In expansive remarks at a law school in Florida, Justice Clarence Thomas on Tuesday vigorously defended the Supreme Court’s recent campaign finance decision.

And Justice Thomas explained that he did not attend State of the Union addresses — he missed the dust-up when President Obama used the occasion last week to criticize the court’s decision — because the gatherings had turned so partisan.

Justice Thomas responded to several questions from students at Stetson University College of Law in Gulfport, Fla., concerning the campaign finance case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. By a 5-to-4 vote, with Justice Thomas in the majority, the court ruled last month that corporations had a First Amendment right to spend money to support or oppose political candidates.

“I found it fascinating that the people who were editorializing against it were The New York Times Company and The Washington Post Company,” Justice Thomas said. “These are corporations.”

The part of the McCain-Feingold law struck down in Citizens United contained an exemption for news reports, commentaries and editorials. But Justice Thomas said that reflected a legislative choice rather than a constitutional principle.

(Good for Justice Thomas. To find out more of his thoughts  go here.)

A senior Army strategist and Pentagon advisor finds it unacceptable that the recently released Defense Department review of the shooting rampage at Fort Hood, Texas, didn't mention that the suspect's Islamic faith might have been a motivating factor in the massacre.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates had ordered the review following the November 5 shooting. But according to a recent article in TIME Magazine, when the 86-page report was released late last month, it did not once mention Major Nidal Hasan by name or discuss whether the killings may have had anything to do with his Muslim faith. (Ft. Hood report omits important factor: Islam  )

(How can one not mention this man's Islam faith. This is like if  a member of the KKK  shot some people and  the  report not discussing he belonged to that radical group. OH I know why there was no mention of this man's Islam faith they wanted to be P.C. )

In my last article, a somber remembrance of Roe v. Wade, I called attention to something that shocked readers: I noted that the Obama administration and Democratic Congress "rejected funding for school vouchers for poor children in Washington, DC, but supported funding for abortions for the mothers of those children."

The contrast is breathtaking, but true. It's another jolt to traditionally minded voters — especially pro-life Democrats and independents — who voted for "change" on November 4, 2008, and are now absorbing the change they authorized. In this case, the change stands in stark contrast to previous administrations and Congresses that prohibited federal funds to finance abortions in the District of Columbia. It veers well beyond liberals' assurance that abortion merely be "safe, legal, and rare."

(The above is part of a column written by Dr. Paul Kengor. Read more of the column below.)

If you didn't hear about this until now, don't be surprised. Over 300,000 pro-lifers marched in Washington last month without notice by the mainstream media. So, I'd like to take a moment to explain what happened:
 
Last summer, in July 2009, the overwhelmingly Democratic House of Representatives narrowly passed (by a vote of 219-208) a bill permitting the DC government to use locally raised tax revenues to provide abortions, reversing a long-standing prohibition.
 
Almost all Republicans voted against the bill. They were joined by some (but not enough) Democrats. Unfortunately, because of how Americans voted on November 4, 2008, the extreme left has such a massive majority in Congress that legislators who think taxpayers shouldn't pay for abortions couldn't stop the measure from being passed. Worse, because Americans — who, in recent polls, describe themselves as more pro-life and more conservative than ever — voted for the most radical abortion-rights advocate in the history of the presidency, the bill had full backing from the White House.

And so, the change in favor of abortion funding came via a $768 million DC Financial Services Appropriations bill that — here's the kicker — also included termination of school vouchers for poor children in Washington, DC, forcing those children out of private schools and back into public schools they fled.

Rep. Joe Pitts, the Pennsylvania congressman who is a stalwart champion for the unborn. Pitts told me: "It's shameful that Congress has decided to use taxpayer dollars to fund the destruction of life in our nation's capital but has denied funding for a successful scholarship program that allows poor children a chance at a decent education. The juxtaposition in policies could not be more disturbing."

(Yes it is shameful that our leaders in D.C. will   not pay for  children  to attend private schools but will fund the killing of unborn children. It is not only a shame but an outrage. Shame on every Democrat  who has supported these moves. Read the whole column by  Dr. Paul Kengor right here.)

The national director for Generation Life says it comes as no surprise that liberal groups are upset over a Super Bowl ad featuring Tim Tebow and his mother.

Focus on the Family produced the 30-second spot, which is slated to run during the CBS broadcast on Sunday and reportedly will feature Pam Tebow recounting her decision to carry Tim to full-term, despite a doctor's advice to have an abortion due to health concerns.

Liberal and feminist groups were quick to denounce the ad, even though it has yet to be previewed, and Brandi Swindell, founder and national director of Generation Life, contends the heated opposition shows the liberal groups' true colors.

"They're not really pro-choice organizations -- they are pro-abortion organizations," she contends. "So it's disappointing when you see ads that pretend to be pro-woman, that at the end of the day are completely anti-woman. And we see them being very pro-abortion, very anti-woman as they protest and are so angry over this ad."

(All I can add is amen Brandi and didn't  Pam Tebow make a choice. I thought the idea of the so called pro choice groups was to give women a choice. Read more on this issue 'Pro-choice' really means 'pro-abortion'.)

A national defense analyst and Pentagon advisor is concerned about the recent efforts by the Obama administration regarding the president's desire to repeal the 1993 law banning homosexuals from military service.

Following an appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced Tuesday that he is launching a landmark study on how the military would lift its ban on homosexual service members. At the same hearing Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said lifting the ban is "the right thing to do." (Military ban - repeal a forgone conclusion?  )

Lt. Col. Bob Maginnis (USA-Ret.) was part of the military working group that helped craft Section 654, Title 10, the 1993 law which strictly prohibits homosexuals from serving in the military. He is concerned about Mullen's statement and the president's call to repeal the law.
 
"They believe that this is the right thing to do...to repeal the law. Now as Senator [John] McCain said, this is repeal by fiat. They've already reached their conclusion, and they're proceeding with that," Maginnis explains. "But of course it's the Congress that has to, with a majority in both houses, repeal the law."

(This law should not be repealed for the sake of the nation and those who are defending us. If changes are made in this law it will not help  the best military in the world. Those who want to do this need to start putting our nation first and forget their own agendas.)