Posts Tagged 'drugs'

A Fluke? Or A Movement?

In case you have been living under a rock, Sandra Fluke is the college student attending Georgetown University who testified before Congress that her birth control costs $3,000 a year and the only way she can get birth control is if Congress allows the President to force religious institutions (like Georgetown) to pay for it, which they then did.  Rush Limbaugh got himself into some trouble when he used a two naughty words to describe someone who wants others to pay for her to have sex.  Judging by family friendly ABC’s new show GCB (originally titled Good Christian Bitches), if only Rush had called Fluke an SP, he would have been ok.

The left wants us to see Fluke like this:

She is a very young, very poor college student who perhaps has acne or cysts on her ovaries that only birth control can fix.  However, Republicans are voting to make Georgetown revoke her rights to buy birth control because every sperm is precious.  In the end, perhaps she wrote a letter to her senator and her senator actually read it, but somehow Fluke came in contact with Democrats in Washington DC who found her story so compelling that they tried to have her testify before Congress, but Republicans hate women and wanted only men testifying so they said no.

In actual fact, Sandra Fluke is a 30 year old law student who can afford $50,000 a year for law school, but can’t seem to find her way into Target or Wal Mart where birth control is $9 a month.  She wants to force her Catholic college and all Americans to pay so that she can have as much consequence-free sex as she can fit between classes.  She also is not random.  Fluke has been an activist promoting the idea of forcing others to pay for birth control and morning after abortion pills.  In fact, she was the president of Law Students for Reproductive Justice.  It’s amazing to me that no one blinks at the fact that this seemingly random student somehow ended up as the star witness for the Democrats, even though Pelosi’s office can’t seem to confirm or deny if the two had ever talked previously.  In fact, Democrats pulled their official witness in order to put Fluke in front of the cameras with her false sob story.  The last minute switcheroo violated policy which is the real reason she wasn’t allowed to testify by those mean old women-hating Republicans.

By the way, which is more offensive?  Rush using naughty words to describe her?  Or Obama giving Christian hospitals, colleges, orphanages, churches and other religious institutions the choice of either providing contraception AND morning after abortion pills or shutting their doors?  Even more offensive is Obama’s hardline on religious institutions while he simultaneously cuts military health benefits.

This brings us to the scary question.  What was Fluke doing at a Jesuit-run Catholic university in the first place?  Doesn’t she know the Catholic church’s teachings on contraception?  Actually, she does and that is why she went there.  Fluke reviewed the Georgetown student insurance policies and enrolled in order to change them.  As a liberal activist, she infiltrated Georgetown in order to use the hand of government to overturn their first amendment rights and force her personal, secular ideologies on them.

This line of attack should scare any religious institution.  It’s one thing when liberals are attacking religion from the outside, like ABC’s new anti-Christian show.  I wouldn’t infringe on people’s freedom of speech and I can control my own remote (imagine that).  But this idea that liberal activists are going to be infiltrating religious institutions in order to impose their secular beliefs on the rest of us should be far more alarming than any naughty words used by an entertainer. Should Christian schools start screening students to make sure they are not liberal plants?

I went to a Christian college for two years.  They taught creation.  They would never pay for morning after pill abortions and actually had rules against pre-marriage intercourse.  They had rules against drugs, homosexuality, drinking, and even foul language.  But it was ok.  We knew that when we went there.  I made a personal choice to go there and live under those rules for two years.  That is something people can do in a free society.  This freedom is the core target of the Fluke-style infiltration assault on Christianity.

This is pretty serious stuff.  The Left has a lot to answer for.  Was Fluke a plant?  If so, it is Fluke and Pelosi who should be apologizing to the country for this blatant fraud and attempt to steal our first amendment rights.

Advertisements

Halfway States Rights Does Not Equal States Rights

In the political circles where I like to debate, the question commonly comes up about drug policy.  Most Libertarians, many progressive social Democrats and even some Conservatives will argue strongly against our war on illegal drugs.  Many argue that it costs too much, many argue that it is government intrusion into our lives and unconstitutional, and others argue just because they happen to be high at the time.

I have been asked my opinion on the issue and people are sometimes surprised how I answer.  Most conservatives, especially Christian, free-market conservatives who know that illegal drugs ruin lives and turn some people into permanent wards of the state, strongly support Federal intervention and Federal drug laws.  I don’t.

I have read through the Constitution many times and cannot find anything that would justify a Federal ban on putting any sort of substance into your body.  Don’t get me wrong, I have seen what drugs do to people and I would vote in a heartbeat to ban them in my state or city.  But until we amend the Constitution with a new prohibition amendment, we damage the integrity of our national foundation of personal freedom and states rights when the Federal Government assumes the duties that the Constitution clearly delegates to the individual states.    In fact, I think if Thomas Jefferson knew only that Reagan was the one who mandated that states adopt 21 as the drinking age limit, he would certainly have called Reagan an anti-Constitutional tyrant.

So is this high praise of President Obama for instructing his attorney general, Eric Holder, to spend more time on affirmative action violations and less time on prosecuting medical potheads in states where it is legal?  No, and here is why:

Currently there are medical marijuana laws in 13 states.  Washington State is perhaps the most lenient, allowing you to have 24 oz. without getting busted and not charging you for a license to carry (marijuana).  Meanwhile, the other 37 states do not have any medical marijuana freedoms.  Yet, every year all 50 states pay billions in Federal taxes for national drug rehab programs alone.  We are spending nearly $500 billion a year on the state and federal level for rehab, incarceration, child services, dealing with homelessness, and other drug related costs.  States cover much of the bill on their own, but according to Columbia University’s National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, if the Federal Government recorded costs for prevention and rehabilitation as a separate budget item, it would rank as the  sixth most expensive Federal program.  It accounts for 9.6% of the Federal budget.

Let me break that down in simpler terms.  When Californians can get a prescription for marijuana to handle their stress, athlete’s foot, occasional headaches, or whatever else they can get a doctor to write a prescription for; people in Florida, Connecticut, New York, and Texas will be footing the bill to help them clean up their lives.  When someone in Michigan can’t get a job because spend half the day too stoned to get up, someone in Minnesota will be writing their Federal welfare check.

The Federal Government does not have the constitutional authority to rob one state to pay for another’s social ills.  The Federal Government does not have the constitutional authority to provide for certain groups’ specific welfare while harming the welfare of others through redistributive programs.  The Federal Government does have the constitutional duty to regulate interstate commerce and ensure that one state is not ripping off another.

By granting states the individual right to legalize self-destruction, but requiring that all states be mandated to pay for the consequences, Obama has violated the interstate commerce clause and made national social programs such as Federal welfare, Medicaid, Federally funded SCHIP, Federal funding for faith-based organizations, and his dream of universal healthcare and a public option that much more unconstitutional.

Given the choice, I would rather that Obama had ended unconstitutional wealth redistribution programs than lifted the unconstitutional Federal ban on drugs while still making me pay for the consequences.  Either way, this is no victory for states rights advocates.

Safe (Sex In) Schools Czar

A short time ago, Obama’s green jobs Czar, Van Jones, was obliged to step down after he discovered that he had unwittingly signed a petition once to investigate Bush for the 9/11 terrorist attacks.  Van Jones is actually one of Obama’s less innocuous Czar appointments.  But this is what happens when the President delegates himself the unconstitutional authority to appoint and outsource power to people in made up positions with no congressional oversight.

More shocking than Van Jones, who once accused white people of polluting black neighborhoods, is Obama’s choice for a “Safe Schools” Czar, Kevin Jennings.  Jennings is in charge of figuring out how to make our wonderful institution of public schools safe for the children who attend.  Jennings has come under a great deal of criticism for his pro-homosexual education stance and his anti-religion stance.  But seriously people, this is public school.  That’s par for the course.  Others have been disturbed by Jennings admitted drug abuse and suggest that this might disqualify him from being the man in charge of keeping our schools drug-free.  On the other hand, half the US Presidents who have appointed Drug Czars share Jennings’ history of illegal drug abuse.

“I got stoned more often and went out to the beach at Bellows, overlooking Honolulu Harbor and the lights of the city, to drink with my buddies on Friday and Saturday nights, spending hours watching the planes take off and land at the airport, which is actually quite fascinating when you are drunk and stoned.” – Kevin Jennnings

Beyond his own dark past, what makes most parents nervous about the “Safe Schools” Czar is his record when it comes to actually keeping kids safe.  Jennings tells the story of when a 15 year old boy came to him and told him that he (the 15 year old boy) was meeting older men in a bus station bathroom for sex.  Jennings response, in his own words, was to make sure he “used a condom”.  Who knew when Obama hired the “Safe Schools” Czar, he was actually getting the “Safe Sex” Czar.

Encouraging a minor to enjoy their statutory rape as long as they use a condom is the sort of thing that might get a Republican fired.  In fact, the Washington Times editorial on Kevin Jennings reminds us of how the party lost the 2006 congressional election because Mark Foley sent mildly suggestive texts to a minor.

The Senate Finance Committee has just voted to restore federal funding for abstinence programs.  It is obvious that these programs run directly in opposition to President Obama’s agenda, as evidenced by his choice for Safe Sex in Schools Czar Kevin Jennings.  This may be the beginning of a battle that will show Americans who really is in charge in Washington, the Congress or the Czars.

Elementary School Parents Get “Wee-Wee’d Up”

If you haven’t heard, getting “wee-wee’d up” is the President’s new term to describe people who get nervous about his healthcare plan.  When asked to define “wee-wee’d up”, press secretary “Washington Bob” Gibbs said that it meant that those who oppose universal healthcare were bed-wetters.

Well, now a new group of people are soiling themselves, metaphorically speaking, in reaction Obama.  On September 8, Obama is planning to make a speech that will be televised in every public school; and some Conservative parents are not happy.

Apparently older demographics weren’t buying his plans so Obama’s looking for a younger, more gullible audience.  Schools have been given push-polling forms to make sure that the children understand what the President is telling them in his address.  The forms come with a questionnaire for teachers to ask  students, suggestions for writing assignments, and an ACORN voter registration form.

My reaction?  What’s the big deal?  People, these are public schools.  Obama is not going to say anything that they won’t hear over and over during their 12 years under the supervision of the National Education Association.  In fact, look on the bright side; Obama’s speech is going to be televised where concerned parents can actually watch and record it. In his speech Obama probably won’t talk negatively about God and Christians, won’t talk about evolution in relation to human origins, won’t promote homosexuality, and won’t talk about America’s evil past and the evil men who founded her.  I figure that’s an improvement.  In fact, Obama might take the time to encourage the students to stay focused, don’t smoke, don’t do drugs.  Who knows, maybe they’ll do as he says, not as he did.

Actually, depending on what period Obama takes, they just might have to cancel a sex ed class for that day.  Imagine that, your 10 year old just might be able to keep her innocence for 24 more precious hours.

Ok, so it’s not fair.  President George H.W. Bush made a televised speech in 1991 to one school and Democrats flipped. And you were expecting what?  Consistency?  Like when they said we should vote for Democrats because Republicans spend too much?  Like when they told us we should vote for Democrats because Republicans are going to tax your healthcare benefits and make cuts in Medicare?  Like when they voted for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, then voted against funding our troops, and now suddenly support the wars again?  Like how Obama is cutting back on environmental cleanup but nobody on the left is even mentioning it?  Like how Obama said he would give 95% of Americans a tax cut and now he is talking about raising taxes on 100% of Americans to pay for healthcare and his debt?

It could be that you were expecting consistency because at some point in your own public education someone told you that life should be fair.


Share This Blog

Bookmark and Share

Categories