doubt shows that the Founding Fathers wanted the separation of Church and State. Back in November 4, 1796 the new nation of the United States entered in their first treaty, this treaty was with Tripolitania, and was signed by John Adams.  This document leaves no doubt about the religious founding of this country. In the Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary, commonly known as the Treaty of Tripoli, this becomes irrefutably clear:

“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

This document is never mentioned because its not a very known document, but it states in no uncertain terms that this country, the United States of America, was not founded on Christianity.

So Mr. Santorum, vomit all you want… but Religion never had and shall never have a place in government just as government has no place in religion. You want God in your life? Do all of us a favor, go to church, pray privately and adore whoever you want, just don’t force the citizens of this country, who will be paying your salary, to believe in what you believe, after all, there are Atheists and Agnostics too and they constitute the 4th largest group in this country, there are more Atheist and Agnostics than there are Jewish, Mormons and Muslims… combined!



And the Plot Thickens…

For those of you that might not remember, the stars of the show were: Michele Bachmann and her sidekick Marcus Bachmann; Herman Cain; Jon Huntsman; Rick Perry; Ron Paul; Newt Gingrich; Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum.

The Republican presidential primaries are turning out to be a very, very entertaining spectacle. Like a good soap opera, we have had the Insane (Michele Bachmann); the gay (Marcus Bachmann), ok, granted… he wasn’t a candidate, but boy, didn’t we have a field day with him!!; the dumb Macho man (Rick Perry); the synister old guy (Ron Paul); the guess star (Herman Cain); the rich guy (Mitt Romney); The educated and well-traveled (Jon Huntsman); the sex-maniac, unfaithful, egocentric and “guess what my religion is” guy (Newt Gingrich); the guy that seems good but is in reality fanatical and delusional (Rick Santorum). We’ve seen it all, and apparently, they’ll keep coming!

Nothing much can be said about the guess star, Herman Cain, except that I believe he spent too long so close to a hot oven that he might have “cooked” his brains a bit and that must be why he suffers from such a chronic case of bad memory and truly does not remember the many affairs he had or the women that had to put up with his unsolicited sexual advances. Maybe, since he was so used to timing pizzas or they would be free, not being able to perform for more than 10 minutes, he thought these sexual experiences didn’t count and were “free”… Poor guy, he only lasted for a few guess appearances and on December 3rd, 2011 his “contract expired”, but not without a fight.

My favorite, kind of the salt and pepper of this charade, was Michele Bachmann. Who doesn’t remember the statements given by Michele? They were paramount! One of the most memorable was "I will tell you that I had a mother last night come up to me here in Tampa, Florida, after the debate. She told me that her little daughter took that vaccine; that injection and she suffered from mental retardation thereafter." Her pathetic lies, the wild look on her eyes, her complete and utterly denial that her husband was gay; everything about her was so absurd that we didn’t know if to laugh, cry, or pity the woman. She and Marcus brought so much entertainment into an otherwise boring event that I don’t know about you, but I for one miss her! Without much fanfare, Michele was gone from the picture on January 4th, 2012.

Next in line of drop-outs, is Jon Huntsman. He was the most educated of them all. He was a bit arrogant. Ok, ok… a lot arrogant, but at least he had reason to be, damn it… the guy even spoke Mandarin! He tried very hard to fight a clean fight but, since he wasn’t getting anywhere with this tactic he tried to show aggression and, in his first attempt to show some teeth, he failed miserably! People could see he didn’t mastered the art of hypocrisy and ill intentions which are a pre-requisite to be a GOP contender so, with a sad look on his face that could bring tears to his mother’s eyes, quietly left the scene on January 16, 2012.

The cowboy, gosh… who can forget him? He was almost the male version of Michele Bachmann with a bit of Herman Cain just to make it more interesting. This guy, who really thought he had a chance to swim in a shark infested pool and be the daddy of all sharks, was devoured pretty quickly, you see, Rick Perry was as dumb as a doorknob and owner of a memory the size of a mosquito – not very good attributes for someone running for the presidency. This is one of his most memorable quotes, where he had the opportunity to show the world how brilliant he was: "I will tell you: its three agencies of government, when I get there, that are gone: Commerce, Education and the -- what's the third one there? Let's see. ... OK. So Commerce, Education and the -- ... The third agency of government I would -- I would do away with the Education, the ... Commerce and -- let's see -- I can't. The third one, I can't. Sorry. Oops” He couldn’t even remember his own plan! It was brilliant! But as all good things do have to pass, this cowboy rode into the sunset and went back to the lone star State on January 19th, 2012.

By this time, all we have left are: Newt, Paul, Mitt and Rick. The four horsemen of the apocalypses! If any one of them by any chance – whether Americans go crazy and vote for any of them or, as it is very likely they could do, fixing the elections – it will be the end of this country and we Liberals, Progressives, Democrats and Independent know this. The vision these men have for our country and the middle class is to be feared. But I seriously doubt this will happen.

Not even the GOP seems to have much faith in any one of them and is considering bringing into the picture two of their most beloved stars: Chris Christie and Jeb Bush. Will they accept to play into this soap opera? What will they be bringing into the picture? Of course, we know that Christie will be bringing about 400 pounds of lard with him and Bush more or less the same weight in crap coming as he does from the Bush clan; but politically and most importantly, from an entertaining point of view, what will they provide us with? I can’t wait for the next episode! Who will be the first of the 4 to leave the show with his tail between the legs? Count Dracupaul? Porky Newt? Saint Orum? Or Mitt Money?

Ah… don’t miss the next episode of this very interesting saga! Stay tune!

   

Religion has no place in Washington

The last name Santorum, literally means all saints in Latin. Apparently, Rick Santorum takes his last name at heart, the only problem is that he is no saint and if he is, he certainly is playing in the wrong field.

For starters, the United States is and has always been a secular country. All these false "patriots" that keep claiming that God should be "reinstated" in all governmental buildings and included in all governmental mandates are simply lying. The Founding Fathers of this great nation made sure that religion was not part of government, after all, not of the Founding Fathers believed in God – I bring this up because these false "patriots" keep talking about what our Founding Fathers wanted, specially Santorum,  they keep talking about honoring the Constitution yet, the original Constitution says just the contrary of what they and Santorum, are so vehemently and falsely claiming.

For those of you that have never read the Constitution of the United States (the original, as written by our Founding Fathers and therefore the “holy” one) the only time that the word religion is mentioned it’s to precisely refute it, this is verbatim the only time it’s mentioned (in a few different places, but exactly the same paragraph): “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” They made sure that religion was not necessary to hold a position within the government of this country.

The original Oath or Affirmation, as given to George Washington, reads as follows: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

It is said that George Washington added in his inauguration the words “So help me God”, but there is no record to confirm or deny this… Regardless of who added it, it was not in the original Oath emphasizing the separation of Church and State.

Further, we find in the original Bill of Rights, signed in December 15th, 1791, the First Amendment to the Constitution, the very first, which must have meant that it was categorically the most important amendment of all which again makes sure of this separation by affirming: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Yet, the Republicans keep insisting in bringing God into government and claiming that it is what our Founding Fathers wanted, nothing could be further from the truth. They either have never read the Constitution, The Declaration of Independence or the Bill of Rights or, just as it happens with the Bible, they have decided to ‘interpret’ them as best suits them. But unlike the Bible that is full of riddles and parables, these documents are written in plain English for all to understand, without a doubt, what their intentions were.

The Founding Fathers were not all Christians. When Thomas Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence, he wrote it with the Revolution in mind, making sure that the feelings of the people at the time were forever engraved in that document. He made sure that freedom, equality and self-determination was to be included. Not a word about religion can be found in it. The reason might have been that Thomas Jefferson himself was not too fond of religion; he went as far as writing a book called “The Jefferson Bible” where he compiled passes from the Bible excluding all the miracles and supernatural events that is abundantly found in it. He admired Jesus’ teachings, but didn’t believe in all the hocus-pocus that in many cases overshadows these teachings instead of exalting them. But again, Republicans keep saying the Founding Fathers were Christians and God fearing men… they weren’t, at least not all of them.

Now, we find ourselves being assaulted by the Right and their never ending pursue to bring religion (their religion) into government. Rick Santorum is talking about the devil and Christ as if he was running for the clergy instead of the most important position in the United States and the world! It amazes me that one of the best presidents we ever had, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, was also a Catholic but, unlike Santorum, Kennedy understood that his religion – or any religion for that matter – had no place in public office. Who doesn’t remember his famous words: “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.” That is what a President should be like, that is what an Americans should demand.

Santorum, a religious fanatic that is campaigning as if all Americans were Catholics or Christians – he dreams of being the President that will force all Americans to believe in what he believes in, some sort of a religious tyranny; Kennedy, a man that worshipped privately but had the decency of not mixing the divine with the mundane, not mixing God and Government, Religion and Politics. That is the difference between the Right and the Left, between the irrational and the reasonable.

Rick Santorum, do America a favor, honor the Constitution and practice your religion where you should – your church, and allow all the American citizens to practice what they belief in or not, as the case might be.

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.”

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/charters_of_freedom_2.html

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16920600

The Invasion of Privacy

This is an attempt to clarify, scientifically not religiously, the subject of contraceptives and abortion. 

First we must understand the difference between an embryo, a fetus and a baby. It really bothers me to hear people calling an embryo or a fetus by the term baby, probably that is the reason why we are still debating this subject up to this day.

When a woman’s ovum (egg) drops from the fallopian tubes and, if she is lucky enough to have a man and enjoyed intercourse (or not) at the correct moment without protection or, as in many cases, the protection fails to do its job, that ovum will get fertilized by the man’s spermatozoa if they are not lazy or if the men is not, as commonly known, “shooting blanks”. I hope that up to this point everyone reading this will agree or at least have some concept of this stage of fertilization/conception.

If the ovum gets fertilized, it will drop to the uterus (located inside the woman and as of now that we are debating this issue, an uterus that belongs only to that woman) and attach itself to the walls of the uterus to start developing into an EMBRYO. At this time, basically, is a single cell that has been invaded by another single cell, isn’t it funny how even then, men are invading women? Anyway, not always a fertilized ovum will attach itself to the walls of the uterus or, even if attached will develop into an embryo, resulting in a miscarriage without the woman ever knowing that she was pregnant.

This is how the ovum looks like after the lucky spermatozoan got its way, it is at this moment that it is scientifically called an embryo and it shall remain with that name until the end of the 8th week from fertilization.

It almost looks like a black and white fried egg… doesn’t it? The human embryo differs little from the embryos of almost every other species. At the end of this article I will provide you with a link to various pictures of embryos and early stage fetuses for you to decide to which species the pictures belong to. Kind of a quiz to test your knowledge on the subject, it would be fun to see how many of you that believe that it is a baby since the moment of conception will be able to recognize the human embryo or fetus. 

The ovum, once fertilized, will begin splitting into multiple cells, at the second split we can start to recognize some features. As you can see, even at this early stage we can begin to find a resemblance to the procreator… At this stage, they look just like their "daddy"! Don’t they? So sweet!!! If you can’t see the resemblance, ask your husband to bend and look as his testicles, they look very similar!

During the first 4 weeks, the embryo is the size of a sesame seed (approximately 1/8 of an inch) or smaller, it doesn’t have a heartbeat, it doesn’t have limbs, it doesn't have a brain or even a spinal cord. This is the way the embryo looks towards the end of that stage, can you tell what sex is it, what the color of the hair or eyes will be? Can you tell if it will be a normal child or if it will have some anomalies at this point? I seriously doubt it, because at this stage you couldn’t differentiate between a human embryo and that of a dog, a cat, a horse, an elephant or a rat, among others. At this stage, having no brain or spinal cord, the embryo can’t have sensory nerves, in other words, it can’t feel pain. Alright, it is noticeable that it looks almost like a shrimp but not nearly that size, not even half the size of a small shrimp.

After the end of the 8th week is when the embryo starts developing into a FETUS. It still doesn’t look human, but you can begin to see the limbs, it has a heartbeat, a brain and a spinal cord. Having already a brain we can assume that at this stage the fetus might feel pain. The picture on the right is how it will look, more or less, by the 9th week. Now we can perceive limbs, eyes, and is quickly changing into a recognizable human… but its not there yet, at this point there are other species that still resembles ours, but there is no denying that at this point we can recognize a life.

From the end of the 8th week until the fetus passes through the birth canal, it will assume and retain the name of fetus. It is not a baby, just like an egg is not a chicken or a chick… it is an egg until the shell breaks and the chick breathes and in humans, it is a fetus until the water breaks and that fetus takes its first breath of air, not a millisecond before, it is then and only then it  can be called a baby. So, to all those people that are pro-life and keep saying that an abortion kills babies are not saying the truth, just twisting the words to inflict pity, guilt and rage among people, after all, no one but a sick person would ever want to kill a baby!

This brings me to the subject of abortion and contraceptives. Every woman, absolutely every single one of them is pro-life; no one gets pregnant because they think "so what? if I do get pregnant I’ll simply have an abortion!" – That is not what happens. It is an extremely difficult decision that every woman, God fearing or atheist, doesn’t make lightly and a decision she wishes she would never have to make. There are different reasons, all valid, and which I am not going to enumerate, for a woman to come to that conclusion. After seriously thinking and debating with herself about the choices to make, agonizing about it, when a woman makes the decision to terminate a pregnancy – that by no stretch of the imagination is ‘killing a baby’, especially during the first trimester – that woman has seriously thought about it and felt guilty about it and decided that it was her only choice. There is no need to make her "listen to the heartbeat", see pictures of gorgeous and happy 4 month old babies in the doctor’s office,  no need to make her wait 24 hours and no need to make her feel worse than she already feels! 

This is not a religious matter, it is not a moral matter, it is not a civil matter, it is not a government matter, this is not a men's matter… it is a woman’s personal matter! 

All these fierce religious far right extremists that today are calling for the elimination of abortions and contraceptives for every single woman across in this country, because it goes against their religious beliefs but, that at the same time they also oppose for women to be on welfare; these same religious men and women who do not go and adopt all the children that are loveless in orphanages or going from foster home to foster home until they reach the age of 18 and are on their own or children that will never know what love is because they were born with deformities or HIV and abandoned by their mothers… Unless these people that are blocking every effort to provide women the alternative of not getting pregnant or, in some cases blocking the access to terminate a pregnancy, until these people pick up the tab for the children that are born and were unwanted, from the embryonic stage to the ripe age of 18, unless they’re willing to do that, they have absolutely no right to tell a woman what to do with her uterus or the embryo that she is carrying. It is up to that woman, her conscience and her physician to determine if there is a need to end a pregnancy or, preferably, take the precautions in the form of contraceptives to avoid getting pregnant and therefore, preventing the so hated abortion. 

To all the pro-life women: Get pregnant all you want, do with YOUR uterus whatever you please, but who gave you the right to invade other women’s uterus? Do the other women have the right to force you to take contraceptives or have an abortion? If they don’t have the right to inflict upon you their opinions and religious beliefs, how dare you force yours onto them? If you think you do have the right because of your religious beliefs, you don’t. If you believe in God, then you believe He gave mankind  free-will to make his/her own decisions, whether the decisions are good or bad it doesn’t matter, it is an individual’s decision, not yours... not even God’s.

I might understand (not accept) your opposition to abortion, but give me a break! Opposing contraceptives means that you are protecting a single cell… After all, an ovum that hasn’t been fertilized by a sperm because it was protected by a contraceptive it is not a baby, it is not an embryo, and it is not a fetus… It is a damn cell that will come out in the next menstrual cycle and which will be tossed away, whether in a tampon, a sanitary napkin or in the toilet! 

The Ugly Face of the Conservative Future

I am beginning to notice what is that the extreme right is envisioning. It is a scary thought but the only thing that makes sense. The extreme right and so-called conservatives are proposing changes that will affect everyone living in America and the thing is, most people are not noticing what their true agenda is. We are all fighting on separate issues and not connecting the dots. Today, by mere coincidence, all the dots became clear to me, as if an epiphany had taken place and I am for sure sharing it with the world because it is of extreme importance that we fight their plans with all our might.

The far right is pushing for changes in our society that will only benefit the large corporations they so intensely protect, the ones that they so valiantly gave the title of personhood. Let me begin opening your eyes:

The conservatives in this country are pushing for the abolition not only of abortion, which depending on your personal religious belief they may be right or wrong; but they are also eradicating contraceptives, abortions even if to save the life of the mother, they are trying to make illegal any means that will prevent any woman from getting pregnant, until she reaches the menopause age. That will make a woman a birth machine, with the possibility of giving birth to 10 or more children in her lifetime.

Then, they are trying very hard to make education a luxury by getting rid of public schools and make them private. This will mean that while the poor keeps giving birth, it will be impossible to send not even one of their children to a school to receive an education. Only the wealthiest will be able to afford it and get an upper education at any given University. Only the wealthy will be able to obtain a professional career, only the wealthy will be able to own their own companies or hold executive positions.

Furthermore, there are those conservatives that are already considering lowering the working age, in other words, legalizing child labor, with me so far?

Connect the dots. It is clear that they are looking at a very near future, anywhere from 15 to 20 years from now, and they have a plan, a macabre plan.  At this rate, they will have in less than a quarter of a century an immense workforce, and a cheap labor. Imagine, so many uneducated people seeking work! They will have to work for barely anything and a new form of slavery will have been created with no way to get around being poor, with no means to improve the situation. The poor will be poorer, if that is even possible and the rich will be even richer since they will have an endless workforce that will work for pennies!

It must be our moral, civil and human obligation to stop them and stop them now. The future of this country, the world and our own depend on it.  

My Uterus is my Temple... not theirs

The debate about contraceptives continues in Washington and of course, the religious groups negotiating with congress are, in the vast majority, composed of men, out of those the representatives of the Catholic Church are not even – hypothetically – engaged in a sexual relationship. However, these men think that they have the right to impose their opinions and beliefs on every woman walking on the face of the earth, not only Catholic women. These same "holy" men (and I am using the term "holy" very, very loosely) do not seem to object to vasectomies or to the use of Viagra for men to fornicate for pleasure and not necessarily for procreation… the hypocrisy of the Catholic Church is unbelievable!

The Catholic Church is debating the contraceptive mandate on the grounds that it is against their belief and morals. Can someone ask these Bishops and the Pope why don’t they make such a fuss over the death penalty? Among the capital sins, I believe, there is the “Thou Shall Not Kill” commandment; yet, they do not revolt every time someone is fried in this country or anywhere else. They solemnly give the last rites to the poor soul that is going to be executed, but that’s about it.

Then, we must remember that nowhere among those 10 commandments was a commandment saying “Thou shall not take the pill”, I have really  tried to find it but no, it’s nowhere to be found. Furthermore, these representatives from the Catholic Church are themselves breaking a mandate given to all mankind by the almighty Jesus: “Love and procreate,” what happened to them then? Why they can’t procreate/fornicate/make love? If we are to follow the mandates of the New Testament to the extreme as they want us to, we should demand the same from them.

I still believe that the penis and uterus belongs to whoever owns it and not the church, not the government, not you not me unless, of course, it’s your own organ. If contraceptives means "preventing an egg from being fertilized" good, no "babies" were killed, just prevented from forming; if an abortion during the very first weeks means murder, the judgment for that should be between that woman and her god and not a public or church affair. God, presumably, gave us free will and that includes making a reproductive decision, even if a wrong decision.

There are thousands if not millions of children languishing in orphanages all around the world; thousands more have been abused and even murdered after being born because the mother was not fit for that role and it would have been much better for her to take contraceptives or damn, have an abortion before giving birth to a live baby to kill or abuse it. But of course, the Catholic Church doesn’t see it that way, I think their main concern is running out of children for them to abuse – who will they sexually take advantage of if there is a limited amount of children? I really think that is their main worry, a decreasing number of children to focus their sexual depravation on.

Until the Catholic Church picks up the tab for every child born, for every woman whose future is destroyed by having a child when she is a child herself, for every child that has been sexually abused by the predatory church… when the Catholic Church does this, then and only then it may have the right to interfere with a political mandate that concerns women and express their opinion, but until that happens, they should keep out of women’s uterus… We all know that they don’t care for a woman’s uterus or vulva for that matter, its no wonder why they’re celibate…. Only children matter to them, and not necessarily in a pure and holy way.

90º Degrees to the Left: Working for the Jobless?

90º Degrees to the Left: Working for the Jobless?: the GOP is constantly trying to ‘work for the American people,’ they just don’t say that the American people they work for must, in order for the Republicans in Congress to help them, have a bank account exceeding a million dollars – otherwise, you don’t qualify for them to keep your interests in mind.

Working for the Jobless?

I am so glad that Congress came to its senses and approved extending the payroll tax measure. After three years of Democrats having to virtually fight for any measure to be approved by the GOP aka the Party of No, this time around there was no big fight to approve this measure. Being on an election year and with the Congress approval rate at its lowest (10% approval rate according to Gallup as of February 8th, 2012) is no wonder Congress and specially the Republican Party have decided to be benevolent and finally work, literally work, instead of simply occupy a chair and vote against everything suggested by the opposing party.

Now here’s the punch line… After openly and carelessly opposing anything that would benefit the middle class and the unemployed, at times even mocking the unemployed, John Boehner [R] has the audacity of blaming the Democrats for playing political games, in a statement published by the Associated Press, Boehner said “We are not going to allow the Democrats to continue to play political games and raise taxes on working Americans. We made the decision to bring them to the table so that the games would stop and we would get this work done.” First of all, I think that in negotiations everyone has to come to the table, not “bring them” or did Boehner personally grabbed the hand of each Democrat Congressperson and pull them to the table? No. Coming to the table, Republicans, Democrats and Independents, is what Congress should do to negotiate new bills and measures, the problem is… Republicans haven’t really negotiated anything in a long time, unless holding things hostage can be called negotiating, so I guess they’ve forgotten how Congress is supposed to work. Second, after 3 years of constantly blocking every measure, of constantly discarding benefits for the poor and middle class and giving priority to the measures that would only benefit the very wealthy and multinational corporations, does the GOP really think people will change their minds about the awful job Congress has been doing since President Obama took office? Does the GOP really think that Americans are so stupid?

Now, they want to take the ‘glory’ for simply doing their job, after three years of playing golf paid for with our taxes; after countless days of vacations and holidays, and after three years of perceiving a hefty salary for not working while the average unemployed American has to survive on $300 a week! Now they are puffing and huffing that they’ve worked for the American people, give me a break!

We must bear in mind that they managed to inflict some damage to the unemployed – they would not be Republicans if they didn’t do that – but they are not eager to let us know what they got away with “for the good of the American citizen.” Thanks to the Republicans in Congress, those unemployed will see the a reduction in the numbers of weeks for which they can claim unemployment benefits, from 99 weeks down to 73, and we can truly thank the Democrats who fought to defend the unemployed during this economic crises, Republicans wanted to bring it down to only 59 weeks!

Republicans brought a lot of nonsense to the negotiation table that thankfully was rejected by the Democrats. Among the things the Republicans wanted was that for a person to obtain their unemployment benefits, they had to obtain a high school equivalency degree or GED. Where do they come up with these absurd ideas? Do they talk among themselves and, as if a joke, choose the wildest and craziest idea among them to bring to the table perhaps in an effort to shock the Democrats? Now, please, can anyone tell me why, if I worked and paid into my unemployment insurance and as well as my employer and I get laid off, would I have to get any degree to receive what is rightfully mine? But of course, the GOP is constantly trying to ‘work for the American people,’ they just don’t say that the American people they work for must, in order for the Republicans in Congress to help them, have a bank account exceeding a million dollars – otherwise, you don’t qualify for them to keep your interests in mind.

90º Degrees to the Left: Not another Bush!

90º Degrees to the Left: Not another Bush!: Now, after having fun writing the previous blog, let’s talk about a serious political subject: Jeb Bush . Rumor has it that ...

Not another Bush!

Now, after having fun writing the previous blog, let’s talk about a serious political subject: Jeb Bush.

Rumor has it that the RNC is seriously thinking in introducing Jeb Bush in the primaries. I hear many Democrats are excited about this because they think this will translate into a sure win for Obama. I have my doubts. Democrats seem to forget that for the far right, for those that are always blaming Obama for the state in which the country finds itself today, the Bush family is the best that has happened to them since their private "holy grail": Reagan. We have all heard and read their comments about how great Bush was and how everything that is happening today is President Obama's fault, they tend to suffer from a chronic dementia that includes a serious case of amnesia. As the story goes, they cannot recall any wrongdoing from the previous administration. We all have seen the posters of “Miss me yet?” they so flagrantly show everywhere.

So, we must not take this rumor lightly. Jeb Bush has a Mexican wife, which the GOP will try to use to get the so desirable Latino Vote. Jeb Bush is far more intelligent than his brother, granted even a chimp is more intelligent than GWB, but the guy is not an idiot like his brother is. Jeb speaks perfect Spanish, with almost no accent, and he is well liked among many Hispanics. Regardless of Bush’s previous history, they will love Jeb, remember, for the far right nothing that took place 24 hours ago is to be held against any of their candidates!

We must begin a strong campaign against Jeb Bush, we can’t sit on our laurels and trust that people will remember how disastrous that last name has been for our country. The campaign against another Bush in the White House must start now and must not let our guard down.

90º Degrees to the Left: When Masturbating is Murder

90º Degrees to the Left: When Masturbating is Murder: I couldn’t believe it when I read today that Oklahoma State Senator Constance Johnson (D), had introduced a bill in Co...

When Masturbating is Murder

I couldn’t believe it when I read today that Oklahoma State Senator Constance Johnson (D), had introduced a bill in Congress, claiming that “Every Sperm is Sacred” as an Amendment to the Personhood bill.

After the shock and laughter that derived from the headings of this article, I had to silently applaud the valiant action, that highhandedly Sen. Johnson had tackled. She had the courage to introduce an absurdity into an already absurd bill to prove a point, a very valid point. If Congress finds absurd the idea that a sperm is a potential life – rendering masturbation illegal since one drop of that wonderful sperm wasted, represents thousands of little babies that ended up on the sheets, towel, tub or floor. Sacrilege! How can men be so careless and kill thousands of babies in one second? Don’t men know that they must not ejaculate under any circumstances, unless it is to procreate life? How come then it is not just as absurd to ask women not to take contraceptives, not to use the morning after pill? But of course, we all know that what the Conservatives demand from women is by no means, what they demand from men… ah, those precious jewels of them are the ‘untouchables’, unless they don't function properly for which they demanded pills, such as Viagra, and other treatments to be covered by insurance companies!

According to the article, Sen. Johnson amended her own bill and added these precious words-“However, any action in which a man ejaculates or otherwise deposits semen anywhere but in a woman’s vagina shall be interpreted and construed as an action against an unborn child.” – a stroke of genius!

Unfortunately, Sen. Johnson decided to table her bill as a gesture to show that her bill was just to prove a point and not a serious bill. I think that was a mistake. That bill should have been included in the already bizarre Personhood bill… perhaps, since it would prohibit masturbation, oral sex, anal sex, wet dreams, pull outs and in essence, fornicating unless procreating I am sure that the bill would have been killed on the Senate floor, now it has a chance to go through.

Regardless, it is good to know that as usual, it is the Democrats in Congress the ones that work for the protection of women’s rights… and the ones with a healthy sense of humor!

90º Degrees to the Left: To be or not to be

90º Degrees to the Left: To be or not to be: Today, when I heard the news that President Obama had compromised with the Catholic Church I was appalled! Without listening to the Pr...

To be or not to be

Today, when I heard the news that President Obama had compromised with the Catholic Church I was appalled! Without listening to the President, I assumed – and I know one never must do that – that Catholic women were going to be denied that very important coverage and I couldn’t believe it! As it turned out to be, the Catholic Church managed to save a few dollars, as well as their employees, since the new mandate requires for insurance companies to ‘pick-up’ the tab. I am glad for the women employed by the Catholic Church but… there’s always a but, that means that the Catholic Church not only pays no taxes, but that the insurance premium that they will pay will be cheaper too. Once again, the wealthiest of institutions get away with not spending a dime and someone else paying for it, or do you honestly think that the insurance companies will pay for this? Of course not! They will distribute that expense onto the paying individuals and companies enrolled with them.

I am so fed up with religion institutions, particularly the Catholic Church, getting away with murder! From influencing in politics, not only in the United States but worldwide to hiding pedophiles, from not paying taxes and contributing like any other corporation – which is what they truly are – to picking and choosing who deserves their help in the form of charity. Thus far, the Catholic Church has enough money to help all the children from being killed in Somalia, but they don’t. We only need to look at the luxury in the Vatican; one of the gems in any of the jewels in the Vatican could save those children… One of the paintings stored in the Vatican could save those children but no, it is guarded and cherished while children are being murdered. And now, through their manipulation and false indignation they have, once more, got their way.

I call for action. Action to demand for all religious institutions that take part in making a political comment, whether these comments are made from the pulpit or publicly, or openly criticizing any political party, rule, law or leader – to nullify their 501c3 application. Churches receive that special treatment of no paying any taxes thanks to that application in exchange, they (the church) can’t openly speak out, organize in opposition to, anything that the government declares “legal,” even if it is immoral (e.g. abortion, homosexuality, contraception, etc.), a church that openly express their opinion and instigate their congregation against a political figure or against a law or mandate jeopardizes their tax exempt status. So, when on earth are we going to remove their free ride? Let’s pull the rug from under their feet – talk all they want but PAY for it!

God's Evolution: The Gods of the Cavemen

God's Evolution: The Gods of the Cavemen: Even though there is no way to confirm that the cave art found from javascript:void(0)the “cavemen” that lived through the Ice Age over 35,000 years ago, ...

90º Degrees to the Left: A “pill” too hard to swallow

90º Degrees to the Left: A “pill” to hard too swallow: According to a recent article written by Jessica Yellin and Brianna Keilar, both Correspondents for CNN, the White House is try...

A “pill” too hard to swallow

According to a recent article written by Jessica Yellin and Brianna Keilar, both Correspondents for CNN, the White House is trying to adjust the health care policy to appease the Catholic Church and perhaps get the vote of some Catholics. The article claims that this adjustment is due to “an avalanche of criticism.” Apparently, the White House will try to implement the same policy that is currently used in Hawaii for religion institutions, in which women that work for Catholic charities, hospitals and the church can acquire coverage directly from the insurance company at the same price their employers would pay. I do not think it’s fair that women working for Catholic enterprises and who may or may not profess that religion have to be excluded from that benefit, unless the Catholic Church increase their salary to the same amount they would have to pay out-of-pocket to acquire it. However, this modification suggested by the White House is not being accepted by the Catholic Bishops, according to the article the leaders of the Catholic Church will only accept a total reversal on the policy – which means totally removing the contraceptive clause from the health care policy. Who on earth do the Catholic Church thinks they are?

I am so tired of having any religious institution – who pay no taxes, who at no time accept government interference in ANY of their day-to-day business (as it should be), who have no government regulations set in place, to think that the government has no business in their religious matters but that they, the religious institutions of any denomination, have any right whatsoever in changing governmental policies because it does not agrees with their views! The religious groups are overstepping their boundaries interfering with politics – both at a local and national level – forcing their views onto everyone else as if the separation of church and state didn’t exist or if it does, it simply does not apply to them. While the leaders of any religious corporation (that’s what they are) enjoy a life of luxury, no taxes paid, no need to report any of their actions to the government because if the government decided to interfere in any of their business they will cry religious prosecution, they seem to think they have "divine" power and can stick their noses where it does not belong.

Of course, as expected, we have the Speaker of the House, Mr. "Cry me a River" Boehner, accusing this administration of ‘attacking religion freedom." How is that so? How it's making contraceptives accessible, not forcing any woman to take them, an attack on religion freedom? Why is not an attack to the State what religion institutions are doing? Why does this "attack" can only be applied on one direction? I am not surprised either at the holier than God comments coming from all the Republican candidates which are all up in arms about the intrusion of government in religion… Mitt Romney, as usual, is already counting his chickens before they hatch and has added another thing he would do on his first day as President, reversing this clause. Sorry Romney, but you will not be the 45^th President of the United States.

Mr. President, keep the policy as it is! Do not allow religion to change the policies that will affect thousands of women, even millions if the Catholic Church gets its way. It is time for a real separation of church and state, it is time for any religious institution to pay their fair share of taxes – no more getting rich by preaching, no more favoritism. According to their own beliefs, money is sinful… so lets help them release some of that sin, and pay taxes after all, they can’t seem to separate religion and politics so, if they want to be involved in politics they should contribute to the country, financially, as everyone else does!

90º Degrees to the Left: America… start your engines!

90º Degrees to the Left: America… start your engines!: I must say for those that don’t know it, that all the American automotive industries that received bailout money have paid back their debt to the American citizens. Our automotive industry still has a long way to go, I am sure, but we are bearing witness to its rebirth against all odds and against the Republican opposition.

This is undoubtedly a great victory for Obama but most importantly, it is a great victory for America!

America… start your engines!

It is hard to imagine that the Republican Party was against bailing out the American automotive industry; after all, we can take pride that the automobile is the result of American ingenuity and the creation of what is an indispensable way of transportation all over the world. Ronald Reagan, who by now is almost a demigod for the Republican Party, among the many slogans that were created under his administration, promoted to “Buy American” in an effort to save the American industries… But we all know that the GOP picks and chooses what they wish to remember, and this particular slogan they chose to forget.  Back in 2008 before Bush left the oval office the Democratic leaders in congress requested for $25 billion to be given to the automotive industry in an effort to save it from succumbing to the economic disaster that was imminent. Many Republican Senators were vehemently against it, some, like Republican Senator Shelby dared calling it a “dinosaur” not worth saving, particularly, not worth using the money to bailout Wall Street to bailout the American car industry. They didn’t object helping those responsible for creating the worst economic crisis in decades, but saving the American car industry? In their eyes it was not worth saving. Others, like Republican Senator Kyl, went further saying, “This bailout would only extend the inevitable demise of the industry.” Mitt Romney who is always claiming to be a corporate expert said, "If General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye.  It won't go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed."  All this was back in November 2008.

Then, Barack Obama became our 44th President and he had another vision, he wanted to save that which up to not long ago was our pride and joy all over the world. He wanted to restore the glory of the automotive industry, which as of lately, and due to foreign competition, had fallen behind in quality as well as revenue. The American automotive industry was doomed to disappear, but not without a fight and not before Obama would try to save it against all odds. Republicans at that time raised the same outcry that has been their ‘signature’ for anything and everything that Obama has tried to accomplish a rotund and solid NO. We must not forget that many of the most adamant Senators had other reasons for criticizing and opposing the automotive bailout: foreign car industries were blooming in their States, and these companies would benefit tremendously if their American competition was to disappear. These Senators didn’t care at all about preserving our industry, our name, or our legacy. All they cared about was the money these foreign companies were bringing to their own States and perhaps their own pockets. They couldn’t care less that it was our American car industry who, without fanfare, aided the States hit worse by Katrina, making donations up to half a million dollars even when their finances where hurting… that didn’t matter for these Senators, all Republicans and all from the States hit by Katrina, who benefited from these donations.

Actor Clint Eastwood – Republican – was too against this bailout, which makes the Chrysler commercial aired during the Super Bowl XLVI halftime the more valuable. Hearing from Mr. Eastwood’s own lips the importance of coming together at a time of crisis – something that has been said since day one by Obama and his supporters – makes this ad a treasure. 

I must say for those that don’t know it, that all the American automotive industries that received bailout money have paid back their debt to the American citizens. Our automotive industry still has a long way to go, I am sure, but we are bearing witness to its rebirth against all odds and against the Republican opposition. 

This is undoubtedly a great victory for Obama but most importantly, it is a great victory for America!

90º Degrees to the Left: The Versatile Blogger Award

90º Degrees to the Left: The Versatile Blogger Award: I must say that I am pleasantly surprised. Today, a friend and blogger awarded me with The Versatile Blogger Award. His name i...

The Versatile Blogger Award

I must say that I am pleasantly surprised. Today, a friend and blogger awarded me with The Versatile Blogger Award. His name is Jeuseppi Baker and the award, coming from him, has certainly more value. Jueseppi is well known for saying what he thinks, for his straightforwardness and honesty. JB, thank you for nominating me!

Now, the acceptance of this award has certain requirements that I must fulfill. These requirements are: Nominate 15 other bloggers, Inform my nominees, Share 7 random facts about myself, Thank the one who nominated me and Add a picture of the award to this post

As many of you already know, I am very opinionated and not too shy about expressing my opinions. Here are my 7 random facts about myself:

1.     I love nature; the way the air smells right before a storm.

2.     I love art in all its forms – from Mozart to Adele, from urban art to Michelangelo.

3.     The same can be said about the written form, I love books and of course, I love to read. My taste varies from poetry to mysteries, from the occult to XF.

4.     I speak three languages and can read five.

5.     I love justice and I hate bigotry in all its ugly forms.

6.     I love all animals; my favorite animals are wolves and owls. I love cats and dogs, most often than not they are more loyal than humans.

7.     I am an exhibitionist.

Now, to nominate 15 bloggers… wow, that will be difficult. Let’s see…

1.     Walter Perring from Democracy Fist. I must nominate him first; it is thanks to him that I began blogging.

2.     Yoani Sanchez from Generation Y. This woman deserves my respect for her bravery, she has more integrity and courage than many of us would ever dream to have. To have the guts to speak out from inside a system that is notorious for ignoring freedom of speech plus incarcerating and punishing those that dare to speak out makes Yoani not only the best candidate for this award and better ones. She is the blogger I admire the most.

3.     Tom Degan from The Rant. I love the way he writes and that just like me, he calls it as he sees it; Tom has a fun and articulated style typical of a true New Yorker.

4.     Steve Alexander from Unabashed Left. Steve is a great blogger and writer but most important he is a great humanitarian. His values as a person exceed his talent as a writer which is much more important. I value his friendship and admire his compassion and devotion towards others. A rare find.

5.     Finally, sorry but I don’t know that many bloggers, I must go back to the beginning. I enjoy reading theobamacrat, Jueseppi has a unique style and is very passionate when expressing his opinions, he is devoted to his cause of having Obama re-elected and that coincides with my views so very difficult not to like his agenda. I particularly like that he is so outspoken when defending the weak – children, women and the elderly and I consider myself his number one fan.  I can't nominate him, according to the rules, but there is nothing against mentioning his blog, again.

That’s it; five will have to do since I don’t know fifteen bloggers! Now you must all excuse me, I must go and notify the nominees…