Candidate Mourdock and the Media Evolution

Posted on May 18, 2012 by DSHolman

It has been interesting to watch the evolution of the media coverage of the race between six-term incumbent Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) and his Republican primary challenger, State Treasurer Richard Mourdock.

Initially, the media branded Mourdock as a “Tea Party” candidate; an upstart who dared to challenge the venerated Senator Lugar. The Indianapolis Star critically described Mr. Mourdock as exhibiting an “embrace of an unrelenting partisan mindset.”

Bourdock in Conservative NewsBut as the campaign developed and it looked like Mourdock might actually win, they began downplaying his Tea Party association, and attributed his increasing popularity to his many personal appearances in canvassing the state. Even the Wall Street Journal reported, “Mr. Lugar’s Republican colleagues, who appeared jarred Tuesday by his loss, attributed it less to the tea party’s power than to more traditional factors.” Said Mr. Mourdock, “The Republican base was very disillusioned, very disconnected from a long, long, long-time incumbent who lost touch with his constituents.”

Mourdock’s victory was outstanding, with over 60% of the total vote! Appearing on this morning’s Fox and Friends, Mr. Mourdock refuted the media analysis, and firmly attributed his victory to the “thousands of Tea Party supporters throughout the state,” and confirmed his position that it’s about time that the meaning of the term “bi-partisanship” should include having the Democrats seek to accommodate conservative views every once in a while.

Mr. Mourdock now continues a trend that has seen a list of veteran senators depart from office, either by defeat or other natural causes, including; Senators Ted Stevens (R-AK), Russ Feingold (D- WI), Chris Dodd (D-CT), Judd Gregg (R-NH), Edward Kennedy (D- MA.) and Robert Byrd (D- WV). Their departures are said to reflect a generational shift toward a younger and more conservative Senate membership.

Mourdock’s overwhelming victory should give further evidence that the Birch and Evan Bayh Democrat dynasty that controlled Indiana politics from 1963 to 2011 has ended, and confirmation that the media reports of the death of the Tea Party are a bit premature.

Posted in Conservative News | 1 Comment

Conservative Views – The Constitution Besieged

Posted on April 24, 2012 by Ed Wood

The Constitution of the United States of America is generally recognized, except by Representative Nancy Pelosi, as one of the most remarkable documents ever created by the mind of man. Originally written in May of 1787, its purpose was to limit government encroachment onto personal liberties. Its primary author, Thomas Jefferson, wrote, “The authority of people is a necessary foundation for a Constitution.” The Constitution of the United States has thus become a model to other nations. Then, as further thought wasConservative Views Signers of the Constitution given, in March, 1789, ten amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, were added to give further weight to its intent. Primary among them was the First Amendment, the right to free speech.

Liberal Democrats, whose primary belief is that government bureaucrats should control every aspect of our lives, have been chipping away at it ever since, declaring it to be an obsolete creation of “old white men,” and not applicable to the realities of today’s more modern political philosophies.

Last month, the Constitution, and our liberties of expression, took another hit in the enactment of The Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 (HR 347). Just be aware that whenever you see a piece of legislation labeled as some sort of improvement or benefit to the people’s welfare or liberties, its purpose is more likely to be just the opposite. This law has absolutely nothing to do with either buildings or grounds, but everything to do with stifling our freedom of speech if it is in any way critical of the President, or anyone else he so designates.

Just so you know I’m not making this stuff up, following are several paragraphs from the law itself. (Frankly, this law is very short, only two pages!)

1752. Restricted building or grounds
‘‘(a) Whoever—
‘‘(1) knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so;
‘‘(2) knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions; or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).
‘‘(1) the term ‘restricted buildings or grounds’ means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area—
‘‘(A) of the White House or its grounds, or the Vice President’s official residence or its grounds;
‘‘(B) of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting; or
‘‘(C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance.

‘‘(b) The punishment for a violation of subsection (a) is—
‘‘(1) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both.

This has very little to do with “the White House or its grounds,” since they are already protected by a 10’ wrought iron fence, a cadre of military personnel, and a gazillion laws to protect its sanctity. It has everything to do with anyone who would tend to criticize the President, and anyone else he so chooses, wherever he, or they, might be.

Current law makes it illegal to enter or remain in an area where certain government officials will be visiting, if and only if, the person knows it’s illegal to enter the restricted area but does so anyway.

But here’s the change, as Rep.Justin Amash (R-MI) wrote on his Facebook page. “[H.R. 347] expands current law to make it a crime to enter or remain in an area where an official is visiting even if the person does not know it’s illegal to be in that area and has no reason to suspect it’s illegal.”

Conservative Views Obama ConstitutionSince being signed into law on March 9th, we are already seeing its implications. On the President’s recent campaign trip to Milwaukee, WI, the presidential motorcade was routed through a residential area where a man, his wife and their two small children, were watching from their front yard.

They also had a sign that was not friendly toward the President. The Secret Service made them leave their own front yard and confine themselves to their residence, out of sight of the President, or anyone else who might see how they voiced their opinion.

So, just in time for the 2012 elections; goodbye “Tea Partiers,” hello “Occupiers”!

Posted in Conservative Views | Tagged , , , , , , | 2 Comments

America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009

Posted on April 10, 2012 by Ed Wood

You will recall that Democrat House Leader Nancy Pelosi said it would be necessary to pass the 2,741 page America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (H. R. 3200), otherwise known as ObamaCare, in order to know what’s in it!

Your humble correspondent has attempted several times to read parts of it, but gave up after having been totally bogged down in legalese, and repeated references to other legislation, sub-headings, sub-sub headings, etc.

During last week’s Supreme Court hearing to determine its constitutionality, Justice Antonin Scalia stated that to expect him to actually read H. R. 3200 would be considered “cruel and unusual punishment,” and therefore in violation of the 8th Amendment to the Constitution!

It seems that every few days another provision of H. R. 3200 is uncovered, generally to our detriment, and often having no relation to health care. I tend to suspect that there are new and unrelated items currently being sneaked into the law, since no one really knows its original content anyhow!

Conservative News About ObamaCareFortunately, a Judge Kathil of Marble Falls, TX, much more skilled in reading legal documents than I, has ferreted out some of the more interesting aspects of this law, and has made them available to us in language we can understand. You can find the actual law he cites on the Internet at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3200ih/pdf/BILLS-111hr3200ih.pdf, or by looking it up in your local library.

Included Judge Kathil’s revelations are:

Page 50, Section 152: The bill will provide insurance to all U. S. residents, even if they are here illegally.

Pages 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an individual’s bank account, and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts!

Page 65, Section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retirees, and for community organizations, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN).
Page 203, line 14-15: “The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax for purposes of determining the amount of any credit under this chapter, or for purposes of section 55.’’ This definition is being debated right now by the Supreme Court in the determination of maximum taxation levels. Therefore the Administration does not want this cost identified as a “tax”!

Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctor’s fees.

Page 272, Section 1145: Cancer hospitals will ration patient care according to the patient’s age.

Pages 317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion.

Page 425, lines 4-12: Those on Social Security will be required to attend an end-of-life planning seminar every five years.

Page 429, Lines 12-25: The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order.

Even while the Supreme Court is deliberating the Constitutionality of H. R. 3200, the Obama administration is moving ahead with its implementation. A $1 billion transfer of funds has been quietly made to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to “use as it sees fit.” So far it has “seen fit” to transfer around $500,000,000 of it to the IRS for hiring agents to implement the new law. The entire $1 billion is to be spent by to the end of September, just prior to the fall elections.

The Government Accountability Office has declared the transfers to be perfectly legal, naturally, and “consistent with how agencies have used general implementation funds in the past.” But there have never been this many funds allocated for this purpose in the past, and whose legality is yet to be determined. The Administration’s idea is to have so much of the program implemented that the Supreme Court dare not outlaw it. “Too big to fail,” you know!

Incidentally, the provisions of H. R. 3200 will not apply to members of Congress since they already have provided themselves with a well-funded private plan that covers all their medical and retirement needs.

Posted in Conservative News | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Obama Plays Peek a Boo!

Posted on March 27, 2012 by Ed Wood

North Korea is back in the news again.

No, Kim Jong-Whatever hasn’t died or been overthrown. And North Korea has not captured any more of our planes or boats lately. This time it’s because our own president is peeking at them, apparently through his rose colored glasses, since he has removed them from President Reagan’s “evil empire” list.

Conservative News – The Forgotten War

For those of you too young to remember, once upon a time we were at war with North Conservative News Obama looking at North KoreaKorea. It was the first of our non-war wars. We were there “by invitation,” of course, and its duration was relatively short by current standards,lasting only three years – 1950 to 1953. But it had, and still has, lingering consequences. Especially for the 36,000+ American men and women that made Korean soil their final resting places, another 103,000 who returned home, many with permanent disfigurements, and we don’t know what happened to an additional 8,000 or so that are either listed as MIA or unidentified POWs. Just a friendly little thing, you know, often referred to as “the forgotten war.”

Conservative News American CemeteryBut back to our President as he looks out across the US protected “demilitarized zone” (DMZ) into North Korea. The DMZ is a “no-man’s land,” 160 miles long and 1.6 miles wide, separating South Korea from North Korea with a current deployment of 28,500 combat-ready American troops, plus their support personnel, generally estimated to be at a ratio of about 7:1. (You can do the numbers.)

So let’s see, 160 miles long and 28,500 combat troops. That’s 178 active duty American defenders per mile… placing them about 10 yards apart. They can practically reach out and touch each other! And they have been there for nearly 60 years, and haven’t fired a shot! Would they see more action if re-deployed along the much maligned Arizona-Mexican border? But then there is the problem that the AZ-Mexico border is 389 miles long, which is quite a stretch! What to do?

 A Conservative Alternative

True, the Korean DMZ is much shorter, but it is 1-1/2 miles wide! So what would happen if we made it only half as wide, but twice as long? Same area of defence, but now we’ve got 320 miles. Getting closer! Then, is it possible that with all the modern technology available today; surveillance cameras, drones, and all of that, our combat-ready troops could protect our borders with only a half-mile wide line of defence, but three times as long? Now we’re talking!

That would give us 480 miles of protection, which would cover the entire Arizona border and a part of Texas. I realize our defenders would now be thinned down to around 30 yards apart, but perhaps we could furnish them with Korean-made cell phones for emergency troop to troop communication.

But why is our military being stationed on the Korean DMZ anyhow? Who is protecting whom from what, and why? Presumably we are there to protect South Korea from North Korea. But why us, and why them?

Conservative News Obama behind the glassWith significant help from American taxpayers, South Korea has emerged as the strongest nation in all of Southeast Asia, with a market economy that ranks 15th in the world by Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and 12th by Purchasing Power Parity (PPP), identifying it as a major G-20 economy. South Korea is one of the fastest growing countries in the 2000s, along with Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan!

Conservative Thoughts – Protect Ourselves

On the other hand, North Korea is said to be destitute. President Obama, peering from behind a 4” thick panel of bullet-proof Plexiglas, looks out across the DMZ and declares North Korea to be, “Nothing but a nation which cannot make ‘anything of any use’, ‘doesn’t work’, and even its vaunted weapons exports were hardly state of the art.”

After taking a helicopter ride back to teeming, prosperous Seoul, South Korea, just 25 miles away, Obama marvelled, “It was like you are looking. . .into a country that has missed 40 or 50 years of progress.”

So here we are. For sixty years now we have been protecting the strongest country in all of Southeast Asia from what is arguably the weakest.

Oh, I know. North Korea is supposed to have nuclear bombs. But if so, and if they decide to lob one into South Korea, a 1-1/2 mile wide DMZ won’t be of too much help.

I am familiar with the saying, “Charity begins at home.” But so does poverty! It made no sense then. It makes even less sense now. Let South Korea protect its own border, for once, and let’s also protect ours. . . for once!

 

 

Posted in Conservative News | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Please, not again!!

Posted on March 18, 2012 by Ed Wood

Germany. Friend or foe? That is a question that has been asked and answered twice in the past century. Are we going to be forced to answer it a third time? Since the end of World War II, and the subsequent unification of the two Germanys, the entire structure of modern Europe has been to take advantage of Germany’s economic dynamism while avoiding the threat of German domination. Is the German genie about to get out of the bottle again?

The dominating spirit of the Aryan people, coupled with a commitment to self reliance, has always caused Germany to be considered a threat by its European neighbors. In the early part of the 20th century, Russia, France, and the United Kingdom signed a Conservative News - German SS Insigniadefense pact to create a united front against any threat to their individual sovereignties. Together, they felt, if threatened, they could destroy Germany. Therefore, Germany’s only response would be to launch a war at a time of its choosing, and pick them off one at a time. The strategy failed in both World Wars, primarily because of the entry of the United States in support of the Allies.

So after World War II there was an effort to discourage any further military aspirations by placing Germany under the NATO alliance, meaning that the US and other NATO members would protect Germany militarily should the need arise, thus eliminating the need for the Germans to rearm themselves. Additionally, Germany became economically bound to its European neighbors through what ultimately evolved into the European Union (EU).

But the situation became more complex after 2008 since without the common threat of the Soviet Union, the EU alliance was fracturing over the divergent national interests of its members. Thus, the same aggressive spirit allowed Germany to emerge as the dominant force in the EU while other members, such as Greece, Spain, France, and even the United Kingdom, slipped into economic chaos under what has been termed “European Socialism.” Of course, they are now looking to Germany to bail them out.

Germany has the resources to do this, but their price is that Germany be effectively put in charge of the finances of those countries receiving such aid. Not an unrealistic requirement. But this would mean that those countries would no longer control either taxes or budgets through their sovereign political systems. So Germany is proposing the imposition of economic rather than military power over its European neighbors. The result is the same.

But a new alliance is also emerging. Russia, Germany’s ancient enemy, has become a major exporter of natural gas. Germany needs Russia’s natural gas. Germany, as usual, has an abundance of superior technology. Russia needs German technology. A German-Russian relationship would have the potential to tilt the balance of power in the world. The United States is still the dominant power, but the combination of German technology and Russian resources would create a whole new challenge to US economic leadership.

Germany’s strategy, therefore, is to control Europe through its EU dominance, while strengthening itself back home with a Russo-German relationship. It’s a match made in Heaven, or somewhere, and it is obvious that our current political leadership has neither the will nor the capacity to compete with it. And Russia and Germany know it.

 

Posted in Conservative News | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Is Obama a Muslim?

Posted on March 15, 2012 by Ed Wood

Well, there is certainly sufficient reason to believe he is. In the first place, no one disputes the fact that his father and his step-father were both Muslims. And according to Sharia law, if the father is a Muslim, that automatically makes the son a Muslim.

Obama grew up in Indonesia, attended an Islamic Madrasah where his religion was listed as “Islam.” His first official phone call as U.S. President was to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. His first foreign trip was to Islamic Egypt. His first major foreign policy initiative proclaimed in his June 2009 Cairo speech was an extended hand to the Muslim world. His stated belief is that the Muslim call to prayer is the “prettiest” sound in creation. He expresses deeply reverential references to the “Holy Koran,” but has never referred to the Bible as “Holy.”

But let’s set all that aside for the moment.

We have lived through presidents who were Episcopalians, Unitarians, Baptists, Quakers, and even a Jehovah’s Witness (Eisenhower). We now have the prospect of electing a president who is a Mormon. Does it really make any difference? Barack Obama could be just a far-left radical Progressive.

Name just about any policy area, and everywhere the objectives of radical Progressives and militant Muslims dovetail so closely as to be virtually indistinguishable.

Both Islamists and far-left radicals see the U.S. as the focus of all evil. The Islamists call the U.S. the “Great Satan.” Progressives call America a greedy, imperialist aggressor and vicious oppressor; the paramount enemy of mankind that must be “transformed.” The Progressives, taking the lead from the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Columbia University professors Cloward and Piven and radical author Saul Aliksky, all want to destroy America from within. The Islamists just want to wipe her (and Israel) off the face of the earth. Is there much difference between the Jeremiah Wright’s famous “God Damn America” sermon and the Muslim chant “Death to America”?

Both Islamists and radical leftists demand a redistribution of the world’s wealth from the industrial West to the impoverished third world. Lacking education, technical and managerial skills, or work ethic, they believe handouts from the more accomplished Western nations are their rightful due. And how different is that from the tens of $millions given the Blacks and others in our own country as “reparations” for deeds that none of us did, and for which none of them suffered?

Islamists hate Christianity, and so do radical Progressives, as we see in their effort to remove of all such religious reference from our society, except for those that are permanently chiseled in the stone of the Washington Monument, the Department of Justice, various County Courthouses, and in the hearts and minds of the vast majority of Americans!

Muslims and Progressives share another point of agreement in their anti-Semitism and hostility toward Israel. The Reverend Jesse Jackson and Minister Farrakhan being good examples, as well as President Obama’s open hostility toward Israel and his rebuff of its Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. Is it just a coincidence that Obama has demanded that Israel return to its indefensible 1967 borders, which is exactly what the Islamic Palestinians want? Which foreign leader is the one Obama hates and despises more than anybody else? Chávez? Assad? Ahmadinejad? No, it’s Israeli Premier Benjamin Netanyahu. Enough said.

The American left and the Middle East potentates also see eye to eye on the issue of America’s dependence on imported oil. Obama’s staunch refusal to develop America’s abundant energy resources and the roadblocks he has been throwing in the path of the domestic oil industry are in perfect harmony with the policy objectives of the Muslim oil sheiks of Arabia. The Arabs wish to keep America dependent on their oil by preventing the U.S. from developing her vast hydrocarbon resources.

Under the guise of preserving the planet, home-grown Progressives have been successful in imposing their “green” agenda by outlawing offshore drilling, challenging oil shale “fracking,” and stalling the building of the Keystone pipeline — all of which would produce thousands of jobs during this period of economic depravity. Different motivations but with the same result; America’s continued dependence on Middle Eastern oil.

I could go on, but you get the idea. Is Obama really a Muslim? Probably. But when it’s all said and done, it doesn’t make a dime’s worth of difference. The Islamic will is being implemented right here in America, just as surely as if imposed by the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei himself.

 

 

 

 

Posted in Conservative Views | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Super Tuesday And The Conservative Choice

Posted on March 5, 2012 by DSHolman

This is going to be a short posting with a sharp point. In the primary Tuesday, this commonsense conservative only sees one unconservative choice. It’s not hard to figure out who not to vote for, only which of the remaining candidates most meets your criteria for changing the country towards more conservative governance.

Mitt Romney is not now and has never been a conservative. If you just peruse his record for even a short period of time, his big government, central control ideals are not conservative. From there other issues come into play but let’s take a look at the weak case for Romney.

Romney is a conservative(see above) – false. Take any time period of Romney’s life from his father’s refusal to support the presidential candidate in 1964, to Romney’s decisions in Massachusetts, to his race for Senator against Ted Kennedy. Nowhere in his actual record will you find conservative ideals in play.

Romney is a job creator – false. As governor of Massachusetts his state was 47th in job creation. While Romney’s record in the private sector is good, he was not effective as a Governor in job creation.

Romney is the most electable – false. Romney barely won his home state of Michigan. He has barely won in the other states where he did prevail, and only by outspending and slandering his opponents. Neither of these strategies will work against President Obama. Add to that Obama will call him a flip flopper, insincere, ineffective, unable to even run for reelection as governor of Massachusetts… Terrible!

So Romney is not conservative, not a job creator, and not the most electable… Why is he still in this race…Oh yeah, money!

Vote for whomever of the others appeals to you most. For me, that is Newt Gingrich, a proven, effective, intelligent legislator. But you cannot call yourself an intelligent conservative and cast that most ignorant vote of the primary for Romney. You cannot call yourself a Tea Party conservative and vote for Romney. even my friend a conservative moderate Democrat refused to vote for Romney. So go tomorrow and vote for the candidate that most excited you. In the primary, vote your heart, once these other criteria have been met. I believe the primary is the time to truly vote your highest ambition for the office in question. Too many times, as conservatives, we vote against candidates and not in favor of the other. Vote your heart, vote your head, vote your values… and nowhere in that process will Romney appear! We need you more than ever; the stakes have never been higher. Just listen to this commonsense conservative and don’t vote Romney. The country you save may be your own !

Posted in Conservative Politics, Conservative Views | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Conservative Views of the Condom Wars

Posted on March 5, 2012 by Ed Wood

There they go again, the “elite media,” as Newt Gingrich likes to call them, discussing everything except joblessness, soaring gas prices, spiraling food costs, a nuclear Iran, murderous Afghanistan, $16 trillion national debt — anything except those items that threaten our very existence as a nation.

Last week it was the $750,000 soccer field for the enjoyment of the Muslim terrorists in the Guantanamo Bay prison. This week it’s Sandra Fluke.

Sandra Fluke, and I am not making up her name, is a 30 year old law student at Georgetown University in Washington, DC. A rather slow learner, wouldn’t you say? Thrusting her into the nation’s spotlight, and making her a star performer in a hearing before the Congress of the United States of America, is her contention that the healthcare insurance made optionally available to students at Washington’s Georgetown University must include contraceptive services.

The University management, endowed by the Catholic Church, feels that such devices or services are contrary to Church teachings. Ms. Fluke’s position is that denying her such protection is an endangerment to her health because at her current rate of sexual activity if she had to purchase such protection on her own it would cost her $3,000 per year, which she says she cannot afford!

Well, let’s start at the beginning. The issue first burst onto the national scene with President Obama’s contention that all employers, including those that are faith based, must provide all employees with contraceptives at no additional cost. Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh created an uproar by suggesting that the time-honored birth control method of holding a couple of aspirin between the knees might suffice. His solution was soundly rejected.

But then other methods came under consideration. It is determined that Ms. Fluke currently has more choices available to her than at any time in the history of mankind – er, uh, womankind; including birth control pills, patches, caps, rings, shots, diaphragms, abstinence, implants, spermicides (foam, jelly, cream, film), male condoms, female condoms, morning-after pills, Depo-Provera, IUDs, coitus interruptus, tubal ligation and, yes, even government sanctioned abortion. Ever hear of Roe vs Wade?

Why back in my day it seemed to be the responsibility of the male of the species to take the necessary precautions. As did most post-pubic highschoolers, we macho males even carried such precautions around in our wallets just in case we stumbled upon such a need. The condoms, known then by a less clinical but rather more descriptive term, remained in our wallets so long they made a circular imprint into the leather, and eventually succumbed to dry rot.

Back then they cost fifty cents for a pack of three, if you could get up the nerve to ask the druggist (male, of course) to get one out for you from its hiding place under the counter. It really wasn’t too expensive though, because one package could equip three of us for the much anticipated, but generally imaginary, emergency. But I digress.

conservative policies contraceptivesHaving no recent experience, I went on line to Wal-Mart, and found I could purchase a package of 36 Trojan Magnum (large size, naturally) condoms for only $9.94. That calculates to $0.276 each, plus S & H! More than we used to pay, but one more reason why we don’t want to get into a trade war with China!

So let’s calculate a little further. If Ms. Fluke says protection for her current level of activity would cost her $3,000 per year, at 28 cents a pop, that would be sufficient to provide for 1,071 trysts per year. No wonder it’s taking her so long to finish law school!

Or if Ms. Fluke believed that an ounce of prevention was worth it, some enterprising soul has searched a Washington area Target store and found that the birth control pill Tri-Cyclen costs only $9 per month, with unlimited benefits!

Caught up in the fray, Rush Limbaugh referred to, and later apologized to, Ms. Fluke for referring to her in terms generally used to describe those ladies who wish others to pay for their sexual pleasures. And the President? Well, he called to apologize too, but I am not sure just what for.

Habit, I guess.

From my conservative views.

 

 

Posted in Conservative Views | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Are American Women Stupid ?

Posted on March 4, 2012 by DSHolman

I know this sounds like a rhetorical question, but I am serious. The Democrat Party, as represented this morning by Debbie Wasserman Schultz claims that because Republicans support the right of religious institutions to make their own decisions about what their insurance policy would cover; Republicans are denying “access” for American women to birth control….  This commonsense conservative want to know – Are you buying it?

Now just to get a little further into this discussion, let’s point out something the media seems to be unwilling to. The ruling in question requires coverage not only for birth control, but also for sterilization and abortifacients or abortion pills. President Obama claimed that he would change the rule to say that religious institutions would not have to pay for the insurance coverage, but that the insurance companies must. In other words, he removes by one step the responsibility for coverage. The institution pays the insurance costs, and then the INSURANCE company pays for the abortions. Now that better isn’t it? I didn’t shoot John, I just bought the gun and give it to Fred and HE shot John! OK then! But what about many religious institutions that self insure? Aren’t they back in the middle again? Of course they are!

But let’s keep slogging on. Here is the first amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So when the laws of the United States require a religious institution to do things that it is opposed to on religious grounds, isn’t that a violation of the first amendment? Of course it is!

Now, let’s go back to the original argument. Is not paying for something “denying” it to the populace? The government doesn’t pay for my shoes, does that mean the government is anti shoes? Think about all the things the government doesn’t mandate coverage for… Are they anti all those things?

So here’s the big question. Do YOU believe if the government does not mandate that insurance covers birth control, sterilization and pharmacological abortion, they are anti women? This commonsense conservative believes you have a lot more commonsense than that. Do you?

Posted in Conservative Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Fascism Anyone ?

Posted on March 2, 2012 by DSHolman

Words and labels are so often bandied about that they begin to lose their meanings. In researching this term, fascism, it was fascinating to look at the different definitions one could find. This Commonsense Conservative was truly surprised at how many of our online “dictionaries” seemed to have a point of view when defining the term! Some of them seemed to almost outright slant their definition to create a more palatable approach to defining the movement. After a few searches, I settled on the following definition from the Library of Economics and Liberty:
“Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.”
So, if you read this definition carefully, fascism is governmental control of the entire economy by means of enacting so many laws and regulations that businesses were no longer able to make their own decisions. Where other forms of government outright banned private ownership of most businesses (communism, socialism), fascists are a more sneaky bunch. They allow private ownership of business, while giving the government so much control of business that the owners of businesses were really not in control at all, they were just allowed to call themselves owners. As a practical matter, all business decisions were really made by government decree.
If you, with this definition in mind, take a look at what we see happening in governance in the United States today, can you see the outlines of a fascist society? The new laws and regulations on the banking industry, while purportedly enacted for our “protection”, are actually in large part a government take over of the banking system. Think about the county wide zoning recently enacted. When completely implemented, these rules and regulations will seek to inform every property owner in this state exactly what they can and cannot do with their property. When completely enacted, you will no longer build a house or a barn or a shed without first getting the government rule book and making sure the insulation, and the wiring and the foundation and on and on meet the regulations that the government has created… To “help” you of course!
Throughout history, in times of crisis there are always strong men (Mussolini, Hitler) that step forward and offer to rescue the “common man” from all these evil forces that surround them. In order to make the public more accepting of all this regulation, the public is told they are powerless against “big business, big oil, big medicine etc. etc. With the average person so helpless against these giants what could possibly even the playing field? Why the government of course! Uncle Sam to the rescue!
This scenario gives government ever widening powers to “help” the average citizen cope with a big world that seeks to take what is theirs! And while these leaders have everyone watching big business, government takes away everyone’s rights! And who is now appointed to watch over government? Why we all know that government is here to help! They are so pure and so honest they need no watchers! As a matter of fact, before it’s over the government goes head and abolished all but one political party. After all, if everyone is on the same team we don’t need all this fighting – Do we?
So I hope in these few paragraphs I have made you aware of the term fascist and exactly what people mean when they use it. When someone says a law or regulation is fascist, what they mean is that the government is taking over this portion of private industry. How close are we to fascism? Well it took John Stossell of Fox News over 60 days to set up a lemonade stand in New York…

Posted in Conservative Views | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment