We Need Government Provided Cough Drops
Mar 15, 2012 Political
We need this to prevent sore throats and suppress coughs. There are a lot more of folks in need of this than government provided birth control. And, as you all know (wink, wink) it costs $3000 a year for cough drops.
Looks like the guy wises up at the end and decides to buy his own.
There is a message in there somewhere…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: birth control, cough drops, government mandate, sandra fluke
A Tale Of Two Slut Victims
Mar 6, 2012 Political
Sandra Fluke, the 30 year old activist masquerading as a student, was labeled a slut by Rush Limbaugh. She claimed (even said “as you know”) that birth control costs $3000 for three years and that women in school could not afford it. I have already done the math and she would have to have sex 28 times a day to use that much money worth of condoms and she could buy pills for 28 years with that much money, so she lied. I would say she was misinformed but she is an activist. If she told people what it really cost then they would laugh her out of the place. She needed to make it a great number to excuse the violation of the First Amendment.
Limbaugh simply pointed out that we have names for women who want to be paid for sex or who would have sex as many times as required to use $3000 in birth control (in three years).
The left has come unhinged and is calling for Limbaugh’s sponsors to pull their ads. Some of them have and the left is pushing for the rest of them to do so. The reason has nothing to do with the so called war on women. The left couldn’t care less about Fluke. The real issue is the desire to get Limbaugh off the air. The left has been working to drive him off the air for years and now it is all ginned up over a phony issue.
Phony? How dare you Big Dog? Well, it is phony. The left has plenty of figures who call women all kinds of names. They are called c*nts, bitches, sluts, bimbos, and who knows what else? Bill Maher, David Letterman, and Ed Schultz have all used such language toward women and have suffered no ill effects. At least one of Limbaugh’s sponsors (Carbonite) still runs ads on Schultz’s show. Of course, the guy running it is a supporter of the left. He donates to liberals and to organizations run by George Soros, the same Soros who wants Limbaugh off the air.
Have you heard about any boycotts? Have you heard anyone call for companies to remove ads from these shows? Have you heard the left get its collective pink panties in a bunch about any of this?
No and you won’t because the women who were attacked are conservatives. Like I said, they don’t care about women, just ideology.
Laura Ingram even tells us that while the gaggle at The View is apoplectic over the words Limbaugh used Barbara Walters laughed off the same word used against Ingram. Ha, ha. It would seem Schultz’s apology, which was accepted by Ingram, was good enough for the hens at The View but Limbaugh (who apologized) is not sincere and needs to go.
This is a war on conservative talk. Limbaugh is the big target and the left is employing Saul Alinsky’s tactics from Rules for Radicals in order to get him.
Perhaps it will work, perhaps not. But so far Limbaugh seems to be doing OK.
And Carbonite’s stock is down 8% as of this writing.
Further more, we should be focused on Obama’s record and the needs of the country.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: apology, birth control, lies, phony charges, Rush Limbaugh, sandra fluke, saul alinsky, sex, slut
If You Want Birth Control You Should Pay Something For It
Jan 20, 2012 Political
Barack Obama has ordered all insurance providers to provide birth control with no costs and no co-pays. It is dubbed as free birth control but it is not free. The people who pay insurance premiums will see their rates rise and those who don’t use birth control (for whatever reason) will pay for a service for others. It is not free no matter what any moron in government says.
Houses of worship are exempt but religious based hospitals and heath care providers have a one year delay before they must comply even if it goes against their beliefs.
I have heard the arguments about a woman’s right and I am sick of hearing it. Yes, birth control is legal and women have a right to use it. That is where their right ends. What right do they have to pay nothing for it? What right do they have that requires others to pay for their medication?
People have to pay co-pays for just about everything and some of the costs to the patients are not cheap. Why is it that women have to pay absolutely nothing for birth control? People who need medications to live (inhalers, blood pressure, heart, etc.) all have to pay something for their medication.
Women though, pay absolutely nothing for a medication that is not needed to live. It is not life saving and it is not vital for existence.
I know that part of this is Obama pandering to women prior to the election but this goes much deeper. It involves more of the same regarding pitting people against each other and infringing upon religious institutions. Obama has no regard for religion and he has no regard for the idea of responsibility.
He thinks that we should all be paying for the stuff others get and this has got to stop.
You want birth control pills, abortions, aroma therapy or any other thing then pay for it yourself.
We are not our brother’s keepers and it is high time we put this man child in his place.
November cannot come soon enough.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: birth control, insurance, lies, Obama, religion, socialism, welfare
Look At All The Pretty People
Jul 16, 2009 Political
The arguments about “Universal Healthcare” continue to swirl around Capital Hill, all without the main point being uttered, and that point is Eugenics.
Eugenics is the study and application of a form of population control that came into vogue in the 1920s with the ‘Progressive” movement- yes, the same people we call Liberals today have the same basic beliefs in population control, especially with respect to “undesirable” people.
Sounds kind of Nazi- like, doesn’t it? Well, that is because the Nazis learned it from people like Woodrow Wilson, and Margaret Sanger, the “Mother” of Birth Control, and the founder of Planned Parenthood.
Margaret Sanger, the Saint of Planned Parenthood, advocated beliefs that were not dissimilar to those of my twisted teach. The fabled women’s rights activist was all about negative eugenics – meaning making sure ”social misfits” and other undesirables never got the chance to repulse the right people, by making sure they never got born.
“Birth control,” she declared in 1923, “is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, or preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives.” Her mission: to stop ”keeping alive thousands who never, in all human compassion, should have been brought into this world.”
Sanger was ambitious. She actively advocated for sterilization of the great unwashed – the “feeble-minded, insane… deaf, deformed and dependent,” including “orphans, ne’er-do-wells, tramps, the homeless and paupers.” Talk about a hard knock life.
bighollywood.breitbart.com
She was and is not the only one who felt this way about the various parts of our society, you know, the parts that Liberals like to bus to the polls to vote for them, and then never see in public again? Yea, those people. Hillary Clinton says she proudly calls herself a “New Progressive”, and the liberal Democrats are trying their best to re- brand themselves as “Progressives”, as it seems as if “Liberal” has a negative connotation. Oh really? More negative than “Nazi”?
“I hated the wretchedness and hopelessness of the poor,” Sanger wrote, “and never experienced that satisfaction in working among them that so many noble women have found.” Indeed, her whole life seems to have been spent rebelling against the devout Roman Catholicism of her parents; Sanger’s mother got pregnant a whopping 18 times (which probably explains a lot).
Yes, thanks to Sanger’s one-woman crusade, 8300 people were sterilized in the state of Virginia alone. Her most famous casualty was a young rape victim named Carrie Buck, whose tubes were ultimately cut – against her will – because she was allegedly promiscuous and mentally “challenged” with a rocky family history. “Three generations of imbeciles are enough,” Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously wrote of the case. Snip snip.
bighollywood.breitbart.com
There we go, with even Oliver Wendell Holmes, the noted Jurist, taking sides on behalf of the People police. The sad truth, though, is that this isn’t just past history, a sorry episode in our past, but will be revived with the commencement of “Universal Healthcare”, as our loving government will put a price on treatment, and if you do not fit in their criteria, you will die, plain and simple.
You will have been judged to not be worth the cost.
Rationing health care means getting value for the billions we are spending by setting limits on which treatments should be paid for from the public purse. If we ration we won’t be writing blank checks to pharmaceutical companies for their patented drugs, nor paying for whatever procedures doctors choose to recommend. When public funds subsidize health care or provide it directly, it is crazy not to try to get value for money. The debate over health care reform in the United States should start from the premise that some form of health care rationing is both inescapable and desirable. Then we can ask, What is the best way to do it?
Last year Britain’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence gave a preliminary recommendation that the National Health Service should not offer Sutent for advanced kidney cancer. The institute, generally known as NICE, is a government-financed but independently run organization set up to provide national guidance on promoting good health and treating illness. The decision on Sutent did not, at first glance, appear difficult. NICE had set a general limit of £30,000, or about $49,000, on the cost of extending life for a year. Sutent, when used for advanced kidney cancer, cost more than that, and research suggested it offered only about six months extra life. But the British media leapt on the theme of penny-pinching bureaucrats sentencing sick people to death. The issue was then picked up by the U.S. news media and by those lobbying against health care reform in the United States. An article in The New York Times last December featured Bruce Hardy, a kidney-cancer patient whose wife, Joy, said, “It’s hard to know that there is something out there that could help but they’re saying you can’t have it because of cost.” Then she asked the classic question: “What price is life?”
nytimes.com
Great question- What price is life? I guess that depends on the person, but shouldn’t that not be the government’s decision? I can say that yes, the system needs fixing, but I certainly do not want the government to decide who lives and who dies.
With the criteria that proponents of Eugenics would apply, Stephen Hawking would never have been kept alive to postulate his theories on black holes or string theory- he would have been killed, if not actively, than by neglect, because the government cannot quantify potential.
When a Washington Post journalist asked Daniel Zemel, a Washington rabbi, what he thought about federal agencies putting a dollar value on human life, the rabbi cited a Jewish teaching explaining that if you put one human life on one side of a scale, and you put the rest of the world on the other side, the scale is balanced equally. Perhaps that is how those who resist health care rationing think. But we already put a dollar value on human life. If the Department of Transportation, for example, followed rabbinical teachings it would exhaust its entire budget on road safety. Fortunately the department sets a limit on how much it is willing to pay to save one human life. In 2008 that limit was $5.8 million. Other government agencies do the same. Last year the Consumer Product Safety Commission considered a proposal to make mattresses less likely to catch fire. Information from the industry suggested that the new standard would cost $343 million to implement, but the Consumer Product Safety Commission calculated that it would save 270 lives a year — and since it valued a human life at around $5 million, that made the new standard a good value. If we are going to have consumer-safety regulation at all, we need some idea of how much safety is worth buying. Like health care bureaucrats, consumer-safety bureaucrats sometimes decide that saving a human life is not worth the expense. Twenty years ago, the National Research Council, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, examined a proposal for installing seat belts in all school buses. It estimated that doing so would save, on average, one life per year, at a cost of $40 million. After that, support for the proposal faded away. So why is it that those who accept that we put a price on life when it comes to consumer safety refuse to accept it when it comes to health care?
nytimes.com
Because miracles do happen- people do come out of comas, overcome handicaps, and become inspirations to us all. Because we are a nation of lost causes, and we love the underdog.
Just because the “Progressives”, the Nazis in our society do not want to look at the great unwashed, the less than perfect members of our society, should not give them the right to say that these people haven’t the right to live. This began with the “Pro- Choice” movement, where they can kill off the smallest, most defenseless members of our society, but now they are putting a price on everyone’s life, and that is just plain wrong.
That should be everyone’s personal choice alone- certainly not some snooty governmental watchdog’s.
This is not about creating a master race, or getting rid of the undesirables, but something just as sinister- getting rid of people who cost too much.
This is all about dollars.
Not so much about sense.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: birth control, eugenics, human cultivation, rationing