I got my daily CNSNews.com newsbrief this morning, and I was flabbergasted by the top story. There is so much to it that I just cannot take the time to write an article of my own about it.

What I will do, however, is give you some of the highlights quoted from the article here, and give you the URL so you can read the whole thing for yourself if you don't believe me. The URL is: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200801/POL20080124e.html, and the title is: Top Earmark-er Clinton Grants $303,000 to 'Gay' Lobby Group
By Fred Lucas
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
January 24, 2008

OK...here it goes:

"(CNSNews.com) - A group that lobbies for needle exchanges, for allowing more immigrants with HIV/AIDS to legally enter the country, and for condom distribution in prisons received a $303,000 federal earmark pushed by Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.).

That was one of 261 earmarks Clinton personally helped usher through Congress. That's more earmarks than any other member of Congress seeking the presidency, according to an analysis by the watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW).

This specific appropriation is from the Department of Justice and is aimed at fighting methamphetamine use - that's what the Gay Men's Health Crisis Center is supposed to do with the taxpayer-funded money.

Clinton announced the grant in October 2007, a month after receiving a $750 donation and a $250 donation from Felix Lopez, an attorney for the Gay Men's Health Crisis and for a clinic based in New York.

The Gay Men's Health Crisis Center, based in New York City, has a public policy agenda for the federal, state, and city level that includes a needle exchange program to curb the spread of HIV, allowing non-profit groups to distribute condoms for free throughout prisons, and opposition to abstinence-only sex education.

The group says its top legislative agenda item at the federal level involves changing immigration policy to eliminate HIV/AIDS as grounds for inadmissibility as a disease of public health significance.

In a survey of presidential candidates by the Gay Men's Health Crisis, Clinton provided a "mixed position" on the issue of repealing the HIV entry ban. Her chief rival for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, supports the repeal.

Both support needle exchange programs and the distribution of free condoms in prisons, and they oppose abstinence-only sex education.

The group scored Clinton at 92 percent and Obama at 89 percent."

Now, I could go on and print more of the story here, but between my nausea and the migraine I feel coming on, I will let you read the rest for yourself.

Let us just please do a little review of the troubling information we have just ingested. Here we have a woman who is running for president of the United States of America pushing an earmark to get $303,000.00 in funding for a group that “lobbies for needle exchanges, for allowing more immigrants with HIV/AIDS to legally enter the country, and for condom distribution in prisons.”

So, in reality, what Mrs. Clinton is saying is that we have lost any hope of winning the “war on drugs” (gee, sounds like another war she wants to raise the white flag on), so we should just make sure the junkies have clean needles with which to shoot up. I can hear her logic now, “Let’s see, how can we curb crime? Yes, we’ll keep drug addicts healthy (and addicted) so they will go out and rob, steal, and murder to get their ‘fix.’”

Seems like sound reasoning to me.

But wait, there’s more: This money came one month after the group’s attorney, Felix Lopez, donated a total of $1,000.00 to the Hillary for Pres. Campaign. Hmm, coincidence? I think maybe not. Shockingly, Mr. Lopez could not be reached for comment. Maybe he has heard the name Vince Foster some time in the past.

The CNS article goes on to say that, “Clinton's 261 earmarks were more than twice as many as any other member of Congress seeking the presidency, the CAGW analysis showed.”

The next issue of contention which I have with this organization, and Hill’s funding for it, is that it has a public policy agenda of allowing non-profits to distribute condoms free to convicted felons serving time in prisons. Great, first we’ll get them high on clean needles so they can stay healthy enough to rob someone.

Next, after they are convicted for robbing someone, we’ll give them condoms so they can have all the “safe sex” they want once they go to prison. Better still, we’ll give the prisoners condoms so they can go rape an inferior inmate and leave no evidence as to whom the attacker was. That’s OK, it shouldn’t be too hard to track down a rapist at the penitentiary, right?

And then, the group wants to fight abstinence-only sex education. It seems to me like an HIV/AIDS advocacy group would be the first in the world to tell you that the best way to keep from getting AIDS would be to abstain from sex in the first place. But, then, what do I know? I’m just a dumb hick from Kentucky.

Finally, “The group says its top legislative agenda item at the federal level involves changing immigration policy to eliminate HIV/AIDS as grounds for inadmissibility as a disease of public health significance.” Earlier, in her speech presenting the check, Mrs. Clinton said, “With HIV/AIDS rates among meth users more than twice as high as the general public, these funds are essential in helping the Gay Men's Health Clinic continue the fight against HIV/AIDS through treatment and prevention."

So, in the senator’s mind, HIV/AIDS seems to be pretty a pretty damn serious threat to the population. However, in the mind of the group for whom she got the earmark, they feel it necessary to, “eliminate HIV/AIDS as grounds for inadmissibility as a disease of public health significance.” What kind of ridiculous “fairytale (to coin a phrase)” is Mrs. Clinton living in?

The article states that, In a survey of presidential candidates by the Gay Men's Health Crisis, Clinton provided a "mixed position" on the issue of repealing the HIV entry ban. Her chief rival for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, supports the repeal.”

So, in other words, the top two Democrat candidates for president in the 2008 cycle at least somewhat support repealing a law that would make inadmissible to the U.S. foreigners who have a disease of public health significance. I agree! I think we are rich enough that we should let any person with a terminal illness come here.

Think about it. We have a healthcare system that is in the red. We have roughly 50 million people with no health insurance AT ALL, we have doctors closing doors because they can’t afford malpractice insurance, we have hospitals all along the border shutting down because illegals are “bleeding them dry” by getting services, not paying for them, and hopping right back over the border. Why should we be so selfish as to not allow foreigners who have a disease of public health significance to come and get some of this action we have here? Huh?

Yessir…can you feel the love? The Democrats should be absolutely disgusted with their top “leaders” over tese kinds of actions. If I were a Democrat (and I THANK GOD I AM NOT!) I would be doing some real hard thinking about putting EITHER of those two in the Oval Office!

I know what you’re thinking--”I thought you weren’t going to write an article about this.” Well, I hadn’t intended to, but the more I read and wrote, the madder I got and the more I wrote. This is a sham, and it should be halted IMMEDIATELY…if not sooner!