Some Belated Thoughts on Dobbs

This post might not be timely any longer as the Dodds decision was rendered months ago. I've had this sitting in my tabs since then. I wanted to sit on it for a bit. Let the initial reactions sort of ebb. 

Anyone who has a heartbeat knew that the Dobbs decision, either direction, was going to be an emotional event. When the draft opinion was leaked, it was very obvious that the left was going to go nuts. If fact, they did go nuts. How often do you hear about a possible assassination attempt on a Justice? And this was before the actual decision was rendered. In some corners of interwebs there were several who predicted of high levels of violence once the actual decision was official was released. This was the case initially, bit the violence and rhetoric has tapered off a bit.

Does Obama Care Violate the 1st Amendment?

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment or religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridge the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances.

In the three years that President Barack Obama has held office, he and his minions have done a great job of trampling the Constitution of the United States. He has consolidated much power in a few executive offices, bypassing and hamstringing Congress; he has given carte blanche to the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate pretty much every facet of our lives (pollutants released, vehicle MPG, light bulbs, etc.); passed a health care bill that many traditional Constitution scholars consider illegal; and has usurped immigration policy with little to no consent of Congress.

Up to this point, he and his gang of left-wing ideologues have pretty much left religion alone. Some of the more far-left have nibbled at the edges (Gay Marriage), but basic freedoms have been left untouched.

No longer is this the case.

California, The Leading Nanny State

Well, California is at it again. As a nanny state, California has both figuratively and literally broken the bank. Their record for stupid liberal decisions is well documented here and all across the web. Yet despite the evidence of their continuing stupidity, they keep on keepin’ on.

Just recently, Gov Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown signed legislation that bans tanning beds for those under the age of eighteen. This is outright ban, regardless of whether there is parental permission. The state of California doesn’t think that someone who is 17 can make good decisions. And as the father of a 17-year old, I happen to agree with that sentiment. However, there is a reason why 16- and 17-year old kids have parents: So they can make informed decisions about the choices their teenagers want to make. Taking away that responsibility from the parents and giving it to the state is what I am have trouble with. Why oh why do liberals and progressive think they are so much smarter than everyone else that they have to pass laws that further whittles away at parental rights? Is it not my responsibility and my right to raise my children how I see best? If I want to allow my teenager to get a suntan via a tanning bed, that is my right. But it also my responsibility to make sure that my kids are not done any harm, so I wouldn’t allow them too anyway. It still galls me that the state of California thinks they can raise my kids better than I can.

Often, the wounds inflicted on California are done by the idiots in Sacramento.

But every once in a while, the citizens themselves act like a bunch of loons.

Feminist Holding on to Wiener

This story from Dana Loesch writing at Big Journalism is a little sad.  Seems that the feminists who work to protect the rights of females only do so if the female is not causing trouble for a democrat politician. Anthony Wiener is everything women of this type should abhor, but they don’t because he votes for things they like, like unfettered access to abortion.

All of the women mentioned in the linked article excuse Wiener’s actions for a variety of reasons, but they all pretty much sound the same. “He’s our guy, he votes how we like, and because he votes how we like he can doing anything to any woman he wants.”

The head of the Brooklyn/Queens chapter of National Organization for Women said she could separate Wiener’s sexcapades from the liberal track record that earned the group’s support.

“I wasn’t happy to discover that my congressman is a 14-year-old boy,” said Julie Kirshner, president of the NOW chapter.

“But he happens to be one of the best politicians out there, so we’re in a bad position.  We’re trying to give him the benefit of the doubt.” (Source: Big Journalism)

Ms. Kirshner, can I ask you a question? What do you think about the bold-faced lying he did for a week? Are you giving a liar the benefit of the doubt or are you giving a cyber-cheating husband the benefit of the doubt?

Feminist Amanda Marcotte…called the reporting of a congressman’s lewd photo scandal “new standards” of which we should all fear [and]… asserts that investigation into or reporting on Wiener’s acts constitutes a “violation of sexual privacy.” (Source: Big Journalism)

So when the press was reporting on the Larry Craig scandal and trying to bring down a Speaker of the House during the Clinton Administration that wasn’t a set of “new standards”, but if you of your boys gets his butt in a sling, then it troubles you. You ma’am are a hypocrite.

Then we have everyone’s favorite horrible actress, Janeane Garafalo:

During an appearance on HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher,” Janeane Garofalo said, “Anthony Wiener deserves to be supported and hopefully he will be the mayor of New York one day.  I’m serious. He is a Democrat [who] actually fights for the things liberals and progressive and rational people care about.” (Source: Big Journalism)

So Ms. Garafalo, is treating women like sexual prey something “liberals and progressives and rational people” care about?  What about lying?

I really do think that a lot of progressive women will protect a person like Wiener because he has fought for so-called abortion rights. For feminists, the right to terminate a pregnancy is issue number one and that crowds out everything else. The abortion issue crowds out telling the truth when called to do so and crowds out treating women with respect.

Has anyone ever wondered why a male politician would nearly fall on his sword to protect the “right” for women to have abortions on demand? I have given this some thought from time to time and have come up with my own theories.

Theory number one is pretty simple and clear. They are digging for women voters. They really don’t care one way or another about the issue of abortion; they just want the progressive female vote. Women do vote more for democrats than Republicans and abortion might be one of those reasons.

My other theory is a little more insidious. Maybe guys like Rep Wiener support abortion because they view it as a form of birth control. As far as we know, Wiener was not actually having physical sex with any of the women he had contact with. But what if he had decided to take it a little further and actually meet up with one of these women. Lisa Weiss, a Las Vegas blackjack dealer, appears to have been more than willing to have a physical relationship with Wiener according to the transcript of their Facebook conversations (the transcript language is vary graphic) posted at Radar Online. Seeing that Wiener is a married man (for now), if Miss Weiss had gotten pregnant during a possible liaison, would he want that option available so it could be kept quiet?

It is very sad that these women continue to support a congressman who obviously has a different viewpoint of women than many of these feminist have of themselves.

Whose a Liberal Outlet? You're a Liberal Outlet

Just in case you were wondering if Yahoo! News was a liberal news organization take a look at these headlines from this AM

Headline #1

The Antiabortion Crowd’s Latest Target: African Americans

OK, where to get started with this one. Let’s take a look at “target”.  Isn’t this word inflammatory and will cause people to go on a shooting spree? How many times did the liberal press point out that Sarah Palin’s target map was the root of all evil? I guess it is OK for Yahoo! News to use the word target and use it a way that makes it seem like being aimed at.

Now we’ll look at “antiabortion”. When you are a liberal and want to make the pro-life folks look a little less human, you use the term antiabortion. Throw antiabortion with the word crowd and you have unruly mob or “group with nefarious intent”.

Defunding Planned Parenthood

Over the course of my life the issue of abortion has run a course from slightly supporting its use and easy availability to indifference to where I am now. I am pro-life with some qualifiers. Although I do firmly believe that life begins at conception abortion “privileges” is the law of the land and until such things change, it should be available. However, I do believe that when future generations look back on us through the prism of history there will be great shame. Abortion has extinguished 50 million lives in the past nearly 40 years. I also do not believe that abortion should be used as a form of birth control.  Planned Parenthood does supply low income women with means for birth control such as condoms, but they also consider abortion under the banner of “reproductive rights”. But one place I do draw the line is using my tax dollars in any fashion to fund abortions.

A couple of weeks back Mike Pence (R-IN) sponsored a bill in the House to basically defund Planned Parenthood. Pence has been a long-time supporter of overturning Roe v. Wade and his bill was in response to the taping of what could be considered less than honorable actions (illegal?) by some staff members at Planned Parenthood clinics.  The bill was able to pass the House mostly along party lines (WA was down the part line).  Now the bill goes to the Senate where it faces a pretty stiff challenge from the democrat majority.  PP gets about $300 million for the government, which is about one-third of their annual budget. This Title 10 money is not used to fund abortions directly.