The Neosecularist

I Said That? Yeah, I Said That!

Archive for the tag “Sandra Fluke”

18 Apr 2012
6 Comments

Psychopath Sandra Fluke; Her Spoiled Little Brat Syndrome

Being 30 years old has not stopped Sandra Fluke from acting a lot like a spoiled little brat.  You know, the child that doesn’t get her way so she throws a tantrum until she does get her way; the child who always points her finger to another person and lays blame on them for an accident she committed herself; the child who will lie and lie and lie until she gets her way.  That’s Sandra Fluke!

Sandra Fluke enrolled into Georgetown University for one reason, by her own admission, solely to make her case as to why the religious university ought to provide contraception to its students, and why it ought to be provided for free.  Sandra was smart enough (psychopaths generally have a high intelligence level) to know that Georgetown would rebuke, rebuff and flat-out deny her “request”.

Enter the contraception mandate and Obamacare.  An opportunity came along for Sandra to put Georgetown’s thumbs to the screws, so to speak, by engrossing herself in a public forum to humiliate and embarrass the university in front of congress, in a way she believed would cause Georgetown to fold and buckle under an immense pressure from the students of Georgetown, from congress and from the American public.  This flagrant display was intended to be her masterpiece.  Why then, did it not go as planned?

What Sandra hadn’t counted on was the fact that conservatives in America are far more powerful, far more influential, far more organized than she ever gave us credit.  She also did not factor in that a majority of Americans oppose Obamacare, which includes the contraception mandate and forcing religious institutions to provide services and procedures that go against their moral and religious convictions.  (Psychopaths, while highly intelligent, are also exceedingly arrogant and full of themselves.  Too conceited to pay attention to, or look beyond, their own ego.)

This miscalculation, which has been a major backlash against Sandra, against Obamacare, against liberalism, has caused Sandra to become even more outspoken, and deeply entrenched in her own lie – that she is merely fighting for contraception for students who need it for health and medical issues like “ovarian cysts, hormonal imbalances, endometriosis”, which she reiterated at an event at Georgetown University.

But we are not talking about contraception for  “a lot of medical issues.”  That has never been the debate, and that has never been what Sandra herself has been fighting to achieve for female students at Georgetown.  Sandra has always been fighting for free contraception for use in promiscuous sex, which, sadly, many people engage in.  And while conservatives are not about to enter into a debate as to whether consenting adults, or even teenagers, ought to be prohibited by law from engaging in promiscuous sex (it’s futile and we recognize American citizens have the right have sex with whom they choose), we, as conservatives, are very willing to make certain that those men and women who do engage in sex, for the sake of sex, do so on their own dime and accept the consequences of that decision.

Sandra Fluke, among other liberals, opposes that.  She demands that, while consenting Americans of all ages have a fundamental right to have sex with whom they choose, they ought to have those choices subsidized by American taxpayers and institutions that provide healthcare and health related services, including religious institutions.  As conservatives, we obviously strongly and absolutely disagree with that.  In doing so, however, we are by no means attempting to say that women with health issues, clearly and specifically diagnosed by a professional and competent doctor, ought to unduly suffer because she cannot afford the cost of the medication she needs to help offset the pain and suffering.

But – is that really why these students/women are using contraception?  To offset enduring and persistence pain and suffering?  And, could there be some other medication they could take, other than contraception or birth control that helps alleviate and end the pain?

Here is the problem with that.  Sandra specifically targeted Georgetown University.  She enrolled in it, and paid the cost of tuition and all expenses included, which was over $40,000/year.  Why did she have to enroll and spend that much money simply to shed light on a compelling issue that affects not only female students at Georgetown, but millions of American women?  And – why Georgetown?  In other words, if all Sandra was trying to do was find a solution to how women with otherwise less of an economical means could pay for contraception and birth control and have it provided for them for legitimate and specific health issues – why the elaborate scheme of enrolling in Georgetown?  Why the long-about rouse of thinking she had to be a student of Georgetown in order to be heard?

Obviously Sandra had an ulterior motive.  It had to be a religious college, for one; and it had to be a prestigious one so that when it caved under public pressure (per Sandra’s plan) the smaller, less prestigious, less noteworthy religious colleges would feel compelled to cave as well.  And not only religious colleges, but all religious institutions that provide healthcare.  Sandra delved into this complex strategy to discredit religion itself.  What else makes sense?  That part of her plan failed.

And what do psychopaths usually do when a part of their plan fails?  They dig in deeper.  Sandra is no exception.  That is why she is back at Georgetown still insisting the college needs to provide contraception and birth control to students because:

Most students don’t realize that contraception coverage will not be on their insurance when they arrive at Georgetown.  We’re used to having contraception readily available.”

This is an another incredible statement coming from Sandra.  What she is saying is that “most students” are not researching Georgetown University as thoroughly as they ought to before they decide to send in an application for enrollment.  Is that really true?  Also puzzling, and damnably so, is the fact that if a student can afford the high cost of enrollment, why then could they not afford the small pittance of the price for birth control and contraception without having to beg for it to be subsidized by the university?  And why, if Sandra is only urging for birth control and contraception for “medical issues” is she not insisting, publicly, that she would accept Georgetown University’s prohibition on these when used only for sex?

Sandra is demanding Georgetown provide birth control and contraception, free of charge to all students, regardless of why they actually want it.  How does that make sense?  And who picks up the cost if Georgetown is forced to acquiesce?  Wouldn’t that have to be passed on to all Georgetown students in the form of higher tuition and other costs associated with being  a student as Georgetown?

Said Fluke:

“Prevention of pregnancy is a public health need.  When we’re talking about public policy, we need to look at reality, rather than [Church] ideology.”

In other words, Sandra is not really advocating for birth control and contraception for “medical issues” at all.  That is a cover story for her real intentions.  Sandra really is, and always has been, advocating for women to engage in promiscuous sex (all part of the women’s liberation movement and liberal feminism) and for “prevention of pregnancy” that often results in that sex, i.e. – abortion.  And she is demanding the cost for the “prevention of pregnancy” be picked up by Georgetown, which she has known long before she actually enrolled, opposed such a policy.  Sandra knew, long before she enrolled at Georgetown, that it is a religious college with a strong commitment to its religion.  Sandra sought to break that strong bond.  She is still trying.

Sandra has never once denounced the use of birth control and contraception for non “medical issues”.  If she was challenged directly to take a position; if Sandra was challenged to assert whether or not she is merely in favor of Georgetown University having a better health plan and coverage for those students who actually and legitimately are suffering from real “medical issues” like “ovarian cysts, hormonal imbalances, endometriosis” – would Sandra be willing to concede Georgetown’s right in prohibiting birth control and contraception for all other “issues”, like promiscuous sex and to end an unwanted pregnancy?  Knowing that, is where we can begin to unravel the mystery that is the psychopath, Sandra Fluke.  But only if we press her to answer the right questions.

Related articles
Posted in contraception, feminism, feminist loons, healthcare, Obamacare, politics, religion, Sandra Fluke, scams, war on women, women's rights and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
23 Mar 2012
5 Comments

Why “Affordable” Health Care Is, And Will Continue To Be, So Expensive For Us All

Sandra Fluke is one more reason why we, in America, need more affordable, and better quality, private health insurance, rather than what she, and many others, are advocating, which is public health insurance provided/mandated through a government system which monopolies the industry.  Monopolies, by their structure and their very nature, do not create incentives to better or improve upon anything.  Rather, they allow the few people at the top running the show to set the prices, which always goes up, and to disregard the quality, which inevitably goes down over time.  It also allows for greater corruption and abuse within the system as well as collusion to keep prices higher than they would be under a private system where competition was allowed to flourish.  Without competition, no ideas are offered, no alternatives are expressed, no solutions to current problems are brainstormed.  Why would this not also be true of a government monopoly on health care?

Sandra Fluke welcomes government stepping in and providing her, and everyone else, with health care.  But at what cost?  In other words, whether that cost of health care is low, or “at no cost”, the idea that it is actually free is deceiving.  The case in point is Obamacare, which will force all Americans, and all businesses in America, to buy health care insurance exclusively through the federal government or face steep fines, the amount of which only the 1% can afford to pay.  As damnable as Obamacare is, and as unconstitutional as it is, it would be far more advantageous and beneficial if it was a replacement to Medicare and Medicaid rather than and addition to an already overburdened over stretched health care system the debt and liability of which is scores of trillions of dollars and growing (out of control) at a substantial rate.  And with Obamacare, what is the point of Medicare and Medicaid?

This all begs the question – what does anyone have against private health insurance?  If you answer, “because I cannot afford private health insurance”, then the next logical question is – why?  In other words, what is causing/driving the cost of private health insurance to stagnate in a price range, it is assumed, is higher than most Americans can afford to purchase?  And, for which is why so many millions of Americans support Obamacare, or the idea of some form of government provided, “low-cost” health care insurance that is neither low nor is it the best alternative?  If anything, Obamacare, any type of government provided health insurance acts in the same way a comfort food does.  It satisfies us, but is not really good for us, and ends up costing us down the road in ways we either did not anticipate or want to anticipate.  But the consequences are there, and they will need to be reckoned with.

As for the so-called “benefits” to small business?  The only reason for that is because health care is so expensive small businesses, by virtue of having a limited cash flow to work with, cannot provide most or all of their employees with health insurance, or with the types of insurance coverage big business can afford to contract with insurance providers.  Therefore, small businesses are left at a disadvantage.  However, with affordable, private insurance, that issue is eliminated.  That won’t happen until government gets out of the health care insurance business.  That won’t happen until more Americans become more informed about the advantages to private health care insurance versus the horrors of government-run/mandated heath insurance.  None of that will happen until we change the leadership in Washington.  That will, hopefully, happen in November.

Sandra Fluke has a personal agenda she is setting forth and laying out.  Namely she desires all women have access to health care, including contraception and abortion coverage, and she supports the “Affordable Care Act” which is the initiative that, through government health insurance, would provide her and all women with what she wants.  There are two problems with this that someone as “emotional” as Sandra Fluke is – as opposed to rational – is missing.

First, it is not “affordable”.  Either every American taxpayer is going to see their taxes go up substantially in order to pay for this, or the cost will be tacked onto the trillions of debt we currently owe.  If the latter, then we will see higher inflation, and for a longer period of time, because in order to pay off just the interest on that debt, prices on everything will need to rise.  Government can, and does, create money simply by printing it.  And in order to pay for Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act, and all government health care run programs, government will need to continue printing money.  All that ever does is devalue the worth of  money which leads to higher and higher inflation, which leads to higher and higher costs on everything, including health care itself.  But also everything else we buy and need to buy, like food and gas.  So the idea that the “Affordable Care Act’ is “affordable” is ludicrous.  Women may be benefited, perhaps, but as monopolies go, there is no guarantee.  And as monopolies go, that benefit usually declines over time.  And while women are “benefiting” from “affordable” health care, they, along with the rest of us, are paying more for everything we buy in order to pay the cost of their “affordable” health care.

Secondly, if we actually devoted more time to debating the usefulness and advantages of private health insurance, it would do more to lessen and allay the negative stigma and fears so many Americans have about it.  It would also help to inform those people who are against it – because of its high cost – why more private health insurance will bring down that cost to levels that are real, rather than artificially, affordable, and why private health insurance promotes better and higher quality health care than government could ever do.  With private health insurance – and that means, for those who are unsure, health care we pay for ourselves and our family out of our own pocket, not our neighbors or fellow taxpayers – health insurance providers are forced (whether they want to or not) through competition to provide the people they insure with the best, the highest quality and most affordable health care they can offer, or risk losing their clients to another private health provider.  Is that hard to comprehend?

With private health insurance, there is no room for error.  Conversely, with public, government-funded health insurance, there is all kinds of room for error, and no incentive to correct any mistakes because the money being paid for health insurance, for the contracts, the salaries, the bonuses, of everyone involved in a government-run health care system, etc., will always be there, whether it is coming from the taxpayers or being printed out of thin air, to keep the system running.  That does not work in the private industry.  Hence, the money is real, it is worth something to the insurance providers, and worth more to them than money that is created artificially, and thus is worth the time, effort and energy to keep finding solutions to health related problems, finding better ways to provide health care and finding ways to keep the costs down and as low as possible.  Private health insurance encourages its providers to be and remain honest.  Government run heath care only encourages corruption.

Sandra Fluke, because of her advocacy for the “Affordable Care Act” is actually harming women more than she is helping them, and she is actually putting women’s health more in harm way, more at risk, than otherwise.  Whatever the “Affordable Care Act” will ultimately provide and cover will pale in comparison to what could be provided and covered through private health insurance.  Breast exams, cervical cancer exams, pap smears, colorectal exams, childbirth and all health issues related to women could be much cheaper, much less expensive, much more expansive in their service and quality, if private health insurers were better able to compete for new clients.  So long as the government has a monopoly, and a mandate on health insurance, that will not happen.

But if all Sandra is really seeking in the “Affordable Care Act is free contraception (for whatever purpose) and abortion coverage, which may or may not be covered by private insurance – and, in the case of abortion, may not be legal for any health insurer to provide  depending on its reason – then she probably does not care about the overall harm she is going to cause to woman down the road, or to all American.  Nor would she care about the cost, the burden of that cost, the effects of that cost on everyone, or how that cost is going to have to be repaid.

Sandra may be too emotional to want to listen to rationality and reality.  What about the rest of us?

Related articles
Posted in government, healthcare, politics, Sandra Fluke, scams, silly laws and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,
13 Mar 2012
1 Comment

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
Posted in 2012 election, politics, Sandra Fluke, war on women and tagged , , , , , , , , , ,
11 Mar 2012
13 Comments

Women Do Use Birth Control And Contraception To Be Irresponsible Also

The whole flack over Fluke and contraception overshadows one reality.  There are still myriad women who do use birth control and contraception solely and exclusively in order to engage in all the carnal, irresponsible sex they can.  Conservatives, although we would admonish women, as well as men who do the same, for such behavior, we would never attempt to enact laws which would restrict a woman’s prerogative to be, well, we can’t say a “slut”, but there must be a word similar to it in style and character to describe such women.  For that is what they are.

Taking the pill once a day, or as needed to prevent pregnancy, as well as all the beneficial side affects which it helps relieve during that “time of the month”, cramps, bloating, constipation, irregular bleeding, heavier than normal bleeding, etc. is all well and good, and no one is trying to take that away from women.  There is a misunderstanding – intentionally – by every last liberal outpost to paint conservatives as anti-woman, and at war with woman, and trying to control and dominate women.  This, of course, from a rational point of view, could not be further from the actual truth, which liberals generally refrain from invoking.

There are at least three fundamental sticking points of disagreement we have with Sandra Fluke, and all liberals with regards to birth control and contraception.  And we will not budge on these issues:

1.  We will not pay for your birth control and contraception.  Except for the poorest of American women, every other woman in America can afford to purchase her own birth control and contraception.  There is already a law on the books, Title X, which provides for the rest of American women who legitimately cannot afford the cost.

The “real cost of birth control” depends on what a woman is actually intending using it for.  In other words, if a woman is really taking the pill to prevent the onset of negative health issues, then the cost is relatively cheap.  But lets not kids ourselves.  When we talk of birth control and contraception, we are also taking about IUD’s, Deprovera, RU-486, and other much more expensive drugs whose only intentions are to either prevent pregnancy or end it after it “accidentally” occurs.  The cost for these types of birth control and contraception can range from $100 on up.  Why should women get this for free just so they can go and engage in irresponsible sex?  And who ultimately is going to pay for it if they do?  And if all it is intended for is so that women can engage in sex without the consequences, why should society tolerate that if it is us that will eventually get stuck with the bill?  Remember, nothing is free.  Somebody will be stuck with that bill.

2.  Besides the birth control and contraception which prevents pregnancy, there are also types which are intended to end a pregnancy after it occurs.  The most recognized one being the morning after pill, or Plan B.  The vast majority of conservatives are pro-life – that means we value human life, including the unborn.  When a child is created in the womb, it is a human being at the moment of conception.  In other words, it is no less of a human being at the moment of conception, or thereafter, than at any time during its fetal development.

If women want to engage in irresponsible sex, no one is going to stop them through law.  However, if a pregnancy results, it is time for her to woman-up and accept the consequences like a woman.  By all means sue the man and get whatever income you can from him to help offset the cost of the pregnancy; and, if the woman chooses to keep the child, then whatever extra cost would be needed in order to care for the child.  Or – the woman, and the man, can get married.

What is absolutely unacceptable is forcing, through law, taxpayers to subsidize a woman’s sexually irresponsible behavior, paying for both the contraception to prevent the pregnancy, and what amounts to the abortion when an “accident” occurs.  Again, women who want to be irresponsible can be irresponsible.  But women who do ought not run to the government (i.e. the taxpayer) to bail them out when they do get in trouble.  In other words, if a woman truly believes her body is her own – don’t pawn it off on us.  Take control of your body by acting responsible, or suffer any consequences you brought on yourself, of your own free will, on your own.

And as for the life created in the womb after the irresponsible sex, you can be damn sure we will fight for laws which protect that life from being wantonly and maliciously destroyed.  You don’t want to suffer the consequences of an unintended pregnancy, don’t engage in sex.  Abstinence is still the only 100% effective solution in preventing pregnancy.

3.  Forcing religious institutions to cover the cost of birth control and contraception against their moral and religious convictions.  This, among other things, is unconstitutional.  And that is probably the only real point that needs to be made.  The Constitution grants religious institutions, hospitals, insurance providers, etc. from having to provide any type of service, to anyone, it deems to be morally objectionable based on its own religious values.

Sandra Fluke, and her controversy, is that she wanted Georgetown University, a Jesuit college, (a religious college) to pay for her contraception, and for birth control and contraception for all female students on campus in full with no co-pay.  She used a few examples of “health issues” some female students had to endure.  At no time did Sandra Fluke ever make an exception that would allow Georgetown to block students who wanted birth control and contraception not for “health” reasons” but because they wanted the contraception solely to engage in irresponsible sex, but did not want to deal with the “consequences”.

By all accounts, as we have learned about about the 30 year old Fluke, it appears she has had a personal agenda all along, and her only reason for going to Georgetown was to force it to provide free birth control and contraception.  It is peculiar, then, that Fluke would lambast the cost of tuition at Georgetown, and use its tuition cost as a reason why so many female students there could not afford contraception.

Every single student, the females included, knows Georgetown is a Jesuit college, and knows that in order to go there they must be willing to pay the tuition costs it sets.  They also know the policy Georgetown has set in place with regards to birth control and contraception.  Sandra Fluke certainly knew that before she enrolled.  In other words – nobody is forcing any of the “suffering” female Georgetown students to go to this particular college.  There are other colleges which are less expensive to attend, and which, if they did attend a less expensive college, they would have that much more money to cover whatever cost of birth control and contraception they needed for their own individual situation without having to make a silly spectacle of themselves on national television.

But at no time ought Georgetown University be compelled to pay for the birth control and contraception of any of its female students.  And remember – Nothing is free .  If Georgetown ever is forced to provide “free” birth control and contraception, they will likely, and obviously, pass that cost down to the rest of its students – which mean all of them will be paying for Sandra Fluke and every other female student to use birth control and contraception for whatever purpose they desire, including the desire to be sexually irresponsible.  That little issue was never taken off the table during Sandra’s “testimony”.

Birth control and contraception obviously have their good qualities, and they do aid in the relief of certain, specific health issues.  It is for those bad qualities we, as conservatives, will always reject and fight against.  We will not attempt to pass laws to regulate sex, but we will attempt to pass laws to regulate the consequences of that sex.  We will attempt to pass laws which circumvent the taxpayers from paying the bill for anyone to be sexually irresponsible.  We will attempt to overturn any laws – the contraception mandate, for example – which forces any religious institution to provide medications, pills, services, etc. that go against their religious objections.

If that offends any woman, or man for that matter, we are in for one hell of a long, drawn-out fight.  So be it, and – bring it on!

Related articles
Posted in contraception, Planned Parenthood, politics, Sandra Fluke, scams and tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,
05 Mar 2012
7 Comments

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
Posted in politics, Sandra Fluke and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
04 Mar 2012
15 Comments

If Women, Like Sandra Fluke, Don’t Want To Be Called Sluts – Don’t Be Sluts

Maureen Dowd, Debbie Wasserman Shultz and Kirsten Powers are mad as hell at Rush Limbaugh and speaking out about his comments regarding Sandra Fluke.  (The links to their rebuttals of Limbaugh are attached to their names)  Each woman is either intentionally misrepresenting Sandra Fluke and her sole reason for testifying before congress, or they are too stupid to see that Sandra Fluke actually was advocating for free birth control and contraception to feed her, and her friends, nymphomania – not for any real health concerns or benefits.

Other than Shultz, who is bonifide stupid and a genuine idiot, Dowd and Powers are smart enough to know Fluke was acting on her own behalf, and the behalf of other young women who want to engage in sex, but don’t want to woman-up when the consequences of those actions arise afterwards.  Rush Limbaugh was merely pointing out the obvious, which everyone with a brain – tied behind their back or not – could clearly see was going on with Sandra’s testimony.  Limbaugh was also voicing his frustration with the Left, liberals, Barack Obama and the Democrat Party that for decades has been trying to force its immorality on America.

Barack Obama, by fiat, has forced a contraception mandate on all religious hospitals, institutions and insurance agencies which compels them to provide services to women, like birth control, contraception, abortifacients – including emergency drugs which kill an unborn baby after it has been created in the womb.  This unconstitutional mandate has been challenged by many religious institutions, the Catholic Church and conservatives all across America.  There was, and presumably still is, a push by congress to overturn that mandate.  Sandra Fluke’s purpose before congress was to provide testimony on behalf of, and support for, Obama’s contraception mandate.  In that testimony her only reason for supporting the mandate was because she could not afford to buy all the birth control and contraception she needed to keep up with her sex life.

Sandra herself, not Rush Limbaugh, invoked her own personal sex life and habits.  Sandra herself, not Rush Limbaugh, acknowledged she was a sex addict.  Sandra herself, not Rush Limbaugh, defined herself as a slut without calling herself a slut.  Rush Limbaugh merely stated the obvious and had some fun with it at the same time.

For Dowd and Powers to criticize Limbaugh for what he said about Sandra Fluke – which was neither slander or libelous; which contained more truth that hyperbole; which was as close to absolute fact as is allowed – is shockingly and prematurely immature and selfish on their parts.

Says Dowd:

He’s [Limbaugh] brutalizing a poised, wholesome-looking 30-year-old Georgetown law student as a “slut,” “a prostitute” and “round-heeled” simply for testifying to lawmakers about wanting the school to amend its health insurance to cover contraception.”

Fluke may be “poised”, she may be “wholesome looking” but her “aim” in wanting “to amend her school’s insurance to cover contraception” was to satisfy and slake her own sexual lust.  Why is Dowd avoiding the obvious in Fluke’s testimony?  Why does Dowd reject Flukes own testimony and her own intentions in wanting to access birth control and contraception?  Why does Dowd not demand Fluke apologize to congress, to Rush Limbaugh, to all of America for her arrogance, her condescension and her childish behavior, and for wasting everyone’s time, and probably some amount of tax dollars?

Says Powers”

“Let it be shouted from the rooftops that Rush Limbaugh should not have called Ms. Fluke a slut or, as he added later, a “prostitute” who should post her sex tapes. It’s unlikely that his apology will assuage the people on a warpath for his scalp, and after all, why should it? He spent days attacking a woman as a slut and prostitute and refused to relent. Now because he doesn’t want to lose advertisers, he apologizes. What’s in order is something more like groveling—and of course a phone call to Ms. Fluke—if you ask me”

Powers also says there is a war on women in America.  And she is right.  It has been a war waged by liberal feminists for decades to brainwash all women into believing the only true way to freedom and equality in America is through sex; that “control” over one’s body means to right to kill an unborn, unplanned child created through sex without consequences, without recrimination, without government interference – but with plenty of government tax dollars.

Powers is incensed Limbaugh would call Fluke a slut for demanding free contraception to carry on a lifestyle that for thousands of years has been defined by societies all over the world as slutty, and the women who engaged in the activity as sluts.  We can argue about what we call men who engage in the same activity, and there is no reason not to call men sluts, or some masculine counterpart, who do.  But we cannot disregard the fact that Sandra Fluke, in her own bloody testimony is advocating for free contraception to carry on her own slutty, sexual activities – and she wants us, the taxpayers to pay for it.

There is also a war on men in America, by women like Dowd, Powers, and even Shultz, who, like Sandra Fluke, is prone to showing what an airheard, twit and ditz she is every time she opens her mouth and says anything.  If women don’t want to be called sluts, if women don’t want men to call women sluts – don’t be sluts, and don’t engage in sexual activities that are known for being slutty.  And if women want men to treat them equally, fairly and respectfully – first of all, stop throwing yourselves at them.  Secondly, take “control” of your body not by exploiting it but by preserving it for the man you will marry.  Thirdly, “empower” yourselves by asserting your intelligence not flaunting your feminine “assets”.  Women have a brain.  Don’t misuse it like Debbie Wasserman Shultz, like Sandra Fluke, like all liberal feminists do.

Sandra Fluke, in her testimony, used her sex, and sex itself, as her basis for supporting Obama’s contraception mandate.  Where in Sandra Fluke’s testimony did she ever once use her brain?

Related articles
Posted in contraception, politics, Sandra Fluke and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
04 Mar 2012
3 Comments

Rush Limbaugh Was Wrong To Apologize

Sandra Fluke started something that deserved a response, even if that response was in some ways hostile, insulting and derogatory.  Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a slut for having the audacity and the arrogance to air her grievance over Barack Obama’s contraception mandate, and the push by some members of that congress to overturn it.  Sandra Fluke argued that the mandate was necessary because she could not afford to keep buying birth control and contraception for herself, and as a result she had to cut back on the amount of sex she was engaging in.  She also mentioned some other women whom she had spoken with were in the same situation.  Sandra Fluke is the one who introduced her sex life to congress, and de facto the entire nation.

For that, Rush called Sandra a slut and a prostitute, which he has since apologized for.  Stinging words, perhaps.  But, what else do you call someone who goes around having sex all the time with many different people?  And what do you call someone who wants us, the taxpayers, to pay for her birth control and contraception so she can continue engaging in sex without worrying about the consequences of her actions?  If Sandra is not a slut, what is she?  A demon?  A vixen?  A tramp?  A vamp?  What?  Fifty years ago women who did what Sandra does were called sluts, and a lot worse by virtually everyone in the nation.  We have changed, as a nation, in that we have come to accept this type of behavior as normal.  Liberal feminists have done much to corrupt morality in America, especially that morality which men used to respect women for having, and women used to attract respectful men.

From a business point, It is understandable that Rush might have been feeling the heat from his sponsors who advertise on his radio program.  That is one of the disadvantages of being on the radio.  He may have been receiving messages from his station that he either apologize for his remarks or a large number of those sponsors would drop him.  At least one sponsor already has, regardless of the apology.  There certainly was no other reason to apologize except for the backlash he was receiving from his sponsors.  Rush was certainly not saying anything that wasn’t true about Sandra.  Maybe you have to be in radio, and on the radio, to fully understand it.

And let’s not forget what the Left says about conservative women, black conservatives and conservatives in general.  Bill Maher regularly calls Sarah Palin a c**t.  He justifies that by saying he is on HBO.  Still, that is what he calls her.  The Left can get away with any derogatory remark or speech they want.  At least when we call someone on the Left a particular name, there is a logical reason behind it.  The Left just thrown out words as if they were, well – free contraception and birth control.  There is a method to our madness.  On the Left there is only madness.

On the one hand, Rush was wrong to apologize for calling Sandra what she is, a slut.  At least this soon.  He should have waited the weekend out.  He should have spoken with his loyal sponsors – those who were uneasy with his remarks – how he should have reacted to Sandra’s testimony in a way that would not have made them uncomfortable.  After-all, his sponsors came to him, not the other way around.  Rush’s sponsors came to him because he is the number one broadcast radio host in America, drawing millions of listeners a day.  His sponsors came to him, because Rush makes them money.  How many listeners has Rush lost because he called Sandra a slut?  How many sponsors has Bill Maher lost because he calls Sarah Palin a c**t?

On the other hand, sponsors aside, we are at war with the Left, and the prize claimed, for whoever wins, is the future of America, and the reclaiming of America’s past, which the Left has all but rewrote to paint our founders as bigoted, sexist, racist, ignorant Bible thumping hypocrites.  Conservatives don’t need to fight dirty because we have logic and reason on our side.  The Left is the side fighting dirty all the time because they can’t debate the Right without using tricks and lies.  If we are afraid to call Sandra a slut, or any other “offensive” name because we are afraid to lose sponsors or financial support, then we had better damn well think up a proper and fitting name for someone who does what Sandra Fluke does, without invoking “slut” in the definition.  As conservatives, we are eloquent enough in our speech, and proficient enough in our language, to do that.  In any event, this is all an attempt by the Left to silence us on anything we say that might reflect negatively on the Left and cause people to open their eyes and realize how immoral the Left is.

It would have been better for conservatism had Rush not apologized; if he had demanded a better reason to apologize than losing a few sponsors.  Granted sponsors are a radio station’s bread and butter, but this is freedom of speech we are talking about.   Rush never uses the kind of language on his radio program we hear all the time from Bill Maher and others on cable.  Rush is above their childish buffoonery.  So why does Bill Maher still have sponsors?  And who the hell sponsors someone like Bill Maher who calls Sarah Palin a c**t.  Who the hell pays to have a commercial broadcast in-between Bill Maher’s program, after he calls Sarah Palin a c**t?  Who are these sponsors that have absolutely no problem with paying Bill Maher to remain on HBO after he calls Sarah Palin a c**t?  We might like to know so that we can lobby them to end their affiliation with Bill Maher, or make Bill Maher apologize for all the times he has called Sarah Palin a c**t.  Isn’t that reasonable?

Either Sandra Fluke is what is wrong with America, or there is nothing wrong with her kind of sexual promiscuity and depravity in America any longer.  But it is having to apologize for calling someone what they really are that is what is demeaning and insulting.  Sandra Fluke got called what she deserved to be called.  Rush Limbaugh got called on it.  He has apologized.  We shall see where that leads him, where it leads conservatism, and where it leads others within conservatism who might want to use specific names to refer to people acting stupidly, or in ways that are destructive to themselves and America.

The Left is fearless in its language usage and telling people on the Right what they really think about us.  Talking about a “fairness doctrine”, why should we not have the same equal rights as the Left has when it comes to name calling?  Why does the Left get special rights while all we seem to get is made to apologize?

Related articles
Posted in Freedom of Speech, politics and tagged , , , , , , , , , ,
03 Mar 2012
7 Comments

Can’t Afford Contraception? Blame Obama And Democrats – And Help Save Sandra Fluke

Republicans and conservatives are not not the enemy when it comes to the high cost of birth control and contraception in America, and Republicans and conservatives are just as happy to make birth control and contraception as cheap and as affordable to all Americans as it can be.  It is Barack Obama and the Democrat Party that is standing in the way of achieving this.  They are the ones that have drastically raised taxes and regulations on all manufacturers, including those manufacturers which make birth control and contraception.

It is Obama and the Democrat Party which is standing in the way of women, like Sandra Fluke, and preventing her from realizing equality and independence through cheap birth control and contraception.  And when Obama called Sandra to console and commiserate with her, she should have taken the opportunity to scold him for his lack of foresight and concern into these deep matters – Obama’s doing – which have seen the cost of birth control and contraception skyrocket in America since he took office.  American women, like Sandra, who are consumed with acts of nymphomania are being forced to slake that lust because of Obama and his draconian and sinister tax policies, which hurts American nymphomaniacs like Sandra Fluke.

Sandra, who supposedly has a mind of her own (the rest of her body she apparently has given away to many different men) ought to have taken the opportunity to chide Obama directly, and inform him that his tax policies on American business has had a devastating effect on woman, like her, all across America who now cannot have as much sex as they had wanted and so desperately need.  Sandra should have made the same type of impassioned plea for lowering taxes and regulations on American business as she made to congress for lowering the overall value, worth and standard of American women.

Sandra ought to have been insistent and firm with Obama that the fault for her having to limit her sexual escapades is his fault directly.  It is Barack Obama who owes Sandra Fluke the apology.  The mental anguish for which he has caused her, for having to reduce and curb her sexual romps has turned Sandra into the quivering, emotional, incoherent, unstable, blithering idiot we have seen over and over again in many different video feeds.

Raising taxes on business has many consequences.  For nymphomaniacs, like Sandra Fluke, we are finding out just how dire the results of Obama’s oppressive assault on them has been.  For all nymphomaniacs, like Sandra fluke, for all sex addicts and sex junkies, like Sandra Fluke, there can only be one recourse – that is to vote Republican in the 2012 election.  Obama has already stated he intends to raise taxes even higher on Americans business. This will cause American nymphomaniacs, like Sandra Fluke, to go into convulsions, for they will be forced to reduce their sexual appetites ever more, and starve themselves, becoming anorexic in their abstinence.

Their withdrawal will be tough, and may lead many nymphomaniacs to seek spiritual guidance to help them overcome the loss of what is most precious to them.  Nymphomaniacs, like Sandra Fluke, may even have to resort to their worst nightmare – monogamy and a monogamous relation with one man, one person with which to share the rest of their lives.

And when the Occupy Wall Street crowd talks about all those “evil” and “greedy one percenters” they have also included, probably unknowingly, all the millionaires who have gotten rich off the manufacturing and sale of birth control and contraception consumed by tens of millions of Americans, including nymphomaniacs like Sandra Fluke, every year; and, according to “The Iron-ing Lady, Nancy Pelosi, 98% of Catholic women.  For the sake of Sandra Fluke, and all nymphomaniacs, Occupy Wall Street protesters ought to go to the White House and sit upon the lawn and refuse not to budge until Obama lowers taxes on American businesses so that Sandra Fluke, and all nymphomaniacs, can go back to living the only lifestyle they know.

If American nymphomaniacs, like Sandra Fluke, cannot afford the cost of birth control and contraception now, how can they afford it after Obama has raised taxes on the manufacturers of birth control and contraception even higher.than it is now?  It’s imperative that the word be spread to all nymphomaniacs, like Sandra Fluke, across America – vote Republican in 2012.  It’s your only option for seeing the cost of birth control and contraception coming back down to more affordable levels.

What will happen, should Obama be reelected, and he raise taxes on American businesses, as he has firmly stated he would?  What becomes of Sandra Fluke, after Obama is reelected?  How can Sandra Fluke lead a normal life as a nymphomaniac if she is being deprived her wanton desires by Barack Obama and the Democrat Party?

We, as Americans, cannot allow this to happen.  Vote Republican.  Will we do that, at least, for Sandra Fluke?

Related articles
Posted in 2012 election, contraception, healthcare, politics and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,
03 Mar 2012
4 Comments

Why Sandra Fluke Matters, And Why Her Bizarre Statements Hurts Feminism, Not Helps

Sandra Fluke has managed to epitomize both the Left in America and liberal feminism to an extent no conservative could.  She is a poster child for all that is modern day feminism, and all it will ever be.  That is not a compliment, by the way.  What Sandra epitomizes is the shallowness, and the filthiest, the most corroded, corrosive elements of feminism and liberalism.

She has done to herself what, if any conservative had attempted to parody, would be considered the lowest, meanest, dirtiest, most rotten and vicious attack on feminism and liberalism (and women), and what any feminist would label as sexist, anti-woman and misogyny – and she did it to herself in front of congress, and the American people. Sandra has shown herself, a feminist, as a scatter-brained twit and airhead with little to no real cognizant understanding of the real world. Or, in the real world, do the American people really want to pay for her to have all the sex she wants?

Sandra’s testimony has become one of the lowest of low points in feminism, and whether Sandra is the best feminism has to offer, there are no other feminists who have stepped forward to dispute and/or refute Sandra’s wild testimony.  And while all manner of liberals are coming to her aid, including Barack Obama, and offering words of encouragement and support to a young woman who has embarrassed herself, liberalism, feminism and Georgetown University, which has obviously done a very poor job at educating Sandra on how to effectively debate a point of view, very little coverage within the MSM is given to the fact that Sandra has made a public spectacle and fool of herself and of feminism.  She hasn’t done much for her own gender either.  But at least there are a number, and a significant number at that, of conservative women who do denounce Sandra.

Sandra has not yet detracted from her basic thesis that she deserves to have free contraception given to her because she cannot afford to pay for it herself.  Sandra, as an adult woman, has gone before congress, sat down and belched out a teary-eyed story of how difficult it is for her to engage in as much sex as she wants because she cannot access the amount of contraception she needs in order to satisfy and fulfill her sexual pleasures. College, Sandra says, is draining her financial resources so heavily that she is forced to curb her sexual appetite.  This really matters to Sandra, to many of her female friends at Georgetown, and to all liberal feminists.  Sex, and having sex, is more important to Sandra that anything else in her life.

Sandra also testifies that she is not alone; that there are other girls at her college who are having trouble purchasing contraception.  She even talked of one girl who had to walk away from a prescription counter because the price of the contraception, which this particular girl thought would be much lower, was more expensive, and more money than she had at the time.  Sandra talked about this girl, and the tragedy this girl was forced to endure, having to walk away from that counter and having to go back to her boyfriend (or whoever she was going to have sex with at the time) and explain to him that sex would be delayed, perhaps indefinitely.  It might have been priceless to see his reaction to the news he wasn’t “getting any”.

To Sandra, a liberal feminist, it is an outrage that she cannot be provided with as much free contraception as she wants.  This, apparently, is her reason, her only reason, for going to Georgetown University – a Jesuit college which does not provide on-campus contraception to its student body.  Sandra had hoped she could change that.  Sandra hoped that by testifying in front of congress she could expose the seedy underbelly of Georgetown University and its cold, anti-sex, anti-contraception outlook.  Sandra had hoped she could make a difference in her life, and the lives all the girls who attend Georgetown, and all the other nymphomaniacs who want, who need, sex but who cannot access the free contraception they need due to the stingy, niggardly, miserly attitude of the faculty at Georgetown University.

Sandra is an important reminder to all of us who love our daughters, and want our daughters to grow up to be real women, and real women of courage, valor, merit, and independence.  Sandra is important, and Sandra matters, because she shows us all what happens when we fail as parents and when we fail our daughters as parents.  Sandra matters because she is a wake up call to all of us with daughters who are soon to be off to college and must have the stamina and the fortitude to make decisions, to make the right decisions, for themselves.

Sandra reminds us all, as parents, that although our daughters will inevitably make mistakes along the way, if we have raised them right, if we have instilled within them a proper outlook and perspective on life and the real world, they will be able to amend those mistakes which they will make and carry on.  Sandra matters because she is a clear example of what happens when we neglect our daughters and their upbringing.  Sandra matters because there are millions of young girls on the edge of graduating high school, and while it is too late for Sandra, there is yet time for us, as parents, to prevent our daughters from making the calamitous fool of themselves as Sandra has done.

Sandra matters because she speaks for liberal feminism, and therefore expresses and exposes what liberal feminism really is, which is exceedingly base and depraved, void of morals, and replete with women, young and aged, who are more apt to snivel and feeling sorry for themselves, and blame a male dominated society for all their troubles and sorrows than blame themselves for what has gone wrong in their lives.

Sandra matters because she is the face of modern-day liberal feminism, whose ideas on birth control and contraception (and free access to it paid for by taxpayers), and on abortion are all driven by their mad lust for sex, and their need to equally compete for as much free sex as their male counterparts do.  That is why Sandra addressed congress, and why she compelled them to uphold the contraception mandate which would provide free birth control and contraception to sexually active girls like her.  Sandra’s entire thesis is that free contraception levels the playing field, and makes that playing field more equal.  And without free contraception, Sandra, all sexually active girls, are being deprived of not only a basic human need, but of equality and independence itself.  Without free contraception, argues Sandra, she and all young women will remain subservient to men because men do not get pregnant and do not share in the consequences of being pregnant.  Sandra argues that this is unfair, and the only way to make it fair is for her to be provided with free contraception.

Sandra matters because she reminds us that when we do fail as parents to instill in our daughters morals and ethics with regards to sex and our bodies, our daughters will grow up and becomes the next “Sandra Flukes”.  Sandra matters because it might one day be our daughter sitting before congress and making an absolute fool of herself in front of the entire nation.

Parents have many nightmares about sending their children off to college.  Should we have to worry about that as well?

Related articles
Posted in healthcare, politics, silly laws, women's rights and tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,
02 Mar 2012
5 Comments

And The Release Date Of Sandra Fluke’s Sex Tapes Will Be…

If Sandra’s performance before congress was any indication of how well she would perform what it is she advocated before congress, then don’t expect much from those sex tapes Rush Limbaugh mentioned in passing she ought to release to the public.  They probably would be as unwatchable, and as embarrassing, as was her performance testifying before congress on why the contraception mandate ought not be overruled.   Her reason, again, for those of you who still don’t understand, is that because she and others cannot afford the cost of the contraception themselves – that is, with the amount of times they are having sex, which is, apparently, a lot more than their parents would want to know, and that, now, we all are aware of – Sandra has made an impassioned plea for the taxpayers to cover the cost of her nymphomania.  Is it asking too much to sneak a look?  Or is it one of those “you get what you pay for” moments?

Do we blame Sandra entirely for her childish antics, or do we allow that she has, in part, been thoroughly brainwashed by the Left and liberal feminism that she can no longer think rationally?  Do we feel sorry for her at all, or do we continue to deride her, satirize her and find the humor in her shortcomings?  Do we just laugh off Sandra’s silliness, or do we become angry and enraged, because we know there are millions of other Sandra Fluke’s out there who feel they too are, and ought to be, entitled to something for nothing; something free that someone else must pay for?  Do you know there are millions of Americans who feel just as entitled as Sandra to receive something for free (and not just contraception) from the government?

One might observe that with virtually the entire nation struggling to make ends meet right now, sex would be the furthest thing from our minds.  But if you happen to be a teenager who is having everything paid for you; your college tuition, your dorm expenses, your food, clothing, etc, you probably don’t have a real sense of what is actually going on in America with the economy if someone else is paying your bills.  And if someone else is paying your bills, if someone else has always paid your bills throughout your life, and that is what you are accustomed to, then naturally you would expect someone else to pick up the check even for your most intimate of needs.

Sandra Fluke, if she has accomplished or done anything of merit, has highlighted a situation in our country that conservatives have been warning would happen, and was happening for a long time.  Namely, our children are receiving an abysmal education in America, thanks to liberalism and those liberals who have infiltrated and influenced the public school system and dramatically changed and altered it into something incongruous to what it was intended to be.

Our children have been brainwashed into believing that government is only there, only exists, to take care of us all and to provide free hand outs to us.  Children are also taught that when and if government cannot provide things to us, it is because “evil” Republicans and conservatives are preventing the necessary extra “revenues” from reaching government that are needed to fund the programs and services that create all the goodies and free hand outs people have come to expect from their government.

Whatever education Sandra received before she reached Georgetown University taught and instilled within her the idea that it was American to be selfish and greedy, and to expect that others would take care of her; that she could go through her life without worrying about whether she could afford the cost of her lifestyle because someone, some entity, would be there to cover the difference.  Sandra grew up believing there were no limits being placed on her way of life, nor should there ever be.  Sandra grew up believing that, rather than becoming a strong, intelligent and independent thinking woman, she was to be, and to remain, a weak and soft sponge-like leech, dependent on others, including government, to take care of her and her needs.  Sandra was taught, in essence, to never grow up.

Sandra Fluke has certainly gotten her fifteen minutes of fame, and then some.  Perhaps that is fifteen minutes too many for this brash upstart who would sincerely have us believe she, and everyone else, is entitled to free contraception because she, and they, have an abnormal sexual appetite that presumably cannot be controlled.  And because she, and they, cannot afford the cost of all the sex that is, also presumably, being consumed, Sandra – because of how she was educated, and what she was educated to believe – sincerely cannot understand why anyone would be so hostile to her position that government (i.e., the taxpayer) pay for her to have sex.

Considering the fact that, to date, Sandra has not yet seen the error of her ways, has not realized her gaffe, has not deduced with whatever brain matter she has left in her head that the public educational system hasn’t stirred into mush, we can safely assume Sandra Fluke is sticking to her story that because she cannot afford the price of contraception herself, she deserves to have it given to her for free, paid for by the taxpayers, so she can continue having all the sex she wants, without consequences.

It gives a whole new meaning to contraception mandate – that is if you take mandate and split it apart so that contraception mandate comes to mean contraception + man = date.

Was that the real “contraception mandate” Sandra was pleading for?

Related articles
Posted in healthcare, politics and tagged , , , , , , , ,
01 Mar 2012
6 Comments

Sandra Fluke: Call Her A Slut, Call Her Round-Heeled – But Don’t Call Her As A Credible Source Of Information

Sandra Fluke is the young “lady” at the center of so much controversy surrounding her blunt testimony about the “need” for birth control and contraception, and why we the taxpayers ought to pay for it, and for her and anyone else to have as much sex as they want.  The issue is not whether or not Sandra ought to be having sex – from a moral point of view she shouldn’t.  Never mind that, for the moment.

Sandra is complaining that the cost of contraception is preventing her from having sex, and others as well.  Rather than take on a second job, presuming she has one job under her belt already, she is addressing lawmakers on Capitol Hill in an attempt to sway them (we the taxpayer) into paying for her promiscuity and sexual escapades.  The crux of her testimony is that she is being denied as many sexual encounters as she wants because she cannot afford the cost of the contraception for each individual encounter.  So, what to do about that?

That anyone would be offended when Sandra is rightfully called a slut shows how much we have devolved as Americans.  Would anyone have sat before congress fifty years ago and cried to its members about how unfair it is that with contraception being so expensive, having sex has become a luxury few can afford?  Of course not.  And although there were women of ill repute back then, they at least had sense enough not to air their dirty laundry to members of congress.

Sandra is no role model – or is she?  Would you want your daughter to emulate Sandra?  Would you hope your son would fall in love with a Sandra Fluke?  Just how many sexual encounters, and with how many partners, does Sandra desire to be with before she gets married?  Well, if we have to pay for her contraception, we have a right to know all the details, don’t we?

You might be asking, what was Sandra even doing at this hearing?  This was a hearing, after-all, on Obama’s contraception mandate – a law that would force Catholic and religious institutions to provide birth control, contraception, and pregnancy ended services against their moral and religious values and convictions.  Sandra was denied a seat in an earlier hearing.  This was then a make-up, for Sandra.  So – should religious institutions be forced to pay for contraception because some of its students are hornier than others, and their extra-curricular activities are draining their wallets?

Sandra is making a mess of “women’s rights”, and she probably doesn’t even know it.  Her arrogance, her condescending attitude showed America that liberal feminists are weak, pathetic and small-minded; the lack of anything remotely intelligent in her argument showed America that liberal feminists are not smart enough to debate, and when they do they revert back into playing the victim card.  In other words, it’s not Sandra’s fault she can’t afford the cost of contraception – it’s the high cost of college tuition which is draining her bank account.  If only the “evil” Republicans would give her more grant money for college, and if only “evil” Republicans would give her money for contraception, she could afford the high tuition costs and have all the sex she wanted.  But because Republican lawmakers, who are predominately male, hate Sandra because she is a woman, Sandra is therefore forced to succumb to the terrible burden of either having to pay for her own contraception, or to give up some of the sex she thought she had a Constitutional right to have, and to have the taxpayer pay for.

This is how liberal feminists think.  They had it real easy in the 90’s under Bill Clinton.  Since then, their fantasy world has come crashing down upon them as waves and waves of new conservatives win in local, state and national elections across America, and begin to implement common sense legislation – like paying for ones own contraception and not demanding taxpayers pay for it, or forcing religious institutions into becoming pimps.

What else has changed, which may be a shock to Sandra, and all liberal feminists, is how much more difficult it is for them to simply shout “women’s rights”, or “women’s health” or “right to privacy” and have everyone fall into line behind them.  Because when they bring up such slogans, what they are really talking about is abortion and the killing of an unborn child – and America is wise to their shenanigans.  At least, wiser than say ten or fifteen years ago.

Liberal feminists are not talking about, not fighting for, contraception which is intended to prevent a pregnancy from occurring.  Liberal feminists want the contraception which ends the pregnancy after it has resulted and a human being has been created.  There is a vast and fundamental difference between the two kinds of contraception, and it is for the latter liberal feminists are demanding taxpayers pay for, and religious institutions cover and provide services for against their religious convictions.  Nobody is trying to take away birth control or contraception which is intended to prevent a pregnancy.  But one would never know that listening to the MSM, or getting their news from HuffPost, Daily Kos, or any liberal media outlet which reports propaganda rather than facts.

As much of a flout and a floozy as Sandra is, Sandra Fluke was the best liberal feminists could do.  If all she could come up with as to why the contraception mandate is a good thing, and why it ought to remain law, is so she can engage in as much free sex as she wants, and not have to pay a penny for it, or for the abortions – what does that tell you about the state of liberal feminism in 2012?

Related articles
Posted in abortion, contraception, healthcare, politics and tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Post Navigation