Media
Obama v. Romney: reruns v. bad shows
While campaigning in Iowa last week Barack Obama’s spokesmen Jay Carney said he didn’t bother to watch the Republican National Convention in Tampa. But Barack Obama did say this.
Despite all the challenges that we face … what they offered over those three days was more often than not an agenda that was better suited for the last century. It was a re-run. We’ve seen it before. You might as well have watched it on a black-and-white TV.
Obama: the pop-culture President
Good old days and family values have seen their better day and should be replaced with the nascent, colorful pop-culture trappings and forward thinking of liberal ideology according to Barack Obama. Bloggers, pundits, journalists and everyday Americans have been summarily insulted as responses indicate, but that seems mild when a comparison is made between the recent RNC and the ongoing DNC in Obama-wary Charlotte, North Carolina. To many Americans; the DNC is a horror show in full color.
Western Center for Journalism writer Dr. Kevin “Coach” Collins put together a list, just of the female speakers at the DNC Convention that reads like a ‘Who’s Who’ of family life haters. Virtually everyone on the list is in support of taking the life away from someone, but usually it is an unborn child. (Remember Obama saying the he would not want his daughter “punished with a baby”?)
In an article entitled “A ‘Who’s-Who’ Of The DNC’s Anti-Family Speakers” the ‘Coach’ said “The DNC will give us a lesbian, an abortionist, a condom queen, a phony “Catholic” a women who has spent her life smiling while men destroyed the women in her family, an actress best known for promoting adultery, and a woman who thinks “You didn’t build that.” The coach then provided the following list which I quote here in its entirety.
- Tammy Baldwin, the first speaker: an open lesbian recently separated from her gay partner.
- Veterans Affairs Tammy Duckworth, endorsed by NARAL Pro-Choice America and EMILY’S List
- Sandra Fluke sees freedom as having others pay for the condoms her dozens of weekly lovers use to please her.
- Nancy Keenan, President of NARAL Pro-Choice America: once a Special Education teacher caring for America’s most vulnerable children who now supports killing special needs children before they are born.
- Lilly Ledbetter will remind viewers that women on Barack Obama’s White House staff are paid 18% less than men in violation of the law named after her.
- Caroline Kennedy has spent her whole life silently smiling while the men in her family have abused woman, including her own mother; she has called Barack Obama a liar.
- Eva Longoria, best known for using her acting talents to celebrate adultery on “Desperate Housewives”.
- Sen. Barbara Mikulski, a putative Catholic with a 100% NARAL rating.
- Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, advocates the slaughter of innocent children.
- Kamala Harris, the 100% NARAL rated California Attorney General.
- Massachusetts Senatorial candidate Elizabeth Warren coined “You didn’t build that”, telling small business people they can’t succeed without government.
Brazen immorality as ideology
A Philco Predicta black-and-white TV. Photo: Children’s Museum of Illinois, CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License.
The roster of women speakers is a very clear reflection of the kind of ideology that doesn’t seem to know that it is just brazen immorality posing as today’s best ideas in action courtesy of the Democratic Party.
Colors for the DNC? Start with rainbow for the gay activists, and then it’s on to red for the blood of unborn children, all slaughtered in the name of “women’s rights’ now to the tune of 54,000,000 and counting. Now, it’s on to the mysterious “Luciferian black.”
Teaching Chicago students from the principles found in Saul Alinsky’s book on power analysis very few if any students or faculty may have noticed that the book was dedicated to Lucifer! Upon the remote possibility that some reader may not know who Lucifer is, he is the Devil. The Bible calls him many names, the destroyer, the father of lies, the destroyer of nations, the god of this world, but his original name was Lucifer. (Is 14: 12)
Yes, Mr. President we would much rather view our values and hear them reiterated on old-time black and white TV, as long as they don’t cost the innocent their lives or hoist the rainbow flag over the White House. We also like to know that the inspiration for them does not come from the Devil himself.
Finally, for those of us that still see our values as something that made this country great we will always be glad to see our Republican conventions in red, white and blue – and that is exactly what we saw.
http://www.americanprophet.org has since 2005 featured the articles and reports of journalist Rev Michael Bresciani along with news and reviews that have earned this site the title of The Website for Insight. Millions have read his timely reports and articles in online journals and print publications across the nation and the globe. Dozens of the best writers in the nation are also featured.
American Prophet, The Website for Insight, believes in the inspired, inerrant and infallible Word of God. Our doctrine is the Bible from cover to cover. We believe that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of the Living God who died for the sins of the world by dying on the cross, he was resurrected on the third day and will return to earth at the end of time as we know it.
“Sandra Fluke sees freedom as having others pay for the condoms her dozens of weekly lovers use to please her.”
Terry, I’m frankly shocked that you allow this piece of libellous, smutty and degrading innuendo to be published on your blog. It’s not based on fact and it’s disgusting.
Wrong, mate. The author based that on Sandra Fluke’s own words. That is what her public pronouncements amount to. Logic, mate. Truth is an absolute defense.
“The author based that on Sandra Fluke’s own words.”
Not at all. Sandra Fluke stated that it could cost a woman $3,000 for contraceptives in the course of getting through law studies. Call me Mr Thicky if you will, but I don’t see how that translates into being pleasured by dozens of lovers a week. In fact Fluke is engaged, and I doubt that either she or her fiancé would be too pleased to have such insinuations made about her.
Three thousand US dollars for elective contraceptives? Come on, mate. Simple abstinence would save her the three thousand, and you know it.
The original author no doubt abominates the warped values of modern cosmopolitan single women. And for good reason. A contraceptive regimen like that would indeed grant her the full license (licence?) to have dozens of lovers a week, or perhaps one lover dozens of times. And she has given no credible representation of being affianced to any one man.
And more to the point, I do not care to provide that $3000 to each and every swinging single woman in the country. Nor can I think of any reason under the Sun why the laws of my country, or any country, should force me to so act.
“Three thousand US dollars for elective contraceptives? Come on, mate. Simple abstinence would save her the three thousand, and you know it.”
Possibly she doesn’t want to practice abstinence. I certainly don’t.
“A contraceptive regimen like that would indeed grant her the full license (licence?) to have dozens of lovers a week, or perhaps one lover dozens of times.”
It would certainly give her the ability to do either of those things. Of course the same regimen (i.e. birth control pills) would also give her the ability to have sex once a month.
“And she has given no credible representation of being affianced to any one man.”
His name is Adam Mutterperl. They announced their engagement in April. They’ve now been in a relationship for nearly nine years.
“I do not care to provide that $3000 to each and every swinging single woman in the country.”
Nobody’s asking you to.
For your information, I practice abstinence. I have had no relations of that kind with any woman since my wife died. So I am not at risk for STD. As you are putting yourself at risk.
And giving people the ability to sin in this fashion, makes the taxpayer complicit therein.
And what do you mean “nobody’s asking me to”? She demands that the taxpayers fund this activity! Who do you think pays taxes? I do!
Ye gods, man, get a clue.
“For your information, I practice abstinence.”
I don’t. Nor, apparently, does Sandra Fluke (although we do abstain from each other, as it were.) There’s no law that says either of us have to, and if there was I (and no doubt Sandra Fluke) would cheerfully violate it on a regular basis.
“I have had no relations of that kind with any woman since my wife died.”
That’s your decision of course, and I’m not going to argue with your right to make it or your reasons for doing so. However it’s not a decision that you can reasonably ask anyone else to fall in line with. Abstaining from sex is fine. Having sex is fine, too. You do your thing and I’ll do mine.
“As you are putting yourself at risk.”
The risk – negligible as it is – is one I’m quite willing to run given the benefits of doing so.
“And giving people the ability to sin in this fashion, makes the taxpayer complicit therein.”
Sex isn’t a sin, Terry.
“And what do you mean “nobody’s asking me to”? She demands that the taxpayers fund this activity! Who do you think pays taxes? I do!”
Well no. What she’s actually asking for, as I understand it, is that contraceptives be covered by health insurance. This is actually considered normal in most advanced countries. Out of interest, have you compared the rates of teenage pregnancy and STDs in the USA with those in other advanced democracies? If you do so you may form your own conclusions about how well the USA’s refusal to fund contraception is working.
Of course, all this is quite irrelevant to Mr Bresciani’s disgusting and unfounded suggestion that Sandra Fluke is serviced by dozens of men every week, so we’re no nearer to establishing why this obnoxious and upsetting claim is on your website.
Well, hey—if sex is not a sin, as you put it, then what should it matter to you or her or anyone else what The Rev. Mr. Bresciani suggests? Why so sensitive? You contradict yourself.
“if sex is not a sin, as you put it, then what should it matter to you or her or anyone else what The Rev. Mr. Bresciani suggests?”
Because he’s claiming that a woman who appears to be in a long-term monogamous relationship is having sex with dozens of men every week. How would her fiancé feel about that? How would you have felt if someone had said that about your wife while she was alive? I imagine that you’d have been quite tempted to give him a knuckle sandwich. I certainly would be.
Actually, he’s claiming only that the contraceptive regimen that she wants someone else to pay for, would enable that sort of behavior.
“Actually, he’s claiming only that the contraceptive regimen that she wants someone else to pay for, would enable that sort of behavior.”
No he isn’t, Terry; you can read as well as I can, so you know that damn well. His exact words are “the condoms her dozens of weekly lovers use to please her.” That’s not saying that contraceptives would enable her to have dozens of lovers a week (it wouldn’t – having a vagina enables her to have dozens of lovers a week. Contraceptives just reduce the number of offspring.) He’s claiming, on the basis of no evidence at all, that she does.
And if your theory of “if it feels good, do it” were at all correct, it shouldn’t matter a tinker’s dam to anyone.
The varlet doth protest too much, methinks.
“And if your theory of “if it feels good, do it” were at all correct, it shouldn’t matter a tinker’s dam to anyone.”
Sorry, what are you talking about? If I was engaged and my fiancé was sleeping with dozens of other men every week it would matter a great deal to me. Whatever gave you the idea that it wouldn’t? I find this statement quite odd.
“And if your theory of “if it feels good, do it” were at all correct, it shouldn’t matter a tinker’s dam to anyone.
The varlet doth protest too much, methinks.”
I don’t think that one has to feel the sting of an insult to know when insult is meant. If I get called ‘cracker’ it really doesn’t hurt me, but I know I’ve been insulted. Likewise ‘her dozens of lovers a week’ – it’s clear that this is meant as a smear and insult, even to people who don’t share your beliefs about fornication.
But why should it be an insult? Why would she not laugh it off and tell Mr. Bresciani and me,
And why don’t you just blow Mr. Bresciani and me off? Why should it matter to you that either my contributor or I accuse a woman of indulging, or at least enabling herself to indulge, a licentious lifestyle, if indeed you celebrate said lifestyle?
“But why should it be an insult?”
As I just said, one doesn’t have to feel insulted to know that someone is trying to insult you. Examples abound. In this case, it’s an insult because you and Bresciani think that it is, and your audience is meant to see it that way as well. It’s clear from the context of the statements.
“And why don’t you just blow Mr. Bresciani and me off? Why should it matter to you that either my contributor or I accuse a woman of indulging, or at least enabling herself to indulge, a licentious lifestyle, if indeed you celebrate said lifestyle?”
Why indeed? A quixotic desire to defend a stranger’s honor, perhaps? A desire for a world in which authors can back up their claims with evidence? Would the world be a better place if we let all the ugly attacks on others go by unchallenged? And don’t start backpedaling about what was claimed: that Fluke wants others to pay for “the condoms her dozens of weekly lovers use to please her.” I’ll ask yet again for your evidence of Fluke’s dozens of weekly lovers or of the particulars of her contraceptive regimen. The statement in the OP goes far beyond saying that she wants to enable herself to engage a licentious lifestyle; it says she already engages in one and offers specific details meant to inflame the reader. This isn’t some Swiftian satire. I’m beginning to feel like Cato the Elder with his “Carthago delenda est”. Where is the evidence, or is this statement just a baseless, calculated insult meant to shame Ms. Fluke? Why don’t you just admit Bresciani’s statement is gross and unwarranted and move on?
You are still dodging the question. If, as you insist, intimate relations between and among consenting adults that are not married to one another is perfectly acceptable and above-board, why should anyone feel the least insult if any suspicion attaches to him or her that he or she is engaged in such activity?
The ugliness began with “Progressives” and “liberals.” And if you come to my comment space and think to continue that ugliness and try to make it look as though it’s my fault, you’ll wonder what fell on you.
You might pass that word around.
“If, as you insist, intimate relations between and among consenting adults that are not married to one another is perfectly acceptable and above-board, why should anyone feel the least insult if any suspicion attaches to him or her that he or she is engaged in such activity?”
Because that’s not what’s being implied trumpeted by Bresciani. Fluke and her fiancé likely believe, along with practically everyone else in the civilised world, that there is no problem at all with two consenting adults – especially if, like Fluke and her fiancé, they’re in a stable relationship – having sex with each other.
Bresciani, on the other hand, is claiming on the basis of no evidence whatsoever that she’s shagging dozens of people a week. I know that you’re intelligent enough to tell the difference here, Terry, so why are you pretending that you can’t? Do you see what Adam Mutterperl is likely to feel about someone saying that his fiancé is promiscuous on an industrial scale? What Fluke’s parents feel about their daughter being labelled, with no attempt at justification, as someone who’s going to have to be buried in a Y-shaped coffin? Bresciani is outrageously libelling Fluke and when someone Tweets a link for this page to @SandraFluke – and someone will, rely on it – she might just decide to come after him with a loaded lawyer.
You make a distinction without a difference. Here is the problem: your ethical system contains no opprobrium whatsoever toward any woman who “shags” dozens of people every week. So if that’s what you get out of Bresciani’s piece, then Sandra Fluke should feel one of two things, depending on whether she does, or doesn’t. If she doesn’t, she should feel jealous. If she does, she should feel flattered. But she has left herself no grounds to feel defamed. How can you defame someone if that someone holds that the thing that you accuse him of (truly or falsely) is neither sin nor crime nor anything to be embarrassed about?
“You make a distinction without a difference.”
Not at all, and I find it frankly bizarre that you would say that.
“your ethical system contains no opprobrium whatsoever toward any woman who “shags” dozens of people every week.”
Yep, none whatsoever, although given your extensive ignorance of my ethical system I’m counting that as a lucky guess.
But.
I know a couple of unattached women who have frequent casual sex with a large number of partners. As long as everyone consents and nobody is being deceived I have no problem with that; it isn’t doing any harm, after all.
On the other hand I have a girlfriend. If I found out that she was being serviced by dozens of other men every week (or one other man, for that matter) she would very rapidly become my ex-girlfriend. Her attitude to me having other partners would be the same, with the possible refinement of me ending up messily dead. I hope you see where I’m going with this.
“then Sandra Fluke should feel one of two things, depending on whether she does, or doesn’t. If she doesn’t, she should feel jealous. If she does, she should feel flattered.”
Alternatively she could feel outraged at the pain caused to her fiancé by such statements, or disgusted at being the target of cheap, juvenile insults. The claim that she has dozens of lovers a week is entirely baseless, isn’t it, Terry? There’s no evidence to support it at all, is there? In fact it seems that she is in a long-term monogamous relationship with the man she intends to marry. Can you really not see why she might be offended at Bresciani’s claim that she’s a good time that was had by all? I doubt it. I think you know very well why Bresciani’s statements are offensive and given your potential exposure if she decides to take action I’m surprised that you’re taking this so lightly. I wouldn’t be if it was my site, that’s for sure.
But why the pain? Under any ethical system that permits this kind of activity, what should it matter?
“But why the pain? Under any ethical system that permits this kind of activity, what should it matter?”
I can only assume that you’re beng deliberately obtuse now. Put yourself in Adam Mutterperl’s shoes. Someone is falsely stating that the woman he intends to marry is having sex with dozens of men every week – simple arithmetic says at least three a day – and you can’t see why this would be upsetting for him? Bollocks, Terry.
I have a blog at link to shockedatgod.blogspot.de
Just say, purely hypothetically, that some time in the next 24 hours I make a post there that says your late wife had dozens of lovers every week. I don’t have any evidence that this is true, of course – and in fact I’m sure it isn’t – but Bresciani’s First Law says I don’t need any, so I’m just going to assert it as fact. How are you going to feel, Terry? Will you be hurt by this libel? As hurt as Sandra Fluke and Adam Mutterperl are by Bresciani’s foul comments?
No, you’re the one being obtuse. In your moral system, sex between and among (note that word among, and think about what that implies) consenting adults is perfectly acceptable, no matter what the circumstances or the relationships. Therefore, for either Sandra Fluke or her alleged fiancé to feel any pain whatsoever from her having multiple relationships with other men is totally, completely, absolutely, categorically, utterly illogical.
The elements of any civil tort are: duty, dereliction, injury, and damage. Any publisher (except maybe those on Fleet Street or our equivalent on this side of the pond) acknowledges a duty to the truth. You allege dereliction on Mr. Bresciani’s part (and by extension in mine); that is debatable. (I tell you now that you have no guarantee of meeting the preponderance-of-evidence test even on Mr. Bresciani’s copy.) But you cannot show injury if your moral system allows the behavior anyway. No injury, no damage.
And I want you and every other commenter (including many whose comments I have had to throw into the trash because their comments were so vulgar that they risk destroying their own reputations by making them) to understand this: you have no standing in any US court of law to be raising an allegation of libel against Mr. Bresciani or me. The best you could be would be a witness, and I don’t think you want to get on a flight over here to give that kind of evidence.
Now then: in that hypothetical example, you’re talking about my morals, and my wife’s morals. Happily, I have so many witnesses that I could call, to attest that she would never behave in the manner you described, that I probably wouldn’t bother to proceed against you. I couldn’t even allege the fourth element of the tort, which is damage. Damage occurs only if anybody of any consequence would believe the lie. More likely any stray readers beyond your base would laugh at you.
And here’s another element you have forgotten: Sandra Fluke is a public figure. She has made herself a public figure. Against a public figure, my contributors and I can say virtually anything we d__n well please. And what Mr. Bresciani has said, is tame in comparison to what the sex activists and abortion activists have already said about me and anyone else who dares oppose them. Welcome to polemic. With which, by your own avowal (by publishing that blog link), you are intimately familiar.
“for either Sandra Fluke or her alleged fiancé to feel any pain whatsoever from her having multiple relationships with other men is totally, completely, absolutely, categorically, utterly illogical.”
Don’t be silly, Terry. For a start there’s no suggestion at all – except from idiots – that she is having relationships with other me. Secondly, exactly what element of my “ethical system” do you think says it’s impossible for two people to have a monogamous relationship?
You’re the one being silly. Logically, they have no grounds to prefer monogamy at all if they follow the kind of system that requires spending nine bucks a month on those cancer-causing pills. The very “element of your ethical system” that says that sex is something to share as casually as a handshake, makes monogamy illogical and un-demand-able. Monogamy becomes too much to expect.
“Logically, they have no grounds to prefer monogamy at all”
Why not?
“The very “element of your ethical system” that says that sex is something to share as casually as a handshake,”
Nothing in my ethical system says that, Terry.
“makes monogamy illogical and un-demand-able. Monogamy becomes too much to expect.”
I expect it from anyone I’m in a relationship with. In return the can expect it from me. What do you find hard to understand about this? I’m sure I can explain it.
This is the key point of dispute: whether, in a God-less moral system like that which Sandra Fluke advocates, any logical precept exists to regard sex as subject to any restriction.
I just showed you where the licentious view of sex leads. So now you will try to deny having avowed that.
But your comments are on record. They can imply nothing else.
You remind me of Representative Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (Democrat of Florida). She cited Ambassador Michael P. Oren of the Republic of Israel to accuse Republicans of endangering Israel. Ambassador Oren categorically denied having said any such thing. I have read his excellent Six Days of War. No one who wrote that, would say any such thing as she cited him for saying. So when reporters confronted her with that statement, she denied ever having made it. Except that the original reporters had her voice recorded.
I have learned to expect no better of advocates for government largesse in support of licentious behavior. And I got no better.
“whether, in a God-less moral system like that which Sandra Fluke advocates, any logical precept exists to regard sex as subject to any restriction.”
Between consenting adults, no. However I don’t see what this has to do with monogamy.
Very simple. If sex is unrestricted and unrestrictable, then monogamy, being the most restrictive of relationships, loses all logical basis.
“If sex is unrestricted and unrestrictable, then monogamy, being the most restrictive of relationships, loses all logical basis.”
Utter nonsense. I also don’t see why you think monogamy is restrictive. In most cases it’s entirely voluntary behaviour. I’m monogamous and I very much doubt you’re going to claim that I have a god-based ethical system.
Restrictive to one partner only, of course. Sexual hedonism does not even admit that kind of restriction. Under that system, no one has exclusive rights.
“Restrictive to one partner only, of course. Sexual hedonism does not even admit that kind of restriction. Under that system, no one has exclusive rights.”
What are you talking about, Terry?
I mean that under the sexual hedonism that “The Pill” facilitates, no person can ever claim exclusive rights to sexual intimacy with any one other person as a matter either of law or of reasonable expectation. Even to assert such a claim brands one as unenlightened.
“I mean that under the sexual hedonism that “The Pill” facilitates, no person can ever claim exclusive rights to sexual intimacy with any one other person as a matter either of law or of reasonable expectation.”
No person can ever claim “exclusive rights” to sexual intimacy with another person anyway. People’s genitals belong to them and they can do what they like with them. On the other hand that can have implications. If, in the best Ayn Rand style, they have voluntarily entered an agreement with someone else to have a monogamous relationship, then breaking the terms of that agreement may end it. Monogamy has to be voluntary though, Terry, because the “exclusive rights” you’re talking about simply don’t exist.
So there you have it. “If they have entered into an agreement, people should not break agreements.” But the best such a system can offer is “serial monogamy.” Which means hook up, break up, hook up again, break up again, et cetera ad infinitum. Or in this case, ad mortem.
But there is no philosophical principle, under the hedonic system, even to enforce such an agreement. At best, the agreement terminates with the first breach, and not necessarily with the courtesy of “We’ve got to talk” ahead of time.
All of which goes to show how moral men can never understand amoral men, nor vice versa.
“But the best such a system can offer is “serial monogamy.” Which means hook up, break up, hook up again, break up again, et cetera ad infinitum. Or in this case, ad mortem.”
Not at all. If both parties are looking for a lifelong relationship, there’s nothing to stop them.
“But there is no philosophical principle, under the hedonic system, even to enforce such an agreement.”
Why does a freely given agreement need to be enforced? Would Hank and Dagny inist on a written contract, or would their word be enough?
“At best, the agreement terminates with the first breach, and not necessarily with the courtesy of “We’ve got to talk” ahead of time.”
Why would that be? I don’t see any reason myself.
I wonder if that’s something Jesus would say.
Your thoughts, Reverend?
Your point, madame? Do you honestly expect to construe from the New Testament that any taxpayer is obliged to finance, in whole or in part, a practice that can facilitate sin?
“a practice that can facilitate sin”
Sex is not a sin, Terry. It’s normal, healthy and enjoyable, and when practiced between consenting adults it doesn’t harm anyone.
But adultery and fornication are. And fornication, at least, is what Sandra Fluke wants to do, and what contraceptives facilitate. Contraceptives became popular with the Sexual Revolution.
“But adultery and fornication are. And fornication, at least, is what Sandra Fluke wants to do”
Terry, she wants to have sex with her fiancé. What’s wrong with that?
“Contraceptives became popular with the Sexual Revolution.”
They were popular long before then. So was sex.
First, if it’s her fiancé involved, let them wait until they get married.
Second: well, you asked for it. Modern contraceptives go back to Margaret Sanger. She introduced them to encourage the blacks and other minorities, whom she deemed genetically inferior and unfit, to use them and thereby not have any more children.
“First, if it’s her fiancé involved, let them wait until they get married.”
Why should they? Nobody else does.
Seriously, that’s just your religious beliefs. It’s not a commonly held viewpoint and realistically it never has been except in the more backwards parts of the muslim world. Most people don’t practice abstinence until marriage and there’s no good reason why they should.
“Modern contraceptives go back to Margaret Sanger.”
The most common method of modern contraception is the good old Willie Wellie (or Kokkiesokkie in Afrikaans.) Edward Gibbon used them while he was writing about the Roman Empire and some archaeologists believe that they were used in the Roman Empire. I don’t think you can blame Margaret Sanger for condoms.
“the blacks and other minorities, whom she deemed genetically inferior and unfit, to use them and thereby not have any more children.”
Yes, disgusting, isn’t it?
Margaret Sanger would brazenly claim credit for all those things, whether that credit was due or not. And you evidently missed the irony completely. Margaret Sanger was a racist, and racism, and only racism, was her motive in promoting contraception in her day.
“Margaret Sanger would brazenly claim credit for all those things, whether that credit was due or not.”
I have no idea. She’s someone I know little of and care less about. However that’s irrelevant because the issue is that you claimed that she introduced modern contraceptives, which is not the case.
“Margaret Sanger was a racist, and racism, and only racism, was her motive in promoting contraception in her day.”
If you say so. Disgusting, isn’t it?
“Simple abstinence would save her the three thousand, and you know it.”
-Do you feel this way about all preventative medicines? Should insurance companies not cover blood pressure medications for smokers, for example? Simple abstinence would save a lot of money on erectile dysfunction medication, too.
“A contraceptive regimen like that ”
– like what, exactly? If I said that I spent ~$1000 on beverages last year, what would that tell you about me? What particular knowledge do you have of Ms. Fluke’s contraceptive regimen?
“would indeed grant her the full license (licence?) to have dozens of lovers a week, or perhaps one lover dozens of times.”
– What evidence do you have, or did the author you quoted have, that Ms Fluke has or had dozens of weekly lovers, as was claimed? After all, Terry, you yourself have license to have dozens of lovers a week, as do I, as does any unmarried, competent adult. Ms. Fluke and you and I all have this ability whether or not we choose to use contraception.
“And she has given no credible representation of being affianced to any one man.”
-Other than by announcing her engagement to Adam Mutterperl, as covered by multiple media outlets, including FOX news?
“I do not care to provide that $3000 to each and every swinging single woman in the country”
-So once she is married you have no problem with it?
“Nor can I think of any reason under the Sun why the laws of my country, or any country, should force me to so act.”
-Can you think of a reason why I should be forced to provide money to, say, one particular Middle Eastern nation in the form of foreign aid if I do not care to do so? Or why I should provide money for subsidies to tobacco farmers? Or why I should pay more money in taxes so that religious organizations can remain untaxed?
We are talking about facilitation of sin. He who facilitates sin becomes complicit in it. That’s what the Catholic Church seeks to avoid. But the Sandra Flukes of the world want the taxpayers to be complicit in all their activities, licit or il-.
You assert that I have a certain license. I don’t recognize that license. I cite the Seventh Commandment, and Matthew 5:28.
As to your last issue: providing assistance to an ally on the front lines of what threatens to become another peace-threatening empire qualifies as “providing for the common defense.”
Providing sin-facilitating regimen for single women does not so qualify. Neither does it qualify as promoting the general welfare. Instead, it promotes someone’s specific welfare. Or rather, her idea of her welfare, which idea I denounce as erroneous.
Is the Catholic Church complicit in the sin when an employee purchases contraceptives for herself with her wages?
I’m still curious as to the evidence for Ms. Fluke’s having had dozens of weekly lovers, and for what Ms. Fluke’s personal contraceptive regimen is.
Also, at what point is the taxpayer on the hook for this exactly?
No. Wages by definition are the wage-earner’s by right.
Benefits are something else again. They do not belong to the employee, but are a direct act of the employer.
The taxpayer gets on the hook for all this once Obamacare kicks in, if it hasn’t already. Why don’t you ask SecHHS Sebelius if you’re really as curious as you pretend?
I am not pretending to be curious. The contraceptive mandate of the ACA is already in place as of the first of August. It requires insurers to cover contraceptives and several other female preventative care services. It provides an exemption for religious entities (churches) but not religious-affiliated entities like universities or hospitals. The cost of such is absorbed by the insurance company or passed on to the purchaser of the insurance and from there on to the consumer, just like any insurance cost. If insurers do not offer said coverage, they are subjected to a fine.
I believe that 28 states already had similar laws in place.
So, as the contraceptive mandate is already in place, how is the taxpayer funding this activity again?
It would seem that the same principle that absolves the Church when an employee uses wages to sin applies to the individual taxpayer when the government uses the taxes to sin; the taxpayer may deplore the act but no complicity attaches.
That exemption means nothing. If the insurer has to cover it, it doesn’t even matter whether the church is their client or not.
The taxpayer might not be involved yet. (I still do not repose 100 percent confidence in your analysis.) But because the government tells a private entity what it must do, it violates said entity’s conscience by so mandating.
Edit to the above: instead of “Terry” above, I should have said “Rev. Michael”. My apologies for the error.
Do private, for-profit corporations have religious beliefs or a conscience to be violated? Do they possess souls and the ability to sin? I say no, no, no, and no. Regulation on the behavior of corporations does not violate the ‘conscience’ of the corporation. The point of forming a corporation is to separate the actions and responsibilities of the corporation from those of the individual humans that make up the corporation. If religion is not the purpose of the organization, then claiming religious exemption is absurd. It bears repeating that religious groups are exempt from the contraceptive mandate in the ACA, but religious-affiliates are not.
And the evidence for Ms Fluke’s dozens of weekly lovers, or for the particulars of her contraceptive regimen? Perhaps there is none?
Their investors do.
[…] it is Sandra Fluke arguing that the taxpayer is obligated to fund her sex life, or Andrew Tobias, Democratic National Committee Treasurer, extolling the virtues of same sex […]