A progressive political blog that highlights the infringement of religion upon today’s government.

WWJV4.com is a progressive political blog that focuses a lot on the infringement of religion in politics. This certainly does not mean that we are anti-religion. We support comments from any belief system, religion, or political standing. We believe in the first amendment and wish to provide a place where intelligent conversation and debate can take place.

We believe that whether or not you personally believe in any god, the teachings of Jesus of love, peace, and forgiveness, are such that almost anyone can support them. What we do not agree with is these teachings being distorted and used to promote division, injustice, intolerance, bigotry, and discrimination against anyone.

It has been our experience that the people who argue the loudest against things like womens’ right to choose, gay rights, and acceptance of all cultures often have no idea why they believe so strongly. They are often unable to cite sources, refute arguments with evidence, or even remain civil. I wrote the other day that it will be important for the future of this nation to reach out to the Christian conservatives. I believe that many of them have their eyes closed to what is really going on and the hatred that they may be unknowingly spreading.

What we hope to do with this site is not to disparage or downgrade anyone’s beliefs but to share information. Information that may cause someone to really look at whether or not what they are clinging to as “Christian” or religious ideals are truly the messages of their gods.

To that end we will not accept comments that promote hatred or violence toward any group of people, use foul or degrading language directed at a person or group of people, or are otherwise found to be inappropriate by our moderators. We will always communicate with our submitters to advise if there are any problems with the content of the comments and give any rejected a chance to reword their thoughts.

Thank you,

WWJV4.com

It seems that the liberals are going out of their way to ensure that real Americans are shut out of the Nobel prizes again. Today I was reading MSNBC and ran across this piece, seems that three Americans are sharing the Nobel prize for economics. Want to guess how many are named General Petraeus? NONE!

So why is it that the liberals hate freedom and liberty so much that they keep nominating people not named General Petraeus to the Nobel Prize Committee? First it was Al Gore with his Peace Prize for inventing “global warming”; now three guys with some economic “theories” win the Nobel Prize for economics.

What is with all these theories? Aren’t theories’ just another way of saying they are guessing? It’s like the theory of evolution, or the theory that man is causing the world to warm up, or the theory of relativity. All made up scientific gobble-de-gook made to scare people into the arms of big science. Seriously people, if theories were facts then they would be in the bible. As we all know the bible is all true (even the contradictory parts) and I challenge anyone to find a single theory in there. Anyone who says there are theories in the bible is lying. I rest my case.

Here are the categories and winners for the 2007 Nobel Prize, look at how these liberals have passed over General Petraeus not once, not twice, but every stinking time. Even the physics award should have gone to General Petraeus. However he values national security so much he withdrew from that category to allow someone else to have a chance. But instead of getting 5 Nobel Prizes the socialists at the Nobel Prize Foundation snubbed him because they hate the freedom he represents.

Physics – Won by two guys for developing Giant Magnetoresistance. Now we have all seen X-Men and Magneto is pretty damn scary so I don’t dispute the need for any size of Magneto Resistance. The bigger the better I always say. But the X-Men beat Magneto and locked him in a secret prison made of plastic. I think it’s Guantanamo, just one more reason to keep it open.

Fine, these two guys can keep their Nobel Prize even though their invention came too late to save the Golden Gate Bridge. Better late than never I guess. Besides, General Petraeus isn’t greedy, he can let someone win one of the Nobel Prizes.

Chemistry – Gerherd Ertl won for “his studies of chemical processes on solid surfaces”. He is just riding the coat tails of General Petraeus who performed the same experiments with the depleted uranium rounds fired by the U.S. Army. The results of Petraeus’ experiments, Freedom.

Psychology or Medicine – Three guys won it for some stem celled research with mice. Great, just what we need, healthier mice. I fail to see how this compares to the literally millions of people who have been treated for injuries in Iraq, even with less doctors. Just by sheer volume General Petraeus wins this one hands down.

Literature – While General Petraeus’ report to congress was not literally written down, or even written by General Petraeus, one cannot deny that it is the single most important piece of literature this year. Why they chose Doris Lessing for her “female experience” is beyond comprehension. Just more proof that the feminists are taking away the rights of white males.

Peace – Don’t get me started on Al “Mr. O-Zone” Gore. All he has done is promoted understanding of global warming in an attempt to save the planet. How does this do anything for peace? Wouldn’t the planet be much more peaceful if we all died? General Petraeus has spread freedom, democracy, liberty, and peace throughout the entire Middle East while at the same time personally prevented any terrorist attacks on US soil. If it wasn’t for the liberal hippies in the media you would all know that already!

Economics – I have already talked about these guys’ “theory”. Well because of General Petraeus a small group of soldiers, snipers, attack helicopters, and a couple politicians can safely enjoy an afternoon shopping spree in a market just like the ones in Indiana. Seriously, can mechanism design theory get you 5 rugs for 5 bucks? I think not.

So I am officially putting the Nobel Prize Foundation, and everyone who won a Nobel Prize on the sinners list until they give General Petraeus the recognition he deserves. I’m calling them out, if they love freedom more than they love their pagan liberal gods, they will do the right thing and give General Petraeus those prizes.

My heart was touched today by the story of a family in New Orleans’ whose home was destroyed by Katrina. They did not give up and put $138,000 of $150,000 Road Home Grant toward rebuilding their home. The home was almost completed and Miracle Lewis, her mother Kellie Joseph, and 6 siblings came back into the neighborhood they had belonged to for almost 10 years. Miracle was so happy to see her new room. Over 80% of the house was complete and the family was looking forward to being home.

That night a horrible thing happened. A car was stolen and placed in the backyard of the Joseph’s home close to the house. The tires were taken and the car was set on fire, probably to hide any evidence of the theft. While the family slept in their temporary housing in Baton Rouge, their new home burned to the ground.

The family’s grant money was tied up in the home and after paying off the mortgage on the lost home they are left with $12,000. Touched by the Joseph family’s plight, State Representative Charmaine Marchand has established a fund at Capital One that is specifically restricted for use only in reconstruction.

I encourage you to please go HERE to make a donation. Any amount will help Miracle and her family begin their life again after years of heartache. There is also a a page set up HERE where you can leave messages of love, support, and hope for the Joseph family. Please join with us to Bring Miracle Home.

Recently I wrote a story about the tragic deaths of over 80 women directly caused by Nicaragua’s total ban on abortion. This is an important story and I highly suggest that everyone check it out. Those women died because of the religious right’s war on women’s rights to control their own bodies.

I learned today while reading a great piece by Melissa McEwan at Shakespeare’s Sister that making abortions illegal does not reduce their numbers. Stop and think about that for a second. The central argument for taking away a woman’s right to choose is that it will reduce abortions and save lives. Now that we know this is wrong want to guess how many anti-choicers will change their mind? I’m betting 0 as they are not exactly an open minded crowd.

Now, after reading the results of this 8 year study we find that this whole argument is worthless. It bears saying again. MAKING ABORTIONS ILLEGAL DOES NOT REDUCE THEIR NUMBERS. The only thing these fanatical right wingers will ever accomplish by robbing these women of their rights is to make abortions less safe and more degrading. This is backed up by the research which shows that worldwide 70,000 women die each year due to unsafe abortions.

So while it is not possible to prevent abortions by making them illegal there are some things that will help to reduce the need for abortions. This study found that poverty and lack of access to health care were the most common reasons for abortions. Both of these causes can be greatly reduced by our government but the religious right is opposed to them. I find it very hypocritical to say you want to prevent something while at the same time opposing everything that would accomplish that very thing.

Maybe one of you all will be able to clue me in on why the religious right says they want to save lives yet a) opposes all social services that would reduce the financial need for abortion; b) keep pushing the bullshit abstinence only programs which all studies show to be expensive and worthless; c) push for children to be born then promptly oppose any measures to provide them with adequate health care causing infant mortality rates to soar; and d) fail to care about the tens of thousands of women who would die as a result of making abortion illegal.

James Dobson abandons Giuliani and supports a third party candidate? He’s loud about his dissatisfaction that Giuliani is leading the Republican field. He hates the fact that Giuliani has policies that are closer to Clinton than to social conservatives. He will only accept an anti-choice candidate. He doesn’t trust that Giuliani will appoint Justices that are conservative, based on Giuliani’s record that’s probably a good bet. So James Dobson threatens promises to break free from the Republican party if Giuliani is elected the nominee.

What will this mean for the GOP? Considering that exit polls on election day in 2004 showed that 22% of voters labeled themselves Evangelical Christian, it would probably secure a Democratic win. That is, if Dobson could muster enough of them to defy their ingrained Republican voting tradition.

I was watching Face the Nation on Sunday and the guest was Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council. He appeared to back peddle a bit on Dobson’s statement by stating, “What we said last week was more of a proclamation of principle rather than a declaration of intent.” He then stated that “If the party chooses to break its commitment to creating a culture of life, we’re not going to go in that direction with the party.” during a conference call on Thursday with reporters. To me this sounds pretty much like an intention.

On Face the Nation, Perkins went on to say that the Conservative movement is comparable to a three legged stool the Fiscal Conservatives, the Foreign Policy Conservatives, and the Social Conservatives. He implored the other 2/3 of the party to throw their support to the Social Conservatives and their anti-choice agenda. Without all three legs they will “impale” themselves. Thursday, Perkins stated that he believed roughly half of the Religious Right would vote for Giuliani anyway but that’s still a lot of votes to lose.

So what will this mean for the Democrats? Probably a bigger win over the Republican nominee. Unless, that is, Mitt Romney starts climbing faster. He appears to be the Evangelicals’ favorite at this time with Perkins stating Thursday, “he’s one of the strongest on our issues. It’s true he has had a change of position on these issues. I do believe they’re genuine. I do not see him going back.”