NO RESPECT FOR WOMEN

Two recent media events evidenced disrespect for women. One involved a Jesse Lee Peterson who was guesting on the Sean Hannity show. The other Rush Limbaugh on  his radio/TV show.

 

Jesse Lee Peterson is a misogynist of the first class. He is President and founder of the BOND of America Group. An organization dedicated to a conservative agenda for blacks. Peterson is black.

 

Peterson recently appeared on Sean Hannity's show on FOX. Peterson's comments were to the effect that women should not have the right to vote. Why? Because they vote for the wrong people. He claims that the root of our present day problems was giving the women the right to vote in the first instance..

 

Peterson goes back to the days of the suffragettes. They were the women of almost one hundred years ago who marched for the right of women to vote. Peterson says these ladies were evil minded. They tricked the men of those days into giving them the right to vote. How I ask. Probably by lifting their floor length skirts a bit and exposing their ankles to the men. Otherwise, I cannot conceive how.

 

Peterson also asserts that women cannot make sound decisions.

 

A little digging into Peterson's background reveals the following. He claims affirmative action is reverse discrimination. First time I heard a black take that position. Normally it is a white. How about the black people stuck in New Orleans because of Hurricane Katrina  were lazy and immoral. He is otherwise  generally critical of black people. He is quoted as saying that he "...thanked God and white people for slavery."

 

Further, Peterson describes slave ships as akin to "...being on a crowded airplane." He considers slavery to have been a good thing. He favors putting black people back on the plantation so they understand the work ethic.

 

As to women again, he believes that men have the right to hit women. As long as the woman deserves it, of course.

 

Query: Why does Hannity even put a guest with this background on the air? There have to be self imposed media limits on the left and right. It is an affront to all Americans to subject them to this, and please excuse the description, garbage. I can think of no other.

 

Now comes Rush Limbaugh. The most heard radio personality in America. More people listen to his show than any other.

 

You will recall Limbaugh disparaged women during the recent birth control controversy. I refer specifically to the female law student who appeared before a Congressional committee in support of health insurance providing free birth control to women. He referred to this young lady after her appearance as a prostitute of sorts for wanting free contraceptives.

 

In recent days, Limbaugh has announced his formation of Rich Babes for America. He claims it is required to oppose NOW, the National Organization for Women. Limbaugh believes that NOW is to far to the left and that a similar organization is required to represent contrary positions. He invites women of all political persuasions however to join. Liberal as well as conservative.

 

Limbaugh appears to be for real about this organization. He has even listed it on Facebook.

 

Limbaugh wants his female listeners to have a place to go. He says his organization is for women who believe in family, American values, and not being told by faux feminist groups how to think. I have always been under impression that women in general believe in family and American values.

 

I find nothing objectionable in Limbaugh starting such an organization. It is right, especially if needed as he asserts. My problem is his use of the word "Babes" to describe the membership. An obvious insult to women in general. If said in the work place by a male, it could result in discharge or some disciplinary action at the least. The use of the term also reflects Limbaugh's belief as to what  women are. Babes.

 

I suspect that if a conservative couple in the Midwest were confronted by the wife being called a babe that the husband would knock the one who uttered the statement on his ass. There are some things you do not tolerate in polite society.

 

You will note that I have not even commented on the classification of "Rich." It clearly suggests the organization is only for ladies of wealth. This brings into play the 1 percent / 99 percent thing. The obviousness of the word requires no further comment.

 

I share Peterson and Limbaugh with you to show what I consider their less than respectful thinking regarding the mothers, wives and ladies comprising American society. Terrible is the only way to describe their thinking.

JAILED PERSONS ENTITLED TO ADEQUATE HEALTH CARE

The United States Supreme Court did it again!

 

The Court recently decided a case which in effect mandates the best health care for persons in jail. Better than what most honest and law abiding persons can afford or have available to them. The decision places felons, killers, rapists and armed robbers in a preferential position as far as health care is concerned. And at no cost to them, to boot!

 

In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that the absence of adequate health care for prisoners violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

 

The Court said prisoners have a Constitutionally protected right to adequate health care. Adequate meaning the best.

 

The decision was written by Justice Kennedy. He represents the swing vote on the Court which is otherwise evenly divided 4-4, conservative versus liberal. The conservative faction of the Court cannot be blamed for the decision. The four votes Justice Kennedy sided with were provided by the liberal members of the Court.

 

A significant quote from the decision reads.....Just as a prisoner may starve if not fed, he or she may suffer or die if not provided adequate medical care.

 

If prisoners are entitled to adequate health care, why not the entire population of the United States? The reason is simple. The citizenry has no similar Constitutional right as prisoners. The people are only entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. No where in the Constitution does the freedom from cruel and unusual punishment apply to them. The cruel and unusual punishment prohibition only applies to prisoners.

 

What a screw job! Felons receive better health care than you and I. The taxpayer's once again pay and receive nothing for their money. Our tax dollars go to provide jailed persons with health care that most of us either do not have or can not afford.

 

I understand the decision from a legal stand point. However, I find it difficult to understand from a personal perspective. We pay and the prison population benefits. We get nothing in return, except perhaps the personal satisfaction in knowing that our tax dollars are going to provide some jailed killers, rapists and armed robbers with great health care. The same care very few of us can provide to our loved ones and ourselves.

 

Only in America.

 

LIFE BEGINS FIRST DAY OF WOMAN'S LAST MENSTRUAL CYCLE

You read it correctly! Life begins before conception. Even before the sex act giving rise to the conception takes place. It occurs the first day of the woman's last menstrual cycle.

 

That is what the State of Arizona says.  Arizona's Governor recently signed such a bill. It is now the law of Arizona.

 

The new law clearly defines when the life of an unborn child begins.The law basically claims that fetus life begins not at conception, but up to two weeks before. It is measured from the first day of the last menstrual period of the pregnant woman.

 

The new law is an attempt by the abortionist faction to shorten the time frame within which legalized abortion may take place. The first twenty weeks of a pregnancy is the time within which an abortion can be legally performed. 

 

Conception is generally recognized as when the woman's egg and male's sperm unite. Such has been the date from which the twenty  weeks was measured. By pushing the date for conception from a legal perspective back to the first day of the woman's last period, the abortionist have shaved two weeks off the twenty weeks. Now, in Arizona at least, the twenty weeks will be measured from a date two weeks earlier.

 

Ridiculous. Arizona is playing amongst other things with God's work and scientific teaching.

 

The Bible, other religious writings, the Church, various religions.....all cannot tell us with any degree of certainty when life begins. God never spelled it out. Scientists and religious have blessed us with their opinions. However that is all they are. Opinions. Even the tablets God gave to Moses failed to identify when life began.

 

My lifetime has revealed to me at least four different instances when life begins..

 

When I was in law school more than fifty years ago, it was when the baby was born. The fetus had to come out kicking, screaming and breathing. Otherwise the law generally took the position that no life had begun.

 

Then came the theory with which most of us are familiar. Life/conception begins when the woman's egg and male's sperm unite.

 

During the ongoing abortion war, a third theory was offered. One which many believe is the true time when conception begins. it is the time when the sperm inoculated egg adheres itself to the uterine wall. Without the adherence, there can be no life. The egg and sperm are flushed down the toilet.

 

Now comes Arizona with a new definition of when life begins. The first day of the woman's last menstrual cycle. A folly as there has been no conception in any form. The sex act giving rise to the conception has not yet even occurred.

 

Arizona's new law represents a form of insanity. Anything to achieve a result. Even in the face of scientific impossibility. Who can object, if it is law.

 

I object. Many of you may object. The Governor and legislators of Arizona do not. An example of why politicians are becoming less desirable creatures with every passing day.

 

Religious philosophy teaches us that the end does not justify the means. Something erroneous/wrong cannot be used to effect a desired result.

 

Manipulating the law as Arizona has done in this instance is a wrong means. It is like rewriting the Bible, contradicting scientific fact. It is not correct. It should not have been done.

DOES ANY ONE DO THEIR HOMEWORK?

Recently the Supreme Court of the United States heard three days of argument re Obama's Affordable Health Care Act. What has been reported since suggests the making of a major embarrassment for all involved.

 

In the days following oral argument, several insurance experts commented that the Court and attorneys involved did not know nor understand what they were talking about when it came to costs under the law.

 

It has always been reported that there was one basic cost for everyone under the policy and that it was expensive. Onerous was the word mostly used. The plan, whether paid  by citizen or employer, was described as a Cadillac in cost and services provided.

 

During oral argument before the Supreme Court, comments by several of the Justices indicated one cost and expensive. The Solicitor General arguing in support of the law made no statement to alter that thinking. It is assumed he viewed the law as one cost and expensive. The attorneys in opposition to the law, with one exception, went along with the impression that it was a one cost and expensive item.

 

Turns out they were all wrong. The Court and the attorneys.

 

The law provides three different options regarding costs. Not one.

 

The first is the expensive and properly described Cadillac plan. It covers 90 per cent of bills.

 

The second is known as the bronze plan. It is cheaper. It contains a large up front deductible before the policy would kick in. This option covers 60 per cent of bills.

 

The third and final option is catastrophic coverage. In drafting the law, it was thought this option would appeal to persons under thirty who were not prone to illness and might not want to pay for more inclusive coverage. Catastrophic coverage is the cheapest of the three options.

 

Note that present employer plans generally cover 80 per cent of medical expenses.

 

Were all or most of the Justices aware of the three options? Why didn't the attorneys know? The three options were neither discussed nor developed during oral argument.

 

It would appear no one involved did sufficient home work in preparing the case as regards the cost item.

 

You recall the comment of Justice Scalia during oral argument that the law was 2,700 pages. And his subsequent query as to whether it was expected of him to read the whole law. All 2,700 pages of it.

 

Some one should have at the Court's end. The Justices all have intelligent and bright clerks assisting them. The various attorneys on both sides have huge legal staffs committed to the preparation of such an important case. Obamacare is an important case.

 

Quite frankly, I did not know of the three options. I thought there was one expensive one. I was not expected to read/research the law, however. It was not my responsibility nor in my pay grade. But it was the responsibility of the Court and attorneys involved. That is what they were being paid to do.

 

There is one further observation. The comments regarding the availabilityity of three options were made in the several days following oral argument. Except for a few brief reports, the media has ignored the situation. Why? Obamacare is the most important new law which has come down in years. It deserved better attention media wise post oral argument as it received pre-oral argument.

 

Government at every level is sloppy. Scary.