Adults and Sex

I am now preparing, preemptively, to be called both a misogynist and a prude.  Both of which don’t bother me anymore, since I’m also getting older and have generally decided that I don’t give a rip what people THINK of me – only what I think of myself in the eyes of God and what my wife and family think of me.

But here goes:

Liberals are ridiculously immature about sex, and I’ve about had it listening to their whining.  I am now going to give them a stern, albeit brief, lecture.

Guys – sex?  You’re doing it wrong.  Completely wrong.  Stop doing it wrong before you make yourselves miserable and the rest of us with you since we have to listen to your crap.

Sex is a beautiful, miraculous thing.  Everyone should be having lots of it if it’s done in the way that makes it miraculous.  The world would be a better place if everyone was in the proper relationship context for sex at least once a day, if not more.  We should all be trying to have as much sex as possible.  With our spouses!  Yes, really, you liberal children, I’m going to go there.  For your own good.

The reason that Christians preach about the importance of waiting til marriage before you have sex are numerous, backed by strong statistical and scientific evidence, and completely ignored by the left.  A quick summary – do some research on these bullet points if you want the facts behind them, I frankly don’t have the time to hold your hands while you discover what an idiot you are about sex.

  • People in long-term, committed relationships do have less sex, but are considerably more satisfied with sex than others.
  • Sex, done right, is about trust and intimacy.  You clumsy fools with your hook-up culture and six-month “relationships” based on nothing more than immediate pleasure seeking have no idea how much more meaningful a sexual experience is when you are committed to that other person…when the sex act is an expression of your willingness to give love, to reach for God through your union.  There’s a reason young, single women are so dissatisfied with sex as a group these days.
  • Sex carries the awesome power of creation.  Not being open to this – blocking this power – robs the sex act of significance and makes it cheap and (pardon the phrase) anti-climactic.  One study found that women were less likely to have an orgasm during sex when their male partner wore a condom.  It is also well known that conception is more likely when the woman has an orgasm.  And that men dislike using condoms for a reason (and no, I’m not excusing the guy who knocks a girl up because he doesn’t want to lose feeling during sex and then doesn’t take responsibility – that would ALSO be doing it wrong.  I’m saying, guys and gals, that sex is not intimate and satisfying without a full bodily union.
  • If you’re going to run around breaking things and making a mess, it is reasonable for us to expect you to pay for the consequences.  Why is it “blocking access” to contraception to require you to pay for it yourself?  Are grocery stores “blocking access” to food?  Are car dealers “blocking access” to that new Fusion Hybrid because they cost money?  Stop being so damned spoiled, kids.  You want to screw around and “have fun” – you pay for the damned condoms and birth control pills.  They aren’t even that damned expensive.
  • And of course…for those of you who think that abortions should be on demand, no consequences, no questions asked…sorry, but science is clear that the zygote is alive from the moment of implantation at the very latest.  If you won’t be grown up enough to admit that abortion is killing a life, how do you expect us to have a dialogue.  Now it’s all about “whether the mother feels like she’s actually a mother.”  Boy…if we used that standard for murder in the adult world, things would get UGLY.  Do you FEEL like what you do was wrong, Mr. Dahmer?  Get real…grow up…and form your beliefs around what is patently obviously true, not what you want to be true to make yourselves feel better.  If you want to argue that abortion is killing a life, but it should be OK anyway because (insert arguments here)….that at least would be intellectually honest and mature.  You’d lose horribly and you know it…but at least I could look at you without wanting to build a rocket to Mars and start the human race over again.
The left is currently having a temper tantrum over Hobby Lobby…I’m old enough now not to be surprised by this.  But damn it kids, get off my lawn or shut up!  The facts are not on your side…and nor are the grown ups.  A NARAL exec, today, suggested that women should go have public sex in Hobby Lobby stores as a means of protesting.  I can’t even count the number of ways that this is misogynist and logically stupid.  But let’s list the top three.
  • I’m sure that women who work for Hobby Lobby have plenty of sex.  I’m sure that Hobby Lobby doesn’t care how much its employees have sex.  Nothing about the family’s position on the issue is denying access to sex.  You can live without the store paying for your morning-after pills and still screw around like a drunken sorority sister.  You’re protesting something that has nothing to do with having sex…by having sex??
  • Let’s put female sexuality on display so that men will respect us as equals?  Huh???  Yes…objectifying women is SO EMPOWERING.
  • How many arrests before that NARAL exec realizes that all this does is harden Hobby Lobby’s opinion about your position on this issue?  What message do you suppose it sends to Hobby Lobby?  That people on your side are rational, thinking folks with a reasonable opinion?  Or that you’re friggin’ INSANE?
*sigh*
I’m tired now…go your rooms.  And try not to have risky sex for a while.

EDIT TO ADD:

If you want some confirmation on my claims above regarding Christian sexual teaching – stop reading that sick freak Kinsey and start reading Andrew Greeley.  Hit tip to John Konsecsni once again for the quick-hitter reference idea. 🙂

EDIT TO CORRECT a misuse of the term fetus.

Technically, it is a fetus the moment it implants…but a zygote before the implantation.  Both stages are considered “alive” scientifically…there is some disagreement as to whether cell division is advanced enough prior to implantation to say that the process has fully begun.

Advertisements

The Debate is Over! – Part II – Scandals? What Scandals?

Here, in the shortest bulleted list possible, is the leftist formula for handling a scandal.  As one of our conservative blogger friends recently pointed out, this is hardly a new formula – it kept Nicholas II in power for far too long even though he had the intellectual maturity of a dog and the cunning of a mosquito, and it allowed Stalin to maintain a positive image well into the 50s…well beyond the beginning of the gulags and the mass graves and the reallocations.

  • STEP 1: Scandal?  What are you talking about?
  • STEP 2: Well this is appalling!  I just heard about it reading the paper and am as shocked and angry as you!
  • STEP 3: How dare my opponents get mad about this – they have never liked me and are eager to play politics with this admittedly unfortunate error (see…he went from outraged to oh it’s an unfortunate error)
  • STEP 4: The real scandal is the politics of the right! (try to deflect anger to a scapegoat your supporters already don’t like)
  • STEP 5: **stonewall investigations for a year at least…refuse to discuss with reporters, who quickly lose interest when nothing new happens**
  • STEP 6: What?  Why are we even still talking about this…it’s old news and it wasn’t a big deal anyway! (minimize and give your supporters license to ignore the “error”)
  • STEP 7: Look…the debate about this is OVER…we won that argument…now you’re just talking sour grapes, you ingrate! (dismiss even TALKING about the scandal as radical)
  • STEP 8: Fire non-significant employee or two, perhaps, or send people away on administrative leave and reassign them.  Claim this has nothing to do with the scandal itself, but let the press scapegoat this person.
  • STEP 9: Scandal?  What are you talking about?  Never happened.  All those things that happened had nothing to do with us. (deny and start again)
Obama, in his time in office has had ELEVEN major scandals break…scandals larger than the one that felled Warren G. Harding.  Some larger than the one that felled Richard Nixon and Spiro T. Agnew.
The teapot dome scandal was about land use rights and cronyism in an era when liberals despised crony capitalists and conservatives despised crony unionism.  So it was a minor issue really…but a well-timed minor issue.
Watergate undermined the American electorate’s confidence in the election process at a time when democracy seemed under attack by the forces of extremism (high profile assassinations abound).  But Nixon killed no one and there’s no evidence that the information he gathered illegally changed anything of substance to the 1972 election or the policy discussions of the day.  It was more about what it said about Nixon as a person, I suspect.
But here…let’s bullet point the scandals of the Obama years:
  • IRS, under direction from top-level DC lawyers supervising their conduct, targets enemies of the President for unfair scrutiny and attempts to alter electoral outcomes.
  • NSA, under direction from fellow Democrats in the Senate Security Committee (albeit with bipartisan support), spies on every phone e, email account, and media outlet without oversight.
  • VA literally murders dozens, perhaps hundreds of elderly veterans (!) by forcing them to wait years for medical care they were owed for their service and then lies about the wait times to gain career advancement perks.
  • National Parks authorities use a government shutdown to close open air public spaces never before closed and are heard saying they believe their job is to make the shutdown “hurt as much as possible.”
  • Affordable Care Act – passed in a back-channel Senate vote that broke Senate rules of procedure while House Majority Leader says we need to read it to know what’s in there – debuts with a catastrophic failure of management.
  • Fast and Furious gun running program, under the direction of top-level Justice Department officials, gets a US serviceman killed and results in the deaths of hundreds of innocent Mexicans.
  • Obama publicly threatens on multiple occasions to use the executive order to circumvent the legislative authority of congress (and does so ten times more often than any previous U.S. President ever has, issuing 62 executive orders in 6 years compared to 8 from Bush Jr. and no more than 4 by any other President)
  • Justice Department spies on media figures in an attempt to force them to reveal undisclosed sources without a warrant or probably cause.
  • GSA caught squandering billions of dollars on parties, “conferences” and other luxuries.
  • Obama trades five of the worst war criminals held in Guantanamo Bay for a deserter and Taliban sympathizer and publicly states that he did this in the hopes that it would engender confidence in future negotiations between the U.S. and the Taliban (NOT the people actually ruling Afghanistan…the guys we put into power in the first place because the Taliban was so dangerous and corrupt)…and does this without the approval of the UN, the Afghan government, his own Cabinet or the Senate Security Committee.
  • FCC threatens news networks that it will audit their content for “fairness” and attempts to regulate the speed and price of the internet.
  • And of course…Obama’s senior State Dept. officials claim an obvious terrorist attack 9/11/12 in Benghazi that resulted in the deaths of four US Citizens…was a spontaneous demonstration gone bad in response to some little-viewewd YouTube video…and then covered up evidence that they knew this “misstatement of facts” to be a lie when the story was first concocted.
WOW!!!
That this guy’s approval rating is 42% to 44% says more about his propaganda tactics and his handling of scandals (with media compliance, incredibly) than about any individual policy objective.
The danger of declaring that the debate is over…encapsulated by 6 years of constant scandal and lawbreaking by our most powerful official and his various appointed cronies.

A Quick Link That Is Germane to My Previous Post

Meet the Poster Child for White Privilege — and Then Have Your Mind Blown

That’s the problem with calling someone out for the “privilege” which you assume has defined their narrative. You don’t know what their struggles have been, what they may have gone through to be where they are. Assuming they’ve benefitted from “power systems” or other conspiratorial imaginary institutions denies them credit for all they’ve done, things of which you may not even conceive. You don’t know whose father died defending your freedom. You don’t know whose mother escaped oppression. You don’t know who conquered their demons, or may still conquering them now.

BOOM. Read the whole thing!

The "Social Justice" Left and the Collapse of Rational Thought

Hugogate is still roiling the science fiction community — and interestingly enough, the controversy has managed to attract the attention of the national media. Granted, Glenn Reynolds is a long-standing sci-fi fan, as his periodic book recommendations attest. And yes — perhaps it was a slow news week. But what’s going on in the fandom shouldn’t be written off as irrelevant to the general populace. On the contrary, what’s going on in the fandom mirrors what’s going on in society as a whole — at least wherever the hard-left social justice warriors have gained substantial power and influence. Planning on sending your child to a traditional university? Then you need to know how said radicals operate. You need to know that they are the outright enemies of rational thought.

Consider: As a firearms instructor, Larry Correia (one of the authors at the center of the aforementioned controversy) has taught thousands of people of all races, ethnicities, sexual orientations, and creeds how to defend themselves. As he writes, “I think people who would try to drag anyone to death behind a pickup truck will have a difficult time doing so after they have a pair of hollow points placed into their chest cavity at high speed.” He has also expressed his libertarian indifference regarding the bedroom habits of his fellow citizens. But because he’s tangled with social justice warriors on whether or not science fiction writers should abandon the “gender binary” – and because he once defended Phil Robertson’s right to think gay sex is weird and sinful – he’s been defamed up and down the blogosphere as a violent homophobe. You see, it’s not enough that Larry is amenable to changing the law to give gay rights activists what they claim they want — i.e., the ability to enter into marriage contracts like anyone else. No — as far as the social justice warriors are concerned, you are a homophobe until you wholly and unambiguously approve of the gay lifestyle in all its particulars. Fail to march in lock-step with this celebratory agenda and you will be declared, essentially, a nonperson.
This is irrational — and tyrannical to boot. Yes — some gay and transgendered individuals have been bullied for who they are, and that is an injustice that requires recompense. But the right answer is not to become bullies yourselves and lash out indiscriminately at everyone who has doubts or questions about the way you choose to live. There are thousands of people out there who oppose gay marriage not because they seek to hurt you, but because of their sincere religious beliefs. There are also thousands of people who are willing to consider a compromise that allows gays to enter into civil marriage contracts while also protecting the rights of the religious to preach and act as they see fit. None of these people deserve to be browbeaten into submission; indeed, many in the second group are potential allies whom you are turning off by your continuing failure to distinguish between those who are legitimately threatening and hateful and those who merely dissent. 
And lest you think the hard-left is only poisoning the well on the matter of homosexuality, this full-bore irrationality also appears whenever these social justice warriors take up the issue of race. First of all, they erroneously flatten the history of oppression into a “whites vs. people of color” narrative that ignores, to name just a few examples, the mistreatment of the Irish in both the US and the UK, the continuing prejudice against the Romani people and other white nomadic groups, the atrocities committed by the Japanese against the Chinese during World War II (which, oh by the way, rival the crimes of the Nazis during the European Holocaust), and the Rwandan genocide (in which black Africans massacred other black Africans). Look through the history of any culture and you will find instances in which the Other was attacked, enslaved, or otherwise deprived of their natural rights. Tribalism is a universal feature of the human mind that can only be overcome by conscious, arduous effort; no nation or race of men can be declared 100% innocent.
Secondly, social justice warriors refuse to recognize that “white” does not describe a monolithic group and that “privilege,” if it does exist, has more to do with class than with skin color. There is no way on Earth that an unemployed white man in eastern Kentucky is more privileged than a black professor of women’s studies at an elite coastal university — but according to your average social justice warrior, if you’re a white male heterosexual, you automatically live life on an easier setting, a notion that is laughably counter to facts. Similarly, these petty Marxists hold all whites responsible for the crimes of slavery and Jim Crow — forgetting, of course, the white abolitionists and civil rights activists who played a key role in defeating both of these manifestations of institutional discrimination. Group-based charges of guilt are neither historically accurate nor constructive; they are more likely to foster resentment than racial harmony.  
Lastly, the social justice left utterly fails to attribute to any minority group either humanity or agency. If you criticize hip-hop culture, you’re a racist. If you express concern about the collapse of the black family, you’re a racist. If you hold members of a favored minority group responsible for the consequences of their own behavior, you’re a racist. In the mind of a social justice warrior, if you are a “person of color,” you are an unimpeachable victim. Nothing is your fault — and on the flip side of the coin, there is nothing you can personally do to lift yourself up by your own bootstraps. You are powerless and in urgent need of the social justice warrior’s helping hand. As many black conservatives have observed, this is a profoundly condescending viewpoint — and virulently racist, too. “People of color” are just as capable of looking after themselves; what they need is the liberty to pursue their own interests, not a fleet of self-appointed saviors who swoop in and treat them like helpless children.
Honestly, I could go on forever about the myriad ways in which social justice radicals have assaulted logic, history, and human decency. The science fiction fandom? That’s an instructive microcosm, not an anomaly. 

The Debate Is Over – PART I (Climate Science)

I was going to make a general commentary on the disturbing tendency for academics, far leftists, and the media/political alliance to declare subjects out of bounds and the deleterious impacts that such a tendency have on a free society…but I decided, instead to do this in a few parts…and let other speak for me, since I am not likely to be any more articulate than others more fully in the chattering class.

We’ll start…with a science hero of mine.  Dr. Judith Curry.  She has a personal journey that rivals few others in science…from idealistic young atmospheric scientist with a dream to help others and make the world better…to hard-line global warming agitator, to cautiously skeptical AGW supporter to full blown skeptic.

Now (and I didn’t plan this when I declared my political topic of the week) – she takes aim at the tendency of climate scientists to declare “facts” which are shaky theories and claim the debate is over.

Judith Curry – Role Model

Well worth a read, including the linked white paper she has recently published on her blog (found in the article I cross-linked).

Feelings. Nothing More than Feelings.

http://www.lifenews.com/2013/07/23/msnbc-host-life-begins-when-parents-say-it-does-not-based-on-science/

This woman is paid to be a spokesperson for what MSNBC views as modern, intelligent, considered progressivism.

These are the folks who are happy to beat Republicans to death with scientific “consensus” on climate change or with charges of being anti-science for believing in intelligent design.  Whatever I personally believe regarding either topic (I’m a climate change moderate who would be viewed as a rabid anti-science zealot by the folks running the IPCC…and I think the intelligent design theory is overly simplistic – I prefer to ground my understanding of God in the science of our universe, which leads me inexorably to the conclusion that God MUST exist for a system that produced the breathtaking order, beauty, and physical possibilities of our universe to be possible)…I try not to go around asserting that someone who disagrees is anti-science.

But to Melissa Harris-Perry, the definition of life is…whenever the parents feel like it’s alive.

That is, by DEFINITION (and by her admission) anti-science.  But this brand of anti-science emotionally-driven rationalization is accepted – no, APPLAUDED! – on the left.

I’m sorry…this is not computing for me.  Can someone please explain to me why leftists get to be anti-science on issues like WHAT IS ALIVE! (no…caps and one exclamation mark aren’t gonna cut it this time…!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!), but conservatives have no business going with THEIR feelings on other issues?

BTW, I’m not sure why Melissa Harris-Perry doesn’t realize how dangerous her position is, but let’s do this for her – maybe it’ll illuminate the problem – let’s consider a would-be mother who is a sociopath.  Sociopaths are, by psychological definition, incapable of empathizing with the feelings of others and thus do not form real emotional bonds with anyone.

INCLUDING THEIR OWN OFFSPRING.

Should a sociopath, never having FELT that powerful pull of parenthood, have the legal right to murder her children after birth?  What distinguishes that scenario from abortion brought on by the lack of an emotional tie to the offspring in the making?

I don’t think that knot in my stomach while I watched the above video clip was caused by some altered consciousness (a popular idea on the left that suggests that conservatives are living in a reality different than actual reality)…I think that’s entirely instinctual and driven by God.  Some would call me anti-science for holding that belief.  But at least I don’t go around saying that science is irrelevant in determining what is alive.

HOLY.

SHIT.

Leftist Intolerance, Part Eleventy-Billion

As of this week, I no longer use Mozilla Firefox as my default browser.

And just so we’re clear, this is not because I necessarily agree with Brandon Eich’s decision to support the Proposition 8 campaign. On the issue of gay marriage, I am a true moderate. On the one hand, as an observant Catholic, I do believe that marriage is an indissoluble, sacramental union between a man and a woman whose purposes – procreation and unity – are categorically inseparable. In the realm of politics, however, I lean towards the libertarian position. I question the wisdom of imposing by force of law the true definition of marriage without first doing the cultural groundwork. After all, let’s face it: Marriage – genuine marriage, that is – is something we no longer value as a society — and it was the heterosexual majority, by and large, who brought about this change. Well before gay marriage became a flashpoint for controversy, straight men and women were having children out of wedlock, getting divorced and remarried, having contracepted sex, and basically treating marriage not as the serious commitment outlined above but as a vehicle for adult self-expression — and until we address this severe erosion of the marriage ideal at the level of civil society, all arguments in favor of officially codifying a proper understanding of the institution will fail to be persuasive.

Additionally, as a person of good will who has gay friends, I sympathize with the homosexual community’s yearning to be accepted and included — and, quite frankly, I feel that some people who oppose homosexual acts on moral and/or religious grounds have failed to acquit themselves well when it comes to treating their gay brothers and sisters with compassion and respect. I hear horror stories – and I have no reason to believe they’re not true – of gay young people being thrown out of their homes by parents who apparently have forgotten the principle of loving the sinner while hating the sin. I also had friends in high school who were relentlessly bullied because they were merely perceived as gay. And social conservative rhetoric? I may agree with the baseline principles, but — well, let’s just say I think some serious revision and re-framing is in order. Gays and lesbians are human beings with human longings, and while we should, for the sake of truth, continue to promote the proper definition of marriage, that does not mean we can’t – or that we shouldn’t – think of ways to answer those longings that hold fast to our convictions while simultaneously acknowledging the dignity of those who must bear the homosexual cross.

That being said, I can’t abide leftist bullies — or the quislings who cravenly yield to their demands. And make no mistake: What happened to Brandon Eich was bullying, and bullying of the most illiberal kind.

It would be one thing if leftist gays and their allies had simply decided not to use Firefox upon learning that its organization’s new CEO supported Proposition 8. Hell — if I were to learn that the CEO of a particular business were, say, an enthusiastic supporter of Planned Parenthood, I would seriously entertain the idea of going somewhere else. Boycotts are an adult, responsible way of showing your displeasure; no one should feel forced to support, monetarily or otherwise, a viewpoint one personally finds abhorrent. Driving a man out of his job for holding an “unpalatable” opinion without presenting any evidence that said opinion would lead to legitimate acts of discrimination against his employees or the customers his organization serves, however, crosses the line into blacklisting — and if it wasn’t okay to blacklist communists in Hollywood in the 1950’s, why is it suddenly okay to blacklist opponents of gay marriage now?

The left, it appears, has abandoned critical thought and civility in favor of pure, unadulterated revenge — which they then seek to justify by blurring the line between social disapproval and outright oppression. I have – no joke – seen leftists argue on Tumblr that if we “rightwing Teabaggers” approve of the Founding Fathers’ taking up arms to secure their liberty, we should also approve of gay radicals using aggressive means to achieve their goals. But, of course, the two situations aren’t even remotely comparable. There are elements of our legal code that probably should be altered to, as I counseled above, acknowledge the very real concerns of gay citizens, and homosexuals sometimes aren’t treated with the charity they deserve — but these are problems that, right now, can be solved through the democratic process, through conversation, and – for the worst cases – through existing criminal law. ‘Tis a situation very different from that which the Founding Fathers faced, in which their assertion of their rights brought an army of musket-armed Redcoats to their doors. ‘Tis also a situation very different from that which homosexuals currently face in countries governed by radical Sharia law, where the murder of gays for the sake of religious purity is officially sanctioned. And it’s a situation very different from that faced by civil rights activists after World War II, whose attempts to challenge a comprehensive, organized legal structure that imposed second-class status on blacks in every particular were met with government-perpetrated violence.

These leftists also refuse to distinguish between honest, well-meaning opposition and actual hate. If you express any doubts about the crusade to redefine marriage, you are, as far as the left is concerned, on par with the Westboro Baptist Church. But that is not how it works in reality. The Catholic Church is the largest and most prominent institution that opposes gay marriage — but the Church also offers relief to AIDS patients regardless of their sexual orientation. How does that square with the whole idea that people who promote traditional, biblical marriage can only have malign motives? Yes — some gays have been hurt by family members, neighbors, and schoolmates just because they’re gay. I definitely don’t want to minimize that — and as I suggested above, I think we as Christians have a special obligation to reach out to the walking wounded in the gay community and work to rebuild trust. But — projecting the image of the father who disowned you onto everyone who does not approve of your lifestyle is no more valid an approach to life than assuming all homosexual men are pederasts.

And by the way, gay activists: You haven’t actually helped your own cause. Once again, there is absolutely no evidence that Eich’s personal views on the subject of marriage would’ve impacted how he ran Mozilla in any way; in fact, Eich publicly indicated that the contrary was the case. Thus, in scalping the now-former CEO, you’ve essentially confirmed the Christian Right’s worst fears about your true motives: that you’re interested not in “equal rights” but in compelling societal approval by force. Continue on that path, and the tide may turn against you; such is the consequence of vengeance.      

To Spite GOP: The List of Things Leftists have Voted Against

As the shutdown showdown continues, I think it is instructive to put together a little list of the various things that democrats have refused to even discuss, or pass through the legislative process for no other reason besides sticking it to Republicans for their opposition to the Affordable Care Act.

Before the shutdown:

  • They voted down a continuing resolution that fully funded all of government except the small funding going to the administration of the ACA (the defund measure)
  • They voted down a continuing resolution that fully funded all of government but delayed implementation of the entire ACA by one year
  • They voted down a continuing resolution that fully funded all of government but delayed just the individual mandate (to give the exchanges time to work properly before forcing everyone to use them) and repealed, permanently, an unpopular medical device tax that many democrats have spoken out against since the passage of the ACA
  • They voted down one last effort to reach compromise – a move to create a joint congressional committee to draft a CR which would reflect some compromise between the houses as is prescribed in the legislative governing rules (so…they wouldn’t even TALK about it)
After the shutdown:
  • They voted against funding the Veterans Administration
  • They voted against funding DC Government services despite urgent pleas from the lone DC representative – a democrat
  • They rejected the funding of the National Parks (long a pet project of democrats and funding opposed by the GOP during lean financial times – offered anyway as a sign of good faith)
  • They shot down an attempt to fund the department of defense in full (relying instead on a minimalist appropriation for military personnel to get paid…and nothing more)
  • They refused to even bring a motion passed by the house to the floor of the senate that would have funded the National Institutes of Health fully.
  • When that failed, the house passed a bill simply to fund cancer research and Reid shot it down using procedural rules.
  • And then, with a tropical cyclone bearing down on New Orleans…they voted no to funding FEMA
  • EDIT TO ADD: In their latest quest to kick babies and punch women, the GOP passed a measure to fund the Special Supplemental Nutrition for Women program.  Dems refused it.  #LiberalWarOnWomen
While all of those wonderfully humanitarian democrats weren’t voting down measures to get government services to the people, they were barricading open air monuments that cost nothing to run and forcibly removing WWII veterans from the grounds of their own memorial, blocking park trail heads on privately run park lands that received federal aid, trapping hikers who had gone up trail prior to the shutdown, declaring that the GOP were nothing but anarchists, terrorists, and on a “jihad” against affordable health care (uttered by a representative from northern CA).
All while the exchanges have been mercilessly aped by phishers, identity thieves and security breeches and public demand for the exchanges continues to lag way behind expectations in part because democrats have done such a crappy job of explaining the exchange system and partly because the exchanges are more expensive than advertised and far from affordable unless you qualify for the full subsidies.
I don’t say the GOP was right about all of its objections to the law when it was first being discussed on Capital Hill…but there are a couple of reasons why there were inaccuracies in their complaints at the time of its passage:
  • They were afraid of the scope of the law and wanted to get negative messaging out (and went about it the wrong way)
  • NO ONE KNEW WHAT WAS IN THE DAMNED THING SO NO ONE WAS ARGUING ABOUT IT IN AN INFORMED WAY.  And that includes democrats too.  They made up a lot of fairy-tale crap that the GOP knew would be wrong along the way.
So much of this frustration would end if we just passed a readable bill amendment and required that our elected officials knew what they were voting on before they voted.  But that is neither here nor there.  Right now, Democrats are the party of no; the party of immaturity and inhumanity.  Democrats are the ones dragging this out, hoping to inflict pain on the GOP for daring to question whether their signature legislation was wise…or even whether it was ready to be deployed.  And Democrats are the ones on whose conscience should rest the dead children who could have been saved by NIH cancer treatments they refused to fund.
SHAME on them.  Their outrageous conduct has once again reminded me of why, though I do not identify as a republican, I certainly could never call myself one of them.

Cuomo Tips Their Hand

Anyone who thinks that the far left is ardently pro-birth-control, pro-abortion because they want women to be HEALTHIER…I present to you Andrew Cuomo and his latest proposed legislation on abortion and contraception entitled (laughably) the Reproductive Healthcare Act of NY.

The RHA would, among other things:

  • allow women to have even the riskiest of late-term abortions, right up until the 9th month of pregnancy, including partial birth abortion
  • Allow non-doctors to give abortion services
  • make it legal for teenagers to get an abortion without parental consent
  • require NY State medicaid to cover the cost of abortions and contraception done in NY
  • include language guaranteeing”contraceptive rights” regardless of what the Federal Govt. decides
  • require NY State health insurers to charge a reproductive health fee to all customers, included in their premiums without notification
  • license Planned Parenthood of NY with the authority to decide what constitutes “informed consent” regarding abortion services, rather than using the standard defined by the AMA.

YYYYYYEP!  That sounds like a package of great ideas to insure that female reproductive health is well taken care of in NY.  Create a state-run, taxpayer subsidized, insurance-premium-bloating abortion mill for all manner of invasive, risky and unethical abortions…make sure that lots of teens are having abortions without telling their folks, and oh BTW, have this system administered by a bunch of people who aren’t even MDs, up to and including who decides how much a patient should be told about any given procedure.

That is the real agenda of the left…abortions on demand with the goal of sterilizing, murdering or preventing the births of at-risk people (especially minorities and the disadvantaged in large urban areas).  You’re a fool if you honestly believe otherwise.

Obama’s Base: People Who REALLY Hate You (Even Though They Don’t Know You)

I have never been a woman of the left. Even before Obama, I believed the Democrat Party platform was misguided. But here’s the thing: We could have actual adult conversations with most Democrats ante-2008. Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t recall any other presidential election year in my (admittedly short) conscious lifetime in which a Democratic candidate openly embraced his inner asshole at a debate and was cheered on by his supporters.

Yes, yes, I know — we have to keep all this in perspective. The sport that is democracy has always been vicious and bloody:

But the outright contempt Obama’s Democrats have displayed for the values of ordinary Americans is like nothing I’ve ever seen before — and people who are substantially older than I agree.

In case you’ve just tuned in: Biden tried to bulldoze Paul Ryan last night with the whole King Jerk Smirky Malarkey McSmirk routine, and Obama’s biggest fans thought that was just great. I, on the other hand, am now 200% convinced that these despicable leftists should never be allowed to hold elective office ever, EVER again. Indeed, I urge all decent liberals – and I still believe you exist – to clamor for a massive intra-party purge. Obama’s foot soldiers are fouling your nest.

Biden’s performance last night fits into a larger pattern. Scratch a member of Obama’s base and you’ll find someone who hates you — at least if you’re a regular American Joe. Oh, he’ll talk a good game about how much he just loves the middle class – or how much he loves women – but he’s always – ALWAYS – lying through his left-liberal teeth. How do I know? Well, I judge people by their actions, not their words.

Many small business owners were insulted by Obama’s speech in Roanoke, VA. And many of these same small business owners expressed their outrage publicly. Take this gentleman, for instance:

What was the typical Obama Democrat’s response? Well, in addition to whining that Obama was “misunderstood” (oh, spare me — you can’t claim that Obama is a brilliant orator and then complain constantly that nobody gets what he’s saying), the typical Obama Democrat also attacked Mr. Gaster as “arrogant” and mocked him in a popular leftwing Facebook meme. Newsflash, liberals: Gaster is not a plutocrat. He is a member of that middle class you supposedly adore.

And as for this whole mythological claim that Obama’s Democrats are looking out for women? Pure. Bullshit. Apologies for the vulgarity, but it’s the truth. Leaving aside the tremendous damage the contraceptive mentality and the culture of death have wrought for women in particular, a campaign that truly respects us would not insult our intelligence by urging us to vote “like your ladyparts depend on it.” Screw you. I am not a giant vagina, and I cannot be bought with promises of “free reproductive health care.” For one thing, your stated desire to care for our aforementioned ladyparts is completely phony. There are other ways to deliver well-woman care to the underprivileged besides funneling our taxes into America’s largest abortion business (which, contra Planned Parenthood’s ridiculous lies, doesn’t offer comprehensive services to women), and if you were sincerely interested in protecting the reproductive health of poor women, you would start looking into those other options. No — what you really care about is the radical pro-abortion agenda. Point number two: We women are multi-dimensional human beings who care about many issues. Like men, we’re worried about our slow economic growth, our vulnerabilities in the Middle East, the breakdown of our civil society, the climbing national debt, crippling gas prices (especially in California), rising food prices, etc., etc. And I’m sorry, but only a campaign that assumes we’re all gullible idiots would believe we’d throw these other pressing problems aside for some free birth control pills.

These people clearly think that they can yell at us, bully us, pander to us, and feed us a steady diet of outright falsehoods and not be run out of town on a metaphorical rail — which speaks to their not-so-hidden conviction that they are America’s intellectual and moral vanguard and the rest of us are all imbeciles who will swallow anything. Let’s prove these oikophobes wrong in November.