He got involved why?

Fair warning. This post deals with politics. If you are a Democrat, you WILL be offended. If you are a Republican, you WILL be offended. If you are left-wing, you WILL be offended. If you are right-wing, you WILL be offended.

If that bothers you, save us both time and do not read it. This is going to be one of those rare posts where I will be moderating comments and will have no qualms about rejecting...read "censoring" if you wish..anything that is too vituperative, profane, or offensive. I know I have two regular commenters and many more readers. This post is the type that tends to bring comments from people using search engines, casual readers, people stopping by the first time, and outright trolls.

To my regular commenters...you are welcome to read it or not read it, comment or not comment...I know there is stuff in here you will disagree with and I am not out to offend you...and will not be offended whether you choose to read/comment or choose not to. I wrote this for me.

You can debate it all you want, put your points, pro or con out there, but do it in a reasonable, reasoned way.  I know going in this is going to be about the most controversial, potentially divisive post I have ever put up, possibly excepting one about "Chickens coming home to roost" after 9/11 and Ward Churchill.

However, this is a forum for my beliefs and opinions...both of which are prominent and prevalent in this post. The belief portions come from my study of the Bible. The opinions come from using my brain. There is a difference between the two; there is a chance my opinions are wrong and might change. There is little to no chance of that with my beliefs. So here we go.

The President of about half the country saw fit to get involved in something that puzzles me greatly. Just as Bush was called, "Not my President" by people who did not vote for him, I look at Obama the same way...no way on earth am I claiming that tool as my leader. Enemy, sure...leader? Nah.

I mean, sure, he was trying to illegally force millions of people to pay for something they find morally reprehensible without their consent, but does he really have to protect someone he has never heard from a comment that was not made to or about him?

I am amazed at all the free passes this chowderhead gets. When Bush was in office there was a huge outcry about his extravagant spending. Yet Obama raises the debt more than ALL prior Presidents combine and the outrage from the left is so loud you can hear it almost a millimeter from their mouths...hypocrites. If it is bad for the goose, it is bad for the gander.

He tries to slip more crap through via executive order than about any other President in history...and every president that has ever done that should have been immediately impeached by the way...the whole executive order nonsense is a complete violation of the separation of powers. EVERY President who has used that to legislate has been in direct violation of the intent and extent of the Constitution.

But nobody says a word.

Then the Susan G. Kommen Foundation makes a decision that falls completely within the parameters of their stated charter, there is a huge outcry, they back down (and when they did lost my support. I have contributed to that foundation for years, more than all the others I contribute to combined in memory of my Mom, but when they cowarded out they have seen their last penny from me) and he cheers.

We go on, he tries to illegally force people to violate their rights and conscience by forcing them to pay for something they believe is wrong.
Where is the cry of outrage that he is forcing his beliefs on them? I want to hear that from all the people who make that complaint about people who believe sex outside marriage is wrong or homosexuality is wrong or murder is murder...whoops, should have typed abortion is murder. How is it that you believing those things are right and telling me not to say anything is not you forcing your beliefs on me?

Because it is all hypocrisy and one-way by the people who spout that non-sensical drivel.

People who read the Bible...not the commentaries, not selected portions...actually read the Bible...and believe it is the Word of God, inspired as it claims, those people have a firm foundation for their beliefs. Those beliefs include the statements above, two of them explicitly stated...and furthermore, the Bible also says that he who believes and does not tell others is showing hate towards those others.

Thus when person A comes out and says of person B who speaks out against immorality they have no right to force their beliefs on people, person A is forcing his beliefs on person B and sees no problem with this.

I have watched and suffered it for years without saying too much about it. I have had enough.

And along those lines, this non-sensical brouhaha over Limbaugh's statements is hysterically funny to me.

First off, I think it is awesome that people who cannot stand Limbaugh and think anything he says is by definition stupid listen to him.

 I think that way about Al Franken and Michael Moore.

 On a completely unrelated note, I do not read Frankens manifestos and have only seen Bowling for Columbine because I was forced to for a class...and it was everything I expected and more. Outright lies, brutal manipulations, twistings of truth and outright idiocy.



To save time...if it is a political show of any sort, I save my time and do not listen unless circumstances beyond my control force me to.

But back to the Limbaugh-Fluke-Obama thing...

It is an open question to me why Fluke has any place testifying before Congress. One would think they are too busy engaging in their own frauds, tax evasions, drunk driving, illicit affairs, engagements with prostitutes, driving girlfriends off bridges in cars and other upstanding, moral actions to hear such testimony. "See no evil, hear no evil, do no evil, a good lifestyle for those I make laws for but it does not apply to me" is their motto.

More seriously, there is a place for someone like Fluke to testify...just as their is a place for someone like whoever the catholic bishop of that same state to testify or, let's face it...me, a tax-payer who helps fund the insurance for students through my lovely Federal taxes to testify.

I think it is illustrative of how bad the two-party system is and how far out of touch our so-called representatives are that they need such testimony to figure out how the people of the country feel about things like this.

And lets be honest...Fluke should not have been testifying in front of Congress...she should have been testifying in front of HER representatives...a very small sub-set of the integer known as Congress.

Why, exactly, should the Oregon reps be listening to testimony about someone in a state ac4ross the country? Come back and talk to YOUR constituents, you out of touch tools.

I also think it is awesome that people not wanting to be forced to pay for something they believe is immoral is somehow an attack on women. That is such a moronic idea I am appalled anyone gives it credence. Why not say that paying taxes in a state that has the death penalty is an attack on men, since it is overwhelmingly men killed due to the death penalty...whereas in abortions, the murders are split much more equally between boys and girls.

Yes, I know in one case the murder is of innocents and in the other it is a legally enacted retributive act towards convicted criminals...and I am often puzzled that people in favor of abortion are opposed to the death penalty because some innocent people have been wrongfully executed...but do not see the discrepancy in those viewpoints.

By the way, I am on both sides of the death penalty...I do not oppose it per se, I just oppose it in our system which is not a justice system but rather a "conviction record" system where the purpose of a trial is not to bring out the truth but rather to win the case...and all too often the states withhold exonerating evidence and/or the defendants are represented by unqualified attorneys. But that is an aside.

Issa was out of line in issuing his letter. Obama was out of line in his call. Neither should be responding to the issue at all.

Furthermore, having read the remarks Limbaugh made..which I would not even have been aware of if not for the mis-placed fury...I know good and well they should be taken in the same light as the famous Jim Rome episode where he talked about hoping his daughter would get into porn.

For those who do not know Jim Rome, he is a sports talk show host. Much of his humor...and at the top of his game he is hilarious...comes from sometimes acidic, quite sarcastic comments he makes. In one memorable incident a caller made a very ill-considered remark of dubious intelligence. Rome went on a classic and hysterical rant about hoping his daughter would get into porn.

Many of us listening were suffering bouts of side-splitting laughter...and the caller thought he was SERIOUS. "Rome, I don't think ANY father wants his daughter to get into porn".

It was awesome. Rome's comments were obviously designed to draw a laugh, to take a situation with some interesting elements and turn it into a comedic opportunity that his designated audience would find funny.

In the past I have been in situations where I listened to the Limbaugh show and, while I would never consider myself a fan, aficionado or dittohead, I "get" the show and "get" when he is trying to be funny.

And his comments were extremely funny...and more so because there is more than an element of truth in them.

Best yet, Flukes comment that "This language is an attack on all women, and has been used throughout history to silence our voices," could just as easily be read, "This language is an attack on all people with faith in God, and has been used throughout history to silence our voices."

I think Santorum was both wrong and right. Limbaugh is an entertainer. But absurd? You are pointing that in the wrong direction. Yet another reason I can say, when asked what I thought of the primaries, "Nothing. I know I am not voting for whoever wins so I really don't care who does."

To which the usual reply is, "You don't strike me as an Obama fan."

"I am not. Hard to say who was worse, him or Clinton...both push immorality to new lows in different ways. I am voting FOR someone, not for the lesser of two evils."

"When you vote for someone who has no chance you are wasting your vote."

This is where the conversation comes to a pause as I carefully make sure they are paying attention. "No, when you vote for someone who stands against your core beliefs because the other guy is worse, YOU are wasting your vote and ensuring the next generation will do the same because those will be the only choices they have."