Rachel Maddow: Republican Hypocrisy on Contraception Issue

Rachel Maddow: Hypocrisy be damned, Republicans milk contraception issue:

Maddow is right, there's hypocrisy in the air on this. However, she does miscommunicate some of the sound bytes, surveys. For instance, she mentions a survey made about the pre-change and current bill for contraceptives and who supported it and by how much. That survey was only conducted in NYC, one of the more liberal cities out there. I think that's important to note. I support the availability of contraceptives, but not for grade school children. One area that was heinously bent by Ms. Maddow was Santorum's comment in his web interview in 2006. He said, and I paraphrase, that contraceptives lead to doing what ever one wants sexually. Yes his overall context does lead one to see that he is only about natural prevention (i.e. abstaining, early pull-out, etc). But he's not wrong either, regarding the reduction of inhibition in sexual activity when one is using contraceptives. Ugh, bottom line, I think it should be left up to the employer, company, etc if they cover contraceptives in their insurance policy. They would have to be very upfront with the people about what they will or won't cover. But this will not cause insurance coverage to begin denying every vaccine or any service at whim. Simply put, government should back out of it. It should be a non-issue and not discussed among presidential candidates.

SOTU 2012 - An Patriot's Analysis

Per Article II, Section 3, of the Constitution of the United States, the President,

“...shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient...„

From Thomas Jefferson until Woodrow Wilson these addresses were written; but during and after Wilson the President has addressed Congress in person each January after they have convened for a joint session.

If you've not had a chance to watch or read Mr. Obama's 2012 State of the Union (SOTU) address, I urge you to do so prior to reading further.

Marino Introduces One Subject at a Time Act | Congressman Thomas Marino

Finally a Representative who gets it and is working for something I think has been desperately needed! If/when this gets signed into law, the next step ought to be limited the number of laws Congress can pass in a specific time period. Why do I think that's important? Because they are making our law books so huge that no one can learn it or understand it all, not to mention it creates the probability of more and greater loopholes! End the madness, I say!!

Marino Introduces One Subject at a Time Act | Congressman Thomas Marino:

'via Blog this'

Hooray for Thomas!

I've read the articles, both in support of and demonizing Thomas. I have this to say, should you care to listen. There was no fanfare in Thomas's address regarding why he opted not to visit the White House with his Bruins family. Nothing glitzy, no snide remarks, no disrespect for the President or the office thereof. He simply stated,

"...Federal government has grown out of control, threatening the Rights, Liberties, and Property of the People." 

Boston Bruins goalie, Tim Thomas

He went on to call out both big parties and their childish politics saying,

"... in my opinion both parties are responsible for the situation we are in as a country." 

And guess what; he's absolutely right! I is irrelevant how you feel about anyone who's held the Office of the President, sat in the Senate, or served in the House. The gripe, the argue, the banter, they bitch, they whine, but they haven't gotten anything of substance accomplished for decades!

However, for me, the clincher; the part that cemented him in my heart as a real American Patriot was this statement regarding the threats to rights, liberties and the peoples' property,

"This is in direct opposition to the Constitution and the Founding Fathers vision for the Federal government."

BINGO! Take some time and learn what Mr. Thomas means here. Read "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution" by Kevin R.C. Gutzman. But more importantly, read the Constitution and do so with an understanding that in the 1700s, a state was on the same level group as what we call a country today. That is, our state of Virginia was a State, equal on the global scale as Spain or Germany or China or Russia! We are a republic, but more so we are a federation of States!

See the official NHL press bit on NHL.com.


More Resources:
"Bruins MVP Tim Thomas skips..." by Greg Wyshynski (Yahoo! Sports)
"Tim Thomas: Liberty’s Most Valuable Player" by Publius (BigGovernment.com)
"Tim Thomas and the Obama snub..." by Patrik Jonsson (The Christian Science Monitor)

Against religious rights? - Fox News Video - Fox News

Against religious rights? - Fox News Video - Fox News:

The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." No one can doubt the violation by this administration on requiring religious organizations to pay for insurance covering those "services" that violate their beliefs! PERIOD!

Why not Mitt?

So, I've been studying the records and standing of our illustrious Republican candidates for President. Yet, what I found most disturbing is the flocking of people to what are potential disasters as President. Please keep in mind that it's not my intent to sway you toward any one candidate. Rather, I wish to give you things to consider as you make your choice on who gets your vote.

Today, I ask why you may want to reconsider a vote for Willard "Mitt" Romney. It's simple really, on two counts. First, Mr. Romney is a politician! I don't mean that he's been a Governor, he's a politician in every sense of the word. A simple Google search of the word provides the following: A person who acts in a manipulative and devious way, typically to gain advancement. Naturally, the most accepted definition is actually someone professionally involved in politics. (Click here for reference). Like most candidates, Romney has manipulated the wording and appearance of his decisions as Governor of Massachusetts. He quickly and easily rationalizes his flip-flopping record on various issues. So the problem here is that if you are one of the many Americans screaming that politicians are through, that they should be ousted from Congress or the Oval Office and replaced with real Americans providing us with real representation, then Romney is not your man.

Second, but closely related, Romney claims he's conservative, but then moderate, but then back again; oh wait, moderate. What? Indecisive for one; lukewarm for the other. I would rather the man come out and state he's a solid left-wing liberal, than claim himself a moderate anything. Why? Because lukewarm sucks! You never really know where a lukewarm person stands. Everything about being moderate screams HELL NO to me. In the definition of that word you find things like "average" and "less" (as in the lower end of any given spectrum). To be fair, some synonyms (but not words in the definition) are sober, temperate, and reasonable. Not necessarily bad adjectives, but you have to consider the man's record along with the word. He doesn't fit those last three.

I ask you, do you want another politician representing your interests from the Oval Office? Do you really want a lukewarm, uh, whatever he is in that big chair? I don't. I want a President with some guts and gusto, who will stand boldly for this country and defend us, not apologize for us (Mr. Obama)! Pick a side of the left-right spectrum and stick to it! That said, I'll caveat with this closing, I don't want and extreme nut in office either.

What say you America?

Pre-Constitutional Rights...huh?

I read Downsize DC periodically as their articles are interesting if nothing else, but was dismayed today at their lack of true understanding and patriotism! In a recent editorial entitled, Our Lexicon: "Pre-Constitutional Rights", they start with a good explanation of the historical start of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Here they discuss that all this preceded the government we now have. They also briefly state, as those vital documents do, that certain rights, many rights, are inalienable. True enough, as God's creation, He says the same in His Word. Anyway, I'll get to the point. The article quickly shifts and states that "...this next part may bother you..."

I say, if you're a Patriot, it damn well better bother you! They go into a spiel about how those rights, being inalienable to all humans, are provided regardless of your citizenship. What? I don't think so. I agree in a small part, which I alluded to earlier. As humans, God's children, we have rights that He gave us from the start...think free will. And those rights are for all. However, when a nation uses a document as its foundation for government and thus the supreme LAW of its land, those laws in regards to protection are vital as retained for the LAWFUL citizens of that country. Those who break the laws are willfully giving up certain rights. Therefore, those who enter America illegally are forfeiting some of those protections, while at the same time having to accept that they now going to suffer the consequences of breaking the law.

I know, it's a bit dicey. I will do more research and thinking on this and get back to you as soon as I can! For those that read this blog and are not all to fond of what they think is any amount of inhumanity from me because I do not support keeping illegal immigrants in the country and providing them a fast/easy path to citizenship, let me say this. I love them as human beings and believe that they have a right to live here, once they return to their country and use the legal processes we have in place. I even support keeping some of them in the country when evidence exists that they are personally being targeted in their native land and their life and livelihood are seriously and unlawfully threatened. Aside from that, everyone in the country, legal or not, must follow the rules and obey the laws, period!