Battlefield Update #1

The war seems to be spreading, so there is news on several fronts.  The overall objective remains unclear, but at this point the defenders are beginning to rally, and I suspect some counterattacks are beginning to have an effect.  Here, in no particular order, are dispatches from the front.  Please keep in mind that, like other wars, there are different, separate battles being fought in many different locations.  Like WWII, a battle in Norway or Italy might be completely disconnected from a battle on Luzon or Bikini atoll.





While the fight is called the War of the Uterus, the attackers are using many different approaches to match the local terrain.

In Indiana, Rep Bob Morris (R) has declared that the Girl Scouts is a radicalized organization that promotes homosexual lifestyles and funds Planned Parenthood.  According to him, in a letter explaining why he wouldn't support a resolution acknowledging and honoring the 100th anniversary of the organization, he stated that "after talking to some well-informed constituents, I did a small amount of web-based research, and what I found is disturbing."

A couple things immediately popped out of his statement.  Exactly who are these "well-informed constituents" and where did they get the information they shared?  Nobody...well, nobody beyond Morris seems to know. Considering the varied and strange information available on the web, a "small amount" of research could probably support any conceivable position on anything.  It's probably worse than that old saw that you can support any possible position with a quote from the Bible.

With a couple minutes I can easily locate web sites that support any number of pending or existing alien abductions, the pending end of the world on almost any day this year (although the date on the Mayan calendar seems to be the most favored at the moment), or the Fact that Hitler didn't die in the bunker was lived to a ripe old age in [pick your own country here].

Morris then lays out his best shot:

He says the Girl Scouts "have entered into a close strategic affiliation with Planned Parenthood,” though “you will not find evidence of this on the GSA/WAGGGS website—in fact, the websites of these two organizations explicitly deny funding Planned Parenthood.”

“Nonetheless, abundant evidence proves that the agenda of Planned Parenthood includes sexualizing young girls through the Girl Scouts, which is quickly becoming a tactical arm of Planned Parenthood,” Morris wrote. “Planned Parenthood instructional series and pamphlets are part of the core curriculum at GSA training seminars.”

Yes, this is another attack where there is no evidence whatsoever of any factual information to back up the assertion.  I could include more, but you can find the full story here, from which I have quoted:  http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/girl_scouts_are_a_radicalized_organization_promoting_homosexuality_says_indiana_republican.php?ref=fpblg

Now, behind the front lines, others are taking up the challenge.  Numerous recruiting posters have appeared, and some of them, like that old Rosie the Riveter picture, or the classic Uncle Sam wants YOU! are going to hit home.  Here's one I particularly like, taken from the pages of Facebook and attributed to a user page entitled Elitist Liberal Scum:

The associated text points out that according to the 2010 census, 50.8% of the population is female.  Sounds like bad odds to me...if you're part of the GOP.

CPAC, the ultimate self-adulation association, met a couple weeks ago, and amongst the preaching to the choir a disturbing note was raised by some in attendance.  It was observed that the young women, typically college-age, were not dressed conservatively enough, and might have acted like...well...like college age young women.  Gasp!

Keep in mind that these young ladies apparently shared the ultra-conservative viewpoints espoused by many or most of the speakers, but they dared to wear skirts that might have been a bit too short for the "old white guys" who run the conservative side of things.  Numerous bloggers from the Right piled on,  Erick Erickson, who runs the popular blog Red State, offered the following observation:

"All to [sic] often there are also a few young ladies willing to shame their parents if their parents only knew.”

You can read more details here:  http://www.thenation.com/blog/166389/conservative-war-womens-sexuality?rel=emailNation

As Hagrid would say:  "It's an outrage!  It's a scandal!"

Now, although there is new from many other fronts, I would really like to follow up on some of the battles I described last week, I've only got space for one more item, and it's...well, it's just astounding.

Mitt Romney, one of the apparent front runners (for the moment) in the GOP primary battles, came up with a whole new tact this week, and spouted something that is so beyond the pale I don't really even know how to respond.

Campaigning in Shelby Township, Michigan, he stated that President Obama was pursuing a "secular agenda."  Damn, I sure as heck hope so.

According to the Constitution of the United States, the only requirements to be President are that you must be a "natural born citizen" have "attained the age of 35 years" and "lived in the country for 14 years."  That's it.  Notice there is no requirement that he/she be of a particular religion, or any religion for that matter.  Thank God!

In another place, the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...."

So, being President neither requires you to be a specific religion, nor does the description of the position include any language that automatically makes you the head of any church.  In fact, the Constitution specifically forbids the government from adopting or furthering a specific religion.

So, Romney is criticizing the President for following the Constitution.  On the other hand, Romney has had many questions asked about his own religion, and his opponent Rick Santorum has pretty much declared that he IS following a very religious agenda.  There is every reason to believe that his views wouldn't abruptly change were he elected.  So, the question becomes Do we want to elect a President that will attempt to force his own religious beliefs upon the entire country, in direct contradiction of the Constitution?

There are, of course, countries where that is not only tolerated but expected.  In several European countries, the "king" is the titular head of the state church.  The job doesn't seem to include duties like preaching on Sundays, but it is part of the title.  In other countries, you have to be a particular religion to run for office.  That concept seems to work real well...in place like...erm...Iran.  So, is that the sort of place we want to become?  I certainly hope not.

Now, back to the front.