The Neosecularist

I Said That? Yeah, I Said That!

Archive for the category “healthcare”

Obamacare – Robert Reich Wants SCOTUS To Commit Treason (It’s What He Would Do, Anyway!)

UPDATESupreme Court Commits Treason!!!!

With the United States Supreme Court poised to make their decision on Obamacare just hours away now (if you are reading this on Thursday, June 28 2012) there isn’t a single political pundit who has not yet weighed in with their thoughts on how the court will render its verdict.  Include Robert Reich (or Reichhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh for you Rush-a-bes out there) in that un-chlorinated cesspool of disease and squalor, rabidly infectious with misinformation and lies, called the MSM.  Reich is of the opinion the court will side WITH Obamacare, and he lays out several reasons why, all of which are both bogus and garbage.  But one thought he has laid out is absolutely treasonous, and for that, he ought to be fully excoriated and drummed out of America permanently.

What did Reich say that was treasonous?

Chief Justice John Roberts is — or should be — concerned about the steadily-declining standing of the Court in the public’s mind, along with the growing perception that the justices decide according to partisan politics rather than according to legal principle.”

Yikes!  Did Reich really say he hopes the Supreme Court will abandon its sworn duty to uphold, even acknowledge, the Constitution and decide in favor of Obamacare anyway (despite the fact that it is un-Constitutional) because if they don’t, the people might look upon them unfavorably?

Indeed, that’s exactly what Reich said.  And, to a degree, we can understand exactly where Reich is coming from – the MSM media, that is, which is more unpopular right now than it has ever been.  Never mind the actual quality of news content, it’s rating, ratings ratings!  So it must be all about ratings with the Supreme Court too, says Reich, and the Constitution be damned.

Reich thinks SCOTUS will be swayed by the few people in America who want Obamacare upheld in its entirety.  That may very well be true will Ginsberg, Kagan and sotomayor, all of whom are very liberal Justices, and judicial activists, and support looking outside the Constitutional, and even looking outside of American law altogether to what other countries are doing.  And while it is un-Constitutional for Supreme Court Judges to do that – that still doesn’t stop them.

The Supreme Court can’t afford to lose public trust. It has no ability to impose its will on the other two branches of government.”

Robert Reich, like everyone else in the lame-stream media wants the Supreme Court to take its marching orders from them, rather than what is actually written in the Constitution with regards to the powers vested to the Supreme Court.  What Reich won’t ever acknowledge, because it goes against liberal ideology and principal, is that the Supreme Court is not set up in the same way as say American Idol, the X factor, America’s Got Talent, etc.,  In other words, the Supreme Court is not a popularity contest, and it is not about acquiring the most, and highest, positive ratings.  The Supreme Court neither makes laws, nor does it decide laws based on how many people’s feelings will be hurt.  The Supreme Court was set up to ensure the Constitution was at all times upheld.  Period!

It doesn’t matter that a significant portion of the public may not like Obamacare. The issue here is the role and institutional integrity of the Supreme Court, not the popularity of a particular piece of legislation. Indeed, what better way to show the Court’s impartiality than to affirm the constitutionality of legislation that may be unpopular but is within the authority of the other two branches to enact?

Reich is absolutely correct when he says “The issue here is the role and institutional integrity of the Supreme Court, not the popularity of a particular piece of legislation”.  What is strange and confounding and damning is that the legislation in question is un-Constitutional, and Reich doesn’t seem to give a damn about that.  Or, to put it another way, how is siding with Obamacare, specifically the mandate that every American buy health insurance or face steep fines and penalties, upholding the Constitution?

As conservatives, and as Americans, we fully expect Obamacare to be struck down.  We also expect at least two Supreme Court Justices will side with Obamacare.  And for any Supreme Court Justice to side with a law that is blatantly and patently un-Constituitonal, that is, and must be, an impeachable offense.  It no secret liberals want Scalia thrown out.   Why shouldn’t we, as conservatives, demand tyrants that refuse to stay within the boundaries of the Constitution be dismissed, on their own power or ours?

Obamacare is an absolute mess, filled with new laws and powers bestowed upon government, granting it an extension of authority it was never designed to have, but which will have to be funded either through higher taxes on all of us, or through printing more and more money and tacking that expense onto the national debt .  We probably still don’t know every last disastrous detail.   Remember, we had to sign the bill into law first, before we could read it?  Remember who said that?

Is it really worth committing treason to uphold Obamacare?  We already know the purpose of Obamacare was not to ensure the health of all, or any, Americans.  Obamacare was set up specifically and directly to grow the size, the scope and the power of government, and to force us all to be that much more dependent on government and to become that much less independent for ourselves.  It’s un-Constitutional and its treasonous.  We’ll soon find out how many justices have committed treason shortly.  How stupid do we have to be to not see just how dangerous Obamacare is to America and to all of us?  As stupid as Robert Reich?

Psychopath Sandra Fluke; Her Spoiled Little Brat Syndrome

Being 30 years old has not stopped Sandra Fluke from acting a lot like a spoiled little brat.  You know, the child that doesn’t get her way so she throws a tantrum until she does get her way; the child who always points her finger to another person and lays blame on them for an accident she committed herself; the child who will lie and lie and lie until she gets her way.  That’s Sandra Fluke!

Sandra Fluke enrolled into Georgetown University for one reason, by her own admission, solely to make her case as to why the religious university ought to provide contraception to its students, and why it ought to be provided for free.  Sandra was smart enough (psychopaths generally have a high intelligence level) to know that Georgetown would rebuke, rebuff and flat-out deny her “request”.

Enter the contraception mandate and Obamacare.  An opportunity came along for Sandra to put Georgetown’s thumbs to the screws, so to speak, by engrossing herself in a public forum to humiliate and embarrass the university in front of congress, in a way she believed would cause Georgetown to fold and buckle under an immense pressure from the students of Georgetown, from congress and from the American public.  This flagrant display was intended to be her masterpiece.  Why then, did it not go as planned?

What Sandra hadn’t counted on was the fact that conservatives in America are far more powerful, far more influential, far more organized than she ever gave us credit.  She also did not factor in that a majority of Americans oppose Obamacare, which includes the contraception mandate and forcing religious institutions to provide services and procedures that go against their moral and religious convictions.  (Psychopaths, while highly intelligent, are also exceedingly arrogant and full of themselves.  Too conceited to pay attention to, or look beyond, their own ego.)

This miscalculation, which has been a major backlash against Sandra, against Obamacare, against liberalism, has caused Sandra to become even more outspoken, and deeply entrenched in her own lie – that she is merely fighting for contraception for students who need it for health and medical issues like “ovarian cysts, hormonal imbalances, endometriosis”, which she reiterated at an event at Georgetown University.

But we are not talking about contraception for  “a lot of medical issues.”  That has never been the debate, and that has never been what Sandra herself has been fighting to achieve for female students at Georgetown.  Sandra has always been fighting for free contraception for use in promiscuous sex, which, sadly, many people engage in.  And while conservatives are not about to enter into a debate as to whether consenting adults, or even teenagers, ought to be prohibited by law from engaging in promiscuous sex (it’s futile and we recognize American citizens have the right have sex with whom they choose), we, as conservatives, are very willing to make certain that those men and women who do engage in sex, for the sake of sex, do so on their own dime and accept the consequences of that decision.

Sandra Fluke, among other liberals, opposes that.  She demands that, while consenting Americans of all ages have a fundamental right to have sex with whom they choose, they ought to have those choices subsidized by American taxpayers and institutions that provide healthcare and health related services, including religious institutions.  As conservatives, we obviously strongly and absolutely disagree with that.  In doing so, however, we are by no means attempting to say that women with health issues, clearly and specifically diagnosed by a professional and competent doctor, ought to unduly suffer because she cannot afford the cost of the medication she needs to help offset the pain and suffering.

But – is that really why these students/women are using contraception?  To offset enduring and persistence pain and suffering?  And, could there be some other medication they could take, other than contraception or birth control that helps alleviate and end the pain?

Here is the problem with that.  Sandra specifically targeted Georgetown University.  She enrolled in it, and paid the cost of tuition and all expenses included, which was over $40,000/year.  Why did she have to enroll and spend that much money simply to shed light on a compelling issue that affects not only female students at Georgetown, but millions of American women?  And – why Georgetown?  In other words, if all Sandra was trying to do was find a solution to how women with otherwise less of an economical means could pay for contraception and birth control and have it provided for them for legitimate and specific health issues – why the elaborate scheme of enrolling in Georgetown?  Why the long-about rouse of thinking she had to be a student of Georgetown in order to be heard?

Obviously Sandra had an ulterior motive.  It had to be a religious college, for one; and it had to be a prestigious one so that when it caved under public pressure (per Sandra’s plan) the smaller, less prestigious, less noteworthy religious colleges would feel compelled to cave as well.  And not only religious colleges, but all religious institutions that provide healthcare.  Sandra delved into this complex strategy to discredit religion itself.  What else makes sense?  That part of her plan failed.

And what do psychopaths usually do when a part of their plan fails?  They dig in deeper.  Sandra is no exception.  That is why she is back at Georgetown still insisting the college needs to provide contraception and birth control to students because:

Most students don’t realize that contraception coverage will not be on their insurance when they arrive at Georgetown.  We’re used to having contraception readily available.”

This is an another incredible statement coming from Sandra.  What she is saying is that “most students” are not researching Georgetown University as thoroughly as they ought to before they decide to send in an application for enrollment.  Is that really true?  Also puzzling, and damnably so, is the fact that if a student can afford the high cost of enrollment, why then could they not afford the small pittance of the price for birth control and contraception without having to beg for it to be subsidized by the university?  And why, if Sandra is only urging for birth control and contraception for “medical issues” is she not insisting, publicly, that she would accept Georgetown University’s prohibition on these when used only for sex?

Sandra is demanding Georgetown provide birth control and contraception, free of charge to all students, regardless of why they actually want it.  How does that make sense?  And who picks up the cost if Georgetown is forced to acquiesce?  Wouldn’t that have to be passed on to all Georgetown students in the form of higher tuition and other costs associated with being  a student as Georgetown?

Said Fluke:

“Prevention of pregnancy is a public health need.  When we’re talking about public policy, we need to look at reality, rather than [Church] ideology.”

In other words, Sandra is not really advocating for birth control and contraception for “medical issues” at all.  That is a cover story for her real intentions.  Sandra really is, and always has been, advocating for women to engage in promiscuous sex (all part of the women’s liberation movement and liberal feminism) and for “prevention of pregnancy” that often results in that sex, i.e. – abortion.  And she is demanding the cost for the “prevention of pregnancy” be picked up by Georgetown, which she has known long before she actually enrolled, opposed such a policy.  Sandra knew, long before she enrolled at Georgetown, that it is a religious college with a strong commitment to its religion.  Sandra sought to break that strong bond.  She is still trying.

Sandra has never once denounced the use of birth control and contraception for non “medical issues”.  If she was challenged directly to take a position; if Sandra was challenged to assert whether or not she is merely in favor of Georgetown University having a better health plan and coverage for those students who actually and legitimately are suffering from real “medical issues” like “ovarian cysts, hormonal imbalances, endometriosis” – would Sandra be willing to concede Georgetown’s right in prohibiting birth control and contraception for all other “issues”, like promiscuous sex and to end an unwanted pregnancy?  Knowing that, is where we can begin to unravel the mystery that is the psychopath, Sandra Fluke.  But only if we press her to answer the right questions.

Gangs Aren’t The Only Ones Glamorizing Murder, Or Proud Of Themselves For Murdering

Some people are more prone to murder than others.  Gang members, having grown up living in and around a circle of violence, probably all their lives, see death and the killing of others for the sake of their gangs as normal as eating and breathing.  We – we who actually are as normal as eating and breathing – look upon the actions of gang members with derision, disgust and outrage.  We tend to support laws that make it hard for gang members to operate.  And we certainly support laws that punish gang members when they do commit crimes, especially violent crimes like murder.  We certainly do not look upon murder by gang members as justification for the lifestyle they lead.  Nor do we look upon murder by gang members, who murder rival gang members, as justification for having crossed into one another’s “territory”.  In fact – do we ever look upon murder committed by gang members with understanding, compassion, empathy, sympathy or justification?  Do we ever seek to protect the “rights” of gang members to kill one another?  Do we ever attempt to grant “rights” for gang members to kill one another?  If not – why?

If gang members must kill one another to survive in their own world; if gang members must kill one another to show superiority and who is in, and who has, “control”; if gang members must kill or risk being killed themselves (a sort of self-defense); if gang members must kill one another to preserve the integrity and the “health” of their gangs; if gang members killing one another is mostly a “private” affair between one gang and another; if gang members killing one another is only hurting themselves, and that is the decision they “choose” to live by – then why are any of us so overly concerned whether or not gangs members are killing one another?  Why do we waste time, energy and taxes dollars trying to stop gangs from operating by arresting them, putting them on trial and then in jail?  Why do we pass all types of restrictive legislation that makes it harder to be in a gang, and to make committing a crime while in a gang, especially murder, more harsh, more difficult, more painful?  And – why, when one gang member kills another gang member, do we call that, of all things – murder?  Isn’t that a bit hypocritical, all things considered?

All things like the fact that there are millions of people who have committed murder, who have never been in a gang, and who have the full support of many millions more people, including politicians, judges, entire courts millions of people who will never be arrested, prosecuted or serve one day in jail for having committed murder.  And – many of whom who would not only not hesitate to commit murder again, but would openly brag about it, defend it, celebrate it!  After-all – they too have grown up surrounded by a culture that supports what is otherwise, morally and ethically, at least, murder, even if they, just as gang members, don’t see it that way.

What is the real difference between gang members who commit murder on a street corner or in a back alley and these people who commit murder in a place located near a street corner, and sometimes also in a back alley?

Obamacare Has Been Defeated. Now What?

Whoa!  Hold your horses.  The Supreme Court hasn’t made its final decision yet.  Still…

And still…

And still more…

And still more (from the actual oral argument)…

Obamacare cannot legally stand up.  That does not mean it won’t.  It’s in the hands of nine Supreme Court Justices who are tasked with the very political and very politicized decision of doing the right thing, constitutionally, and angering some tens of millions of Americans.  Or, doing the wrong thing, and angering some more tens of millions of Americans, but in which every American will be unduly, unconstitutionally burdened.

Americans want health insurance, and they want affordable and easy access to it, especially when the time comes they actually need it.  Obamacare does not do that, nor was it ever designed to.  Government run healthcare, whatever it is called, is unconstitutional.  The debate we all need to focus on after it is defeated is – where do we go from here?  And the immediate answer is that we need to look at the states, and removing the regulations that prevent citizens from buying insurance from other insurance providers in other states.  Doing that will have enormous benefits in helping to create more competition which will drive up quality and drive down overall cost, including the cost for pre-existing conditions, which absolutely need to be covered by health insurers at affordable rates.

Putting the onus and responsibility of paying for healthcare on all American citizens by mandating they buy heath insurance, and fining them if they don’t is not the solution.  Better and more tangible solutions can be found in the free market.  After Obamacare is defeated, let’s not waste time whining about it or blaming people for its defeat – it was doomed for failure because it is unconstitutional.

Be proactive.  Millions of Americans who don’t have health insurance need it.  Millions of Americans with pre-existing conditions, who cannot afford the high cost of premiums, need to be covered now, not after they are dead.  The free market can solve these problems.  Playing politics can’t, or won’t.  Or – do you want to roll that dice again and see what happens?

Healthcare Insurance Ought To Include Pre-Existing Conditions; Government Ought To Butt In, Then Butt Out – And Stay Out!

The cost of treating someone with an advanced illness is a tremendous burden on one’s family as well as on one’s finances.  Compounding the problem, most Americans cannot afford to buy their own health insurance, and that needs to change.  No American ought to be forced to go without healthcare because they legitimately cannot afford it.  And no American ought to be forced to endure the pain associating with illness that goes untreated because they have been denied health insurance due either to an inability to pay for it, or because of a pre-existing condition – or both.

Doesn’t it make more sense to treat an illness as soon as possible, both for the benefit of the individual who needs to be treated, and because the sooner an illness can be treated (which includes bringing a condition under manageable control) the less overall cost there is in treating the illness when it becomes more advanced and needs more specialized medicine, more tests, more doctor and hospital visits?  Why do health insurers discriminate so viciously against Americans with pre-existing conditions and what can government do to reverse that without taking over health insurance altogether, and at the same time lower the cost of healthcare for ALL Americans, including those with pre-existing health conditions?

The United States Supreme Court is in the middle of hearing arguments over The Affordable Care Act – Obamacare, in which the government is arguing it can mandate and force all Americans to buy health insurance.  The Supreme Court will overturn Obamacare on this issue, because it (and we all know it) is unconstitutional for government to force Americans to purchase anything they don’t want to, including health care.  Part of Obamacare also provides that pre-existing conditions must be covered, and that no American can be discriminated against who has a pre-existing health condition.  Once Obamacare is reversed, Americans are back to the drawing board with regards to healthcare, and millions of Americans who now have pre-existing health conditions, who thought they would finally be covered with the health care they needed to help them, will find themselves out of luck.

Health insurance agencies will not cover people with pre-existing conditions because the cost of the premiums would have to be raised in order not to lose money.  Remember, healthcare institutions are FOR PROFIT agencies.  Just as bad is relying on government to provide healthcare to all Americans, including coverage for pre-existing conditions, because in order to do that the cost for such an expensive undertaking would have enormous consequences – very dire, very negative for all Americans.  Government is a NOT FOR PROFIT body, but if it runs health care – it ain’t doing it for free.

1.  Taxes would have to be raised on everyone to pay for government-run healthcare.  So the idea that healthcare would be free flies in the face of reality.  How much taxes would be raised is hard to tell, but as usually happens, it is small at first, and then is progressively raised over time.  In any event, we would all feel it in our wallets and pocketbooks.

2.  Taxing the rich, and rich corporations either exclusively or at a larger rates might sound appealing to Americans who are already struggling to make ends meet, and who would have a harder time with an added healthcare tax.  However, as we all know, when businesses are taxed, regardless of the size of that business, that tax is passed down to the consumer, so Americans still get stuck with paying taxes for healthcare even if government does not directly tax them for it.

3.  However, when government burdens business with taxes, the smaller the business is the more harm there will be, as small businesses cannot stretch their budgets to the same degree bigger businesses can.  This causes small business to lay off employees, creating more unemployment, more overall anxiety, more tension and more call from Americans for government to step in and help even more.

4.  It also creates greater hardships for small businesses who need a certain amount of employees to keep their businesses running, without which they cannot stay in business.  A catch 22 for small business is thus in play, who have tax and debt obligations to pay, or be fined and forced to pay even more.  So, lay off employees to pay the tax and debt, but risk losing their business anyway because with fewer employees, they cannot meet their contractual obligations, resulting in slowing and dramatically decreasing their cash flow, their credit and credibility in the business community.

5.  Now we are back at square one again, and neither have we solved anything, nor have we learned anything from the mistakes we repeatedly make over and over again.  Namely – government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem. And the more we grant power to government to resolve our problems, the more problems are created.

6.  In the process of trying to ensure all Americans with health insurance, including those Americans with pre-existing conditions, mandated through government, and paid for by all taxpayers, directly and indirectly, we have caused more businesses to close their door, or lay off more of their employees, stop hiring, stop giving out raises and other bonuses, and we have brought our economy, which is struggling to crawl at the pace of a caterpillar, to a screeching halt.  And those Americans that needed health insurance, especially those Americans with pre-existing conditions, are again thrown under the bus.

The dilemma we are faced with is that ALL Americans need health insurance, and ALL Americans need affordable health insurance, and that includes, and ought to include, those Americans with pre-existing conditions.  How do we get to that point, where ALL Americans are covered with affordable health insurance, including those Americans with pre-existing health conditions:

•  without turning healthcare over to government;

  without government mandating ALL Americans be insured, or face steep fines for not having health insurance;

  without risking the quality of healthcare because the cost to treat ALL Americans, including those Americans with pre-existing health conditions, is now more expensive to health insurers rather than the other way around;

•  without having the cost of healthcare rise dramatically and unexpectedly because the cost to insurers has become too much to bear, returning us back to the drawing board and having to look for more solutions?

It seems as though, if government would just butt in momentarily and remove the vast amount of restrictions, regulations and tax obligations, the bloated bureaucracy and other obstacles on both the healthcare industry itself and on investors and risk takers, all of which combined, are right now preventing them from either investing altogether in the health industry, or as heavily as they otherwise would but for the regulations and taxes, that would go a long way in helping solve the problem of how to attain quality, affordable healthcare for ALL Americans, including those Americans with pre-existing health conditions.  And just as quickly as government butts in, it ought to butt back out.

Two things are for certain.  One – Obamacare will be overturned.  Two – ALL Americans still need affordable healthcare insurance, including those Americans with pre-existing health conditions.

The only uncertainty is – how will we resolve this problem, how quickly can we resolve this problem, without wasting time about who pays for what, who ought to pay for it, who ought to pay more for it and why, and how to get around the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Obamacare and turn healthcare over to government anyway?

If we are determined to have all Americans insured with quality and affordable healthcare, including those Americans with pre-existing health conditions – who ought not be left out of the process – isn’t the main obstacle in making that happen that group of Americans who insist this cannot be done expect by government mandate?

We know government can’t make that happen without raising taxes on every American, and on every American business.  And we know that still won’t be enough money to cover the cost of ALL Americans, including and especially those Americans with pre-existing conditions.  We know government will have to print more money, incur more debt and create higher inflation, thereby weakening the dollar and making the problem of affordable healthcare, and everything else in America, much, much worse.

Isn’t it time we gave capitalism and the free market system a try?  What are we afraid of losing if we do?

Why I Am Also A Feminist

(A response to “Why I am A feminist“)

I’m also a feminist.

No one needs to shave off any unnecessary body hair, engage in sex with men or women, or at all, to be a feminist.  Whether or not one wears a bra is not an issue (although from a conservative standpoint a well-fitting bra which doesn’t interfere with mobility or health is appropriate).

Liberals, and liberal women, do not own the title to feminism.  Nor do they control the ideas for which feminism is based.  Feminism does not come in one package, nor is it distributed by one manufacturer.  Feminism is also built upon the premise that women deserve, and have the right, to be treated equally, as guaranteed by the Constitution, and to not ever be treated by men as unequal in that respect.  So why then, do liberal feminists feel they need more laws in place to protect their rights that are already guaranteed?  Is it that some women, liberal feminists, will not be satisfied until they have more rights them men?

These are some ideas of what feminism means to me:

  • Women and men must value manhood and womanhood equally, whether it is built into the law or not; and not wait for, or rely on, such silly laws to be passed before equal value is applied.
  • Men respecting women enough not to devalue them by engaging in sex with women outside of marriage.  Women respecting themselves enough not to give into the lusts of men who only want to have sex with them.
  • Women controlling their own bodies by remaining celibate until marriage.  And men doing the same.
  • Instilling the value of abstinence until married in schools, and equal respect for the opposite sex.
  • Women standing together to protect their bodies and control their bodies from being violated by men.
  • Men standing with women on this issue.
  • Men and women realizing the importance of equally caring for children enough to put aside petty arguments as to which one, the man or the woman, will stay at home to raise the children while the other is at work.
  • But also, women realizing the heightened importance of women staying at home raising children in their early years, even if that means giving up a job for the time being.
  • Men accepting that women are not objects, sexually or otherwise.  Women accepting that sex does not liberate or free them, or make them equal to, or with, men any more than sex liberates men.  And that having sex with multiple partners, whether you are a man or a woman, cheapens yourself and your gender.
  • Men accepting that having sex with women outside marriage hurts both men and women.
  • Men accepting that should a child be created out of wedlock it is his responsibility to marry the woman and provide monetary support for her, her pregnancy, and the child if she chooses to keep the child.  Women accepting that if a child is created out of wedlock it is her responsibility to carry the child full term and give birth to it, and marry the man if she will not give the child up for adoption so that the child is not deprived of life.

Today, we have indeed reached a critical point where it is becoming harder and harder to distinguish between what is meant by respect for women, and what it means to be a true feminist, and whether the two are compatible.  There are no “rights” that are being infringed upon or being taken away from any woman in America that in any way cheapens women, disrespects women, relegates women to second class citizens or makes them any less equal to men under the U.S. Constitution.  Men and women are different, of course.  But that they are in no way makes one gender superior over another, where life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are concerned, or where the Constitution guarantees the same rights to all Americans regardless of gender.

However, is the sole reason for, and definition of, feminism to protect a woman’s right to abortion, which is what liberal feminists are decrying, in response to the pro-life movement, as a “war on women”?  America has never gotten over Roe vs. Wade, nor will it.  But, when it is overturned, will its supporters get over that ruling?  Abortion is nothing remotely related to the struggles of suffrage (women’s right to vote) or interracial marriage.  Abortion has always been the taking of innocent life from the womb.  Hence, the reason why millions of women, who are pro-life, reject the mantra of liberal feminism while at the same time they embrace the idea of feminism.

On the other hand, why are Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann, both of whom are very strong, independent women so vilified by other women who call themselves feminists?  And why do some men refer to these, and other conservative women, as c***s?  And, although now women are beginning to speak out, why did it take Rush Limbaugh Calling Sandra Fluke a slut to energize women into demanding their own male supporters stop the misogynist attacks against women?  Why is it that if you are a strong and independent conservative woman, somehow that makes you a traitor to all women, in the eyes of feminists?

Is being a feminist all about having sex, as much sex as you want, with as many partners as you want?  Is being a feminist all about fighting for access, free if possible, to birth control and contraception so one might engage in sex?  Is being a feminist all about fighting for the right to retain access to the types of birth control and contraception that end an unintended pregnancy should that be the result of said sex?  For men – is respecting women all about having premarital sex with women, and respecting her right to kill the child you both creating accidentally?  For women – is respect for yourself all about your right to kill your unborn child so you can continue to engage in sex with men and not have to worry about leaving your place of work to raise a child?  Is that what is meant by women’s “liberation”, “independence”, “freedom” and “control”?  How does behavior which is out of “control” make women more in “control” of themselves and their bodies?

Obviously there is more to being a feminist than that.  Many feminists truly hate men, and would like to seem men as the gender relegated to second class citizenship, or eliminated altogether.

Men absolutely ought to stand up for women’s rights.  Such as a woman’s right to say “no” to sex.  However, what are “women’s rights” if they are not the rights already guaranteed in the Constitution?  That men would have such disrespect for women by using them for their own sexual pleasure, and then standing up for a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy so she can go on engaging in that type of behavior does nothing to provide women with the knowledge she is truly equal to men.  What it does do is get men, and women, off the parenthood hook.  In the meantime, and unborn child has lost its life for the cause of feminism and “women’s rights”.

Women’s rights are indeed not just a woman’s issue.  But if abortion, if access to birth control and contraception (the latter of which no conservative objects denying to women), if fighting for that to remain a “woman’s right” is what feminism is centered around, how does that help to end rape, discrimination in the workplace, repression and the real war on women, and where real violence is being waged against women, throughout Islamic strongholds around the world?

If respect for women by being pro-abstinence and pro-life is not a feminist cause or issue, or concern; if “liberation” and “freedom” are only centered around sex and forcing taxpayers to pay for either preventing an unintended pregnancy or for the abortion if that is what results; if feminists define “controlling” their own bodies not by restraining men or themselves but by engaging in behavior characterized with being more out of control and dangerous; if feminism must be, and can only be, defined by being pro-abortion; if pro-woman can only be defined as men supporting a woman’s right to abortion – there may indeed at the end of all that be equally.  But that equality comes at the expensive of equally cheapening and degrading both men and women and lowering the overall standards, value and quality of life itself.

I am not a feminist, nor would I ever accept as being a feminist the notion that taking pride in women means taking the woman you knocked up to the nearest abortion clinic.

I am a feminist because I respect human life, including women.  I am a feminist because I accept that women don’t deserve to have any man force themselves on any woman.  I am a feminist because I accept that women have a right to their bodies, to their virginity, to wait until they are married before they give themselves away.  I am a feminist because I accept that women are not mere objects of sexual delight and pleasure, but are fully capable and functional human beings with the ability to be as smart and as intellectual as men.  I am a feminist because I accept that men do not have a right to control or dominate, to repress or oppress, to enslave or subjugate, to beat, torture or kill women for any reason.  I am a feminist because I accept that women play an integral and most necessary role in society.  I am a feminist because I accept equal rights for men and women are guaranteed through the U.S. Constitution, not through how many opportunities women have in engaging in sex with men, or whether the sex women have is evenly, equally distributed with how many times men are having sex with women.

That is the feminism I stand, and stand up, for.  Will you do the same?

Why “Affordable” Health Care Is, And Will Continue To Be, So Expensive For Us All

Sandra Fluke is one more reason why we, in America, need more affordable, and better quality, private health insurance, rather than what she, and many others, are advocating, which is public health insurance provided/mandated through a government system which monopolies the industry.  Monopolies, by their structure and their very nature, do not create incentives to better or improve upon anything.  Rather, they allow the few people at the top running the show to set the prices, which always goes up, and to disregard the quality, which inevitably goes down over time.  It also allows for greater corruption and abuse within the system as well as collusion to keep prices higher than they would be under a private system where competition was allowed to flourish.  Without competition, no ideas are offered, no alternatives are expressed, no solutions to current problems are brainstormed.  Why would this not also be true of a government monopoly on health care?

Sandra Fluke welcomes government stepping in and providing her, and everyone else, with health care.  But at what cost?  In other words, whether that cost of health care is low, or “at no cost”, the idea that it is actually free is deceiving.  The case in point is Obamacare, which will force all Americans, and all businesses in America, to buy health care insurance exclusively through the federal government or face steep fines, the amount of which only the 1% can afford to pay.  As damnable as Obamacare is, and as unconstitutional as it is, it would be far more advantageous and beneficial if it was a replacement to Medicare and Medicaid rather than and addition to an already overburdened over stretched health care system the debt and liability of which is scores of trillions of dollars and growing (out of control) at a substantial rate.  And with Obamacare, what is the point of Medicare and Medicaid?

This all begs the question – what does anyone have against private health insurance?  If you answer, “because I cannot afford private health insurance”, then the next logical question is – why?  In other words, what is causing/driving the cost of private health insurance to stagnate in a price range, it is assumed, is higher than most Americans can afford to purchase?  And, for which is why so many millions of Americans support Obamacare, or the idea of some form of government provided, “low-cost” health care insurance that is neither low nor is it the best alternative?  If anything, Obamacare, any type of government provided health insurance acts in the same way a comfort food does.  It satisfies us, but is not really good for us, and ends up costing us down the road in ways we either did not anticipate or want to anticipate.  But the consequences are there, and they will need to be reckoned with.

As for the so-called “benefits” to small business?  The only reason for that is because health care is so expensive small businesses, by virtue of having a limited cash flow to work with, cannot provide most or all of their employees with health insurance, or with the types of insurance coverage big business can afford to contract with insurance providers.  Therefore, small businesses are left at a disadvantage.  However, with affordable, private insurance, that issue is eliminated.  That won’t happen until government gets out of the health care insurance business.  That won’t happen until more Americans become more informed about the advantages to private health care insurance versus the horrors of government-run/mandated heath insurance.  None of that will happen until we change the leadership in Washington.  That will, hopefully, happen in November.

Sandra Fluke has a personal agenda she is setting forth and laying out.  Namely she desires all women have access to health care, including contraception and abortion coverage, and she supports the “Affordable Care Act” which is the initiative that, through government health insurance, would provide her and all women with what she wants.  There are two problems with this that someone as “emotional” as Sandra Fluke is – as opposed to rational – is missing.

First, it is not “affordable”.  Either every American taxpayer is going to see their taxes go up substantially in order to pay for this, or the cost will be tacked onto the trillions of debt we currently owe.  If the latter, then we will see higher inflation, and for a longer period of time, because in order to pay off just the interest on that debt, prices on everything will need to rise.  Government can, and does, create money simply by printing it.  And in order to pay for Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act, and all government health care run programs, government will need to continue printing money.  All that ever does is devalue the worth of  money which leads to higher and higher inflation, which leads to higher and higher costs on everything, including health care itself.  But also everything else we buy and need to buy, like food and gas.  So the idea that the “Affordable Care Act’ is “affordable” is ludicrous.  Women may be benefited, perhaps, but as monopolies go, there is no guarantee.  And as monopolies go, that benefit usually declines over time.  And while women are “benefiting” from “affordable” health care, they, along with the rest of us, are paying more for everything we buy in order to pay the cost of their “affordable” health care.

Secondly, if we actually devoted more time to debating the usefulness and advantages of private health insurance, it would do more to lessen and allay the negative stigma and fears so many Americans have about it.  It would also help to inform those people who are against it – because of its high cost – why more private health insurance will bring down that cost to levels that are real, rather than artificially, affordable, and why private health insurance promotes better and higher quality health care than government could ever do.  With private health insurance – and that means, for those who are unsure, health care we pay for ourselves and our family out of our own pocket, not our neighbors or fellow taxpayers – health insurance providers are forced (whether they want to or not) through competition to provide the people they insure with the best, the highest quality and most affordable health care they can offer, or risk losing their clients to another private health provider.  Is that hard to comprehend?

With private health insurance, there is no room for error.  Conversely, with public, government-funded health insurance, there is all kinds of room for error, and no incentive to correct any mistakes because the money being paid for health insurance, for the contracts, the salaries, the bonuses, of everyone involved in a government-run health care system, etc., will always be there, whether it is coming from the taxpayers or being printed out of thin air, to keep the system running.  That does not work in the private industry.  Hence, the money is real, it is worth something to the insurance providers, and worth more to them than money that is created artificially, and thus is worth the time, effort and energy to keep finding solutions to health related problems, finding better ways to provide health care and finding ways to keep the costs down and as low as possible.  Private health insurance encourages its providers to be and remain honest.  Government run heath care only encourages corruption.

Sandra Fluke, because of her advocacy for the “Affordable Care Act” is actually harming women more than she is helping them, and she is actually putting women’s health more in harm way, more at risk, than otherwise.  Whatever the “Affordable Care Act” will ultimately provide and cover will pale in comparison to what could be provided and covered through private health insurance.  Breast exams, cervical cancer exams, pap smears, colorectal exams, childbirth and all health issues related to women could be much cheaper, much less expensive, much more expansive in their service and quality, if private health insurers were better able to compete for new clients.  So long as the government has a monopoly, and a mandate on health insurance, that will not happen.

But if all Sandra is really seeking in the “Affordable Care Act is free contraception (for whatever purpose) and abortion coverage, which may or may not be covered by private insurance – and, in the case of abortion, may not be legal for any health insurer to provide  depending on its reason – then she probably does not care about the overall harm she is going to cause to woman down the road, or to all American.  Nor would she care about the cost, the burden of that cost, the effects of that cost on everyone, or how that cost is going to have to be repaid.

Sandra may be too emotional to want to listen to rationality and reality.  What about the rest of us?

With The Mark Of McCain On His Hands

John McCain wants Republicans to stop the “war on women”, and he wants to stop an Arizona bill from moving ahead which would allow employers in his state to:

Restrict health insurance coverage of contraception to only those cases when a woman can prove a need for it because of a medical reason, such as endometriosis or an ovarian cyst.

Says McCain:

In my view, I think we ought to respect the right of women to make choices in their lives and make that clear and to get back onto what the American people really care about — jobs and the economy.”

Here is where McCain makes his blunder, and why conservatives are beyond fed up with his nonsense, and why so many of us wish he would just shut up more often than not rather than keep insisting conservatives – which he is supposed to be – are conducting a full-scale “war on women”.

First of all, there is no actual “war on women” going on anywhere in the United States.  That is a liberal and feminist canard that won’t go away until conservatives have properly exposed what is really going on.  Secondly, conservatives do not have an issue with women making choices, and women having rights, including the right to control their own bodies.  Nor do we, conservatives, have an issue with women purchasing and using birth control and contraception.

What we do have a problem with, and what we have absolutely no “respect” with, is when women – exercising those “choices” McCain says we ought to leave alone – make the decision to end a child’s life in the womb with birth control and/or contraception.  And we also have an issue with federal taxes going to pay women to exercise those “choices”.

The “war on women” that McCain has bought into is a clear and cut case of pettiness and selfishness among liberal feminists who want to “control” their bodies in such a way as to kill an unborn child they do not want to give birth to.  Because we fight to end abortion; because we fight to pass whatever legislation we can to prevent abortion from occurring unnecessarily; because we fight for the lives of the unborn to live and to be born we, conservatives, have been branded by liberal feminists as sexist and misogynist.

Can anyone explain what is so sexist and misogynist about respecting life?  And can someone explain to John McCain that we, conservatives, will not “get off of that issue”?  McCain has stained himself.  The mark of McCain will not stain our hands nor will it stain conservatism and conservative values.

What does a real “war on women look like?  Look here.  And then come back and whine about how conservatives are sending women back into the Dark Ages, as Angelica Huston bemoans.

The Sperm And The Egg By Themselves Are More Intelligent Than Jennifer Granholm

What do you get when you cross a sperm with – nothing else?  Or – everything else but a woman’s egg?  Not human life, anyway.  But ask feminist, Jennifer Granholm, what you do get when you cross a sperm and an egg, and be certain to notice the confused look on her face that develops when she tries to answer the question.  And don’t be surprised if she simply tries to evade the question altogether.

Jennifer Granholm, a former Governor no less, and not very importantly, classically lays out the living proof that men, liberal, conservative or otherwise, are not needed to demonstrate just how inane feminists are.  Granholm compares sperm, which she dubs “pre-life”, with a fetus, which is in fact life, and human life to be exact.  She furthers states that forcing a woman to submit to an ultrasound is no different from making men who want a vasectomy submit to an ultrasound on their testicles to show them all the sperm, the “pre-life” , they are about to “kill”.  She emotionally writes that “Women are facing sexual McCarthyism“.

That’s very dramatic coming from someone who is essentially an airhead.  She goes on to make her point, as feminists are wont to do over and over again, that conservatives (men in particular) are conducting  a “war on women” by increasing the amount of anti-abortion legislation, including the now infamous “rape” bill passed in Virginia which does the unspeakable to women – but which we will speak of anyway –  forcing women to view an ultrasound image of the child in her womb she is about to kill.

The “war on women” can be measured, in one sense, by the volume of demeaning and physically violating measures that not only force women to undergo procedures against their will, but force doctors to perform procedures that are medically unnecessary.”

Conservatives, Granholm insists, have turned the abortion debate into a “witch hunt” (i.e. an unnecessary hysteria) for which we have made countless women unduly suffer by compelling them to look at the baby in their womb they are about to destroy. What can be “hysterical” about wanting women to have all the information at their disposal before they commit their unborn child to a death it need not experience?

She uses a prescription for Viagra to compare that with the “intrusion” of an ultrasound (presumably the trans-vaginal kind).  She is not the only one who has used Viagra and the “wand” in a vain attempt to capture the “insanity” – the feminists point of view – of “forcing” women to have an ultrasound before they have the abortion.  Liberals, remember, reject that a fetus is in fact alive, let alone a human life, and make no distinction whatsoever between a fetus and sperm.  This is exactly the concept Granholm utilizes in her YouTube speech.  (Link provided in her “Women are facing sexual McCarthyism” piece.)

Virginia may have backed away from the invasive transvaginal ultrasound law, but requiring a standard ultrasound runs contrary to the guidelines of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Nine states now mandate this “overreach” of government into a very personal and private decision between a woman and her doctor.”

This way of reasoning, by the way, passes for feminist insight and intellectuality, which is why feminists, who flock together, never see the absurdity in their arguments.  If anything, Granholm ought to show us all that the real “war on women” is being waged by women, like Granholm, and that the “war on women”, if there is any legitimacy to it, is a war on women’s intelligence and rationality.  Conservative women are smarter than this, and that is why they side with conservative men, lovingly called misogynists by shocked feminists who feel betrayed by these courageous women.  And by having women, of which there are many millions, disavowing the feminist doggerel it also makes clear that this fight is not in any way anti-woman.

Ladies and gentleman – how does having an abortion make a woman independent?  Or – how does the U.S. Constitution in any way restrict women from being as independent as men and as equal to men?  Is having sex with whomever you want, damning the consequences, and then experiencing those consequences via pregnancy and then going in for the abortion to be “free” once again – to do it all over again – how women really want to view, how they want us to view, their independence?  That seems to be how liberal feminists like Jennifer Granholm view the situation.

Why do we support “subjecting” women seeking an abortion to an ultrasound?  In other words, do we, as conservatives, really hate women that much, or fear their being too independent, we must find whatever ways we can to control and dominate them, to belittle them and subject them to whatever “demeaning, degrading, humiliating tests and procedures” we can devise?  Is that why we really support an ultrasound before the abortion?

Look, it’s obvious that abortion is the most sensitive of public policy issues. Women deeply understand the wrenching trade-offs they must make in weighing such a personal decision. So, in addition to legislatively forced physical procedures, it should come as no surprise that women are angered by patronizing bills mandating waiting periods or forced “reflection” on images or on text written by legislators — bills that assume women are empty-headed children.

The answer to why we oppose abortion, and why we support “subjecting” women who are seeking abortion to having an ultrasound performed is simple – conservatives love and respect life.  That liberals may not legitimately understand our answer, that they may truly not be aware a fetus is in fact a living human being, is absolutely no excuse to condemn unborn children to death by women who are ignorant of the actual facts concerning their unborn child.  In other words, ignorance itself is not justification for approving why a woman would have an abortion.  Or, should there be an intelligence test performed on women seeking an abortion, and those with the lowest IQ’s can go ahead with the abortion because they are legitimacy ignorant of what they are doing?  And for the women who do have high IQ’s, because they know they are killing their unborn child, they are just too smart for their own good and must be punished for being intelligent?  The “punishment” being having to go through with the pregnancy and birth.

The ultrasound is intended to prove to the woman seeking the abortion that she is not removing a blob of tissue or a collection of cells.  It is liberal feminists, like Granholm, who would seek to prevent this information, which Granholm says is “unnecessary” from being disseminated to women.  It is Granholm who supports purposely restricting this information.

Conservatives realize and accept that women are not “empty-headed children”.  But what about Granholm?  What about all liberals who insist women ought not be given the information about their unborn child they need in order to make an informed decision?  Some women will opt out of the abortion when they see the image of their unborn child?  Why does this bother Jennifer Granholm so much?

To The Foolish Women Who See No Difference Between Viagra And Birth Control

All Viagra does, or is intended to do, is help men, who otherwise can’t, get an erection.  Birth control, on the other hand is either intended to prevent a pregnancy or end it after it occurs.  Liberal women, mostly feminists, who proclaim there is a “war on women“, because men (and not to mention many millions of women too) are working feverishly to enact laws which seek to restrict some forms of birth control and contraception – for specific and well qualified reasons – cannot rationally compare the two.

Because of this, some silly, childish women, who happen also to be politicians, like Nina Turner, (Democrat, Ohio) thinking they can use Viagra as a comparison with birth control and contraception, have introduced a bill to make men “jump through hoops” to get it.  It is merely diversionary and solely intended to illustrate, from the liberal point of view, how “ridiculous it is to stop women from accessing birth control and contraception”.  Of course, since that is not what conservatives are trying to do, liberals only make that much more fools of themselves.

First of all, we have already deduced that there is no comparison between Viagra and birth control/contraception.

Secondly, if, at any time, politicians want to remove Viagra from the list of government-funded drugs, medications, health services, etc. do it.  Viagra is not such a necessity that taxpayers need, or ought, to fund it.  And while we are at it, we can eliminate a host of other “health” related services which taxpayers ought not be covering.  In other words, trying to use Viagra as a scare tactic is futile and useless.

Thirdly, and back to this “war on women” nonsense liberals have concocted, and other liberal women perpetuate, like Gretchen Whitmer – conservatives do not want to ban birth control or contraception.  We simply do not want to pay for it.  In other words, if women are provided with free birth control and contraception, there are a whole lot of people who need to get paid for having manufactured it, distributed it, stocked it on shelves and sold it to consumers.  Since everyone involved in the manufacturing, distribution and sale of  birth control and contraception are in fact being paid, (or is it literally slave labor) who is paying them, if not the women buying it from them?

We can say that the cost is covered either through government health programs and assistance or health insurance companies through the place of business where a woman works.  However, whether through government health programs – which is subsidized directly by taxpayers, or the place of business – which does not eat the extra cost but passes that cost downward onto its consumers, as well as onto its employees in the form of lower wages/lower or deferred raises, reduced benefits, etc. – someone is paying women for their birth control and contraception.  And if there is no co-pay, then the entire cost is passed along to us all.

Fourthly – and most importantly – conservatives neither support paying for or keeping legal, those birth control and contraception pills and devices which are intended to end a pregnancy.  That is, to kill a child in the womb that has already been created.  As conservatives we find that to be morally repugnant.  As conservatives we value life, and we are willing to fight for the sanctity of life, even in the womb.  Abortion, or medication which induces an abortion and destroys a human life is unacceptable.  For those women who do seek abortion, or abortion inducing pills, we absolutely are (pro-life men and women alike) working to pass laws, and overturn others, which allow women to legally terminate the life of their unborn child.  This is by no means a “war on women”.  It is, actually, a war on abortion itself.

Women, and men, who want to engage in sex will not be hindered from doing so through any laws.  And conservatives are not desirous in passing any laws which restrict, prohibit or make illegal such acts.  What we are attempting to restrict, prohibit and absolutely make illegal is abortion.  (All abortion except where the life of the mother is legitimately threatened by her pregnancy, and where the only action which can save the mother’s life is abortion.)  For that, liberal women have labeled us anti-women and misogynists.  So petty and jejune of these women.  But look at these women closely who do cry “war on women” and you will see they themselves are also petty and jejune, and have an ulterior motive.  Namely, while they want the “freedom” to engage in sex, they don’t want to deal with the consequences that often arise – like pregnancy.  So, they want birth control, contraception and abortion on demand readily and fully available.  They also want it for free, either through the government (which would be subsidized through taxpayers) or their insurance companies (which the get through their place of business).  They may get it for free, but someone inevitably is paying for it.

Why should we, the taxpayers, be the ones who ultimately do pay for it?  And why are conservatives labeled anti-woman and misogynists for rejecting the premise that we must pay for it?  And why do liberal women, and men, feel there is a “war on women” because we value human life?

If all liberal women can come up with to make conservatives look foolish for valuing human life is to make it harder for men to obtain Viagra, who is really the fool?

Can’t Afford Contraception? Blame Obama And Democrats – And Help Save Sandra Fluke

Republicans and conservatives are not not the enemy when it comes to the high cost of birth control and contraception in America, and Republicans and conservatives are just as happy to make birth control and contraception as cheap and as affordable to all Americans as it can be.  It is Barack Obama and the Democrat Party that is standing in the way of achieving this.  They are the ones that have drastically raised taxes and regulations on all manufacturers, including those manufacturers which make birth control and contraception.

It is Obama and the Democrat Party which is standing in the way of women, like Sandra Fluke, and preventing her from realizing equality and independence through cheap birth control and contraception.  And when Obama called Sandra to console and commiserate with her, she should have taken the opportunity to scold him for his lack of foresight and concern into these deep matters – Obama’s doing – which have seen the cost of birth control and contraception skyrocket in America since he took office.  American women, like Sandra, who are consumed with acts of nymphomania are being forced to slake that lust because of Obama and his draconian and sinister tax policies, which hurts American nymphomaniacs like Sandra Fluke.

Sandra, who supposedly has a mind of her own (the rest of her body she apparently has given away to many different men) ought to have taken the opportunity to chide Obama directly, and inform him that his tax policies on American business has had a devastating effect on woman, like her, all across America who now cannot have as much sex as they had wanted and so desperately need.  Sandra should have made the same type of impassioned plea for lowering taxes and regulations on American business as she made to congress for lowering the overall value, worth and standard of American women.

Sandra ought to have been insistent and firm with Obama that the fault for her having to limit her sexual escapades is his fault directly.  It is Barack Obama who owes Sandra Fluke the apology.  The mental anguish for which he has caused her, for having to reduce and curb her sexual romps has turned Sandra into the quivering, emotional, incoherent, unstable, blithering idiot we have seen over and over again in many different video feeds.

Raising taxes on business has many consequences.  For nymphomaniacs, like Sandra Fluke, we are finding out just how dire the results of Obama’s oppressive assault on them has been.  For all nymphomaniacs, like Sandra fluke, for all sex addicts and sex junkies, like Sandra Fluke, there can only be one recourse – that is to vote Republican in the 2012 election.  Obama has already stated he intends to raise taxes even higher on Americans business. This will cause American nymphomaniacs, like Sandra Fluke, to go into convulsions, for they will be forced to reduce their sexual appetites ever more, and starve themselves, becoming anorexic in their abstinence.

Their withdrawal will be tough, and may lead many nymphomaniacs to seek spiritual guidance to help them overcome the loss of what is most precious to them.  Nymphomaniacs, like Sandra Fluke, may even have to resort to their worst nightmare – monogamy and a monogamous relation with one man, one person with which to share the rest of their lives.

And when the Occupy Wall Street crowd talks about all those “evil” and “greedy one percenters” they have also included, probably unknowingly, all the millionaires who have gotten rich off the manufacturing and sale of birth control and contraception consumed by tens of millions of Americans, including nymphomaniacs like Sandra Fluke, every year; and, according to “The Iron-ing Lady, Nancy Pelosi, 98% of Catholic women.  For the sake of Sandra Fluke, and all nymphomaniacs, Occupy Wall Street protesters ought to go to the White House and sit upon the lawn and refuse not to budge until Obama lowers taxes on American businesses so that Sandra Fluke, and all nymphomaniacs, can go back to living the only lifestyle they know.

If American nymphomaniacs, like Sandra Fluke, cannot afford the cost of birth control and contraception now, how can they afford it after Obama has raised taxes on the manufacturers of birth control and contraception even higher.than it is now?  It’s imperative that the word be spread to all nymphomaniacs, like Sandra Fluke, across America – vote Republican in 2012.  It’s your only option for seeing the cost of birth control and contraception coming back down to more affordable levels.

What will happen, should Obama be reelected, and he raise taxes on American businesses, as he has firmly stated he would?  What becomes of Sandra Fluke, after Obama is reelected?  How can Sandra Fluke lead a normal life as a nymphomaniac if she is being deprived her wanton desires by Barack Obama and the Democrat Party?

We, as Americans, cannot allow this to happen.  Vote Republican.  Will we do that, at least, for Sandra Fluke?

Why Sandra Fluke Matters, And Why Her Bizarre Statements Hurts Feminism, Not Helps

Sandra Fluke has managed to epitomize both the Left in America and liberal feminism to an extent no conservative could.  She is a poster child for all that is modern day feminism, and all it will ever be.  That is not a compliment, by the way.  What Sandra epitomizes is the shallowness, and the filthiest, the most corroded, corrosive elements of feminism and liberalism.

She has done to herself what, if any conservative had attempted to parody, would be considered the lowest, meanest, dirtiest, most rotten and vicious attack on feminism and liberalism (and women), and what any feminist would label as sexist, anti-woman and misogyny – and she did it to herself in front of congress, and the American people. Sandra has shown herself, a feminist, as a scatter-brained twit and airhead with little to no real cognizant understanding of the real world. Or, in the real world, do the American people really want to pay for her to have all the sex she wants?

Sandra’s testimony has become one of the lowest of low points in feminism, and whether Sandra is the best feminism has to offer, there are no other feminists who have stepped forward to dispute and/or refute Sandra’s wild testimony.  And while all manner of liberals are coming to her aid, including Barack Obama, and offering words of encouragement and support to a young woman who has embarrassed herself, liberalism, feminism and Georgetown University, which has obviously done a very poor job at educating Sandra on how to effectively debate a point of view, very little coverage within the MSM is given to the fact that Sandra has made a public spectacle and fool of herself and of feminism.  She hasn’t done much for her own gender either.  But at least there are a number, and a significant number at that, of conservative women who do denounce Sandra.

Sandra has not yet detracted from her basic thesis that she deserves to have free contraception given to her because she cannot afford to pay for it herself.  Sandra, as an adult woman, has gone before congress, sat down and belched out a teary-eyed story of how difficult it is for her to engage in as much sex as she wants because she cannot access the amount of contraception she needs in order to satisfy and fulfill her sexual pleasures. College, Sandra says, is draining her financial resources so heavily that she is forced to curb her sexual appetite.  This really matters to Sandra, to many of her female friends at Georgetown, and to all liberal feminists.  Sex, and having sex, is more important to Sandra that anything else in her life.

Sandra also testifies that she is not alone; that there are other girls at her college who are having trouble purchasing contraception.  She even talked of one girl who had to walk away from a prescription counter because the price of the contraception, which this particular girl thought would be much lower, was more expensive, and more money than she had at the time.  Sandra talked about this girl, and the tragedy this girl was forced to endure, having to walk away from that counter and having to go back to her boyfriend (or whoever she was going to have sex with at the time) and explain to him that sex would be delayed, perhaps indefinitely.  It might have been priceless to see his reaction to the news he wasn’t “getting any”.

To Sandra, a liberal feminist, it is an outrage that she cannot be provided with as much free contraception as she wants.  This, apparently, is her reason, her only reason, for going to Georgetown University – a Jesuit college which does not provide on-campus contraception to its student body.  Sandra had hoped she could change that.  Sandra hoped that by testifying in front of congress she could expose the seedy underbelly of Georgetown University and its cold, anti-sex, anti-contraception outlook.  Sandra had hoped she could make a difference in her life, and the lives all the girls who attend Georgetown, and all the other nymphomaniacs who want, who need, sex but who cannot access the free contraception they need due to the stingy, niggardly, miserly attitude of the faculty at Georgetown University.

Sandra is an important reminder to all of us who love our daughters, and want our daughters to grow up to be real women, and real women of courage, valor, merit, and independence.  Sandra is important, and Sandra matters, because she shows us all what happens when we fail as parents and when we fail our daughters as parents.  Sandra matters because she is a wake up call to all of us with daughters who are soon to be off to college and must have the stamina and the fortitude to make decisions, to make the right decisions, for themselves.

Sandra reminds us all, as parents, that although our daughters will inevitably make mistakes along the way, if we have raised them right, if we have instilled within them a proper outlook and perspective on life and the real world, they will be able to amend those mistakes which they will make and carry on.  Sandra matters because she is a clear example of what happens when we neglect our daughters and their upbringing.  Sandra matters because there are millions of young girls on the edge of graduating high school, and while it is too late for Sandra, there is yet time for us, as parents, to prevent our daughters from making the calamitous fool of themselves as Sandra has done.

Sandra matters because she speaks for liberal feminism, and therefore expresses and exposes what liberal feminism really is, which is exceedingly base and depraved, void of morals, and replete with women, young and aged, who are more apt to snivel and feeling sorry for themselves, and blame a male dominated society for all their troubles and sorrows than blame themselves for what has gone wrong in their lives.

Sandra matters because she is the face of modern-day liberal feminism, whose ideas on birth control and contraception (and free access to it paid for by taxpayers), and on abortion are all driven by their mad lust for sex, and their need to equally compete for as much free sex as their male counterparts do.  That is why Sandra addressed congress, and why she compelled them to uphold the contraception mandate which would provide free birth control and contraception to sexually active girls like her.  Sandra’s entire thesis is that free contraception levels the playing field, and makes that playing field more equal.  And without free contraception, Sandra, all sexually active girls, are being deprived of not only a basic human need, but of equality and independence itself.  Without free contraception, argues Sandra, she and all young women will remain subservient to men because men do not get pregnant and do not share in the consequences of being pregnant.  Sandra argues that this is unfair, and the only way to make it fair is for her to be provided with free contraception.

Sandra matters because she reminds us that when we do fail as parents to instill in our daughters morals and ethics with regards to sex and our bodies, our daughters will grow up and becomes the next “Sandra Flukes”.  Sandra matters because it might one day be our daughter sitting before congress and making an absolute fool of herself in front of the entire nation.

Parents have many nightmares about sending their children off to college.  Should we have to worry about that as well?

And The Release Date Of Sandra Fluke’s Sex Tapes Will Be…

If Sandra’s performance before congress was any indication of how well she would perform what it is she advocated before congress, then don’t expect much from those sex tapes Rush Limbaugh mentioned in passing she ought to release to the public.  They probably would be as unwatchable, and as embarrassing, as was her performance testifying before congress on why the contraception mandate ought not be overruled.   Her reason, again, for those of you who still don’t understand, is that because she and others cannot afford the cost of the contraception themselves – that is, with the amount of times they are having sex, which is, apparently, a lot more than their parents would want to know, and that, now, we all are aware of – Sandra has made an impassioned plea for the taxpayers to cover the cost of her nymphomania.  Is it asking too much to sneak a look?  Or is it one of those “you get what you pay for” moments?

Do we blame Sandra entirely for her childish antics, or do we allow that she has, in part, been thoroughly brainwashed by the Left and liberal feminism that she can no longer think rationally?  Do we feel sorry for her at all, or do we continue to deride her, satirize her and find the humor in her shortcomings?  Do we just laugh off Sandra’s silliness, or do we become angry and enraged, because we know there are millions of other Sandra Fluke’s out there who feel they too are, and ought to be, entitled to something for nothing; something free that someone else must pay for?  Do you know there are millions of Americans who feel just as entitled as Sandra to receive something for free (and not just contraception) from the government?

One might observe that with virtually the entire nation struggling to make ends meet right now, sex would be the furthest thing from our minds.  But if you happen to be a teenager who is having everything paid for you; your college tuition, your dorm expenses, your food, clothing, etc, you probably don’t have a real sense of what is actually going on in America with the economy if someone else is paying your bills.  And if someone else is paying your bills, if someone else has always paid your bills throughout your life, and that is what you are accustomed to, then naturally you would expect someone else to pick up the check even for your most intimate of needs.

Sandra Fluke, if she has accomplished or done anything of merit, has highlighted a situation in our country that conservatives have been warning would happen, and was happening for a long time.  Namely, our children are receiving an abysmal education in America, thanks to liberalism and those liberals who have infiltrated and influenced the public school system and dramatically changed and altered it into something incongruous to what it was intended to be.

Our children have been brainwashed into believing that government is only there, only exists, to take care of us all and to provide free hand outs to us.  Children are also taught that when and if government cannot provide things to us, it is because “evil” Republicans and conservatives are preventing the necessary extra “revenues” from reaching government that are needed to fund the programs and services that create all the goodies and free hand outs people have come to expect from their government.

Whatever education Sandra received before she reached Georgetown University taught and instilled within her the idea that it was American to be selfish and greedy, and to expect that others would take care of her; that she could go through her life without worrying about whether she could afford the cost of her lifestyle because someone, some entity, would be there to cover the difference.  Sandra grew up believing there were no limits being placed on her way of life, nor should there ever be.  Sandra grew up believing that, rather than becoming a strong, intelligent and independent thinking woman, she was to be, and to remain, a weak and soft sponge-like leech, dependent on others, including government, to take care of her and her needs.  Sandra was taught, in essence, to never grow up.

Sandra Fluke has certainly gotten her fifteen minutes of fame, and then some.  Perhaps that is fifteen minutes too many for this brash upstart who would sincerely have us believe she, and everyone else, is entitled to free contraception because she, and they, have an abnormal sexual appetite that presumably cannot be controlled.  And because she, and they, cannot afford the cost of all the sex that is, also presumably, being consumed, Sandra – because of how she was educated, and what she was educated to believe – sincerely cannot understand why anyone would be so hostile to her position that government (i.e., the taxpayer) pay for her to have sex.

Considering the fact that, to date, Sandra has not yet seen the error of her ways, has not realized her gaffe, has not deduced with whatever brain matter she has left in her head that the public educational system hasn’t stirred into mush, we can safely assume Sandra Fluke is sticking to her story that because she cannot afford the price of contraception herself, she deserves to have it given to her for free, paid for by the taxpayers, so she can continue having all the sex she wants, without consequences.

It gives a whole new meaning to contraception mandate – that is if you take mandate and split it apart so that contraception mandate comes to mean contraception + man = date.

Was that the real “contraception mandate” Sandra was pleading for?

Sandra Fluke: Call Her A Slut, Call Her Round-Heeled – But Don’t Call Her As A Credible Source Of Information

Sandra Fluke is the young “lady” at the center of so much controversy surrounding her blunt testimony about the “need” for birth control and contraception, and why we the taxpayers ought to pay for it, and for her and anyone else to have as much sex as they want.  The issue is not whether or not Sandra ought to be having sex – from a moral point of view she shouldn’t.  Never mind that, for the moment.

Sandra is complaining that the cost of contraception is preventing her from having sex, and others as well.  Rather than take on a second job, presuming she has one job under her belt already, she is addressing lawmakers on Capitol Hill in an attempt to sway them (we the taxpayer) into paying for her promiscuity and sexual escapades.  The crux of her testimony is that she is being denied as many sexual encounters as she wants because she cannot afford the cost of the contraception for each individual encounter.  So, what to do about that?

That anyone would be offended when Sandra is rightfully called a slut shows how much we have devolved as Americans.  Would anyone have sat before congress fifty years ago and cried to its members about how unfair it is that with contraception being so expensive, having sex has become a luxury few can afford?  Of course not.  And although there were women of ill repute back then, they at least had sense enough not to air their dirty laundry to members of congress.

Sandra is no role model – or is she?  Would you want your daughter to emulate Sandra?  Would you hope your son would fall in love with a Sandra Fluke?  Just how many sexual encounters, and with how many partners, does Sandra desire to be with before she gets married?  Well, if we have to pay for her contraception, we have a right to know all the details, don’t we?

You might be asking, what was Sandra even doing at this hearing?  This was a hearing, after-all, on Obama’s contraception mandate – a law that would force Catholic and religious institutions to provide birth control, contraception, and pregnancy ended services against their moral and religious values and convictions.  Sandra was denied a seat in an earlier hearing.  This was then a make-up, for Sandra.  So – should religious institutions be forced to pay for contraception because some of its students are hornier than others, and their extra-curricular activities are draining their wallets?

Sandra is making a mess of “women’s rights”, and she probably doesn’t even know it.  Her arrogance, her condescending attitude showed America that liberal feminists are weak, pathetic and small-minded; the lack of anything remotely intelligent in her argument showed America that liberal feminists are not smart enough to debate, and when they do they revert back into playing the victim card.  In other words, it’s not Sandra’s fault she can’t afford the cost of contraception – it’s the high cost of college tuition which is draining her bank account.  If only the “evil” Republicans would give her more grant money for college, and if only “evil” Republicans would give her money for contraception, she could afford the high tuition costs and have all the sex she wanted.  But because Republican lawmakers, who are predominately male, hate Sandra because she is a woman, Sandra is therefore forced to succumb to the terrible burden of either having to pay for her own contraception, or to give up some of the sex she thought she had a Constitutional right to have, and to have the taxpayer pay for.

This is how liberal feminists think.  They had it real easy in the 90’s under Bill Clinton.  Since then, their fantasy world has come crashing down upon them as waves and waves of new conservatives win in local, state and national elections across America, and begin to implement common sense legislation – like paying for ones own contraception and not demanding taxpayers pay for it, or forcing religious institutions into becoming pimps.

What else has changed, which may be a shock to Sandra, and all liberal feminists, is how much more difficult it is for them to simply shout “women’s rights”, or “women’s health” or “right to privacy” and have everyone fall into line behind them.  Because when they bring up such slogans, what they are really talking about is abortion and the killing of an unborn child – and America is wise to their shenanigans.  At least, wiser than say ten or fifteen years ago.

Liberal feminists are not talking about, not fighting for, contraception which is intended to prevent a pregnancy from occurring.  Liberal feminists want the contraception which ends the pregnancy after it has resulted and a human being has been created.  There is a vast and fundamental difference between the two kinds of contraception, and it is for the latter liberal feminists are demanding taxpayers pay for, and religious institutions cover and provide services for against their religious convictions.  Nobody is trying to take away birth control or contraception which is intended to prevent a pregnancy.  But one would never know that listening to the MSM, or getting their news from HuffPost, Daily Kos, or any liberal media outlet which reports propaganda rather than facts.

As much of a flout and a floozy as Sandra is, Sandra Fluke was the best liberal feminists could do.  If all she could come up with as to why the contraception mandate is a good thing, and why it ought to remain law, is so she can engage in as much free sex as she wants, and not have to pay a penny for it, or for the abortions – what does that tell you about the state of liberal feminism in 2012?

Are Pro-Abortion Women Really The Only Authority On “Reproductive Rights” Because They Are Pro-Abortion?

Liberal feminists have been mad as hell since an all male panel deliberated over their so-called “reproductive rights”.  However, what exactly was being deliberated, and what exactly are these “reproductive right” they fear are being challenged and possibly taken away?  And if women had been included who identify themselves as pro-life, and agreed with their male colleagues, would these same liberal feminists not have still been outraged, indignant and mad as hell?

The panel was called not to discuss “reproductive rights” and whether or not women were entitled to them.  Rather the panel met to discuss whether or not religious institutions would, or could be, forced by the federal government to provide contraception, birth control and other services even if in doing so it went against their religious convictions.

Said Rep. Darrell Issa, Republican committee chairman,, in response to Democrats as to why no women were included:

“The hearing is not about reproductive rights but instead about the administration’s actions as they relate to freedom of religion and conscience.”

In hindsight, it would have done well to include women, even an evenly split panel of men and women.  However, even women who dismiss and reject the notion that there is a right and an entitlement to “reproductive rights” are viciously scorned and attacked and vilified by liberal feminists and liberals in general.  And imagine if the panel was made up entirely of women who supported the right of religious institutions to be exempt from being forced to provide such services.  What, predictably, would the response have been among liberal feminists then?

Ladies and gentlemen – liberals are not, in fact, aghast that this was an all male panel.  They would have been equally aghast if it had been an all female panel which was in opposition to forcing Obama’s contraception mandate on religious institutions.  And they would have kept their mouths shut if, as an all male panel, they all concluded in favor of the liberal definition of “reproductive rights” and voted to support Obama’s contraception mandate and force religious institutions to provide services against their religious convictions.  So it is just hypocrisy on their part, on anyone’s part, to criticize the gender make-up of this particular panel.

What liberals are aghast over is that anyone, male or female, tries to intervene on behalf of unborn children to save their lives.  “Reproductive rights” are, after-all, a code word for abortion.  Any move to limit or restrict “reproductive rights” is seen as moving backward in time and putting women’s “health” is danger.  But since “reproductive rights” have nothing whatsoever to do with having a child and giving birth to a child but everything to do with the right to kill that child in the womb, anyone, male or female, is excoriated and ripped to shreds for trying to protect unborn life.

Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., said early in the hearing, and voicing her anger that women had not been included:

“We will not be forced back to that primitive era.”

In other words, the “primitive era” she is referring to is the time before Roe vs. Wade.  Liberals, like Maloney, equate having an abortion, and the right to kill an unborn child, as “progress” in “women’s rights”, “women’s health” and “reproductive rights”.  It is strange, then, that there are many millions of women with whom are in favor of “repressing” women, which would include themselves, and “forcing” women “back to that primitive era”.  What do these women have to gain by siding with men on the “reproductive rights” of women?  Aren’t they contributing to the endangerment of all women (and that means themselves) and “women’s health” by doing so?

There must be something else going on that, these women so clearly see, which have blinded liberals and liberal women specifically.  Something that is so crucial, so important, so fundamental – so American, that women who are on the pro-life side are willing to “repress” all women and “force” them “back to that primitive era”.  What could that possibly be?  And why are pro-life women not considered an “authority” on “reproductive rights” the same as pro-abortion women are?

It’s The Econ, Er, Birth Control, Stupid?

At least Democrats, and Barack Obama, are hoping the 2012 election will be more about birth control and contraception, and less about the economy, taxes, higher and higher gas prices, and all the important issues the majority of Americans, men and women, deal with on a daily bases.  Which is why the Left is focusing in on the Right’s “obsession” with matters of life and death – literally.  Indeed, conservatives are very much concerned with life (as in unborn life), and we are very much concerned at how much in peril that unborn life is at every step of its development.  However, are we really trying to ban birth control, and is that our main, our one and only, political issue going into the 2012 election?

Birth control – and it is that particular birth control which is intended to prevent and block a pregnancy from occurring when used correctly, has absolutely never been an issue within conservatism itself.  Perhaps certain circles of religious conservatives, but never, by any stretch of the imagination, a majority of conservatives.  In other words, nobody – and that includes conservatives – is trying to ban and outlaw birth control.  We would support removing the taxpayer obligation for paying the bill on birth control, and any contraception.  Title X is still in effect and that will still remain in effect with either a President Romney or President Santorum.

The reason why the Left continues its barrage of assaults on conservatives with the birth control issue is to deflect the weakness of Barack Obama’s leadership, to distract from his overall disastrous performance as President and his very low popularity numbers with the American people, including those that voted for him in 2008 – many of whom, including black Americans, are very dismayed and feel betrayed by him.  In other words, Democrats are obfuscating reality in the hopes Obama’s supporters will come back to him and his fantasy agenda.

What Romney and Santorum, the clear front-runners, need to do is come out and dismiss these attacks and convey what the real conservative message is with regards to birth control and contraception – without invoking religion, or making it sound like their religion, and their religious beliefs, are the only reasons why they don’t support Barack Obama or the Left’s demands for more access to birth control and contraception.  Something like:

Putting aside my religious beliefs, for a moment, is it right for the government to force any American to pay for someone’s birth control and contraception?  Take religion, and religious constructs, morals and tenets out of the equation.  Is it right for the government to force any institution, religious or otherwise, to provide services which it finds to be against their own beliefs?  Is that the proper role of government?  Is that a proper use of our tax dollars?  Ladies and gentleman – no serious conservative is for banning birth control, and no serious conservative would even make that an issue.  It is Democrats who want taxpayers – you – to pay for birth control and all forms of contraception, including abortion; and they want to force you and I, and all public and private institutions, to provide these services, at our expense.  Billions of dollars, our money.  The real question is – why can’t regular Americans, who engage in activities that require birth control and contraception, pay for it themselves?  Title X is there to provide family planning help for low-income men and women.  That won’t change when I am President.  What will change is the arrogant attitude of Washington style government with regards to the way it sees you and all American citizens – as an ATM machine for its own private use, to plunder at will any time it wants.  Birth control, any form of contraception that prevents a pregnancy from occurring, will not be infringed upon, tampered with or banned when I am president.  Barack Obama’s, and the Democrat party’s, demand for forcing you, the American citizen, and taxpayer, to pay for it, will be. 

Why can’t they say something like that?  Instead, they invoke their religion and their religious beliefs, (and do so in a muddled and incoherent manner which provides more fuel for liberals and Democrats to use to stoke the flames of hatred and mistrust against conservatives and religious Americans) and use religion as the basis for explaining their views on birth control and contraception.  Nobody likes to have religion, and religious beliefs, especially someone else’s, forced on them.  And there are millions of religious Americans who don’t feel comfortable with politicians using religion, even if it is their religion too, as a reason for shaping policy.

Religion absolutely has a right to be infused with politics, and religious politicians absolutely have a right to invoke and talk about their religion and how it has shaped their lives.  However, using religion to shape policy that affects the American people only antagonizes the American people.  The Left has captured that sentiment, albeit they have gone way overboard with it, and they are doing what they do best – disseminating lies and misinformation about religious conservatives and religious conservative politicians, saying they are trying to ban something, the result of which will hurt and harm women and endanger their “health” and their lives.

The lies the Left spreads about the Right are far more extreme than the actual position on birth control and contraception the Right takes.  The problem is that we, as conservatives, have not done as well a job in countering the Left’s nonsense.  And neither have Romney or Santorum.  If either intends to win the Presidency, and deny Obama a second term, they both need to be much clearer in their message and much stronger in the delivery of their message.

Talking about birth control and contraception, even as part of an election cycle, is worth it, because the lives of unborn children are at stake in this issue – and they are worth fighting for.  However, is it worth losing the election to Obama and the Democrat Party, and putting those unborn lives at even greater risk because we could not properly define what is birth control and contraception, and what the government’s, and taxpayers, role is in providing it?

Brainwashed Teenager Argues for Right To Kill Unborn Children

The Arianna Nation “Youth Movement” has a piece written by a young teen, Alton Lu, who wants to know why pro-life Americans would have the audacity to meddle in the affairs of  teenagers and all Americans who wish to engage in sex, and demand to be provided free contraception and free abortions – paid for by you, the taxpayer – and what will happen if abortion is ever banned and if the cost of contraception is ever reverted back to the people who want to engage in sex.

Alton Lu is a poster child for what liberals, the Left and Planned Parenthood have managed to do with, and to, our youth in public schools.  Alton is sincerely afraid of conservatives and the pro-life movement.  And why not?  Liberalism has brainwashed Alton into believing contraception and abortion are constitutional rights and that “women’s health” and “reproductive rights” are at stake; that conservatives are actually putting the lives of women in danger by pushing for abortion bans and trying to reverse the contraception mandate that would force Catholic and religious hospitals and institutions to provide women with services that are counter to their religious and moral convictions.

Writes Alton:

“What happens if abortion is no longer legal? What happens if planned parenthoods across the nation are shut down? What happens when students are continually subjected to abstinence-only education and people unable to receive contraception?”

To be fair, Alton legitimately and probably does not know what abortion really is, that it is in fact the killing of an unborn child, and probably has never seen a picture of a fetus in the womb. If Alton still supports abortion, the young teen has truly had a successful brainwashing, and is an example of what can happen, what is happening, to your children in public schools all over America.

If abortion is no longer legal, women will have to give girth to their babies which means more babies will be saved from being killed in, or out of, the womb.  Liberals seem to care less about this.  Some women will seek the “back-alley abortions” at their own peril.  However, that women would, of their own free will, drive themselves to engage in such madness, is no excuse to legalize, and to keep legal, a practice which kills unborn children.  More women who do become pregnant will accept the pregnancy and give birth.  Let us hope that more and more women’s crisis centers will be in operation, run by actual women who want to help pregnant women and girls during their pregnancy, provide them with the psychological and emotion support they need, and, if they cannot keep the child, help them find a family that can adopt the child after it is born.

Having to sit through abstinence-only education ensures teenagers are receiving the proper sex education they need, need to hear and need to hear from adults and teachers placed in, and with, the responsibility of educating them.  Thus, fewer teenagers are brainwashed into believing sex at their age is normal and acceptable.

Fewer teenager would also be engaging in sex, which would reduce the need for contraception, and lower the risks associated with sex (STD’s, etc.), and prevent more pregnancies, unwanted or otherwise, from occurring.  It would also reduce the reason for all those “Planned Parenthoods”, therefore they will not be missed.

Abstinence-only prevents pregnancy 100% of the time it is practiced.  Sex, even so-called “safe” sex can still lead to pregnancy and sexually related diseases.  If someone, including two teenagers, want to engage in sex, they ought not be encouraged by adults, and especially teachers, and they ought not be provided free contraception – paid for by the taxpayer – to make it easier for them to do.  Neither should any american.  If you want to have sex, fine.  Pay for the contraception yourself – and man up, and woman up, by dealing with any of those “consequences” should they arise afterwards.

“This isn’t legislation for the life of the fetus. This isn’t propaganda for the sake of the women’s life. It’s a pathetic attack by narrow field of religious zealots to impose their beliefs upon all women in the United States. Now people wish to use pregnancy and labor as punishment for sex. Policymakers use the politically-correct term “Suffer the consequences.”

Pure Planned Parenthood, liberal feminist BS.  Abortion is not just a religious issue, it’s a moral issue that is one of the defining issues of our time.  People who engage in sex, if they are “punished” with pregnancy “punish” themselves.  Why should the American taxpayer be “punished” by being forced to flip the bill for someone’s irresponsibility?

“Those who do not support abortion and adamantly despise it should be at the front lines, battling for the use of birth control. The best way to stop abortions is to ensure no unwanted fetus is created. Those who do not support abortion should be crying out for true sexual education, not the useless dribble called abstinence-only. There would be no need to save the life of unborn babies if people are able to prevent a pregnancy.

The best way to stop pregnancy, unwanted or otherwise, is to not engage in sex in the first place.  We who do not support abortion are at the front lines – to demand an end to abortion and to demand an end to the liberal dogma that abortion is an acceptable form of birth control and an overall part of “women’s health”.  It’s not.

Likewise, the best way to “ensure an wanted fetus is not created” is to not engage in sex in the first place.  If you want to engage in sex, nobody is trying to take that away from you.  However, if you do engage in sex, and become pregnant, having the right to kill your unborn child – and have that child killed at our expense – is not an option, is not acceptable and will not be tolerated.

“True sexual education” is abstinence-only, which does empower women more so that “safe” sex.  In other words, the more a women tells a man “No” to sex, rather than “yes”, the more the woman can control, and have control, over her own body.  The “looser” she is, the less respect any man will have for her and for her body, or want to have.

“I would question those who do not agree with my ideas. A paradox has been created with those who fight to stop both abortions and prevention. If you bring down abortion, prevention must be lifted up. If you bring down prevention, abortion must be lifted up… Or there’s the off-chance these religious zealots can actually convince the people of the United States to not have sex…

Your ideas are not only “questioned” they are being challenged.  Alton, you are far too young, and far too ignorant, (a result of the public education you have received, and the liberal brainwashing you have undergone) to fully comprehend just how dangerously wrong, and wrong-headed you are.  Your youth may be your salvation.  You have time to open your eyes and see why abortion is wrong and how Planned Parenthood, the public school system and liberalism has brainwashed you.

Fighting abortion is not to suppress women, to take away rights, to keep women “barefoot and pregnant” or to take away power.  Fighting abortion is to save the lives of unborn children.  Either life has value or it hasn’t.  Conservative and pro-life Americans have more respect for life, and for your life, than the liberals who brainwashed you have for you.

We don’t want to convince you not to have sex.  We do want to convince you not to have sex until you are married.  Outside of that – if you do, why should we “suffer the consequences for your mistakes?  And – why should the unborn baby you help to create “suffer those consequences” as well?

So It’s War! And Damn Well About Time – Emily’s List, Pro-Abortion Feminists Will Fall…

Liberal Feminists have had enough, they say, of the assault on “women’s health” and are planning on unleashing a wave of pro-abortion Democrat women, in conjunction with Emily’s List, to run for congress this 2012 election cycle.  Bully for them!  But be warned, you will have some very serious competition, not only from Tea Party candidates (the rumors of their death have been greatly over exaggerated) but solid conservatives like Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, who owes nobody a contraception speech.

SS columnist, Stephanie Schriock, writing for the Arianna Nation, bellows:

“The ideological attack on women’s health that has taken center stage over the past few weeks makes clear — yet again — that the Republican agenda is incompatible with women’s health and progressive American values.”

Stephanie’s problem, and her real dilemma, is that there is no actual attack on women’s health by Republicans and conservatives.  Women’s health is as protected as ever, and because of the vast improvements in science and medicine, women’s health will continue to improve and women’s lives will be prolonged and saved from untimely death caused by disease and cancer.  So what is it that Stephanie finds so “incompatible”?  What is it that Stephanie is so afraid of losing?  What possible “ideology” do Republicans and conservatives possess which Stephanie and other liberal feminists find repugnant?

Like all liberal feminists, Stephanie is pro-abortion.  And she, like all pro-abortion feminists, is insulted by politicians, male politicians in particular, that would make any attempt to stop women from going into an abortion clinic and killing her unborn child.  Stephanie also is disgusted that conservatives would dare block taxpayer-funded “free” contraception for all women, and even teenage girls, and preteen girls.  And it really riles Stephanie that conservatives would support allowing Catholic and all religious hospitals and its staff an exemption from having to dispense any type of contraception which goes against their moral and religious convictions.

In other words – the “attack” on “women’s health” which Stephanie is concerned about really boils down to abortion, free contraception for all women – paid for by the taxpayer, and forcing religious hospitals to dispense such contraception against their moral objections.  Stephanie is mad as hell that the “right” of women to kill their unborn children is being attacked and she isn’t going to take it any more.

“The latest wave in the onslaught is an amendment by freshman Senator Roy Blunt, which would not only strip women of access to birth control, but completely undermine the notion of health care in this country, giving employers the right to withhold health insurance coverage at will for any employee, for virtually any reason.”

All Roy Blunt’s bill would do is overturn Obama’s unconstitutional meddling by removing the contraception mandate that all religious hospitals be forced, by government, to dispense contraception against their moral convictions.  How does that “undermine the notion of health care in this country”?

“This latest assault shows us clearly that these are no longer isolated battles we are fighting. This is a war — a war it’s time we win by electing more pro-choice, Democratic women to Congress who will stand up for women’s health and the policies women and families need.”

Thank goodness Stephanie has declared the war.  We can take off the gloves now and stop beating around the bush.  What Stephanie has a hard time grasping is that abortion is neither a “women’s right” issue, nor is it a “women’s health” issue.  And the right to abortion neither empowers women nor does it liberate women.  But perhaps the most difficult reality for Stephanie to grasp is that many millions of women oppose abortion and reject her loony tune nonsense about an assault on women’s health and that abortion, and the right to abortion, is in any way connected with “women’s health”.  Abortion is nothing more than the killing of an unborn child.

“Enough is enough. The relentless assault on women’s health by those on the Far Right has caused a furious reaction.”

There’s can be nothing more disturbing than seeing a pack of rabid liberal feminists get there panties in a bunch.  But if it’s in the line of duty, then so be it.  Stephanie and her ilk are in for a political beating that will set their pro-abortion cause back by decades, and, in the course of time, stop them altogether.  They intend to see pro-choice Democrat women elected.  We intend to see pro-life Republican women (and men) elected.

Just because women are running for congress does not make them liberal, pro-abortion feminists.  For example, take a look at Mia Love.  Stephanie is right about one thing – abortion is galvanizing more and more women to run for congress.  However, what Stephanie and her liberal feminist comrades neglected to take into account was that so many of these women running for congressional offices are pro-life Republican women.  How does it make any sense, then, to call what Republicans and conservatives are trying to do by overturning an unconstitutional mandate an “attack” on “women’s health”?

“Our choice is clear. We either elect pro-choice Democratic women to build a future of opportunity for all — and put an end to the non-stop attacks on women’s health — or the Tea Party right wing wins.”

If Stephanie and her pro-abortion agenda wins – millions more babies will be slaughtered in the decades to come.  If Republicans are able to push back, reverse and overturn more of these pro-abortion laws, and elect more pro-life women in the process, we can send a clear message to Stephanie and her feminist friends that they, and their “future of opportunity for all”, is rendered as dead as they would have unborn babies.

“Together, we have the opportunity to not only change the face of Congress, but to ensure that politics won’t deny women the health care they need and deserve.”

Women absolutely “need and deserve” quality heath care.  Abolishing abortion, overturning Obama’s unconstitutional contraception mandate, making women, not taxpayers, pay for their own birth control in no way compromises or endangers women’s health.  What does endanger women’s health are the frivolous games liberal feminists, like Stephanie, are playing with women’s health for the sole purpose of ensuring the “right” to kill an unborn child remains legal and “private”.

Pro-life Republicans or pro-abortion Democrats – who is really trying to “deny women” their health care?

Want Contraception? Pay For It Yourself!

Liberals who talk about “free love” know neither the definition of “free” or “love”.  Having sex and making love are two separate concepts.  Whether it’s the “government”, or “insurance agencies” or whatever liberals want to call it, if you’re having sex, and someone else is providing you with the contraception, or for the abortion afterwards, it was bought and paid for by taxpayers, and the expense was added to the national debt.  Just keep that in mind the next time you are in the act and you spy a peeping Tom watching you.  If he pays taxes, he’s paying for a portion of your enjoyment.  So rather than being modest, or a prude, you might as well let him get his money’s worth.  On the other hand if he’s just a homeless bum, he’s probably more interested in the fire in your living room than the fire in your pants.

Size really does matter to a liberal, which is why they love big government.  If Obama and the federal government are determined to mandate contraception, and pass the cost of that contraception on to the taxpayer, it seems the most fitting and appropriate thing they ought to do, the next logical step, is to mandate sex itself, and to force everyone to make “whoopee” under penalty of fine and/or imprisonment.  Otherwise the contraception mandate is just as rigged as social security – where you pay into a system all your life, then die before you get to collect.  How depressing is that, to have your money taken from you so someone else can be “happy” for a few minutes?  All the while you’re digging in your pockets, scrounging for spare change to use at the snack machine because you can no longer afford to purchase the McDonald’s value meals.  Here you are starving for food at the same time a complete stranger is satisfying his appetite on your dime.  And you really needed that dime.

If people want contraception to avoid making those mistakes often associated with not using it, and those mistakes are still occurring even with contraception, perhaps the contraception manufacturer ought to try gluing on an eraser and see if that works.  Mistakes happen.  Isn’t that why pencils have erasers.  What about white out?  That covers up mistakes too.  Of course white out is probably as outdated by now as is waiting to hit that home run on your wedding night.  And then we have to go back to the whole ” keeping government out of our bedrooms” thing.  Do you ever notice the people who are most vocal about keeping government out of their bedrooms are the same people who can’t go anywhere without demanding government be everywhere else in their lives?

When did it become the responsibility of every American taxpayer to pay the cost of keeping “horny” men and women “safe” during intercourse?  If liberals aren’t stopped, defeated and buried the government (via the American taxpayer) will wind up paying the cost of contraception, birth control and abortions.  Do you know what that means?  Liberals who demand a right to “privacy” also demand we the taxpayer pay out of our own pockets the “convenience” of that privacy.  Men and women being intimate with one another is one thing, but if they can’t afford the price of admission perhaps they ought to keep the lights on and just watch television instead – or talk to one another.  There’s your best contraception right there.  Talking always kills the mood and keep the urges down.  And talking is free.

Why should any of us have to reach in our pockets every time some one else reaches into theirs?

98% Of Catholics Can’t Be Wrong – Or Can They?

The 98% of Catholics that NOW, NARAL, Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion organizations tout, and which the lame MSM goes along with without fact checking is in reference to those Catholics which support a woman’s right to obtain and use birth control – the kind that prevent a pregnancy from occurring, not any of the kinds that kill the baby after conception.  Most Americans, and probably at least equal to the Catholic percentage of 98%. agree that women ought to have the right to use birth control.  However, if you want it, you ought to pay for it yourself.

What will never happen is a majority of Catholics, and certainly one as large as 98%, supporting the Obama Administration’s push to force Catholic hospitals to provide birth control, contraception and abortion to its patients against their moral and religious convictions.  This is very much a war, and one of Obama’s making.  He had help, of course, from the ACLU, Planned Parenthood and other radical feminist women’s groups.  But a war, nonetheless, and one that must be fought to whatever end.

Obama has gone too far this time, in order to appease his block of extremist left-wing supporters.  A heavy gamble, as most Americans are more pro-life than pro-abortion, and more Americans consider themselves conservative than liberal.  But Obama has the court system in his pocket, until Republicans can win more victories and oust any and all judicial activists who would seek to undermine the American Constitution.

Catholics are already gearing up for a fight, a viscous uphill battle all the way to the Supreme Court.  The stakes are huge.  If Obama wins, and Catholic hospitals are forced to provide services they find morally objectionable, they will no longer be protected under the first amendment and government can both disrespect an establishment of religion and make laws which impede the free exercise of religion.  Something which has never happened in our country.  If a Catholic hospital is forced to do what it considers evil, it may very well shut down altogether.  Then where will people go?

All this nonsense in response to what is essentially a minority of women in America who demand not only the right to abortion and to contraception, but demand the taxpayer fund and pay for it, and the government sanction it, and force hospitals to go along with it or else.

Indeed, there will be a war the likes of which hasn’t been seen since 1860.  Long have there been those Americans who have felt abortion would be America’s next great Civil War.  If Obama. and Planned Parenthood, have their way, there may very well be some type of revolt or rebellion in this country.  Does Obama, do Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, the MSM really think conservatives, religious or otherwise, are just going to bow down and accept this type of drastic government intervention and intrusion?  There is that “final straw” thing to think about and that “enough is enough” concept.

If you thought the Occupy Wall Street crowd was bad – and they were – you ain’t seen nothing yet.  If you thought a few, insignificant, miniscule group of ignorant, uneducated, unintellectual mama’s boys and girls could cause trouble – wait until you get a load of us.  We’re here, we’re sincere, and we’re not gonna take it anymore.  You can only push us so far.  We won’t stand by idly and watch our Constitutional rights be stripped from us without a fight.  Did you think we would?

Planned Parenthood fights for the right of all women to kill their unborn children.  We fight for the rights of those unborn children, and the rights of Americans not to be placed in a moral dilemma which forces them either to commit an act of evil, against their will, or stop caring for all the people in their community altogether.

Of course there will be some sort of clash.  Something, and someone, has to give.  Did anyone, in 1860, expect to see America torn apart as it was?  Abortion is one of those issues that can tear apart those seams once again.  Is giving into Obama and Planned Parenthood really worth tearing apart those seams?  Is caving into the radical feminist and pro-abortion agenda worth tearing America apart, again?  What would such a war even look like?

For now, all that is neither here or there.  The first thing to happen would be either Catholic hospitals shutting their doors, or becoming completely private, relying on donations and charitable contributions.  How does that help the surrounding community?  If these hospitals do shut down, and people are turned away, denied services, refused entrance, etc., it will be because of Barack Obama and his inability to show the least amount of courage and common sense.  How many people will suffer needlessly because Planned Parenthood goes around acting like a spoiled little brat, always wanting more, more, more.

What is it worth to you, to have the right to kill your unborn child?  What is it worth to us, who oppose abortion, to ensure this practice is once again outlawed?  If women want birth control and contraception, and to have sex with as little fear of becoming pregnant as possible, they can pay for it themselves.  Leave the Catholic and religious hospitals out of it.  Money doesn’t grow on trees, neither do taxpayers.

Post Navigation


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 61 other followers

%d bloggers like this: