Rush Limbaugh Asks a Sane Question

Shortly after the reelection of president Obama amidst the conservative meltdown including comments from the shock jock himself saying in part you can’t beat Santa Clause giving people free stuff vs. saying you should work for it, his view of the democratic platform. He did, in a surreal for onlookers, moment of clarity manage to ask a sane question, actually a series of them. He asked referencing the future of the republican party what they had to do in terms of change to gain voters and begin to win elections again; he asked in part if it meant they suddenly had to deny their beliefs and become pro-choice, open our borders to illegals to get the Hispanic vote, after rattling off a number of minorities that are in the republican party that said party doesn’t get credit for including Herman Cain, Allen West, Condoleezza  Rice, Marco Rubio, then drawing comparisons between howMichele Bachmann  can barely hold on to her congressional seat while Jesse Jackson Jr. retains his seat all while being in the Mayo Clinic. Continuing he stated even if the party reversed its stance on key issues they would still not get the votes president Obama received. What Mr. Limbaugh is perplexed by is the why that statement is true; it couldn’t be because even though the people mentioned are successful minorities, all have up from nothing, hard work stories they are also some of the most right leaning, extreme candidates in the party. It couldn’t have anything to do with, whether they are seen as tokens or not, being outshined by usually old, bigoted, racist white men and patriarchy-brainwashed slightly over middle aged women, effectively pushing an agenda that gives us the economy of the 1920’s the social parameters of the 1950’s, the national security policies of the 1980’s, leaving us with as country ill-equipped for the present and totally unprepared for the future. No it couldn’t possibly be that.   

The answer to Limbaugh’s series of questions is you get a sane platform; you realize Christian, conservative or both that birth control is not an abortion that just because it’s available doesn’t mean everyone is being forced to use it. Human beings still have free will and if you are against it you can choose not to use it just as others choose to use it. But it is going to be available for people to use; that, that debate is over and the American people have spoken. It means really understanding the uses for birth control as not just the prevention of pregnancy, the interruption of the creating of human life, but more often the treatment of medical conditions centering in female reproductive areas, organs, its uses similarly include treatment of women in menopause and perimenopause, where child bearing is no longer applicable. It involves looking over and understanding what the provision in Obama care giving woman access to all reproductive care actually entails, comprehending much more what it is not; that it isn’t fee birth control paid for by the state handed out to promiscuous persons, teens, drug addict women who can’t get their lives together courtesy of the local free clinic on the tax payers dime. Instead it is a mandate that all employee insurance pay for contraception and abortion services, for those who want them, as part of their insurance coverage, for which an insured individual pays a premium, copay, and a portion of the final bill. You develop a reasonable platform on something as emotional, controversial as abortion making exceptions to your no abortion, charge to overturn Roe v. Wade stance, in the cases of rape, incest and life of the mother, because it acknowledges the stark, horrible reality that such crimes do occur, that medicine has its limits. Said platform many opposing party members and voters could get behind. Personally as a voting citizen who considers themselves to be of the Christian faith, I’m waiting for someone in the conservative party to put forth this platform, see it put to a vote and move on to other issues needing to be addressed; I am ashamed that the party I agree with on a moral level when it comes to wrong of abortion, the definition of marriage, who use the bible as their compass on social issues, has forgotten the biblical commandment thou shalt not lie when it comes to their description of the Obama healthcare mandate regarding women’s reproductive services. I am appalled they remain fixated the horror of on providing birth control via insurance, when only the Catholic Church, one faction of Christianity, sees birth control as wrong, on the same level as abortion, even when throughout the church you no longer see 6, 7, 8 child families; meaning, independent of what the church says, people are doing what’s right for them and using contraception.         

The answer to the conundrum of making the republican party a viable political force lies in party members adjusting their ideology to recognize there is nothing wrong with a personhood bill on its face, devil being however in the details; this time in the enforcement. Employing logic then you come to the conclusion that frog marching a woman who’s already in labor to the hospital for a procedure she’s formally rejected could do more harm than good to the baby; further hiring a lawyer for her unborn child and not providing her legal counsel as well, seeing as she’s in no shape to find a lawyer at the moment, is morally and legally wrong. You understand the failing of the legal system when it inserts itself into medical decisions so far that a woman has to be driven via ambulance across state lines to receive an abortion that will quite literally save her life, because she has a medical condition that makes attempting to carry a child to term very likely lethal, and before conservatives start passing judgment saying she should have abstained from sex, kept her legs closed, she could easily have not been aware of aforementioned condition until she became pregnant, she could have been using any number of contraceptives, a combination of them and they failed. Regardless medically the options were let the child kill the mother, probably dooming it to death as well, or perform the abortion allowing one of them to live. For another current mirror into what we could become, where we could be today ponder the Ireland woman denied an abortion for a miscarrying fetus that resulted in blood poisoning and her death.  Reading the specifics of many, if not all personhood bills, a congress person set to vote on them then digests not only does the bill achieve its main goal, giving a clear definition of when life begins, at conception, stating from that point on the fetus, in all its forms, has the same legal rights as anyone already born, walking around, but stands to interfere with approved types of birth control such as IUD’s (intrauterine devices), will stop some fertility treatments for women trying to have children and most importantly, in more than one state, stipulated those seeking an abortion must submit to an ultrasound, looking at said ultrasound while it’s being conducted, others mandating woman asking for an abortion undergo a trans-vaginal ultrasound in which a probe is inserted into their vagina to gain a more clear, accurate picture of the developing child. Problem, no woman religious views or no religious views, is going to sanction such an invasive, unnecessary procedure that amounts to a form of medical rape because it is not consented to by the woman, not recommended by her doctor and by virtue of penetration does indeed constitute rape, particularly when the voting public has already made it clear abortion should be legal, in part because of cases like rape, incest and life of the mother.



Next there is nothing wrong with the defense of marriage act (DOMA) as a concept, nothing wrong with defining marriage as between one man and one woman, assuming that’s what people want, that is until you put a human face on it, until you see its twin, a number of anti-sodomy laws on the books across the nation and their impact on fellow citizens, fellow human beings, who also happen to be gay. That human face being the partners who end up at the hospital having been together for years and said institution has to find a next of kin to render health decisions because the partners cannot get married, may not have had time to file the legal power of attorney paper work, may not be that far into their, relationship but the partner knows more about what they would want than their estranged family. Yet because DOMA exists it becomes harder for hospital staff to turn their head and let the person who obviously cares for them decide what happens to them. Similarly it snares child custody cases of gay and lesbian couples; say if one of them is suddenly deceased, if there are grandparents involved also vying for custody, DOMA and its social rhetoric being what they stand on saying they can give the child a better life. It fuels the fire for letting kids be fostered in gay and lesbian homes approved because the foster care system is so desperate for stable homes in which to place abused and neglected children, but refusing adoption privileges on moral grounds. Even without the passage of DOMA same sex couples who build a life are together and one dies are subject to estate taxes heterosexual couples are not leading to the question, how is that not discrimination? Tying in anti sodomy laws, DOMA feeds the fire of keeping such laws on the books and in current practice; laws that harass same sex couple kissing, showing affection in public, threatening them with arrest, laws that when 2 same sex persons are found fogging up the windows they are arrested vs. simply being sent on their way, laws that dole out harsher punishments for alleged prostitution between same sex couples than their heterosexual counterparts. It gives legitimacy to denying homosexual couples housing, it lends credence to religious fanatics who protest outside military funerals holding signs saying god hates gays or the a similar scene that took place outside a funeral for 2 high school students whose mother had been murdered by an ex-husband or boyfriend and was currently in a lesbian relationship. And it blocks the way for reasonable compromise those who say same sex couples should have their union but don’t call it marriage; it marginalizes civil union options in most states, carrying nearly all the legal rights of marriage that would solve the problem on both sides.  It gives same sex couples their own distinction as committed couples and preserves marriage between one man and one woman. Frankly as a born again Christian and a voter I think civil unions should be a matter of law nationwide, same sex couples should use that option while bible thumping conservatives make peace with the fact people are going to do what they are going and at some point you have to leave what is happening between god and the persons engaging in an activity. They need to come to grips with the practical truth; the key to not needing another abortion law, not needing a defense of marriage act is not more laws but more evangelizing, lovingly converting people to your faith, not forcing everyone to abide by your point of view.       

Addressing immigration from a party standpoint is not about opening the floodgates to illegals, nor is it about blanket amnesty to people who have broken the law; at the same time you cannot turn off millions of Hispanic voters, a growing Hispanic population that is, by the way legal, by supporting sheriffs like Joe Arpio, pushing legislation like the valley park decision making it impossible for illegals to find housing, Arizona’s controversial immigration law forcing people to carry proof of citizenship, denying guest worker visas and expect to get elected counting on any measure of Latino vote. You can’t have a presidential candidate whose position on illegals and immigration consists of saying to said persons without papers, without legal status go back to your home country and get in the back of the line like everyone else who wants to come here, when he knows he’s talking to people who have quietly lived and worked in this country for years, who have built families here, when he’s talking to the children of illegals brought here through no fault of their own, who identify themselves as Americans, know no other way of life, and think you are going to be the next leader of the free world if they have anything to say about it. Noting too this is not a popular with legal citizens, frightened by the laws passed, afraid to work, move about their communities, because of laws passed, particularly unpopular with young voters, born here for whom he is speaking of their parents; nevertheless that was what Mitt Romney said in a primary debate.  You don’t vote to strike down something like the dream act for two big reasons; one it keeps talented young people in the United States maximizing their talents because they can attend college, use their degree once they obtain it rather than hiding it because of their immigration status. Two said act provided a logical and reasonable way to handle young illegals who were too young to know they were breaking the law, too young to do anything about the fact they were breaking the law; to say nothing of the dream act, whether in its original form or the portion president Obama enacted by executive order, was not, is not blanket amnesty but a conditional work permit adding more workers, ideas to the economy. Conservative jargon on the issue cannot compete with a president who says he is willing to investigate immigration reform, is willing to devise a system streamlining legal immigration into this country limiting red tape, making it less impossible to gain legal status if you want to come here, as a deterrent to illegal immigration. It can’t hold up against a president who is willing to establish a permanent program allowing guest workers, distributing work permits and creating a system to make a final decision on illegals living here for years, be that a path to citizenship, amnesty or something else; all things the republican party refuses to discuss. Instead we’re discussing DOMA, where women get their birth control and putting forth personhood bills effectively hampering women who want to have children.        

Getting recognition for the minority individuals present in the republican party begins with removing, no longer accepting the openly bigoted, racist white men who are living in and demonstrating a world view commiserate with the 1950’s south pre civil rights, pre the women’s movement refusing to acknowledge the benefits of both who are leaders within the party. This is how Jesse Jackson Jr. regains his seat without trying.  Comprehension of the fact you cannot have, not one but two, older, white men stand up say idiotic, untrue things about rape, claiming attributes of a woman’s body physiologically, biologically not in evidence and expect to be recognized for the women and minorities in your party. Being a member of the Christian faith I sympathize with what the latter man was trying to say that even children resulting from rape can bring joy and love to their parents, but it is how he said it along with this misguided notion that a woman deciding to carry a child to term, no matter the circumstances of conception, is akin to making a New Year’s resolution to lose weight, go to the gym more or quit smoking. It’s not; there are physical, biological changes that happen to a woman while pregnant and even after pregnancy a woman’s body can be forever changed, however slightly. At the same time you cannot assume, especially a victim of rape, will take on those changes automatically, no matter what moral doom you pronounce upon her.  This is also partly why Michele Bachmann barely held onto her seat; aside from her negligible understanding of history claiming the shot heard round the world happened in New Hampshire where she was speaking at the time or her provocative claim things were better in times of slavery because there were more two parent homes, she represents a patriarchy driven mindset that the best thing women can do is get married and have children, a life of subservience to the men in their lives, ignoring career, independence and the right to decide what kind of life you have. Ironic since she is a United States congresswoman because of the women’s movement, because women stood up and fought for a right to work, a right to work in whatever career field they chose, fighting for their right to contribute to society in a greater way  You can’t have someone regardless of their race, gender walking around saying the president wanted to keep African Americans on the plantation while painting themselves as a 21st century Harriet Tubman, ironic sense both individuals are African American; you can’t have someone regardless of ethnicity alienating religions saying a practicing Muslim congressional member is the antithesis of the principles our country was founded on, hints why the people voted out Allen West, someone Limbaugh called a great man. Clarence Thomas and Herman Cain were also mentioned as prominent black republicans; that whole Anita Hill thing completely forgotten. Herman Cain, in light of the sheer number of women coming forward alleging sexual harassment, is guilty of at minimum poor judgment smacking too much of  the Clinton sex scandal; besides that that his wonky tax plan and sketchy answers on the middle east, on dealing with Gitmo detainees proved he wasn’t ready to be president.  

 Marco Rubio has his own immigration problems to deal with regarding his parents and did they come here legally or did they, he falsify their exile story; he supports opposing the insurance pays for reproductive services mandate and has democrats, liberals, almost anyone outside the tea party scratching their heads with his statements he doesn’t know how old the earth is leaning toward the faction of religious party members who believe the earth is only 9,000 years old based on biblical calculation. Leftist commentator Chris Mathews presents a valid point that such members make it difficult to do things like create sound environmental policy when individuals like Rubio can’t answer a simple question do you believe in science, when policy makers can’t agree on something as basic as the foundations of science. Again as a Christian and a member of the voting public, I don’t really care how old the earth is, nor do I see what exactly that has to do with politics. Concurrently I am over political debates about creationism, intelligent design vs. evolution, and yes I know just how distorted Darwin’s original theory of evolution has become; I am waiting for the faith based scientist to use scientific method to prove their theory. I want the faith based community to take their theory that the flood of Noah was real and that earth pre flood was one way and earth post flood was something different, thus accounting for why fossils and other things seem to be millions of years old when they are actually thousands, out of the realm of obscure radio shows, videos and through scientific channels. As for environmental policy, from my point of view I want environmental laws, policies that don’t create 5 more problems while trying to solve one. Example, compact florescent light bulbs laced with mercury requiring special disposal lest they end up in landfills leaching mercury into the water table. Another popular environmentally conscious initiative, banning the plastic bag in favor of the canvas ones; problem, canvas bags attract mold when wetted by frozen food condensation, can easily become harbingers for dangerous bacteria such as e-coli and Salmonella when you pack home meats from the grocery store, meaning one use and they must be thrown away. Unfortunately they cost between $1-3 depending on where you live; which brings me to my last environmental pet peeve, recycling. Nearly every city has some type of recycling program based on citizens placing sorted recyclables on the curb with their weekly trash or delivering it to city recycling centers; what I want to see is a slight increase in trash bills across the country in order for trash pick up to consist of not only pick up but sorting everyone’s trash, motor oils, paints and computer parts going to their proper disposal, recycling items that can be recycled, sending the rest to the landfill. This way it relieves the burden from the average person to sort materials, prevents inaccurately sorted items leaving your whole recycling haul on the curb and should within a short time lead to a halt in consumption as new products like food, shampoo are sold in containers made from recycled material.

 http://chic.clipsyndicate.com/video/play/1114742/hidden_dangers_of_reusable_bags

These presented platforms are not just opposing viewpoints held by another party; these are sane viewpoints that handle the issues we face in the 21st century instead of fighting to roll back rights given decades ago. They are platforms that move the country forward and accomplish something as opposed to remaining in a deadlock of stale debates on which Americans have already made up their minds. Finally the republican party is not up against a Santa Clause like president in a nation of children; neither was the election about small things, binders and Big Bird. It’s not Santa Clause to say to people yes we’re going to extend unemployment benefits to you so you can support your local economy until you get a job, when jobs take so long to get, it’s not Santa Clause to engineer programs to help keep people in their homes though a housing crisis government aided with a lack of oversight, nor is it Santa Clause to give people food stamps and welfare A- because they qualify for one, the other or both and B- so their children can eat or provide housing assistance because their $7.25 an hour job, gotten to be a decent, employed citizen after being fired from a decade or more of work at company X, won’t let you live in a normal apartment, let you get out of the pay by the week motel. It is not Santa Clause to say the rich will pay their proportionate fare share in taxes, not just in the interest of debt reduction, solving our fiscal woes, but in the interest of giving everyone an equal opportunity at the American dream, an equal opportunity to be both functional and successful. The controversy over Big Bird was presidential candidate Romney’s comment he would eliminate funding to PBS along with endowments to both the arts and humanities in an effort to deal with the nations spending problem, along with his staunch support of his running mate’s budget proposing sweeping cuts to education, Medicare, programs for the poor. To which the American people said, hold it, there are things we can do before we cut services to those who need it most. Binders was another self-made controversy caused by another off color comment given by Romney when asked during the debate if he supported the equal pay for equal work act; forging the expected yes or no, perhaps an explanation of a better policy, he began talking about his experience as governor asking for women candidates and the binders full of them he received, none of which was an answer to the question and left a bad state in the mouths of women voters. This just one more reason why the republican party got trounced on election day.           

 

 

                          

Related Posts

VP Face Off Ends in Draw ...

Debt Deal: Win, Lose or D...

Current Trends by Natasha Sapp

2nd Democratic Debate: Pa...

About Natasha Sapp

Proclaiming an edgy voice of reason to America,while bringing back the common sense to social issues.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

CommentLuv badge