Free Republic

Rosendale now in the lead (MT Senate race).

https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/montana-senate

Why all the doom and gloom about the house? It hasn’t been lost as of this time. From what I can tell (votes counted) it is still a toss up as to whether the Dems take the house or not.

Either way (win/lose the house) it won’t be by a large margin. And we are picking up seats in the Senate. The only question now is how many seats will we pickup.

That is not the meaning of the phrase (subject to the jurisdiction...)

The following link goes to an article that contains quotes from the men who authored the phrase and the debates on the 14th Amendment.

http://www.cairco.org/issues/unconstitutionality-citizenship-birth-non-americans

Given the clear language used, by the men who wrote the 14th Amendment and the men who made it law, it seems (to me) that the Supreme Court would be very hard pressed to rule against ending the anchor baby fallacy.

For some inexplicable reason I kept thinking about invasive illegal aliens while reading the article. It could be the number 30 million. For some odd reason that number has a certain “ring” to it.

Living in New Jersey, as I do, it is not unusual to hear some sanctimonious, self-appointed, arbitrator of permissible actions/activities lecturing others about the evils of hunting and/or fishing. Typically the would-be “expert” on morality has certain “characteristics” that, to a thinking individual, greatly undermine his/her moral ability to pass judgment on anyone.

The most obvious flaws are centered in two prime areas: support for abortion and a complete and total lack of knowledge about the subject of hunting (and/or fishing).

The first flaw is mentioned solely because the person arguing against hunting frequently bases their “argument” on the concept of killing an innocent creature is wrong. For whatever reasons, I have yet to engage an abortion supporter (who finds hunting to be a horrific devaluing of life) that is capable of seeing their own hypocrisy.

For the purposes of this topic (hunting) the second flaw is equally problematic – perhaps more so. I’ve been lucky, I suppose, because I’ve had the luxury of entertaining several rather heated individuals who have assured me that hunting innocent animals is so easy that only a truly barbaric individual would engage in such a loathsome activity. None of those individuals, that I’ve encountered anyway, have ever hunted; they just know everything there is to know about hunting.

The picture [they’ve] painted goes something like the following: a person of extremely low intelligence grabs his fully automatic military assault weapon – presumably when he’s not busy shooting up schools – along with several cases of beer and then sits in some easy chair for a few minutes until Bambi comes prancing up, eager to make friends, batting his big brown eyes in an invitation to play… and bam, bam, bam, bam… until the assault weapon is empty. Bambi, with his big brown eyes full of tears, sadly takes his last breath as the cruel hunter hastily reloads so he can riddle the carcass with bullet after bullet.

No hunter ever misses the shot. No hunter ever walks all day, up and down hills/mountains, trying to get a single good shot. The animals, naturally, are without defenses of any sort: they can do nothing but shiver in fear as hordes of uneducated oafs spray the area with bullets; killing every living thing within miles of their comfortable easy chair.

Obviously I’ve been doing it all wrong. Never have I hunted from an easy chair. I’ve never sprayed the area with bullets. I’ve never met Bambi, and never experienced Bambi walking up to me wanting to play. I’ve never drank so much as a single beer while hunting, and I’ve never used an automatic assault weapon to hunt with.

I have walked mile upon mile without getting a single opportunity to take a viable shot. I’ve walked up hill, through swampy areas, through brambles… I’ve been poked by cactus spines, bitten by all sorts of insects, scared half to death by rattlesnakes that were far too close for my personal comfort, had frost bite, and been absolutely miserably cold/hot.

I’ve also had fun. In fact I’ve enjoyed hunting immensely. To some – mostly those “experts” who have never hunted a single time – that [having fun] immediately makes hunting unsporting and easy. For some reason having fun isn’t allowed – hunting (if allowed at all) is to be restricted to those rare times when the person will starve to death if he/she doesn’t hunt. At times I am almost convinced that the excuse of hunting only if that is the only means of avoiding starvation isn’t just an ‘out’ that “environmentalists” (usually city dwellers) leave open for themselves in case they get lost while roaming the local park and forgot to bring their energy bars.

Good for Larysa Switlyk.

She is doing far more for animals than all of the wanna-be environmentalists combined. The fact that she enjoys hunting doesn’t alter reality one bit. Not only is she providing a necessary service (culling over populated animals) but she’s also helping provide food (for herself and others) and jobs. The world needs more people like her, and considerably less people like those threatening her.

While I do understand the frustration with Republicans who aren’t doing their jobs, I don’t understand the thought of punishing them by sitting an election out.

The time to take them out is in the primary, not the general election.

Unfortunately there are a good number of Republicans who should not be in office. Compare that to the Democrats - all of whom are actively undermining this nation and its stated principles.

By sitting out an election we are playing right into the hands of those democrats who are actively undermining all that we stand for.

Sure, voting for a feckless Republican leaves much to be desired, but that (in my mind) beats the tar out of sitting by while this nation’s enemies act without even the slightest bit of interference.

I’m not sitting this one - or any other election - out. The consequences are far too severe for that. I’m angry too - at Republicans and Democrats. I sure as heck will not reward Democrats by punishing Republicans.

I apologize for my errors. Sincere thanks to all who caught them. We need to be factual here, and I should have done more to make sure that my posts were accurate.

Author page for Deborah Ramirez - https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=625191

CV - https://www.northeastern.edu/law/pdfs/academics/cv-ramirez.pdf

Faculty page - https://www.northeastern.edu/law/faculty/directory/ramirez.html

https://youtu.be/vsyCA-mTPi0

Deborah Ramirez 2015 before house judiciary committee

Yes, I find that very disturbing and further indication that our society is in rapid decline.

Many members of my family are still farming today. They are well aware of the various accusations levied by so many in our society, but highly confused as to how such accusations can be given serious consideration by any but the very naïve.

Even there (in the Midwest) it isn't uncommon to have activists spouting their nonsense. One of my family members offered (an activist group) the opportunity to tour his operation (cattle and crops) so they could understand how baseless their accusations actually were. The group declined; preferring to spew their silly propaganda without benefit of actual knowledge.

Nobody, in the family, was surprised.

That is so very true.

Upon relocating to the east coast (NJ) some 25 years ago I was struck by multiple oddities that I still, to this day, find disturbing and indicative of the arrogance so frequently equated with the general populace of the two extreme coasts.

The first being the general acceptance of a belief that firearms somehow, of their own accord, take it upon themselves to randomly discharge their loads; frequently resulting in renewed demands for further regulations/laws designed to strip law-abiding citizens of any actual ability to defend themselves.

The second being a (seemingly) widespread belief that the inhabitants of the two coasts are entitled to dictate their whims upon those who happen to comprise the population of the “fly-over” states.

The third being the growing belief that city dwellers are the best source of information when it comes to farming operations and what constitutes the proper practices for said farms.

There are other observations, of course, but the above three sufficiently envelops the current discussion.

I was fortunate to grow up on a farm in the mid-west (fly-over country) where we raised a variety of crops, chickens, ducks, geese, hogs and cattle. At a young age (10 or so) I borrowed $30 to start my own sheep operation – growing my herd to 30 or so by the time I was a proper teenager. I sold the wool, some of the lambs, and eventually the entire flock (for meat and breeding stock) as a means to pay back my loan while turning a profit in the end (less my loan and feed costs).

I’ve pulled calves, castrated calves, pigs, and sheep and brought more than one newborn animal into the house so it could live despite the harsh wintry weather. I’ve inoculated more animals that I can successfully recall and I’ve spent time on a one-legged stool hand-milking the dozen or so head of milk cows that we had when I was young.

Ours was a small scale operation (in comparison to the mega operations so common today) but that doesn’t mean I didn’t have direct experience with the much larger operations; among friends and family there were many who had large (more specialized) operations, concentrating on hogs, chickens, cattle or crops.

Despite knowing (personally) many farmers – who raised many thousands of various animals – I have never once witnessed anything close to what could logically be labeled animal cruelty. I’ve seen farmers, and their families, go without sleep, without eating, without personal items – all because their animals came first.

Conversely, I’ve never once witnessed a single animal activist make a single sacrifice that remotely compares to the the many sacrifices that every farmer makes every day. It just doesn’t happen.

I call it the “Bambi complex.”

Clueless people, perhaps with good intentions, foolishly believing that animals are living Teddy Bears – soft and cuddly creatures incapable of anything other than spreading joy and love to all who care enough to voice an opinion about something they (usually) know absolutely nothing about.

Chickens are vile, disgusting creatures. They’ll kill just about anything they can – frequently each other.

It isn’t unusual for them to eat a strange (or wounded) chicken while it is still alive – pecking at it non-stop until the victim finally succumbs (after it has been partially eaten). I’ve seen them pulling the entrails out of another chicken’s rectum – a frenzied gang mercilessly attacking the harassed victim.

They’ll kill each others’ chicks and eat the eggs of any hen incapable of fighting the hoard off.

That is why the larger operations “de-beak” their birds (as others have explained, the beak is NOT removed).

That is why the larger operations place their hens in individual cages – it greatly cuts down on injuries/death.

That is why they’re fed via conveyor belts (to ensure that all birds have access to feed). (Otherwise the weaker birds will go without and/or be killed)

If they’re stressed, they don’t lay at all.

The fact that they are laying (eggs) tells the story – as far as the actual chicken is concerned, living in a egg factory is a life of ease and no stress. There they have no need to fight for their survival, no need to fight for food/water and no need to fend off the predatory attacks of their fellow chickens (or other predators).

The worst thing I can say about the major chicken operations is that the stench (inside the buildings) is awful. In fact it is nearly as bad as the smell that so frequently permeates the inner cities.

I’d also like to address the video of the hog farming operation.

I’m appalled that the owners didn’t shoot the drone down. I would have if I were the owner (and saw the drone). I’d certainly push any potential legal charges available (trespassing leaps to mind, since the drone operator was obviously trespassing on private property).

Sows are kept in confinement so as to reduce the loss of their piglets. Sows frequently step on, or lie on, their own offspring – killing them and reducing profit. Sows are also prone to eating just about anything they can find – including their own kind. (That goes for all pigs, not just the females of breeding age).

The sewage ponds are the result of local/state regulations/laws. It is a means of disposing the waste of thousands of hogs and it is usually the result of demands placed by those who moved to the country long after the farm had been in operation.

I am always a bit amazed by the audacity of those who move, from a urban area, to the country in order to escape the hell that is urban life, only to spend their time trying to change the country into that which they moved away from. That happens frequently here in southern NJ: urban dwellers move to escape the crime, corruption and noise of their former life and then spend their time complaining about the smell of farms and the lack of action in the country.

As a direct result, there are very few farms left in this area. Not counting vegetables, every “farmed” food is now shipped in from elsewhere – a trend that seems to be increasing with great momentum. I have to wonder how these people plan on feeding themselves, once they’ve managed to rid themselves of all traces of the farms that they appear to loathe.

Maybe the Chinese will feed them?

They’d better hope so and they might want to think twice about telling the Chinese how to operate a farm.

I’m glad I’m old. I hate what this nation is fast becoming.

Dear Proud American in Canada,

First let me say that my words are not intended to demean you in any manner, but I do wish to be rather blunt and somewhat harsh. I also wish to extend my sincere hope that you will overcome your health issues quickly – both the depression and the chemical imbalance.

Take ownership immediately. You made the choice to drink; nobody else shoulders blame for that choice. It doesn’t matter that your husband chose to stop at a store that sells alcohol; you chose to buy the alcohol. It wouldn’t matter if your husband bought the alcohol: you chose to drink it. Nor is your husband’s “fake” attitude at fault for the choice that you made. The blame is entirely yours and you must face that simple fact.

Own the choices you’ve made so you can make better choices and own them too.

Apologize (sincerely – that is key) to your husband for wrongly blaming him for the choices you’ve made. (this is part of owning your choices made)

Tell your husband that you will no longer drink alcohol – not that you will try not to drink alcohol. You will no longer drink alcohol (period).

Ask him to help you in this choice. Make it clear that you are no longer going to drink alcohol whether he helps you or not, but you would greatly appreciate his help. Explain that you value him and any support that he is willing to offer you.

Go to counseling (of some sort) and encourage your husband to join you in a joint session, but seek counseling even if your husband will not join you for joint counseling. Stick with the counseling – this is not a short term thing.

“A goal without a plan is just a wish” – Larry Elder

Set goals. Write them down along with your plan to achieve them. Wishing won’t do – you must set goals and you must make a plan for achieving them.

Live the plan, realize the goal.

I will not drink alcohol in the next 24 hours. That is the plan for achieving your goal. Write it down everyday as soon as you wake up... and live it.

Seek treatment for your depression. Real treatment, do not self-medicate.

Ask God for help. Yeah, I know, some will tell that doing so is corny (or worse). Ignore them. God will help you. Help yourself by asking God for help.

Keep yourself busy doing constructive activities. Writing and photography would appear to be two logical choices.

Get physical. Physical activity has been shown to alter the state of mind (for the better) – run, walk, ride a bike... do something physical everyday.

AA and Al Anon (for your husband) are viable options as well.

Do all of the above and I promise you that you will meet your goal of no alcohol

Grab victory. Own it. Live it.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/user/406633

"Digital Journalist based in Fairfield, OH, United States. Joined on Jun 12, 2013 Expertise in Environment & green living, Government, Entertainment, Books, Charity & volunteer work, Politics, Education"

About

"I am a writer and social activist residing in Cincinnati, Ohio. I grew up primarily on the east coast of the U.S., in Philadelphia, Pa., Wilmington, De. and Washington, D.C.. I attended Lincoln University in Oxford, Pa., studying theatrical arts and political science. In the early 1970s, as a teenager, I became a member of the Black Panther Party and in the 1980s I was one of three co-chairs of the Delaware chapter of the Rainbow Coalition. I am currntly working as an assistant youth mentor for a local community agency."

Bold is mine, so as to highlight his claimed accomplishments.

My comment in reply..

Is the U.S. still deserving of a 1st Amendment?

Given the author’s blatant willingness to trample unalienable (impossible to take away or give up) rights, perhaps the question we should be asking ourselves is more directly involved with the First Amendment and the author’s ability to pen a screed so directly anti-American and unconstitutional?

Surely the progressives won’t mind a small limitation [upon their 1st Amendment rights] such as governmental approval - say from a group of Constitutional experts who judge solely upon the expressed intent of the framers and those who ratified the Bill of Rights - prior to their being able to voice an opinion that is likely to be in direct opposition to our supreme law.

Think of it as a means of governmental protection against stupidity, ignorance, distortion, lies, and tyranny all in one.

The Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments) has a common theme: absolute prohibition against specific government actions. In fact the words ‘shall not’ appear in 4 of the first 10 Amendments (while the other 6 Amendments include language that is equally prohibitive with regards to the government’s ability - legal or otherwise - to act in a manner that restricts those specified, recognized, rights).

‘Shall not’ is a very straight forward directive - meaning under no circumstances can the government engage in actions that restrict the recognized rights (not even when some among us really, really want to).

What’s that you say?

Congress shall make no law abridging (to lessen or restrict) the freedom of speech, or of the press?

To which I note: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” (restrict or lessen).

Fortunately (for those who cherish freedom anyway - not so much for the author and his ilk) the good men who made the Constitution our supreme law saw fit to clarify things a bit further; as if unalienable rights and prohibitions on government actions that serve to diminish those rights wasn’t enough clarification (seemingly they knew there’d be dishonest people advocating tyranny in our future).

The 10th Amendment:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

That slams the door shut on the author’s fascist fantasy.

I know, I know - you’re going to pretend the states could engage in your petty whims (legally) - right?

So much for your love of the 14th Amendment (go ahead - read it).

As I stated above - that slams the door shut on the author’s fascist fantasy.

Now for the “rights aren’t absolute” crap.

In my best Bill Clinton voice - that depends what the definition of is, is.

Or, in this case, what the definition of absolute is.

If by absolute we mean that the government has no power (or right) to impede upon my rights - then yes, our rights are absolute. That much is made clear by the fact that our rights are unalienable - meaning you (dear author) cannot take them away, nor can the fascist government that you so desperately crave take them away (nor can I give them up). And, as pointed out above - the Bill of Rights goes even further and explicitly denies government the ability to act upon your whims.

Where the government does have (legal) power is with actions undertaken. Even then the government has severe limitations upon its powers (but I digress).

Slander isn’t an example of free speech carried to the absolute; slander is an example of actions undertaken and harms caused by means of those actions. Likewise with the actions of some crazed idiot - most of whom have been progressives - with a gun. (We might want to have a national discussion with regards to banning progressives - as they clearly endanger everyone and the nation as a whole)

The dirty word here - to progressives anyway - is ‘responsibility.’ We can, and must, be held responsible for our actions. It is the person whose actions caused harm that is held responsible; not the tool used, and most definitely not the law abiding users of a similar tool.

Put another way: We don’t punish everyone with a keyboard simply because some use theirs to create dishonest articles (and false premises) as a means to restrict freedom for others. Nor do we blame the keyboard for those among us who author articles that call for harmful actions, and freedoms infringed, on the basis of ignorant, selfish whims.

I do wonder if the author is using an assault keyboard though - you know what I mean; black and all military-looking but insignificantly different for all other purposes, which in retrospect makes the adjective entirely meaningless but sufficiently scary so as to frighten the idiots who are prone to swallow that kind of crap in the first place.

If only someone would make a blanket that protected us from those idiots who foolishly desire government intrusion upon our rights. I’d buy a dozen of them.

You can email Cohen (the link is in the article)

Here’s my email to the offensive POS.

When the subject of pompous self-congratulatory windbags, with a wildly overblown sense of their own intellect is broached, Richard Cohen is among the names that immediately come to mind. With decades of experience authoring senseless drivel best suited to line the bottoms of bird cages, Cohen relentlessly pursues the untruth as if his very soul is quenched by the sheer ignorance of his indoctrinated readers.

To say the man deserves no respect is an understatement and shockingly misleading (in the manner that the mention of respect might suggest that Cohen is somehow capable of earning it).

To the uber-left – those demented individuals, like Richard Cohen, who actually believe the tripe they spew – the mere thought that they aren’t entitled to name the opponent’s starting line-up is both foreign and abhorrent. In any other venue the concept would be met with ridicule and derision, but in the world of the far left it passes for intelligent discussion.

So the straw-man is built and the deviants pretend that their main concern is helping the opposing party win elections. Pay no attention to the fact that we’ve seen the ploy previously – this time they really, really mean it.

And their definition of moderate is pure as the driven snow.

That brings us to another subject: the left’s belief that they can arbitrarily and maliciously redefine words as it suits their particular whims of that moment. This power is so cherished that it takes a back seat only to their willingness to use a racism card whenever they’re losing the argument (or making a point that is completely invalid).

A political moderate is, by most people’s definition, someone whose political beliefs align somewhere along the middle of the spectrum (in between two opposites, if you will).

The trouble with that definition is that the two extremes (and thus the middle) are subject to change: today’s “moderate” can easily become tomorrow’s extremist and yesterday’s extremist is easily distorted into today’s moderate. That’s exactly why the Richard Cohens’ of the world play such a duplicitous game; it lets them off the hook regarding their extremist views. (they simply redefine themselves as “moderate” and redefine moderates as extremists)

In 2008 a freshman Senator of no real accomplishments and a dubious past proclaimed his belief that words matter. Of course he did so in the midst of lying, but he had a valid point. Words matter – or more to the point; the definition of those words matter. Without that definition, communication breaks down and anarchy reigns.

We are a nation of laws, supposedly.

The framers themselves warned the people about the likes of Richard Cohen (and that junior Senator mentioned above) – telling us that our republic would stand only as long as the people were moral and willing to educate themselves (with regards to what the government was doing – or the government’s minions in the case of Cohen).

Words mattered so much to the framers (and those who ratified our Constitution) that many of them cautioned us to always rely upon original intent – because anything less amounts to little more than the outright bastardization of our Constitution (resulting in the loss of freedom and a tyrannical government).

A proper measurement (of the word, “moderate”) would rely on a standard that is rather unmovable and standing the test of time. Such a standard would negate the ability to falsely paint the opponent while falsely presenting oneself in a more positive light.

Thankfully that standard exists yet today.

It is found in our Constitution, the thoughts of those who authored it, and the thoughts of those who made it our Supreme Law. Their words are easily found and their intent is typically spelled out in detail so as to negate the actions of those seeking to undermine freedom (yes, Cohen, I’m speaking about you).

By that standard (the Constitution) anything currently pushed by the left is so extreme that it must be considered to be anti-American on its best day. Not one framer, not one ratifier, put forth a single argument that remotely espouses the garbage routinely pushed forth by the likes of Cohen and his fellow leftists. In fact their view is so out of step (with the framers) that the very people they ridicule (for being “extreme”) are, in fact, the moderates, in an honest (and accurate) measurement of the word.

There is a reason why today’s Democrats share so many points of views with their brothers in the Communist Party – the two are one and the same and neither gives a damn about the law or freedom.

Richard Cohen is nothing if he’s not steady in his onslaught against American ideals, and further on in his diatribe Cohen takes the time to target Sarah Palin with his own special brand of venom. One can’t help but wondering – given Cohen’s obvious distaste for all but the pseudo-intellectuals who prance and preen while telling everyone how brilliant they really are – what choice words of condemnation he’d use when berating the completely befuddled B. Hussein Obama. You can’t polish a turd, Cohen, no matter how much you try there is no clean end. Heck, I won’t even mention Pelosi, Reid or Biden – that just seems unfair at this point.

Cohen ends his screed with the oft-played tool of every leftist whose real “point” is their own depravity – the race card. To his credit, Richard did mention his love of deviant behaviors, intrusive government and alien invasions, but he couldn’t help passing it off as some new interpretation of normal, so we’re right back to his desire to redefine words according to his petty whims. Never mind the fact that everything he is advocating is harmful to both society and freedom – he really means well when he is busy calling for our enslavement (and he thinks he found the clean end of that turd he’s been polishing).

His use of the race card speaks volumes here; it can’t be that much of America is appalled by the fact that the citizens (and non-citizens, given the left’s love of illegal votes) chose to elect someone whose far-left policies make the current nanny-state stooge seem almost reasonable in comparison. No... there must be a more sinister reason for their dismay and seeing skin color first, as leftists are so prone to do, Cohen attacks with a vigor that belies his age while staying true to the party line. It doesn’t matter that most Americans neither care, or know, the color of the mayor-elect’s wife’s skin. Heck, it doesn’t even matter that the only people mentioning her skin color are the rabid leftists who use their racism as a means to bludgeon us all into conformity with the sheer idiocy that is the leftist movement.

Best of all – not even Richard Cohen can disagree with me on a single point I’ve made. You see, my wife is black and any disagreement obviously means he is a racist. That is his point, isn’t it?

I agree. A bridge camera is probably better suited for the OP’s needs/wants.

The good news is that his budget allows for a very good bridge camera.

And no, I’m not against dslr’s. I own 5 of them and about 40 different lenses. I also make my living with them. I have only 1 lens that has the kind of reach the OP is talking about and it was $3500 (just for the lens).

I’ve tried to post the following several times (on NJ.com) but it appears that Mr. Farmer doesn’t like my reply to his article. As a result, I am posting it here:

Let me thank Mr. Farmer for reminding me why newspapers are becoming increasingly irrelevant. I couldn’t help but noticing the fact that you, Mr. Farmer, managed the left’s version of a trifecta: baselessly bashing conservatives, attacking religion and distorting the issue, all in one article designed solely to defend the illegal actions of a president on yet another power grab.

Ironically, your delusional diatribe centers on two assertions that are most accurately applied to the Kenyan being defended: authoritarianism and marginalization. Both are key planks in his efforts to dismantle this republic.

Of course, being a good propagandist, your words purposefully obfuscate simple demonstrable facts: B. Hussein Obama (or whatever his real name is) does not have the Constitutional authority to dictate either actions that undermine deeply held religious beliefs, or items covered by a private insurer.

That simple truth was lost (to the point of being completely ignored) in your rush to marginalize the president’s illegal proclamations; in doing so, you marginalize not only religion, but freedom itself.

Some of your fellow Marxists (though I doubt they’re astute enough to grasp the point they actually made) refer to polls which suggest upwards of 90% of Catholic women use contraception. Obviously access to contraceptives is not a problem and equally obvious is the fact that the Catholic Church is not preventing people from using contraceptives.

Unlike the federal government, the Catholic Church is not imposing its will upon those who don’t agree. Nor is the church forcing you to buy something that you don’t want. In fact, any interaction with the church is completely voluntary.

Then again, your entire argument isn’t really about contraceptives, religion, or women (and their choice to use contraceptives or practice a religion). No, your argument is about control – and you are very much in favor of it.

Forcing people to purchase a product is authoritarianism.

Forcing people to pay for your contraceptives is authoritarianism.

Forcing your will upon a dissenting religious belief is authoritarianism.

Usurping power so as to force your will upon others is authoritarianism.

Defending such ruthless actions is marginalization of the crime and the people affected (that includes women).

Put another way: if B. Hussein Obama had come out and ordered Planned Parenthood to provide each and every person with a gun and ammunition, your article would be laced with declarations of his lawlessness and your computer would be covered with spittle as you pounded the keyboard in your rage. Undoubtedly you would choose to ignore the fact that Planned Parenthood receives more than one third of its budget via federal and state funding, so a logical argument could be made that such an action might possibly have a legal basis. That is, of course, not the case with Obama’s recent declaration.

Suppose the illegal Kenyan had ordered insurance companies to issue Bibles to each patient who wanted one. Would you find that offensive and abusive, or would you author an article singing the praises for a policy that had the potential to positively affect millions?

I’m betting it would not be the latter.

In fact, I’d bet you would suddenly remember the First Amendment and bastardize it in your attempt to end such a usurpation of power. (You obviously aren’t bright enough to realize the fact that the president does not have such dictatorial powers – so that could not form the basis of your argument against such an action)

Let’s face facts here: contraceptives are cheap and readily available to anyone who wants them. There is no legal, or logical, reason to force me into paying for your contraceptives. If you cannot afford them, you really cannot afford to have sex.

More importantly: your petty whims should not precede our freedoms. Not even if you really, really want them to.

bookmarked.