Friday, August 3, 2012

What Would Jesus Do? The Corruption Of Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day

It has been reported that 600,000 people attended Chick-Fil-A appreciation day this week. Let's break down those numbers -- first,  suppose that 20% of those people were planning to go there anyway and that is their typical service rate on a weekday. This drops the number to 480,000. If each of those people had consumed a lunch at home (or the office) in lieu of eating a chicken sandwich and instead opted to donate their $5 to a local food pantry, charity would have benefited to the tune of $2.4 million. I many kids could be fed for that amount of money? How many elderly people could have food in their pantry? How many pregnant women would be able to have fresh fruit instead of Fruit Loops?

Christianity is not found in a fast food joint such as Chick-Fil-A. It also does not reside in en masse hate, wherein only in large numbers can bigotry flourish. Christianity is found in small, barely noticeable deeds that are carried out on a daily basis and, preferably, in anonymity.  Christianity is about taking care of the least amongst us, rather than looking for platforms where we can feel superior to others.

The people that stood in line at Chick-Fil-A to fill their guts with more fat and sodium than an average body needs in two days is not making any moral commentary, but is instead simply lining the pockets of a bigot who is laughing all the way to the bank.  Dan T. Cathy owner and president of Chick-Fil-A, did not see 600,000 blonds, brunettes, Asians, caucasians, or Christians on August 1st. He saw $20 bills and Visa cards. The fact of the matter is that Dan T. Cathy will take his wealth and use it to support causes that do not promote Christianity, but will further his own agenda. What is the number one thing that wealthy people want? More wealth. In fact, you need not look further than Mitt Romney for Exhibit A in that matter.

Finally, the people that stood in line the other day were there for one day only. They will not be showing such overt support a month from now, much less a year from now. However, those that are opting to boycott Chick-Fil-A have decided to make it a lifetime ban. In the grand scheme of things, who comes out ahead?

Wednesday, August 1, 2012

The Economics of Bigotry

Why is the GOP so concerned with welfare fraud and not with tax fraud? Welfare fraud occurs in about 2% of cases and costs our country around $9 billion per year. Tax fraud occurs in 15% of cases (more than seven times the rate of welfare fraud) and costs our country about $337 billion, or more than thirty-seven times as much as welfare fraud. How often do you see nasty postings about "If you can afford a tattoo, nice car, cigarettes, or an iPhone, you shouldn't be cheating on your taxes"???

I recently engaged in a 'lovely' conversation with the wife of a friend concerning welfare fraud. She said that when she took her husband to the ER recently she saw a woman, with several kids from different fathers, a Blackberry, freshly manicured nails, and designer sneakers waiting to see a physician. She was outraged that this woman was on Medicaid. How dare she spend our tax dollars on such frivolous items?! When I asked her if she told this woman that she had private health insurance or that her own nice jacket was courtesey of a generous mother-in-law, the response was a startled, "No, of course not! I didn't even talk to her, why would I?" I then asked if this other woman knew so little about her life, how did she know so much about her? She seemed to know that these kids were her own and that she was not babysitting. She knew that the designer sneakers were bought new and not for $8 at the local thrift store. She had a sense that the manicured nails were done at a high-end salon rather than by her sister who was putting herself through cosmetology school.  Her eyebrows furrowed, she glanced down, and then came a lengthy pause. She stated, "Well, I just know her type!" Her type, in this case, meant a black woman. 

And yet, this same woman would never look at a man with a Rolex, BMW and Gucci loafers and presume to know his tax status. Strike that...make that a white man with a Rolex, BMW and Gucci loafers. This, my friends, is the racism of economics. Better than than, this is just straight up racism.

People feel that they can use the fact that they are conservatives and therefore obviously opposed to our current president as a reason to let their Racism Flag fly proudly. "Oh, no, I am not racist," they say with phony horror, "I just think that President Obama is an anti-American Muslim who has a grand and complex scheme to ruin my country!"


Good gravy, how I hate that phrase. But let's move past that and save it for another blog.

There are comments and graphics floating around the Internet that say, in essence, “If you have a decent car, a cell phone, or a nice pair of shoes, you don’t deserve to be on welfare”? Here is what I have to say to that – We have family members and close friends who have been, for fairly short periods of time, on assistance. We are not talking ‘Welfare Queens’ here…instead, simple hard-working folks who have fallen on hard times. My husband and I are blessed to do pretty well for ourselves and have reached out to these loved ones. We let one live in a 4 bedroom rental that we own. Another, we added to our cell phone plan and got him a Blackberry so that he could look for a job. We have given clothing to most of them and helped a few buy decent cars. Does this mean that they should not be on assistance? No. It means that someone loves them enough to offer them a hand-up.
It also means that you can never judge a book by it's cover. If you want to be a racist, at least be intellectually honest about it and cut the embellishing crap.

Thursday, April 19, 2012

Be Liberal In All That You Do

This segment, Be Liberal In All That You Do, will be a regular feature on this blog. Be sure to check back often to see the latest tips and hints. Further, be sure to weigh in via the comment section. Love to hear from all of you!

This morning as you got dressed, you likely passed by a a dozen or more garments as you settled on a final outfit for the day. You know the routine..."That one feels funny", "I hate that color on me", "Why did I buy that?!" or "I will never fit into that again". It makes getting dressed a drawn out routine that is unnecessarily stressful.

Today....maybe this evening...pull out those items, bag them up and take them to the local women's shelter. In some cases, the shelter location may be confidential information. What you can do is contact the local social services organization or the police department and let them know what you are trying to do. They will make sure that your discarded items end up in the hands of needy women in your community. That orange sweater from two seasons ago or the too-tight skinny jeans from last summer may end up being a real treasure to a woman in need.

They will thank you, your bursting closet will thank you and it is the liberal thing to do.

Saturday, April 7, 2012

Boycott ALEC Corporations

Please stay tuned...this blog will evolve and will include contact information for each of the listed corporations. If you have an opinion with regards to this situation, please comment below. If you have additional questions that I can investigate and report for you regarding ALEC, please include that as well.  Thanks!

What is ALEC?
ALEC is American Legislative Exchange Council, which was established in 1973 in Washington DC.  Their motto, then and now, continues to be "Limited Government, Free Markets, Federalism". Based upon their ongoing actions, this can actually be interpreted to mean a far right wing agenda that infringes on the rights of all Americans. ALEC is a very powerful non-profit 501C organization that is actually much more powerful than a traditional lobbying group.  ALEC is funded by a variety of profitable and influential major US corporation, as listed below on the boycott list.
What is ALEC trying to do?
ALEC is attempting to influence legislators at the state level to initiate legislation that supports a far right wing agenda. This influence is done via heavy-handed funding of selected politicians. ALEC has nine task forces that are designed to influence legislators to back measures that support their corporate interests. The organization indicates that they have 2,000 legislative members and 300 or more corporate members. Corporations benefit from the efforts of ALEC in that legislation is enacted that support their best interests. This includes  tobacco legislation, Health Savings Account laws and the privatization of education. Their efforts are very far reaching and they have been successful in their efforts to buy the politics of this great nation.

ALEC actually drafts legislation themselves and forwards to lawmakers for implementation. Recently this has focused on voter ID laws which is seen by most political analysts as a method to suppress the democratic vote as it targets the poor and elderly. It should come as a surprise to no one that ALEC and Koch Brothers work very closely together, to the detriment of our political system.


BOYCOTT ALEC: Here is a partial list of their main and largest corporations. This listing will be updated as companies back away from the group and completely sever ties

Altria Group
American Bail Coalition

American Traffic Solutions **UPDATE: COMPANY HAS CUT TIES

AT&T Inc.

Arizona Public Service **UPDATE: COMPANY HAS CUT TIES

Bank of America
Bayer AG
Bell Atlantic
Cash America
Citizens Insurance
Coldwell Banker
Coors Brewing
Diageo PLC
Energy Future Holdings Corp.
Exxon Mobil
Johnson & Johnson
Koch Industries

Peabody Energy

Pfizer Inc.
Reed Elsevier Inc.
Reynolds American
Salt River Project
State Farm Insurance
United Healthcare
United Parcel Service
Wal-Mart Stores
YUM Brands (Taco Bell, KFC, Pizza Hut) **UPDATE: COMPANY HAS CUT TIES

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Justice For Trayvon Martin

Update (April 11, 2012 5:30pm CDT): It's coming, Trayvon. Justice is on it's way. And you will never be forgotten. [George Zimmerman arrested and charged with second degree murder]

Have you heard the breaking news? Racism is not only alive in the United States, but it is actually thriving. No, I suppose this is not news to those of us that follow politics and current events closely. It is, unfortunately, a societal disease that is a long way from being eradicated. It is a blemish on our country that decent people everywhere need to protest in voices louder than those of the bigots and racists. While some, such as Rush Limbaugh, have a standardized if faltering forum for spouting their hate, others are living out this racism in everyday acts of cruelty and crime.

On February 26, 2012 in a gated community in Sanford, Florida Trayvon Martin was walking home from a local store and heading back to his father’s home. A local vigilante named George Zimmerman, who had a strong history of assailing the local 911system with various unfounded complaints, deemed Trayvon to be a danger. He saw this child and knew nothing more about him than the color of his skin. In fact, as he called 911 to report this perceived threat, this was the only information that he could impart to the operator. He was black and Zimmerman just did not like the looks of him. A weapon? Trayvon had nothing. Still, Zimmerman took it upon himself to not just report this alleged nuisance to the authorities but to start following the child. Trayvon did what most of us would advise our own children to do in such matters, which was to try to lose the stalker and get himself to safety. Even as Trayvon tried to break loose from the older man who was now actively stalking him, Zimmerman continued in hot pursuit. He continued despite being told overtly by the authorities to stay away from this child.

Various reports, including the recently released 911 tapes, indicate that Trayvon was minding his own business when he was attacked by Zimmerman. Trayvon can be heard crying and pleading, in an effort to save his own life from this gun-toting maniac who had descended upon him. Alas, Zimmerman decided to execute 17-year-old Trayvon…a child, who just wanted to return to his father with candy and a drink and an evening of watching basketball.  A child with no weapon who had done nothing, except exist in society as a black kid.

Yes, racism is alive and well in the United States. The extremists on the right continue to feed the fear of the ignorant and then act in feigned befuddlement when one of their own acts out in a murderous manner. This is not the first time that this occurred and it will not be the last. The loud and bigoted voices on the far right believe that the constitution allows them to refer to our President in racist tones. They believe that they have no culpability if someone takes matters into their own hands and acts out in a violent manner. They believe, in short, that their hands are clean.

They are not. Anyone in the public eye has a moral, ethical and legal duty to not incite others to violence. And if violence should occur, we need to immediately track back to the instigator of the event and hold them responsible. This should have occurred when the crazed rhetoric of Bill O’Reilly cause the killing of Dr. George Tiller, a Kansas based physician who performed abortions. Mr. O’Reilly had a many-year campaign against the physician he deemed Tiller The Killer. This language, rants and violent overtones directly lead to a rogue fan killing the doctor.

Until we hold these people responsible for acts of violence, both large and small, there can be no racial equality in our country. Our young black and Hispanic youth will continue to move about their lives knowing that they have a target on their back all day, every day. This is not justice for them and it sure as hell is not justice for Trayvon Martin.

Monday, March 12, 2012

The Liberal Youth of America

In 2008, the youth of this great country were enthusiastic about the hope that candidate Barack Obama brought to the campaign. In his vision and via his speeches, younger individuals felt that politics were finally speaking to them and had a place in their lives. It was a magical moment of youthful hope that we had not seen since the days of JFK.

In the ensuing 4 years since the election of Barack Obama, that hope may have faded a bit for those who voted for him. There is no doubt that our expectations were much too high and that the concept that he could reverse 8 years of damage done by George Bush in 4 short years was unrealistic. Still, the progress he has made can not be trivialized and our economy is finally turning around. This borne out in evidence such as the burgeoning housing market, increase consumer confidence and the drop in unemployment. Did it take so much longer than we had hoped? Yes. But is it happening? Hell, yes.

This is the moment when we need to recapture that hope from 4 years ago because the fact of the matter is that great strides have been made and there is more where that came from. Further, a lot of these changes (read: Obamacare or changes to Pell Grants) directly affect those that may be preparing to vote for the first time in the fall of 2012.

We need to not just continually remind these college aged potential voters that politics is integral to their lives, but we also much support those that already have liberal tendencies. We must coach them, educate them and keep them motivated. Chances are that if we can lock them in as democratic voters at this age, then this political leaning will last them a lifetime.

There are pages on Facebook that speaks just to this liberal message and is a good place to start. Within the small confines of Facebook we can show our full commitment to the youth of America who have decided not just that politics are key to their lives, but that they want to spread the liberal message. Imagine the mentoring possibilities if each one of us with liberal leanings takes two or three or ten of then kids under our wing and keeps them focused on the democratic message.

Also, it is critical that we lend a helping hand to young women of this country who may be witness to their rights being jeopardized by the GOP. Remind them of where were have come from and how hard we fought. And remind them that we will soon pass the baton to them and we want them to be fully prepared for the next phase of this battle.

Saturday, March 10, 2012

Questioning The Faith Of President Obama

Many of us on the liberal end of the political spectrum have heard the assertion time and again that our President is a Muslim and not a Christian. It is one of the last ditch efforts that republicans make when they want to dismiss great news like the burgeoning housing market, the improving jobs report or elevated consumer confidence. Of course, their other plan of attack, typically more from republican leadership rather than the man-on-the-street GOPer, involves social issues that we thought we resolved decades ago. Think: availability of contraception, access to abortions and education as a positive rather than a negative.

Still the faith of our President continues to be called into question and I continue to find myself having these conversations on a regular basis. Here are the points that I try to drive home each time that I do..

1.              In a country that supposedly treasures separation of church and state, why does this matter? If you are a true constitutionalist, then the faith of the president or any other elected official should be moot.

2.              What is your evidence? Let’s say that there are 8 pieces of evidence that say he is a Muslim. There are also more than 1,000 pieces of evidence that support the premise that he is a Christian. That would include, but is not limited to: His church attendance, speaking openly about his Christianity, images of him carrying the bible, and being baptized in the early 1990s. Why would you take the side that has the smaller quantity of proof rather than the more substantial and compelling body of evidence?

3.              The Muslim faith does not speak to violence and, at the risk of repeating myself, why does the faith of our POTUS matter? I know, I know….GOPers are going to assert that Muslims are driven by their faith to kill Americans on our own soil and so the very core of their religion is dangerous in nature. This is why republicans do not want a mosque in their town, or their neighbor to be a Muslim, or their child to date someone from this faith. Because….They are out to get us!! In the same why that Christians act out their faith by wearing the cross, attending church, doing charitable acts or engaging in bible study, the Muslim faith dictates violence against Americans….right?? But if this were true, you have to ask yourself why they haven’t done this. Why was there no school shooting by a Muslim last week? No Muslim tainting our drinking water, or taking a gun to the local mall, or sitting atop a watchtower shooting at the ugly Americans. I mean, if I see Christians acting in a Christ-like manner every single day, why is it that I do not see acts of violence by Muslims every single day? In the last day or week or month or year, how many Muslim attacks on Americans on American soil have you read about in the news?

Because the premise of Muslims being a violent group is a myth. There is no evidence to support this premise and anyone who utters such words may as well wear a trucker cap that proudly states “I Am A Racist”.  It is a distraction that we throw at our President because they cannot debate the real issues nor find fault with the economic progress that we have made thus far. It is because they are panicked and scrambling and falling into the abyss of fear.

These allegations will not end anytime soon and may even endure long after President Obama leaves office in January 2017. But liberals will continue to do what we have always done, which is shine a light on ignorance and fight stupidity with reason and enlightenment. Doing anything less is a disservice not just to Muslims, but to ourselves as well.

Monday, March 5, 2012

Complete Transcript of Sandra Fluke's Testimony

Leader Pelosi, Members of Congress, good morning, and thank you for calling this
hearing on women’s health and allowing me to testify on behalf of the women who
will benefit from the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage regulation. My
name is Sandra Fluke, and I’m a third year student at Georgetown Law, a Jesuit
school. I’m also a past president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive
Justice or LSRJ. I’d like to acknowledge my fellow LSRJ members and allies and
all of the student activists with us and thank them for being here today.

Georgetown LSRJ is here today because we’re so grateful that this regulation
implements the nonpartisan, medical advice of the Institute of Medicine. I attend a
Jesuit law school that does not provide contraception coverage in its student health
plan. Just as we students have faced financial, emotional, and medical burdens as a
result, employees at religiously affiliated hospitals and universities across the
country have suffered similar burdens. We are all grateful for the new regulation
that will meet the critical health care needs of so many women. Simultaneously,
the recently announced adjustment addresses any potential conflict with the
religious identity of Catholic and Jesuit institutions.

When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women affected, and I have
heard more and more of their stories. . On a daily basis, I hear from yet another
woman from Georgetown or other schools or who works for a religiously
affiliated employer who has suffered financial, emotional, and medical burdens
because of this lack of contraceptive coverage. And so, I am here to share their
voices and I thank you for allowing them to be heard.

Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during
law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships,
that’s practically an entire summer’s salary. Forty percent of female students at
Georgetown Law report struggling financially as a result of this policy. One told
us of how embarrassed and powerless she felt when she was standing at the
pharmacy counter, learning for the first time that contraception wasn’t covered,
and had to walk away because she couldn’t afford it. Women like her have no
choice but to go without contraception. Just last week, a married female student
told me she had to stop using contraception because she couldn’t afford it any
longer. Women employed in low wage jobs without contraceptive coverage face
the same choice.

You might respond that contraception is accessible in lots of other ways.
Unfortunately, that’s not true. Women’s health clinics provide vital medical
services, but as the Guttmacher Institute has documented, clinics are unable to
meet the crushing demand for these services. Clinics are closing and women are
being forced to go without. How can Congress consider the Fortenberry, Rubio,
and Blunt legislation that would allow even more employers and institutions to
refuse contraceptive coverage and then respond that the non-profit clinics should
step up to take care of the resulting medical crisis, particularly when so many
legislators are attempting to defund those very same clinics?

These denials of contraceptive coverage impact real people. In the worst cases,
women who need this medication for other medical reasons suffer dire
consequences. A friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome
and has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries.
Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown insurance because it’s not
intended to prevent pregnancy. Under many religious institutions’ insurance plans,
it wouldn’t be, and under Senator Blunt’s amendment, Senator Rubio’s bill, or
Representative Fortenberry’s bill, there’s no requirement that an exception be
made for such medical needs. When they do exist, these exceptions don’t
accomplish their well-intended goals because when you let university
administrators or other employers, rather than women and their doctors, dictate
whose medical needs are legitimate and whose aren’t, a woman’s health takes a
back seat to a bureaucracy focused on policing her body.

In sixty-five percent of cases, our female students were interrogated by insurance
representatives and university medical staff about why they needed these
prescriptions and whether they were lying about their symptoms. For my friend,
and 20% of women in her situation, she never got the insurance company to cover
her prescription, despite verification of her illness from her doctor. Her claim was
denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted the birth control to
prevent pregnancy. She’s gay, so clearly polycystic ovarian syndrome was a much
more urgent concern than accidental pregnancy. After months of paying over $100
out of pocket, she just couldn’t afford her medication anymore and had to stop
taking it. I learned about all of this when I walked out of a test and got a message
from her that in the middle of her final exam period she’d been in the emergency
room all night in excruciating pain. She wrote, “It was so painful, I woke up
thinking I’d been shot.” Without her taking the birth control, a massive cyst the
size of a tennis ball had grown on her ovary. She had to have surgery to remove
her entire ovary. On the morning I was originally scheduled to give this testimony,
she sat in a doctor’s office. Since last year’s surgery, she’s been experiencing night
sweats, weight gain, and other symptoms of early menopause as a result of the
removal of her ovary. She’s 32 years old. As she put it: “If my body indeed does
enter early menopause, no fertility specialist in the world will be able to help me
have my own children. I will have no chance at giving my mother her desperately
desired grandbabies, simply because the insurance policy that I paid for totally
unsubsidized by my school wouldn’t cover my prescription for birth control when I
needed it.” Now, in addition to potentially facing the health complications that
come with having menopause at an early age-- increased risk of cancer, heart
disease, and osteoporosis, she may never be able to conceive a child.
Perhaps you think my friend’s tragic story is rare. It’s not. One woman told us
doctors believe she has endometriosis, but it can’t be proven without surgery, so
the insurance hasn’t been willing to cover her medication. Recently, another friend
of mine told me that she also has polycystic ovarian syndrome. She’s struggling to
pay for her medication and is terrified to not have access to it. Due to the barriers
erected by Georgetown’s policy, she hasn’t been reimbursed for her medication
since last August. I sincerely pray that we don’t have to wait until she loses an
ovary or is diagnosed with cancer before her needs and the needs of all of these
women are taken seriously.

This is the message that not requiring coverage of contraception sends. A
woman’s reproductive healthcare isn’t a necessity, isn’t a priority. One student
told us that she knew birth control wasn’t covered, and she assumed that’s how
Georgetown’s insurance handled all of women’s sexual healthcare, so when she
was raped, she didn’t go to the doctor even to be examined or tested for sexually
transmitted infections because she thought insurance wasn’t going to cover
something like that, something that was related to a woman’s reproductive health.
As one student put it, “this policy communicates to female students that our school
doesn’t understand our needs.” These are not feelings that male fellow students
experience. And they’re not burdens that male students must shoulder.

In the media lately, conservative Catholic organizations have been asking: what
did we expect when we enrolled at a Catholic school? We can only answer that we
expected women to be treated equally, to not have our school create untenable
burdens that impede our academic success. We expected that our schools would
live up to the Jesuit creed of cura personalis, to care for the whole person, by
meeting all of our medical needs. We expected that when we told our universities
of the problems this policy created for students, they would help us. We expected
that when 94% of students opposed the policy, the university would respect our
choices regarding insurance students pay for completely unsubsidized by the
university. We did not expect that women would be told in the national media that
if we wanted comprehensive insurance that met our needs, not just those of men,
we should have gone to school elsewhere, even if that meant a less prestigious
university. We refuse to pick between a quality education and our health, and we
resent that, in the 21st century, anyone thinks it’s acceptable to ask us to make this
choice simply because we are women.

Many of the women whose stories I’ve shared are Catholic women, so ours is not a
war against the church. It is a struggle for access to the healthcare we need. The
President of the Association of Jesuit Colleges has shared that Jesuit colleges and
universities appreciate the modification to the rule announced last week. Religious
concerns are addressed and women get the healthcare they need. That is something
we can all agree on. Thank you.

Breaking News: Local Station Cancels Rush Limbaugh Show

According to the website of KPUA radio in Hilo, Hawaii station management has made the bold, brave and logical determination to no longer carry The Rush Limbaugh show on their airwaves.

Our boycott is working.
Our voices are being heard.
And this is just the beginning.

For those who dispute our efforts, be reminded that there remains a substantial difference between free speech and hate speech....between exercising your first amendment right and engaging in a 72 hour slanderous tirade against a private US citizen.

Rush Limbaugh, you are on notice.


If you are interested in showing your support to KPUA, they may be reached at

Sunday, March 4, 2012

Patricia Heaton Leads The 2012 War on Women

If every Tweaton {specific Twitter fans} sent Georgetown Gal one condom, her parents wouldn't have to cancel basic cable & she would never reproduce - sound good?

The above listed tweet is, to say the least, an offensive remark for anyone to make. Further, it is the profoundly ill-informed statement of someone who has failed to sufficiently educate themselves on the testimony that Sandra Fluke was recently brave enough to present before congress.  And the genesis of this remark?

Actress Patricia Heaton

Ms. Heaton has long been known as a very conservative individual, which on it's face is not particularly a bad thing. Not a fan of abortion? Don't get one. Anti-gay marriage? Don't get one of those either. Faith prohibits birth control? Then keep contraceptives out of your lily white home.

But this conservative viewpoint has zoomed past the point of being some quietly whispered comment and has transformed into a personalized campaign to smear and slander a young woman. No matter where you are on the political scale, this should be an offense to your sensibilities. Further, it seems that those making the most hateful remarks never even bothered to listen to the testimony. It seems that pre-slander, that this is the first thing you should do.

The #boycottrush campaign, which I have been proud to spearhead, did great work in just three days. As this movement grows, it will now encompass anyone who holds the same boorish and appalling position as Mr. Limbaugh. And that person, we have now discovered, includes

Actress Patricia Heaton

Please join us in boycotting her current television show "The Middle", which is aired on ABC. Following is contact information:

Online Contact Form

Saturday, March 3, 2012

Sunday Morning Political Show Guests March 3, 2012

No matter where you fall on the political spectrum, you musst get informed and remain informed. Oh, and register to voter....and have the proper ID.....that's it!

State of the Union With Candy Crowley Super Tuesday: GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich. Super Tuesday: GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul. 2012 White House and Congress: Ron Brownstein; Dana Bash. President Obama's AIPAC speech: Martin Indyk; Nick Burns. President Obama's AIPAC speech: Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.); Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.).

Fareed Zakaria GPS GOP presidential race; religion and politics: Chrystia Freeland; Joe Klein; Reihan Salam; Katrina vanden Heuvel.

Face the Nation GOP presidential candidates Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul; Panel. John Dickerson; Norah O'Donnell; Michael Gerson, the Washington Post.

Meet the Press 2012 politics; GOP legislative strategy: Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.).President Obama's re-election effort: Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.).

This Week With George Stephanopoulos Super Tuesday: GOP Presidential Candidate Newt Gingrich. The general election: Obama campaign advisor David Axelrod.

Volunteer To Listen To Rush Limbaugh: Southern States


Thank you for showing an interest in boycotting Rush Limbaugh sponsors. This mission comes on the heels of his recent slanderous tirade that targeted college student Sandra Fluke, who was brave enough to testify in front of congress regarding contraceptive legislation. If you are interested in seeing a clip of Rush in action (brace yourself!), click here.

Because so much of the sponsorship of the Rush Limbaugh radio show is done on the local level, we need to focus on those advertisers as we move our boycott efforts forward. This requires (insert gag here) actually listening to the show and jotting down company names. Warning: Leading physicians recommend limiting these exposures to less than 20 minutes (snark, snark).

Please post your comments regarding sponsorship below and feel free to remain anonymous. If you would be so kind, put the date, time and company name. I can enter company contact information at a later time.

Thank you again for your support of this cause.