All “Fluked” Up: Who Wants To Silence Women?

Now, if Sandra Fluke (pronounced “fluck”) was a Middle East Muslim woman, and tried to speak up about anything, in any Middle East, Islamic controlled country, she might be stoned to death for her efforts.  However, as an American, Sandra Fluke has a Constitutional right to speak in America, as do all women.  And like all women, Sandra has a Constitutional right to make a jackass of herself in public and flaunt her arrogance.  Conservatives have no desire to take that right away from her, or any woman.  So, why Sandra is all flustered and steamed over Rush Limbaugh and his comments is interesting, because it has been liberal feminists like Sandra Fluke, and all liberals across America, who have been trying to silence the voice conservatives and of conservatism for years.  That includes, by the way, the millions of women who themselves are conservatives.  It is hard not to laugh at Fluke, so don’t hold back.

Sandra has stated that “slurs” will not silence liberal women, hers included.  Well, “slurs” have never silenced conservative women like Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, etc.  In fact, “slurs” against conservative women, which are an everyday occurrence in the MSM have not belittled, but rather inspirited, emboldened, encourage, inspired and driven conservative women to new triumphs, while simply driving liberal women into terrible and unstable fits of madness.  Nonetheless, “slurs” against conservative women have not ended, nor will they.

Sandra has had her say with regards to birth control and contraception.  It is Sandra Fluke herself who is trying to silence those of us, including conservative women, who take issue with the idea that it ought to be “free”.  As we all know, nothing is “free”, and the question of who is going to pay for Sandra’s, for all women’s, birth control and contraception if they are not paying for it themselves is still unanswered.  Also unanswered is the question as to whether or not Sandra supports the type of birth control and contraception which is solely intended to allow women to engage in irresponsible sex, and then end a pregnancy should an “accident” result.

Mind you, conservatives are not debating whether or not American law ought to prevent women from being promiscuous, nor are we arguing that birth control and contraception ought to be illegal.  That is just plain ridiculous.  Indeed, women take birth control for the purported health reasons also, and we, as conservatives, do not intend to oppress women and keep them from accessing medication and pills which help relief and offset undesirable side effects of womanhood.  We do have Title X, and for those women who do not qualify to enroll in this government-funded family planning program, that means their income is above the qualification cut-off line.  In other words, they make enough money to afford the cost of birth control and contraception themselves without the further aid of government and the taxpayers, or from their place of business and their health insurance provider.

So just who does Sandra Fluke think is trying to silence her?  Conservatives have not attempted to stifle her speech.  On the contrary, we love it when liberals, men and women, open their mouths in public and make complete buffoons of themselves, showing how conceited, arrogant, shallow and hypocritical they are.  We love it when liberals rant about nonsense, like a “war on women” because we will not accept what it is they are really after – free access to abortion inducing drugs and procedures – with their whole spiel on birth control and contraception.

Sandra has done a lot of explaining as to why women ought to gain free access to birth control and contraception for health reasons.  But she still supports that access so women can engage in irresponsible and promiscuous sex and to be able to kill any child created in womb if the birth control fails.  At least, Sandra has yet to come out and say she opposes free access to birth control and contraception if it is meant to be improperly used, or used to kill a child in the womb.

And whatever the cost of birth control and contraception, it won’t bring down gas prices at the pump; won’t create jobs; won’t put food on the table; won’t lower taxes on the poor and middle class and won’t reduce the federal deficit or the national debt.  But what this whole “war on women” debate has done, to a degree, is deflect from these real issues facing our nation right now, which is probably what it was intended to do all along.  If that was Sandra’s, and the democrat party’s intent, it has backfired.  Conservatives know enough about the issues dogging America, and how to correct and solve the economic issues while at the same time spending time on the social issues.

Liberals, on the contrary, don’t understand economic issues any more than they know how to solve them.  They prove that everyday with calls for higher taxes on the rich and rich corporations; rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline; more government dependence as the solution; less freedom for Americans and less sovereignty for America, etc.  Taxes are, right now, higher on the rich, and all of us, than they would be if a Republican was in the White House; gas is more expensive at the pump because Obama rejected the Keystone pipeline, and because he has put a halt to all new oil exploration and digging on American territory; Americans have less freedoms, and freedom of mobility, than they did before Obama took office; Obama would attempt to revoke as much American sovereignty as he can, and hand it over to the U.N.; and more Americans are dependent on government that before Obama took office.

More of Obama is not the solution to the problems that plague America.  Obama is the problem.  Sandra Fluke has managed to temporarily distract the nation from that.  However, conservatives have not let down their guard as liberals would have wanted.  And they can scream “war on women” all they want, and use Sandra and whatever other puppets they want, whatever non-issues they want to further distract Americans from the real issues in America.

And if Sandra Fluke, if Barack Obama and the Democrat party, if liberals think using the “war on women” mantra is a winning battle cry, we – conservatives – will not try to silence them.  Why should we, when we know we can bury them with it?

Related articles

• Women Do Use Birth Control And Contraception To Be Irresponsible Also (neosecularist.com)
• Can’t Afford Contraception? Blame Obama And Democrats – And Help Save Sandra Fluke (neosecularist.com)
• No Apologies: Conservatives Need To Stop Saying “Sorry” And Move In For The Kill (neosecularist.com)
• To The Foolish Women Who See No Difference Between Viagra And Birth Control (neosecularist.com)

No Apologies: Conservatives Need To Stop Saying “Sorry” And Move In For The Kill

Rush Limbaugh has apologized for his remarks he made about Sandra Fluke.  In doing so, however, it ought not end this debate, or any debate with regards to how the American Left is destroying this country with their “progressive” ideology.  What is “progressive” about supporting a woman, like Sandra Fluke, who not only wants to engage in all the sex she wants, presumably with as many different men (women?) as she wants, but also feels she has a right to demand we the tax payers pay for her promiscuity?

If calling Sandra a “slut” is anything, it is a distraction which only fuels the Left’s already bloated anger at conservatives, and provides liberals with ammunition, and, by their reckoning, the justification, to go after us that much more harder, slam us that much more viciously, pound us that much more relentlessly and assault and attack our ideas, our morals and ethics, that much more seriously.  When we, conservatives, use a name, however vile it may be, to describe someone or someone’s actions, we, conservatives, need to do what the Left, what liberals, never do – back it up.  In other words, be able to explain the purpose of the “name-calling” so that it is not just “name-calling” for the sake of “name-calling”.  That is was liberals engage in, and resort to doing, everyday on their radio, television, newspaper and internet outlets.  The left “name-calls” without mercy, without regret, without remorse, without stop, relentlessly 24/7.  But they never back it up, and virtually never are compelled to retract themselves.  Ed Shultz became an exception to that when he called Laura Ingraham a “right-wing slut“.

There was no rhyme or reason for why Shultz called Ingraham a slut, other than the fact he was frustrated and defeated in his own logic (lack thereof) and arguments and resorted to doing what liberals always do when they are put in a corner by intellectual conservative superiority – they resort to infantile ad hominem attacks on us.  Why do you think Bill Maher calls Sarah Palin a c**t?  Sarah Palin is intellectually superior to Bill Maher.  So too is Laura Ingraham intellectually superior to Ed Shultz.  Two women, and two examples, of women outsmarting, outwitting, out debating men.  Two very conservative women vs. two very liberal men – and the women are superior in both instances.

Liberals are easy to out debate because they always, and virtually only, use emotions to plead their case.  Sandra Fluke used emotion in her testimony before congress to express her concern over Obama’s contraception mandate being overturned.  If/when it is overturned, Sandra fears, she will not be able to engage in as much sex as she wants, if any at all, because she cannot afford the cost of the contraception.  In Obama’s mandate, that contraception would be provided to her, and everyone else, for free, thus allowing her, and everyone else who wants it, to engage in as much sex as they want on the taxpayers dime, without the consequences and without the worry of being financially drained.

Conservatives have consistently, and continuously, pointed out what, in fact, Sandra Fluke, in exposing her sexual habits before congress, and in expressing her unashamed, unabashed desire for unbridled sex, paid for by the taxpayers, is tantamount to being.  For that, liberals, because they only deal in emotions, jumped all over conservatives with their own name-calling – sexist, misogynist, anti-woman, anti-women’s health, etc.

Conservatives are not anti-women because we take Sandra to task, often brutally, in our judgment of her silly antics.  Nor are conservatives anti-woman because we don’t feel we ought to be obligated to pay Sandra for, what is in essence, her to have sex.  In other words, if Sandra cannot, or will not have sex, without first having contraception at her disposal, and if taxpayers are the ones paying for her contraception so she can have sex – then to a degree, and from a point of view, we are paying for Sandra to have sex, who otherwise, as she has stated in her testimony, would not be engaging in sex because she cannot afford the cost of the contraception herself.  Our beef with Sandra, with all liberals, is their insistence that we must pay for their behavior, and for a behavior we find to be repugnant, immoral and even anti-woman in of itself because women who throw themselves, and their bodies around, sexually, cheapen themselves – not empower themselves.

It is liberals who cheapen women and womanhood by supporting lifestyle choices which encourages women (and even men) to engage in activities that are conducive with moral decay and societal degeneration.  Men do not respect women who flaunt their bodies at them, nor do they respect a woman’s body when she does.  Men are merely, briefly, allured to them.  That attraction, as many women know, and have found out, wears off in a very short amount of time.  What often result afterwards, and often after the man has left and cannot be found, is pregnancy.  So the woman is left with the option of keeping the child, or killing it.

This is where liberal feminists and liberals themselves, fall into emotional hysterics.  Liberals want the freedom to engage in sex, without, or regardless of, consequences, but should those consequences nonetheless arise, they want the assurance, the guarantee that they can eliminate those consequences and get back to their lives, and their sexual livelihoods without any undue interruption. And if they cannot afford the price of eliminating those consequences, they arrogantly demand taxpayers subsidize the cost for them.  What values does that teach?

Sandra Fluke, as do most liberals feminists, insist and argue that by having the taxpayer subsidize their irresponsible behavior – which they do of their own free will – they are actually saving us, the taxpayer, money in the long run, because, they insist and argue, providing women with free birth control and contraception – at taxpayers expense – inhibits or helps prevent and offset some of the “nasty” consequences and health risks associated with sex and having sex with multiple partners.  Of course abstaining altogether from sex, except with one’s spouse, is in fact the safest and surest way to prevent most of these “nasty” consequences in the first place and in long run.  But liberals never use that angle.

Conservatives need to stop apologizing and stop saying we’re sorry for condemning women (and men) who lead, who want to lead, immoral lifestyles by engaging in activities that cheapen both men and women.  This is 2012, and we are not going to go back to a time where there were laws on the books to punish certain sexual behavior.  Nor ought we.  Conservatives don’t want to take any woman’s “right” to have sex, and as much sex as she wants, away from her.  Nor do we want to take away her birth control – that birth control she takes once a day to prevent a pregnancy from occurring. That is a liberal canard and prevarication.

But when we see behavior that we find morally reprehensible, and for which we know causes damage to the lives of the people engaged in those activities, the lives of many human beings created as a result of the activities, and to society itself, we will not mince words, we will not hold our tongues, we will not bite our lips, we will not remain silent.  We will be aggressive in our condemnation, but we will also be rational, rather than emotional.  And if we happen to use a name that is supposedly offensive to someone in our argument against them and the action they have committed, because we, conservatives, are intellectually superior to liberals, we can back up our statement and move in for the kill.  And by “move in for the kill”, that is to say we can crush their, the liberals, “progressive” ideology to a pulp.

But if we must always be apologizing for our remarks, all that does it provide liberals with more excuses, more cause, more reason, more justification – more freedom – for, and to continue with, their irresponsible behavior.  And the more we backtrack the more we show weakness in our resolve and in our affirmation to whatever cause we are fighting for.  That is what the Left wants.

When apologizing for something we have said, which truly is offensive and without merit is necessary, that is one thing.  But what happens to us, to our cause, when we apologize in ways that aids and abets the Left, and makes us look like the aggressors, and makes us look foolish, weak and anti-woman, when we are not?  The Left virtually never apologizes for its actions and its behavior.  Why the hell do we so readily apologize for ours?  And before we do apologize for anything, isn’t it appropriate to demand from the Left a legitimate reason for the apology?  Isn’t it to our advantage to force liberals to come up with an intellectually valid and sound reason for why we ought to apologize for something?  Don’t we have enough courage on our side to stare down liberals who insist upon an apology based on their emotional hysteria rather than anything remotely regarding intellectuality and reason?

Before we apologize for anything we say, that liberals will always take great offense with, isn’t it prudent we first make damn sure the “offense” is worth apologizing for before we hand liberals another unwarranted, unnecessary victory by demanding liberals base their claim for an apology on rationality rather than hysterical emotions?  By doing this, we will make liberals think!

Doesn’t thinking naturally hurt a liberal’s head, which is why they are so prone to act instead of thinking – which, consequently, gets liberals into all the many jams they, like Sandra Fluke, want taxpayers to bail them out of?

Related articles

• Women Do Use Birth Control And Contraception To Be Irresponsible Also (neosecularist.com)
• To The Foolish Women Who See No Difference Between Viagra And Birth Control (neosecularist.com)
• Liberal Feminists Complaining About The “War On Women” Ought To Keep Their Mouths Shut (neosecularist.com)