12-12-12

Well today is the last day in 88 years that we'll have the month-day-year all the same!   Most of us will not be around to see 01-01-01 (2101), so enjoy a moment today to reflect on the day, say about 12 minutes after noon...  that would be 12:12 12-12-12.

Military Ballot Box

2012 Mayan Calendar

Passivity Lost This Election

As it turns out the biggest loser in this election was President Obama!  He received nearly 10 million fewer votes in 2012 than he did in 2008!   That being said, Governor Romney received nearly 3 million fewer votes than McCain did in 2008.  The startling fact is that if Romney had all of McCain's votes - he would have won, at least in the popular vote (maybe not in electoral votes, they're still trying to figure that part out).  Romney COULD have won this - IF the Republicans who supported McCain had supported Romney the same way.  It was ultimately those who stayed home who passively decided this election.  Sad, but true. 

Election Maps to Make You Say Hmmm

It's over... well, is it?  

 

President Obama has won another four years in office, or rather Governor Romney lost the bid to take over.  By all indicators Romney should have won, and won handily - so what happened?  While the Romney campaign went with respectable ideals, they underestimated the Obama campaign's ability to get to the people they needed.

 

Look at the election map (courtesy of Foxnews.com w/Florida copied in by me) here:

Or a more detailed map here (courtesy of Freedom's Lighthouse) here:

Most of the country is actually "red" for Romney!  Very few are "blue" - but where they are blue it is in more densely populated areas (with the exception of a couple sparsely populated counties in Arizona).  The point here is that the Democratic machine out campaigned the Republicans in these key areas.  They also did not so much campaign on ideals of what they wanted to do for the future, rather the focus was on scare tactics projecting (often lies) about what a President Romney would do.  The "scare" worked.  The "focus" worked.

Now, on the other hand - going back to President Nixon, notice the pattern!

When a Republican wins - he gets nearly the whole country, but when a Democrat wins, he only gets key states.  Does that make you say "hmmmm?"  

For those who may be too young to have known all these years:  

2012= Obama; 2008= Obama

2004= GW Bush; 2000= GW Bush

1996= Clinton; 1992= Clinton 

1988= GHW Bush

1984= Reagan; 1980= Reagan

1976= Carter

1972= Nixon; 1968= Nixon (not pictured).

It is also interesting to note that every president since Nixon has been elected to two terms with the exceptions of Carter and GHW Bush.  Carter lost due to extreme economic crisis and the Iran hostage crisis; GHW Bush lost in a three-way race where Perot took a good chunk of the votes which would have gone to him, allowing Clinton to get in for his first term.

How Can It Be?

Question: How can a liar and a failure actually win the presidency?  

Answer:  People believe the lies and can't believe the failures.

Painting the Target in Benghazi

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/10/bombshell-us-troops-would-not-have-been-painting-assets-on-ground-unless-their-was-air-support-overhead-but-white-house-called-off-attack/

Why would US support personnel be "painting the target" if there were no assets in the air to actually HIT a target? Who "called off" the counter-attack in Benghazi?  If it wasn't "called off" - then who "disobeyed orders?"  President Obama has stated he said to do whatever is necessary to protect American lives.  IF that "target was painted" and IF either the drone or other military assets were in the air to "see" that "painting" and the counter attack was NOT made, who decided NOT to attack back?!  

That brave former Navy Seal GAVE UP his position in "painting the target," something he would NOT have done if the assets were not in the air to ACT upon that "painting."

This keeps getting worse and worse!

Who Won Hofstra Debate?

OK, my take on this debate is that both candidates "came out swinging" this time.  This says a LOT more for President Obama compared to the first debate.   It was more like a "brawl" this time around.  Both made points.  Governor Romney made a mistake (several times) in asking open-ended questions of the President.  In a debate one should never ask a question to which they either a) don't already know the answer to, or b) have not already telegraphed the answer to, leaving your opponent no alternative than to give the answer you expected - that is, if both your expectation and your opponent are honest.

Overall, on substance I believe Governor Romney still "wins" - but in "debate points" I may lean toward President Obama.  The problem is, while he wins the debate points - once the "fact checking" takes place, he loses the actual argument.  For those who just watch the debate and do not watch for the fact checking, I believe there's a slight edge to the President.  For those who do wait for the fact checking, I believe the evidence will be overwhelmingly in Governor Romney's favor.  So, while Obama "wins the night" (barely), Romney actually "wins the debate."  One fact I've already heard verified was where Gov. Romney claimed a 50% drop in drilling contracts - the fact is it's over 60% for off-shore drilling and about 33% for on-shore drilling (Chris Wallace).  To that point, I must add, Governor Romney asked a specific question, "How much did you cut them by?"  President Obama diverted and answered about how much oil is being drilled... he answered a question which Romney didn't ask.

Who Won?
National Journal:  Obama wins debate points - but ultimate verdict is uncertain (in short, a tie).

A "Quick Poll" on Huffington Post says Obama wins:

 CNN says "Obama comes on Strong, Romney holds his ground."  Their poll suggests Obama won, but also conceded that the results were within the margin of error.

The Global Post states that while Obama "held his own" it also says "but Romney didn't lose much."

Foxnews says it's a split decision - Democrats say Obama won, Republicans say Romney won.

The bottom line is, after President Obama's dismal showing in the Denver debate, he needed a grand slam, knock it out of the park victory tonight in order to quell Governor Romney's momentum - and while Obama was more aggressive, Romney stood his ground - or as the Global Post put it, "Romney didn't lose much."  Therefore, President Obama didn't get the kind of win - if there was any "win" at all for him - he needed this time round so I predict that Romney will continue to overtake Obama - and in some polls, he already has.

When One Debates a Fool...

Cutting Taxes DOES Work! So Said JFK!

Even one of the greatest Democrat Presidents of the United States agrees!  Cutting the tax rate will increase the tax revenue - not only did John F. Kennedy say this, but so did Ronald Reagan, it the FACT is it is absolutely TRUE!  Governor Romney and Senator Ryan are proposing virtually the SAME THING that President Kennedy proposed!  Was President Kennedy wrong?  If it was right then, it is right now!

Scott<<<
  

Sesame Workshop Response to Obama Ad

To paraphrase, they want Big Bird removed from the Obama campaign's recent anti-Romney ad.  Sesame Workshop (the host of Sesame Street, and Big Bird) is a non-partisan organization which does not support any political party or candidate.   You can see their response here.

The attack stems from Governor Romney's comment from the first presidential debate held last Wednesday where he said, "I'm sorry, Jim, I'm going to stop the subsidy to PBS. I'm going to stop other things. I like PBS, I love Big Bird. Actually like you, too. But I'm not going to -- I'm not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for. That's number one."  President Obama's attack ad sarcastically states that Big Bird is "a menace to our economy" and that Governor Romney is "taking on our enemies no matter where they nest."  Now, is that what Governor Romney REALLY said?  No!  He said he likes PBS and LOVES Big Bird - but he cannot justify sending money to support PBS (including Sesame Street) if we have to borrow that money from China to do it.

Romney's side has used an image of "The Count" and references Big Bird and Elmo - counting the number of times the Obama Campaign has referred to Big Bird and Elmo compared to how many times Lybia or "Plans to Fix the Economy" have been mentioned.  

Again, Sesame Workshop requests their trademarked characters be left out of the political campaign ads.  The Republican image is not as offensive as the Democrat one, but both should respect the wishes of Sesame Workshop.
 

Time To Circle The Wagons

In the aftermath of last night's debate the liberal media has been, thus far, been expressing their disgust with President Obama's lack of preparation ... soon you can expect them to begin circling the wagons and rallying to support the president.   Watch and see! 

Romney Wins First Debate

It is clear, Governor Romney won the first debate.  President Obama did get in a few good points, but overall it was Romney's night.  Romney did miss an opening "zinger" when President Obama said:

And so I just want to wish, Sweetie, you happy anniversary and let you know that a year from now we will not be celebrating it in front of 40 million people. 

Romney could have responded:

Mr. President, first off, congratulations on your 20th anniversary. I will do my best to make sure you spend your next one in Chicago and not in the White House.

While not a lot of substance to the statement, it would have been a bit of humor which would have resonated with the observers.

Another thing I noticed was that when President Obama was asked a direct question by Mr. Lehrer his response was almost every time a distraction to another subject.  Lehrer, in my humble opinion, should have then stated, "but my question was..." and then repeat the question.  Obama should not have been able to get away with the red herring tactic so easily with such an experience moderator (Lehrer has hosted the first presidential debate every time since 1988).

President Obama seemed to be stuck on Governor Romney allegedly planning a 5 trillion dollar tax cut, even after Romney repeatedly stated he has no such plan.  If Obama believed he indeed had such a plan then he should have been prepared with the facts of when Romney announced such a plan - rather than just keep repeating it is Romney's plan after Romney denied it (several times).

Now this was just the first debate, not the election.  There's still plenty of time for President Obama to rebound - but if he doesn't rebound from this, the swing is going in Romney's favor.

Full transcript of the debate can be found here:
http://www.timescall.com/ci_21693042/presidential-debate-running-transcript-obama-romney-square-off
 

Please feel free to add your own comments.

Terrible Call or Horrendous Non-Call

The manner in which the mainstream media treats liberals, President Obama being the chief among them, can be compared to the replacement refs in the National Football League.  Week after week we're seeing terrible calls in the NFL, not the least of which was last Monday night's game where the game was lost to the Green Bay Packers (and I'm a Vikings fan, so I speak with some objectivity here!) due to two calls on the second to last play of the game (the last being the point-after kick).  It was actually one terrible call and one horrendously missed call.  

The terrible call was to call the catch in the end zone "simultaneous possession."  How could that be?!  Jennings is a good 8-10 inches higher than Tate, the ball is clearly IN his hands before Tate touches it - then as they go to the ground Tate grabs hold of the ball with Jennings - but Jennings already has it securely in his arms and against his chest!  It was clearly Jennings' ball that Tate was attempting to steal away.

The horrendously missed call was PRIOR to the catch - where Tate, with two hands, SHOVES #37, Sam Shields, out of the way!  That's what REAL refs would call "offensive pass interference" which would nullify any chance or argument for Tate catching the ball.  See for yourself:

OK, back to what I was saying about how the mainstream press treats liberals.  Let's just take the attack in Benghazi, Lybia - where the United States ambassador and 3 others were killed.  The Obama administration comes out and says it was a spontaneous attack brought on by protestors due to an insulting, and very amateur video (called a movie).  In reality it was a well planned terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11.  On top of that, being a US Consulate - it is consider "American soil," so it is a terrorist attack on American soil on the anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in history.  The Obama administration therefore MUST distract and play down the reality of the situation not only for that reason, but also the question arises "Where was the Ambassador's protection/security?"  He was virtually ALONE when he was attacked!  Two of those killed were former Navy Seals, who were not "on duty" - but heroically stood up in the face of certain death for the sake of the Ambassador.  There was NO security, NO increased protection on the anniversary of September 11, 2001 and this was AFTER there were warnings that the Ambassador was in danger!  One could say that President Obama made a "bad call" in this matter - or an horrendous non-call.

The End of Democracy?

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville

Real Waterbed

It's in German, but still funny!

Separation of Church and State?

Does the statement "separation of church and state" exist anywhere in the U.S. Constitution?  No!  The origin of this statement comes from a private letter from then President Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association (DBA) in Connecticut and in response to a letter they had written to him.  Essentially, the DBA was asking for President Jefferson's support in preventing churches and church organizations, like the DBA, from being taxed by "those who wish to rise to wealth and importance on the poverty (taxation) and subjugation of the people."  President Jefferson's response was that they have the support of his office in that regard due to the fact that there is a "wall of separation between church and state" based upon that which IS in the Constitution that Congress "would make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."  The important part here is the "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."  

The original intent therefore, has nothing to do with prohibiting prayer in public places, nativity scenes on public squares, etc. for these are "free exercises thereof."  The Constitution prohibits Congress from establishing a religion, as in a "state religion" (like they had under British rule, where Anglicanism was the "Church of England" - a "church of state").

President Jefferson closes his letter by reciprocating the prayer and intention of the DBA.  

Below are the letters of historic reference:
 
Letter from the Danbury Baptist Association:

The address of the Danbury Baptist Association in the State of Connecticut, assembled October 7, 1801.
To Thomas Jefferson, Esq., President of the United States of America
Sir,
Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office, we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration , to express our great satisfaction in your appointment to the Chief Magistracy in the Unite States. And though the mode of expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe, that none is more sincere.
Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter, together with the laws made coincident therewith, were adapted as the basis of our government at the time of our revolution. And such has been our laws and usages, and such still are, [so] that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation, and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. And these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgments, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore, if those who seek after power and gain, under the pretense of government and Religion, should reproach their fellow men, [or] should reproach their Chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dares not, assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.
Sir, we are sensible that the President of the United States is not the National Legislator and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each State, but our hopes are strong that the sentiment of our beloved President, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these States--and all the world--until hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and goodwill shining forth in a course of more than thirty years, we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the Chair of State out of that goodwill which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you--to sustain and support you and your Administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to rise to wealth and importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.
And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.
Signed in behalf of the Association,
Neh,h Dodge }
Eph'm Robbins } The Committee
Stephen S. Nelson }  (Source: http://www.wallbuilders.com/)libissuesarticles.asp?id=65)

The letter as delivered to the Danbury Baptist Association:

Messrs. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, and Stephen s. Nelson
A Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, in the State of Connecticut.

Washington, January 1, 1802
Gentlemen,--The affectionate sentiment of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature would "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.
Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802  (Source: http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=65)

 Draft of President Jefferson's letter (not sent):

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and, in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" thus building a wall of eternal separation between Church & State. Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect,

[Jefferson first wrote: "confining myself therefore to the duties of my station, which are merely temporal, be assured that your religious rights shall never be infringed by any act of mine and that." These lines he crossed out and then wrote: "concurring with"; having crossed out these two words, he wrote: "Adhering to this great act of national legislation in behalf of the rights of conscience"; next he crossed out these words and wrote:]

Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience I shall see with friendly dispositions the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced that he has no natural rights in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & the Danbury Baptist [your religious] association assurances of my high respect & esteem.
Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802. (Source:  http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpost.html)

So, when someone says "separation of church and state" - help educate them on where that REALLY came from and WHY President Jefferson said it.  It must be granted that President Jefferson himself "refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion," because in his personal opinion it was not his role to do so - but he does not state they cannot be performed - as these were "to the voluntary and discipline of each sect."  It must be noted too - THAT part was NOT INCLUDED in the final draft which was sent to the DBA, thus even though we can see it was his opinion - THAT part was not expressed to the DBA and is only found in the drafts of that particular letter.  When considering that which he DID write to them, THAT part should not be considered - it was left out for a reason.

Hypocrisy

Quote of the Day from Ben Stein:

"Fathom the Hypocrisy of a Government that

requires every citizen to prove they are insured...

but not everyone must prove they are a citizen."

Gnombre!

This guy just made his retirement!  

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2012/02/26/gnombre-hits-fundraising-goal-in.html 

I wish I would have come up with this idea, but then again...  I'd probably be branded a racist if I did!

Happy to Live in Arizona!

While we do get snow and icy roads from time to time, we don't have to deal with them very often...  be warned, there is a gruesome crash in this video...

Rush Limbaugh Apologizes

With all the hullabaloo over what Rush Limbaugh said about Sandra Fluke, and Rush's apology, I have to add my 2 cents...

A Statement from Rush

March 03, 2012

For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week.  In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.
I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit? In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone's bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level.
My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.

What did Sandra Fluke really say?  The source I am quoting from actually opposes Rush and is asking for support in that opposition - I do not support the opposition.
http://www.whereistheoutrage.net/wordpress/2012/03/04/more-on-limbaugh-and-exactly-what-did-sandra-fluke-say/

My name is Sandra Fluke, and I’m a third-year student at Georgetown Law School. I’m also a past-president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice or LSRJ. And I’d like to acknowledge my fellow LSRJ members and allies and all of the student activists with us and thank them so much for being here today.

We, as Georgetown LSRJ, are here today because we’re so grateful that this regulation implements the non-partisan medical advice of the Institute of Medicine.

I attend a Jesuit law school that does not provide contraceptive coverage in its student health plan. And just as we students have faced financial, emotional, and medical burdens as a result, employees at religiously-affiliated hospitals and institutions and universities across the country have suffered similar burdens.

We are all grateful for the new regulation that will meet the critical health care needs of so many women.

Simultaneously, the recently announced adjustment addresses any potential conflict with the religious identity of Catholic or Jesuit institutions.

When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women affected by this lack of contraceptive coverage.

And especially in the last week, I have heard more and more of their stories. On a daily basis, I hear yet from another woman from Georgetown or from another school or who works for a religiously-affiliated employer, and they tell me that they have suffered financially and emotionally and medically because of this lack of coverage.

And so, I’m here today to share their voices, and I want to thank you for allowing them – not me – to be heard.

Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary. 40% of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggle financially as a result of this policy.

One told us about how embarrassed and just powerless she felt when she was standing at the pharmacy counter and learned for the first time that contraception was not covered on her insurance and she had to turn and walk away because she couldn’t afford that prescription. Women like her have no choice but to go without contraception.

Just last week, a married female student told me that she had to stop using contraception because she and her husband just couldn’t fit it into their budget anymore. Women employed in low-wage jobs without contraceptive coverage face the same choice.

And some might respond that contraception is accessible in lots of other ways. Unfortunately, that’s just not true.

Women’s health clinic provide a vital medical service, but as the Guttmacher Institute has definitely documented, these clinics are unable to meet the crushing demand for these services. Clinics are closing, and women are being forced to go without the medical care they need.

How can Congress consider the [Rep. Jeff] Fortenberry (R-Neb.), [Sen. Marco] Rubio (R-Fla.) and [Sen. Roy] Blunt (R-Mo.) legislation to allow even more employers and institutions to refuse contraception coverage and then respond that the non-profit clinics should step up to take care of the resulting medical crisis, particularly when so many legislators are attempting to de-fund those very same clinics?

These denial of contraceptive coverage impact real people.

In the worst cases, women who need these medications for other medical conditions suffer very dire consequences.

A friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome, and she has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries. Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown’s insurance because it’s not intended to prevent pregnancy.

Unfortunately, under many religious institutions and insurance plans, it wouldn’t be. There would be no exception for other medical needs. And under Sen. Blunt’s amendment, Sen. Rubio’s bill or Rep. Fortenberry’s bill there’s no requirement that such an exception be made for these medical needs.

When this exception does exist, these exceptions don’t accomplish their well-intended goals because when you let university administrators or other employers rather than women and their doctors dictate whose medical needs are legitimate and whose are not, women’s health takes a back seat to a bureaucracy focused on policing her body.

In 65% of the cases at our school, our female students were interrogated by insurance representatives and university medical staff about why they needed prescription and whether they were lying about their symptoms.

For my friend and 20% of the women in her situation, she never got the insurance company to cover her prescription. Despite verifications of her illness from her doctor, her claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted birth control to prevent pregnancy. She’s gay. So clearly polycystic ovarian syndrome was a much more urgent concern than accidental pregnancy for her.

After months paying over $100 out-of-pocket, she just couldn’t afford her medication anymore, and she had to stop taking it.

I learned about all of this when I walked out of a test and got a message from her that in the middle of the night in her final exam period she’d been in the emergency room. She’d been there all night in just terrible, excruciating pain. She wrote to me, ‘It was so painful I’d woke up thinking I’ve been shot.’

Without her taking the birth control, a massive cyst the size of a tennis ball had grown on her ovary. She had to have surgery to remove her entire ovary as a result.

On the morning I was originally scheduled to give this testimony, she was sitting in a doctor’s office, trying to cope with the consequences of this medical catastrophe.

Since last year’s surgery, she’s been experiencing night sweats and weight gain and other symptoms of early menopause as a result of the removal of her ovary. She’s 32-years-old.

As she put it, ‘If my body indeed does enter early menopause, no fertility specialist in the world will be able to help me have my own children. I will have no choice at giving my mother her desperately desired grandbabies simply because the insurance policy that I paid for, totally unsubsidized by my school, wouldn’t cover my prescription for birth control when I needed it.’

Now, in addition to potentially facing the health complications that come with having menopause at such an early age – increased risk of cancer, heart disease, osteoporosis – she may never be able to conceive a child.

Some may say that my friend’s tragic story is rare. It’s not. I wish it were

One woman told us doctors believe she has endometriosis, but that can’t be proven without surgery. So the insurance has not been willing to cover her medication – the contraception she needs to treat her endometriosis.

Recently, another woman told me that she also has polycystic ovarian syndrome and she’s struggling to pay for her medication and is terrified to not have access to it.

Due to the barriers erected by Georgetown’s policy, she hasn’t been reimbursed for her medications since last August.

I sincerely pray that we don’t have to wait until she loses an ovary or is diagnosed with cancer before her needs and the needs of all of these women are taken seriously.

Because this is the message that not requiring coverage of contraception sends: A woman’s reproductive health care isn’t a necessity, isn’t a priority.

One woman told us that she knew birth control wasn’t covered on the insurance and she assumed that that’s how Georgetown’s insurance handle all of women’s reproductive and sexual health care. So when she was raped, she didn’t go to the doctor, even to be examined or tested for sexually transmitted infections, because she thought insurance wasn’t going to cover something like that – something that was related to a woman’s reproductive health.

As one other student put it: ‘This policy communicates to female students that our school doesn’t understand our needs.’

These are not feelings that male fellow student experience and they’re not burdens that male students must shoulder.

In the media lately, some conservative Catholic organizations have been asking what did we expect when we enroll in a Catholic school?

We can only answer that we expected women to be treated equally, to not have our school create untenable burdens that impede our academic success.

We expected that our schools would live up to the Jesuit creed of ‘cura personalis‘ – to care for the whole person – by meeting all of our medical needs.

We expected that when we told our universities of the problem this policy created for us as students, they would help us.

We expected that when 94% of students oppose the policy the university would respect our choices regarding insurance students pay for – completely unsubsidized by the university.

We did not expect that women would be told in the national media that we should have gone to school elsewhere.

And even if that meant going to a less prestigious university, we refuse to pick between a quality education and our health. And we resent that in the 21st century, anyone think it’s acceptable to ask us to make this choice simply because we are women.

Many of the women whose stories I’ve shared today are Catholic women. So ours is not a war against the church. It is a struggle for the access to the health care we need.

The President of the Association of Jesuit Colleges has shared that Jesuit colleges and the universities appreciate the modifications to the rule announced recently. Religious concerns are addressed and women get the health care they need. And I sincerely hope that that is something we can all agree upon.

Thank you very much.

OK, this sounds quite noble of Ms. Fluke, but in reality she is asking a Catholic institution to go against its moral stance on contraception.  THAT is the bottom line.  Certainly there are exceptions to the rule, but where does one draw the line?  If Georgetown University just opens up and give all female students contraceptive coverage - where does it end?  What about MALE rights?  Are males to be given coverage for erectile disfunction?  Or, as Rush pointed out, do we provide sneakers for all students who want to run to stay fit?   

Yes, Ms. Fluke's comments do not directly state she is interested in having sex outside of marriage without any consequences - but then again she's not advocating purely for medically necessary treatments which include drugs which are also contraceptive.  No, she's there to applaud Congress and President Obama for the HHS mandate being forced upon Catholic institutions - and the HHS mandate is not purely for purposes of medical necessity - but ANY use of contraception, which is wholly contrary to the moral standards of a Catholic institution.  

It must be pointed out that Ms. Fluke lists a few anecdotal situations in the extreme, but at the same time states "40% of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggle financially as a result of this policy."  So on one hand she lists extreme cases - and on the other she implies that 40% of the female students are in this predicament.  Considering that contraception is NOT as expensive as Ms. Fluke states (she stated it costs up to $3000 for the period of time students are at law school), "the pill" costs about $171 for the first year, a diaphragm costs about $160 and IUD's are about $131 (source) is she saying she'll be in law school for over 17 years?!  

To answer to Ms. Fluke's point about being told that she should have gone to school elsewhere, well, if you want coverage for something morally opposed by the institution's religious standards - then yes, you should have gone to school elsewhere.  There are plenty of schools out there with lower moral standards than Georgetown.  No one twisted your arm and forced you to go to Georgetown.  If you want a degree from a Catholic institution, then there are consequences (good ones, from my perspective!) which you must deal with.

In short, did Ms. Fluke admit to "slut" behavior?  No, but who does she think she's fooling?  In isolated cases of medical necessity a drug which also has contraceptive attributes can be used - even provided by Catholic institutions - but again, to think that 40% of the female population at Georgetown fits that category of "medical necessity" is ludicrous.  The fact is many, if not most, of those seeking contraception are doing so precisely for the reasons Mr. Limbaugh used his platform of absurdity to demonstrate.  Should Mr. Limbaugh have directly called Ms. Fluke a slut (among other names)?  No, but that she ultimately was standing up for slutty or otherwise immoral behavior contrary to the stance of a Catholic institution is undeniable.  So Rush's apology should be accepted, but his underlying point should not be ignored.

Romney Did NOT Win Michigan!

Based on delegates awarded - Romney and Santorum TIED with 15 delegates each!

Super Tuesday gets a bit more interesting!

Full Story

Davy Jones, RIP

Davy Jones passed away today at age 66.  He suffered a heart attack.  May he rest in peace.

Biography Channel video.

Picture found here:

http://thefrodisroom.deviantart.com/art/Davy-Jones-from-The-Monkees-35626943

Come on in

Coffee Hurts

I was eating lunch on the 20th of February with my 6-year-old granddaughter and I asked her, "What day is tomorrow?"

She said "It's President's Day!"

She is a smart kid. So, I asked "What does President's Day mean?" I was waiting for something about Washington or Lincoln etc.

She replied, "President's Day is when President Obama steps out of the White House, and if he sees his shadow we have one more year of unemployment."

You know, it hurts when hot coffee spurts out your nose.