Get Your Birth Control Here

The Progressives want to argue that the Hobby Lobby case is somehow about "access" to birth control.

As most reasonable observers have pointed out, this case was about abortion, not birth control.  The Hobby Lobby owners are not Catholic, and have no religious objections to birth control.  They object to abortion, and in the requirements as drafted by HHS (not Congress, mind you), were four "birth control" methods which are either abortion inducing (such as Plan B) or that prevented implantation of a fertilized egg.  16 other methods of birth control would remain in the HL provided insurance plan.  

So, there is absolutely NO attempt to deny women access to birth control by HL, nor the SCOTUS in their decision.  That is an outright lie promulgated by the Left.

Plus, I don't know if you spend any time at the pharmacy in your local Walgreens, but right there is usually, sold over the counter, Plan B and others of these methods.  To act as though the SCOTUS, HL, or any other of the conservative patriarchy is using this decision to deny easy access in a broader sense to even these methods of birth control is fatuous and another lie.

These are easily available.  

But I'll go so far as to say, even if HL's owners were devout Catholics and wanted to keep all methods of birth control out of their plan, they'd still have a winning case under RFRA. The hysterical Left would be out of control, but you'd still have the same answers as above - no one being denied their access to any of these means of preventing/ending pregnancy.

UPDATE: SCOTUS included this in their decision: http://news.yahoo.com/justices-act-other-health-law-mandate-cases-133633160--politics.html;_ylt=A0LEV0_Jw7JTfGsAwEJXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTB0aTRxYjk3BHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDQ2NF8x

Why, because you can still buy the stuff, and you always will be able to.

So, what's the final argument that has any merit whatsoever come to?

Who pays for it.  And that's what is even more subversive about Obamacare and the government takeover of the medical system.  As Justice Alito pointed out the conservatives want your employer and our government OUT of your vagina.  We want your decisions about birth control to be between you and your doctor, and we'd love it if you paid for it yourself.

What does the Progressive want?  They want to tell you every little thing you can do to and with your body, down to what BCP you use.

Quite honestly, Progressives will not be satisfied until every woman in America is using the birth control method they prescribe and has had at least one abortion.

Maybe you like that world.  If so, you're one of them.  

Enjoy!

Hobby Lobby Wins. Is it pyrrhic?

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby today in their case against the government to protect the owner's relgious freedom.  I am saddened that the ruling was won on a 5-4 count.  I find it amazing none of the 4 liberal judges could see their way to protect religious freedom and the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  A law passed with vast bipartisan majorities in both Houses of Congress and signed into law by the notorious #warrioronwomyn, Bill Clinton. Apparently, the liberal judges feel it's more important to play politics with religion than it is to protect it.

So, Democrats will try to make hay of this decision by claiming it's furthering a Republican #waronwomyn by denying the women who work for Hobby Lobby contraception, and they'll go on to claim that this decision denies all women the right to birth control, BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW THE GOP IS AGAINST BIRTH CONTROL AND JUST WANTS WOMEN TO HAVE BABIES AND STAY HOME AND COOK FOR THE PATRIARCHS.

You do know that, right?

What, you say, the decision doesn't actually do that?  That doesn't matter to the Liberals.  They were unable to read the Arizona RFRA changes that did nothing to promote discrimination against gays, and lied about that law until Jan Brewer vetoed it, and they won't speak the truth of this decision, either.  I can't blame them, because if people knew the truth, they'd really wonder why we were here in the first place.

The truth is this law permits Hobby Lobby to not include 4 abortifacients in their health plan, while still providing a benefit for birth control methods more commonly (much more commonly) used by women.  It is the abortifacients that the religious nuts at Hobby Lobby object to, and that's all.

But, as Mark Steyn points out today, the Left really pushes these things (like the Arizona law) because they are opposed to religious liberty.  Steyn correctly describes the administration's (and most Liberal's) view on this:

"In Obama's view, "religion" is fine for a once-a-week hymn-sing with a couple of scripture readings but it cannot inform your life. Leave it in the umbrella stand by the front door as you head off to work on Monday morning. There is literally no point to "religion" under this shrunken definition, as the Europeans have begun to figure out. Eventually, even that Sunday-morning private members' club gets opened up to the Bureau of Compliance. Breaking news from our friends across the pond:

Denmark Forces Churches To Conduct Gay Marriages

It would be interesting to read the headline "Denmark Forces Mosques To Conduct Gay Marriages", but that's probably what it's going to take to bring a halt to the shriveling space for religion in the public sphere."

IRS Hearings Today: Their Email Sucks

The IRS Comissioner, John Koskinen is up on the Hill tonight, testifying as to why they lost some thousands of Lois Lerner's emails.

Tonight I have learned that the government has some pretty screwed up information retention requirements, and that the IRS in general is about where the rest of America is in IT maturity.  Democrats want to make it clear that the IRS's email problems are not anything a few hundred million bucks couldn't fix.

I can empathize with the IRS's data retention problems.  They have massive volumes of email and like most businesses and organizations they have to manage that volume.  Server capacity and storage capacity is always a limited resource, so, they force their end users to save email locally (on their hard drives), which, apparently, in Lois Lerner's case, is what she did.

This, of course, coupled with users who do not back up their hard drives regularly, leads to crashes and loss of data.  That's what conviently happened to Lois Lerner.  Of course, the IRS is attempting to find all her emails by going through the email of those she may have sent them to, or been included on, and, with luck, they'll find most of them.

I have some questions:

1. Did Lois Lerner routinely back up her hard drive, which would have included the impacted emails?
2. What was IRS policy regarding the back-up of hard drives at the IRS?
3. If Lois Lerner's hard drive was backed up, what has become of that back-up, and why hasn't it been restored? What are the retention requirements for these back-ups? Are back up tapes re-used (as is common), or are they archived?
4. What exact efforts were made to retrieve the data off Ms. Lerner's hard drive, including forensic activity after it was not restored using traditional means?

While Dems mostly preened (although some pointed out the IRS largely followed their rules here), there were some other good points brought up:

1. Why did Mr. Koskinen not inform Congress immediately when emails under subpoena were learned to be lost?

2. Who informed Mr. Koskinen that the hard drive was dead and the emails lost? How was this communicated? It is completely unbelievable to me, and obviously to Republican members of the panel, that he could possibly not know the answer to this question.  He seems to have lost his memory on this and on the next question:

3. When did you learn the emails were lost? He claims it was "April"

It's not unreasonable to believe that Lois Lerner's hard drive failed and that it took email with it.  It's convenient timing, but it happens.  The response to it is a typical IT response and a typical user wanting all their crap back from a drive they know they shouldn't have been relying on.  I really see no fault there on the IRS's part,  except this is a particular agency we'd expect to be a little more careful in their data management.  

Al Gore - Dumber than Facebook Posters (you know who you are)

I admit, many years ago, I was enamored of Al Gore.  He seemed cool yet nerdy, and scientifically literate, and as a young, nascent engineer, it was refreshing to have a Senator of national prominence who could speak the language of science.

(He was also married to the music hating Tipper, and was pro-life, but that was before he had to appeal to national Democrats).

But, that was before I attempted to read Gore's "Earth in the Balance."

My first impression of Gore's pseudo-scientific tome was that it was unfootnoted, and my second impression was that it was unreadable drivel, filled with nonsensical science and conclusions.

It didn't help that Al rode a submarine to the Arctic with B-1 Bob Dornan and one of my best froends at the time, and the report was "Gore is the stupidest man alive, and B1 Bob was on him relentlessly."

Anyway, Al's out doing his usual schtick, blaming everything, including the Syrian civil war, on global warming.  

I kid you not:   See: http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/06/19/gore-blames-syria-civil-war-global-warming

The Goreacle, Full of Contradictions

In Al Gore's essay in Rolling Stone (no link, you can work for it), he says:

"Enough raw energy reaches the Earth from the sun in one hour to equal all of the energy used by the entire world in a full year."

Yet, this big, glowing energy ball has less impact on the climate than Mann's carbon burning.

Right.

But wait, there's more. Touting the awesomeness of solar power and how the costs have come down:

"Germany, Europe's industrial powerhouse, where renewable subsidies have been especially high, now generates 37 percent of its daily electricity from wind and solar."

So, he admits that solar is only competitive where subsidies are "especially high" as some sort of victory for solar?

Remarking on the closing of coal plants, he understates:

"To be sure, some of these closings have been due to the substitution of gas for coal."

Sure, Al, that would be most, or nearly all.  That, and the prohibitive cost to run coal plants due to government meddling.

These are just in the first few paragraphs of an essay as tedious to read as "Earth in the Balance."  Irony of ironies is Rolling Stone dared to link to an article about the "10 Dumbest Things Said Abiut Climate Change" in the midst of this stupidity and obfuscation.

It would be awesome if solar, wind, and nuclear (all carbon free energy sources) could safely replace fossil fuels in the electric grid.  Maybe they can,  I'd just like to see the government stop subsidizing the first two and lessen the restrictions on the latter (and more promising).

Meanwhile, it'd be great if Al Gore would just exit the stage.  

Please.

The Obama Crack-Up

Is the Obama administration less competent than even Jimmy Carter's?  

At least Carter negotiated the Camp David peace accord, which brought a semi-lasting peace to the Middle East, while the primary foreign policy accomplishment of the Obama admin would seem to be plunging areas of the world formerly secure into bloody civil wars (Ukraine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Australia). 

I guess we can always hope that Obama will see a crazed rabbit on the golf course.

Coldest January Ever? Not in California...

So where does Obama go to push his bogus "climate change" agenda?

Certainly not to any of the states east of the Mississippi who are suffering through some of the coldest January's in the last 120 years (http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2014/02/13/noaa-usa-january-67-januarys-were-warmer/).   

That wouldn't serve the purpose of "climate change."

Instead, he scurries off to California to decry the cyclical drought (see http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2014/01/19/drought-in-california-cool-pdo-and-warm-amo/) as caused by climate change (that means you and your dastardly SUV).  This despite the fact that California's water problems are also brought on by land use policies and water use policies designed to protect a tiny fish, the Delta Smelt, see http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/61219.  Obama himself vetoed legislation that could have spared California's Central Valley this problem.

Nothing like using climate change as a bogeyman for problems liberals created.

When these people tell you they are just trying to save the planet, tell them to stop.

Climate Change Fascism Redux. Or how i learned Bill Nye is a fake scientist.

I am so sick of the "climate change" religionists.  Their latest tactic is rolling out the decaying carcass of Bill Nye (the "Science Guy"), as though having a cartoonish buffoon who's legacy is explaining science to toddlers, is going to win the day for them.

See Nye taken down on the links here.

I have posted all over this blog, and there are links galore to articles debunking both the correlations and the strength of the correlations between man and "climate change."

A lot bothers me about those who hold this religious (and I mean that in the most derogatory sense possible) view that Man is responsible for all climate activity on this planet, but, in no particular order here are some:

1. Their claim that the science is "settled."  That, my friends, depends on what you mean by the "science."  If you mean is CO2 increasing, and is Man a contributor to that, then yes, that is settled.  If you mean, is CO2 a greenhouse gas, then, yes, the science is settled.  But, that's science on the order of "water is chemically H2O" level stuff.  This argument from the CC Religionists attempts to paint you as a bumpkin who believes the Earth is 5000 years old and Man roamed it with the dinosaurs.  In other words, they want you to think you're stupid, (and they're smart and enlightened).  

For most CC'ers, their knowledge of the "science" ends here.  That's because that's all they hear from AlGore or MSNBC or the MSM, and it's about all they can comprehend.  They don't understand that the Church of Climate Change typically ignores important things that also impact the science, like other greenhouse gases (um, water vapor, for example), natural events (volcanic eruptions, for example), natural climate variability, or that big ball of heat in the sky we call the Sun.

They don't understand (or willingly ignore) that the Church of Climate Change is built on models developed by "scientists" who often have a vested financial interest in the Church's future.

2. The "consensus" of scientists means you "deniers" need to shut up.  Judith Curry, Richard Lindzen, Joe Bastardi and the thousands of others who don't ascribe to the man-caused fear mongering theories of the religionists don't count, as they're not in the consensus.  Well, the consensus is not as great as they want you to believe, and I would encourage you to root around the Internet, and you find a lot of people who find the science problematic, and not so settled at all.  If you have an engineering, science, or math background, some of the crap the religionists are passing off as science should seriously concern you.

3.  Even if you cite experts in the field who produce research that contradicts the party line, and even if it's peer reviewed and well documented and truthful, well, they'll attempt to smear it was "funded by big oil."  This is where Bill Nye devolved to on MTP today.  

4. Extreme weather events are caused by "climate change" and are proof of "climate change."  This is the absolute most maddening claim.  No responsible climate scientist, and not even the most rabid in the "consensus" category will even touch an attempt to tie a specific weather event to "climate change."  The fact is these links can not be proven, not least of all because there is no link.  All you'll really get from them is that extreme weather is a possible result of climate change.  

This is clearly an attempt to influence public opinion,  but when everything is caused by climate change, nothing is.  The new religion's name, "climate change," is even used to be as expansive as possible.  Is there someone alive who thinks the climate hasn't always changed?  The Earth has survived through numerous periods of warming and cooling.  The climate has ALWAYS changed.  This is the very nature of things.  Don't fall for this tactic.  This is entirely meant to distract from the incontrovertible fact that global temperatures have remained the same/fallen slightly since 1998, and their models can not explain "The Pause."  This occurring despite global CO2 emissions continuing to increase.  

Us skeptics say this is because something else is going in here.  These people built their careers (I don't blame anyone for wanting a steady job, but in academia, it's important to be right) on this religion.  Their models were designed to make the most of Man's activities.  Why? Because if you can't say the sky is falling, why should any policy maker fork over the nation's treasury to you to study it more?

That's one group of the believers.  Those are the cash hounds, who need this charade to continue to keep the money flowing.  The harder group are those who know this is a charade, but see it as an opportunity to bring down Western Civilization,  something they've been trying to do for generations.  These were the communist fellow-travelers and the same people who 40 years ago were whining about a new ice and the population explosion.  

Regardless of the cause of the man-caused catastrophe, their proscriptions are all the same - it's the West's fault, stop development, and you people in the 3rd world who'd like to be rich - get back to your caves.

Opposing these people is both a Pro-Science and Moral obligation for me.  That's why I am so passionate about it and find this group to be so dangerous to not just what the West has accomplished but to mankind and what our friends in Brazil and India, and other developing nations may accomplish.  

Plug-in Hybrids Are Not Rotten

If you drive around Atlanta, you see a lot of Nissan Leafs (Leaves?) around this place.

The Leaf is really the first truly usable purely electric car.  Unlike the Chevy Volt, which uses a gas engine as a range extended to keep its electric powertrain running, and the Toyota Prius, which uses the battery really to take over tasks from the gas engine and extend range (i.e. mileage), the Leaf relies solely on it batteries for locomotion.

Unlike the Volt, it has roughly an 80 mile range before requiring a recharge (the Volt is good for 37).

They're kind of 2 sides of the same coin.  The Volt can be taken on a trip of some length, because it's gas engine will power an electric motor to continue to run the car.  You get about 400 miles before it's time to refill.  GM says this makes it the equivalent of a 37MPG car in this type of driving.

I will point out that nearly all turbo diesels sold by VW and Audi beat this easily, pushing 45-50MPG in highway driving.  So, if you're interested in highway efficiency, with the Prius hybrid (which pushes 50MPG) or a TDI is a more efficient choice.

If all you're doing is local driving, and you can suffer the 4-8 hour recharges required on these things using normal household current, then most people estimate you're looking at about $2 worth of electricity to restore to full charge.  Until gas/diesel is back at $2/gallon prices, that makes the plug-ins more efficient, but, you need to understand the other trade-offs with these, which include the dwell time while they charge, the loss of efficiency in the summer months, and the ultimate super charge when you replace your batteries at $8000 after 6-8 years.

Top that off with the still real risk from fire with Lithium Ion batteries (google Chevy Volt fires and check out the 787 Dreamliner's problems with this same technology), and I still think people are buying these for vanity reasons, and not because they're either better cars, or even more fuel efficient over the long haul.

As for me, I did choose a TDI, and I got a car I know will give me 38-50 MPG consistently, and will not require an engine replacement at the 100-150k mile mark.

Talking Points are not bad, I conclude.

Because I have taken a take-no-prisoners approach to political debate on Facebook, it has been suggested that all I post is right-wing talking points, and, as such, these are not worthy of debate.

Which brings me to this question.

What's wrong with talking points?

I mean, politicos like them so much there is a left wing website named after them (the liberal Talking Points Memo, or tpm.com).

They are so useful that when Susan Rice was going around lying about Benghazi, she proudly declared that her talking points had been prepared by the State Department, and she really didn't know anything about them (note to future Dem voters, this is why Susan got this task, because Hillary wouldn't be able to claim the same thing).

We all know they clutter vthe fax machines of liberals and conservatives alike.

Heck, I'll admit it, I get about 10 email "newsletters" from various conservative organizations and writers, and more than a handful from military-friendly organizations, plus, I check Drudge multiple times a day for news.  It's basically his "talking points."

So, what's wrong with talking points?  They're basically the PowerPoint view of the world, and all those newsletters I get include links to much more background information about the subject than you are getting in your standard, MSM-fed 90 second news report.

So, I say talking points! Bring them on!

Besides, if all I am is a TP spewer, wouldn't debating such an ill-prepared and stupid man be easy? 

Because I knew you'd ask, here are some good places for your daily talking points:

- Jim Gerety's daily newsletter from National Review Online - always topical, always funny, always filled with links to fun stuff.

- Jonah Goldberg's weekly G-File.  Ok, it's not daily, but it is always funny. And in a world of humorless lefties who can't laughter at themselves (and think I'm always serious, too), it's a necessity.

- Defense News' Early Bird - a necessity for those who work in, or care about, national defense.  Military Times does one, too (may be same content).

- The Daily Caller has a daily blast which is sometimes useful, and also pithy.  

I also get some private mailings (these are defense related) that are very specific, but if you're on the right, you might sign up for Erik Erickson's daily RedState briefing.  I find I disagree with the Tea party faction on tactics, but we're together in philosophy, so, good to know what your brethren are thinking.

From the MSM, there's nothing I want to know, although I get a NYTimes daily email.  It's boring, though, as it's not all politics.

Oh, and I have google alerts for things work related. That's something you should consider.

Ok.  The end.

Climate Change Fascists!!

I am so sick of the "climate change" religionists.  Their latest tactic is rolling out the decaying carcass of Bill Nye (the "Science Guy"), as though having a cartoonish buffoon who's legacy is explaining science to toddlers, is going to win the day for them.

He's soundly mocked. See links, here: http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/02/16/nye-goofs-holds-up-pic-of-arctic-while-talking-about-antarctic-watch-bill-nye-debate-gop-rep-marsha-blackburn-nye-hold-up-pic-of-arctic-and-then-asks-if-antarctic-has-less-ice-climate-depot-answ/

I have posted all over this blog, and there are links galore to articles debunking both the correlations and the strength of the correlations between man and "climate change."

A lot bothers me about those who hold this religious (and I mean that in the most derogatory sense possible) view that Man is responsible for all climate activity on this planet, but, in no particular order here are some:

1. Their claim that the science is "settled."  That, my friends, depends on what you mean by the "science."  If you mean is CO2 increasing, and is Man a contributor to that, then yes, that is settled.  If you mean, is CO2 a greenhouse gas, then, yes, the science is settled.  But, that's science on the order of "water is chemically H2O" level stuff.  This argument from the CC Religionists attempts to paint you as a bumpkin who believes the Earth is 5000 years old and Man roamed it with the dinosaurs.  In other words, they want you to think you're stupid, (and they're smart and enlightened).  

For most CC'ers, their knowledge of the "science" ends here.  That's because that's all they hear from AlGore or MSNBC or the MSM, and it's about all they can comprehend.  They don't understand that the Church of Climate Change typically ignores important things that also impact the science, like other greenhouse gases (um, water vapor, for example), natural events (volcanic eruptions, for example), natural climate variability, or that big ball of heat in the sky we call the Sun.

They don't understand (or willingly ignore) that the Church of Climate Change is built on models developed by "scientists" who often have a vested financial interest in the Church's future.

2. The "consensus" of scientists means you "deniers" need to shut up.  Judith Curry, Richard Lindzen, Joe Bastardi and the thousands of others who don't ascribe to the man-caused fear mongering theories of the religionists don't count, as they're not in the consensus.  Well, the consensus is not as great as they want you to believe, and I would encourage you to root around the Internet, and you find a lot of people who find the science problematic, and not so settled at all.  If you have an engineering, science, or math background, some of the crap the religionists are passing off as science should seriously concern you.

3.  Even if you cite experts in the field who produce research that contradicts the party line, and even if it's peer reviewed and well documented and truthful, well, they'll attempt to smear it was "funded by big oil."  This is where Bill Nye devolved to on MTP today.  

4. Extreme weather events are caused by "climate change" and are proof of "climate change."  This is the absolute most maddening claim.  No responsible climate scientist, and not even the most rabid in the "consensus" category will even touch an attempt to tie a specific weather event to "climate change."  The fact is these links can not be proven, not least of all because there is no link.  All you'll really get from them is that extreme weather is a possible result of climate change.  

This is clearly an attempt to influence public opinion,  but when everything is caused by climate change, nothing is.  The new religion's name, "climate change," is even used to be as expansive as possible.  Is there someone alive who thinks the climate hasn't always changed?  The Earth has survived through numerous periods of warming and cooling.  The climate has ALWAYS changed.  This is the very nature of things.  Don't fall for this tactic.  This is entirely meant to distract from the incontrovertible fact that global temperatures have remained the same/fallen slightly since 1998, and their models can not explain "The Pause."  This occurring despite global CO2 emissions continuing to increase.  

Us skeptics say this is because something else is going in here.  These people built their careers (I don't blame anyone for wanting a steady job, but in academia, it's important to be right) on this religion.  Their models were designed to make the most of Man's activities.  Why? Because if you can't say the sky is falling, why should any policy maker fork over the nation's treasury to you to study it more?

That's one group of the believers.  Those are the cash hounds, who need this charade to continue to keep the money flowing.  The harder group are those who know this is a charade, but see it as an opportunity to bring down Western Civilization,  something they've been trying to do for generations.  These were the communist fellow-travelers and the same people who 40 years ago were whining about a new ice and the population explosion.  

Regardless of the cause of the man-caused catastrophe, their proscriptions are all the same - it's the West's fault, stop development, and you people in the 3rd world who'd like to be rich - get back to your caves.

Opposing these people is both a Pro-Science and Moral obligation for me.  That's why I am so passionate about it and find this group to be so dangerous to not just what the West has accomplished but to mankind and what our friends in Brazil and India, and other developing nations may accomplish.  

Obamacare to kill small biz next

Just returned from my eye doctor and he's one of these small businesses who extended their plans discussed in this NBC report (
Workers at auto dealership come face to face with Obamacare trade-offs).

They won't be impacted until 2014, like many of us in the employer provided market.

As many of us on the Right told you,  Obamacare would result in increased costs for most, and worse coverage for nearly everyone already covered.

That is exactly what is happening to those in the individual market and those in the small group market.  Yes, there will be "winners" amongst the previously uninsured and underinsured, at the low end of the spectrum, due to subsidies.  The problem is that people who had health insurance, the vast majority of whom liked their plans and doctors, are being displaced.

We told you so.

American Hustle

We don't do many movies in the theaters any more, so, our Christmas Day was spent at Golden Corral (yech) and a movie.

American Hustle is already being pushed for Oscars, and has garnered something like a 94% favorable score on Rotten Tomatoes.

It's got a 2013 all-star cast with Christian Bale, Jennifer Lawrence, Amy Adams (mostly her B cups), Bradley Cooper, and a short appearance (taking a break from his bad movies) from Robert DeNiro.

If you're old enough to remember The Sting, that's what this movie is, updated to the '70's with today's cast.  In fact, since none of these kids have seen that, I'm trying to find it online.  Any help?

American Hustle is a little slow at first, sort of heavy with the love triangles, but satisfying in the end.

If you're going to invest 2 hours in an outing, you'd do well with this one.

Jonah Goldberg on Reality TV

I think Jonah Goldberg sums up the Phil Robertson mess the best: 

"Maybe the best way to avoid such problems in the future is to demand that all reality-show casts be made up of professional actors. That way, reality will never disappoint us."

Read the whole thing: 

http://nationalreview.com/article/366799/real-rednecks-jonah-goldberg 

Gayest Obamacare Video Ever?

There is barely 24 hours left for people to sign up for Obamacare and be covered by January 1.

I hate to share this, but, your tax dollars and this administration is hard at work pushing Obamacare by trolling gay bars and via gay videos.

If you have young kids around, or you're at work, hide the screen and turn the volume down, but, this is how the O Admin thinks they're hoping to get gays to "get covered."

http://bit.ly/1fyryDg

Piers Morgan Will Decide What's Right & Wrong

This is Piers Morgan's entry into the Phil Robertson kerfuffle.

I like it, because it gets so much wrong about our Constitution, describes Liberalism to a tee, and even brings some clarity to those who may wonder why 2nd Amendment defenders are so serious about that one.

What Morgan and Liberals in general fail to understand is that the First Amendment exists specifically to protect vile speech, and the "bigots" (with "bigot" being a term wholly defined by the user) who utter it. Yes, the Founders were primarily concerned with political speech, but, this protection extended to anyone, saying essentially anything.

You can see the problem for the mythical Everyman here - if we don't have such protections, then WHO will be the arbiter of speech?  WHO will define what's vile?  WHO will point to the bigots?

Leftists are none to happy to stand up and say, gleefully, "We will!!!!!"

And that's the problem, and that's why we have a First Amendment, and that's also why the Founders gave us the Second Amendment.  Because they had lived through a world where their weapons were threatened, and they lived at a time when the only thing standing between them and an oppressive government were their rifles.  So, the Second Amendment should, and does, protect assault rifle devotees.  The Left has had far more success in limiting that Amendment, but those who defend it are doing God's work just as much as those who defend the First.

To my left-leaning friends - if you don't like the Constitution, the Founders gave us a process to change it.  Instead of judge shopping, or electing presidents willing to ignore it, try to change it.  If your ideas are so damn great, can't you convince people on the merits?

BTW - this is my first post using ifttt.com to simultaneously post to Facebook an Twitter.  Let's see how it works...

I Stand With Phil

Do I?

Unless you live unepder a rock, you already know Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson was "suspended" today by his employer, A&E for statements he made in a GQ interview echoing traditional Christian beliefs about homosexuals (and plenty of other sinners, but the prostitute, beastiality, slanderer, and swindler lobbies are thus far silent).

This is a free country and Phil was only expressing his views, which are based in his religion (and mine, by the way).  A&E can do whatever they want, they owe him no platform, and he wasn't using the show directly as that platform.

But, let's face it, to express traditional Christian views these days about homosexuality in particular puts you in the cross-hairs of the biggest grievance lobby extant.  Emboldened by their success in turning traditional marriage into something new, this lobby has decided that anyone who finds their behavior abhorrent and anti-God must be squelched.  You shall not know that a major religion considers homosexuality a sin, punishable by death!

OOOOOOOPS!  Wrong religion there!  That's Islam which considers homosexuality a sin, punishable by death.  Christianity considers it a sin, but offers the sinner a path to redemption via God's amazing Grace.  That's Mr. Robertson's religion.  

Were he a Muslim, would A&E had been so quick to suspend him?

I'm guessing not.

JFK, blah, blah, blah

Last week marked the 50th anniversary of JFK's assassination.

Yes, it was a big deal that an American president was murdered.

But, 50 years out, do we still have to persist in the mythology that surrounds this event?

The Left (who might have a hard time accepting JFK as a Democrat these days) has even tried to re-write history to claim that the right wing element in Dallas was responsible for JFK's death (although an avowed Communist killed him), but, of more annoyance to me are the people who try to say ridiculous stuff like:

• "America lost its 'innocence' that day."   We were only 18 years removed from the end of WW2, and 10 from Korea.  Had the brushes with Hitler and the action in Korea not erased our innocence by 1963?
• "It changed the course of events."  Exactly how?  I wish the people who say this (who usually want to act like JFK's death led directly to the Civil Rights movement) would explain.  Seems the three biggest things to happen in the 60's were the Civil Rights Movement, the Vietnam War, and the Moon Landing.  I'd posit that ALL of these had their die cast before November 1963, and LBJ was being forced by politics (not JFK's death) to carry through on all of them.
• "He was such a great president."  His legacy is helped by his death, since he never had to actually fight for anything, or serve as a lame duck.  In all honesty, his term was just too short.  You really need to judge him and LBJ together, and when we go there, I thing we find it's a little more average.

That's all.

Debating Abortion

One of my co-workers (a Mormon, no less) just discovered the existence of Peter Singer.

You may remember Mr Singer.  He's the Princeton "Bioethicist" who argues that abortion should be legal due to sentience and thus, infanticide should also be legal.  You have to appreciate the chutzpah of people like Singer. At least they're honest that they think certain people have no right to live, and they're perfectly happy to choose which of us fall into that category. 

I'll return to that later.

This article is about how you argue with those who want to ensure that abortion remains "safe, legal, and rare." And by that, they mean, "available at any time, for any reason."

Get them to agree with a central premise, that life begins at conception.  Leftists like to think of themselves as "science" followers, so throw a little science at them.  Ask them, in the last 40 years, in which direction has science been moving with respect to "life." I've got news for them, it's all towards conception, not the other way.  Eventually, these crazy scientists are going to be able to completely shepherd a baby from conception to "birth" outside the womb.  What are you going to argue as the beginning of that process then?  Get them to agree to that and all you're arguing about is timing. You'll ultimately win that argument.

Most abortionists, even if they agree with the conception arguments are going to dismiss it as immaterial to the debate.  We call these people Godless, but, for fun, how do you debate those who have already crossed this Rubicon? 

Leftists like to think they're superior to us because they're for Affirmative Action and standing up for minorities.  So, appeal to their better instincts.  Remind them that the initial proponents of abortion were eugenicists like Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, who saw abortion as a way to cleanse society of the less desirable among us.  People Sanger felt were inferior, like Blacks and other ethnic minorities.  It's people like Sanger who eventually morphed into Nazi's.  Ask your Leftist protagonist how it feels to run in that company?

Are they still standing?

Liberals hate evil corporations, right? Their entire lives are devoted to protecting the little guy from the ravages of capitalism. Give them a little education in the abortion industry.  This is a multi-billion dollar industry, protected by lobbyists and industry groups just like any other big business.  Furthermore, this industry is pushing to retain a system that promotes a completely unnatural act, all to line the pockets of big corporations and evil rich doctors who participate in this industry.  Do these people really care about that patient or do they only care about the paycheck? Ask your. Liberal friend.  Should our tax dollars be subsidizing this industry? Isn't this just more Corporate Welfare dressed up as something else?

The next time you see some Planned Parenthood talking head wailing about protecting a woman's "right" to choose, remember that this person is a lobbyist for a big business who stands to lose millions of dollars each year if this industry fades away.

My favorite argument with these nitwits is the "control" of a woman's body issue.  The caricature of the conservative is of some madman standing in your bedroom telling you what you can and can't do in there.  That's exactly what it is, a caricature.  They like to paint us as interested in preventing women from making this life changing choice because of male patriarchy or some crazy religious devotion.  Guilty on the latter.  Own it.

Remind these people that their side is all about control of your body.  They want to tell you how much soda you can drink, how many trans fats you can eat, how much nicotine you can smoke, what additives go into your food, what radiation makes your food tastier and safer, what preservatives make your food last longer, what temperature your steak can be cooked to at your favorite steakhouse (for those who would allow you to consume red meat at all), and which drugs you are allowed to get high on.  They've taken control of the health care system now, I can't wait to see what else they're going to say we can and can't do to ourselves. The ONLY thing they don't want to regulate and control is a woman's womb.  Pretty much every other body part is in play for them.  But, DONT TOUCH MY VAGINA!

Let's face it, you're largely debating idiots here.  Few of them will have the cojones to take the Singer position and admit that they believe certain people (as Randy Newman reminds us in "Short People") "got no reason to live." 

At least with those, you can simply say they have a different moral compass, and while they'll rot in Hell for it, you can respect them on Earth.

Climate Change God

I am weary of Leftists who blame every single weather event on "climate change." 

While some in the climate change industry clearly have something ($) to gain from attempts to link severe weather to long term climate trends, the typical Lefty instead has a cultish devotion to the Church of Climate Change.

In that regard, are they really any different from the Religious, who find the Hand of God in every natural disaster? They're each looking for some order in the sea of randomness that is weather, and both have about the same chance of being able to prove their religion is correct while they live.

At least the Religious person will be rewarded with an answer to their question upon their death, while the Lefty Cult member will have to trudge through his life dealing with being wrong with no reward at then end.