Daily Archives: February 19, 2012

A question for my liberal friends about the birth control mandate…

To you who would so eagerly defend Obama’s statement that insurance companies MUST pay for birth control, I would like to present some facts and questions to you.

Before Obama no state had laws denying access to birth control.  (There were a few laws that said that a pharmacist had the right to not issues them, but most of these were equally uncapitalistic because they said the employing pharmacy could not fire them for not performing their job.)  And beside Rick Santorum I don’t think anyone even thinks that we should (granted Santorum is an idiot, but it’s the mainstream media that is not vetting this guy and making his asinine statements the top story every hour, so is it the right that bears the full blame here?).

What Obama is doing is demanding a private company offer a service whether it wants to or not and that every business buy such service whether they want to or not.

Before this women could get birth control by paying for it out of pocket (I am told by women that the generics are about $20 a month, and $240 a year seems a small price to pay to not have to pay thousands a month to raise a child) and if need be could go to organizations like Planned Parenthood and get them for free.  So as far as I can tell was there were not any women denied access to birth control.

But since you don’t want to deal with that reality, let’s not deal with it.

Instead let me ask you a question.  What happens when a president you don’t agree with gets into the office?  If Obama has the right to demand that private insurance companies and private businesses provide a particular medical service or product, then every president has that power.  Ignoring the unconstitutional nature of a president ruling by dictatorial fiat, let’s ask what happens when another president gets into office.  As you seem to think the presidency has this absolute right without consulting Congress or even getting a law passed (even though I don’t think Congress has the right to do this either) what would happen, if, god forbid, the nation takes a complete leave of its senses (which it’s been known to do) and elects Rick Santorum or someone like him?

You’ve already granted the president the power to say what insurance companies must provide.  So what happens if a small minded lunatic gets into power and says that, say, all insurance companies must cover the costs for psychological therapy to help gay people learn to not be gay.  Certainly insane, but you’ve already argued that a president has the right to declare what insurance companies must cover without even having to consult Congress.  If you give Obama the power to do this now, what is to stop someone you don’t like from requiring something you don’t like.  Isn’t it better to let private companies decide, and if you don’t like what that company does, get another job.

I like birth control and would be exceedingly happy if more people the world over used it, but I love liberty more and would never demand a company provide it if they didn’t want to.  Liberty and choice is what makes a life or a nation great, not imposing my will and preference on others.

Just because you’re getting something you want doesn’t justify expanding government power.  You should never give the government more power.  More power always leads to abuse of that power.  And a reasonable person should realize that the White House will at time be inhabited by someone with whom you disagree with on every single issue.  Are you willing to give them more power?

So let me ask, are there any crazy or stupid so-called medical practices you don’t support and are you willing to say that there will NEVER be a president in office who would believe in them?  Or do you think limited government might be a safer choice?

It’s not about birth control.  It’s about an unconstitutional expansion of government power.

Leave a comment

Filed under Capitalism, Congress, Constitution, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Free Will, Government is corrupt, Obama, politics, Religion, Tyranny

Weekly Meditation: A Crown Chakra Mantra

This is going to seem cliche…but the mantra to chant to increase the energy of the seventh chakra is chanting “Om”.  (As with all of this mantra you should make this into three sounds, with the O first coming from the back the throat and then from the front mouth, followed by the m sound from the lips).


Sitting in the lotus position hold your hands out, finger locked, thumbs one on top of the other.  Extend your pinkies out and have them touch and then chant “Om.”  While doing this envision not just the amethyst colored chakra at the top of your head…but if you can all seven chakras over the whole length of your spine.  If you can envision all of them spinning and bright while chanting it should help to improve the balance and energy of all of them.  


Filed under 7th Chakra, Chakra, Crown Chakra, Faith, God, Meditation, New Age, Prayer, Religion, Seventh Chakra, Spirituality

International Liberty

Every so often, I write about what makes libertarianism special and different.

In the future, though, I think I’ll simply share this excellent cartoon.

By the way, I actually think the cartoon is a bit unfair to conservatives. Unless I’m missing something, the right-wing position on birth control is to resist subsidies and mandates. As I recently wrote, that’s the economically sound and libertarian point of view.

That being said, one of the most obvious distinctions between libertarians and conservatives is that the latter do sometimes favor laws restricting private behavior when there is no harm imposed on third parties. The misguided War on Drugs is a good example, as illustrated by this Gary Johnson speech,this video, and this AP story.

The libertarian message isn’t that drug use is good, but rather that prohibition is ineffective and that the net result of the drug war…

View original post 6 more words

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Stupid Quote of the Day….SANTORUM AGAIN…and he kinda calls Protestants Satanists…

Okay the title is a little overblown to attract attention. (And Liberals must be so happy that I don’t have them to bash while Santorum is around because hell his comments are so out of left field I can’t call them liberal, socialist or progressive—they’re just dumb.)

But, in a 2008 speech on how Satan is waging war against America (and I’ll put the whole speech at the end here, so yes he is really talking about Lucifer himself in a war against the U.S.A., not some detached conception of evil, but a very real, very personal, very evil being known as Beelzebub working to personally destroy the United States…that alone makes me very worried about Santorum, but I realize there could actually be well meaning people who believe that and I’m not going to quibble over the finer points of theology here).

“[O]nce the colleges fell and those who were being educated in our institutions, the next was the church. Now you’d say, ‘wait, the Catholic Church’? No. We all know that this country was founded on a Judeo-Christian ethic but the Judeo-Christian ethic was a Protestant Judeo-Christian ethic, sure the Catholics had some influence, but this was a Protestant country and the Protestant ethic, mainstream, mainline Protestantism, and of course we look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country and it is in shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it.”

Now people I respect have said that I’m reading too much into this, that he is not saying Protestants are not Christians, but I think this opinion is wrong. Look at what he says.

“[M]ainline Protestantism in this country and it is in shambles, it [mainline Protestantism] is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it.”

I find it hard to say that something is gone from the “world of Christianity” and still be within the concept of Christianity. But of course one wonders what “non” mainline Protestants are still within the “world of Christianity”? (Why I do I feel like looking in Westboro to find what Santorum considers good Protestants? Cheap shot, I know, but am I wrong?) And of course in the context of the speech about how Satan is destroying the U.S. from within, this basically implies Protestants are, at worst in league with, and at best have been corrupted by the Devil…and, while I don’t want to insult Catholics in general, I don’t think they’re the incorruptible force that Santorum seems to suggest they are. They’ve had their era where they are better than other religions, and eras where they are worse, Catholics are human and have good days and bad…but no incorruptible ones.

But, you know what let’s assume I am reading too much into this. That actually reading the basic syntax, grammar and logic of Santorum’s speech is going too far and I shouldn’t take his bigoted remarks at face value.

No matter what, you have a man, who wants to be President, making very public statements about the inferiority of other religions. That’s very clear there. Even if you give this the most lenient reading, he is still not having a private view on his religion, he is publically insulting another faith…claiming that whatever corruption there is in America is because of the it’s Protestant heritage.

This, and so much of what Santorum has to say, might be appropriate for a fire-and-brimstone preacher from the pulpit…but not from a Presidential candidate. We have had very religious men in the presidency, and we have had men who are ordained serve in other public offices (before you ask, I’m honestly not sure if we have had any women who were ordained serve in office, I couldn’t find an answer in a brief search on the web)…but never have we ever had a man who acts like a preacher serve in the highest office in the land. Why? Because we’re not Iran. Even though I will argue atheists and the ACLU see a wall of separation between church and state that isn’t in the Constitution, there has always been a fear of letting a single religion rule over this nation, which is why there were laws for religious freedom in the original colonies and why the First Amendment was drafted. We, as a nation, believe that people should be deeply spiritual, but were never going to be so arrogant to say we know the mind of God with absolute certainty. An arrogance that Santorum demonstrates in spades. An attitude I’ve certainly seen in history during the religious wars of the late Renaissance and early Enlightenment…but certainly not common in the modern world, and certainly unfit for the head of a free nation.

One must wonder if, as one could reasonably conclude from these statements, his beliefs are so antithetical to the principles of the First Amendment, how warm and fuzzy he must feel about the rest of the document. I don’t care that this speech was made a Catholic college to a friendly audience–this is behavior unbefitting the head of a free nation.

And I’ll be honest as a New Ager, a follower of a pagan belief, I have to ask if he’s willing to imply a relationship between Satan and the Protestants…what do I have to look forward to? Am I actually going to have to join the ACLU if this dipshit gets elected? Probably.

As I said here is the whole speech…

And please understand this is not an attack on Santorum’s Catholic beliefs or Catholicism in general. I have numerous leanings towards the Thomist philosophers of Catholicism, and a deep respect for the actual doctrine and traditions of the church (even many of the ones I don’t agree with). But Santorum is not representative of the best in Catholicism…and I would argue not even representative of the middling level of Catholicism.

[Update 2-21-2012.  Well after 3 days since I found out about it, and 4 years since he gave the speech, Rick’s comments are now the #1 story on the Drudge Report…I think the MSM now will cover it, but only because Drudge forced them to, not because they want to.]


Filed under Election 2012, Free Will, God, politics, Religion, Rick Santorum, Spirituality, Tyranny