Liberty: Just A National Fluke?

In a culture obsessed with drama and celebrity, the recent debate about contraception has produced a new set of heroes and villains.
The question is: Who are the heroes (or are there any?) and who are the villians?
I’ll venture a few suggestions as to the identity of the culprits and the victims, and then offer up a solution.

Barack Hussein Obama
Mr. Obama, continuing his diabolical plan of national socialistic ruin, successfully pushed through the passage of his so-called Obamacare bill. Thus began the unbelievable meddling of government in every intricacy of the American health care system.
Mr. Obama mandated – in a clear violation of religious liberty (not to mention economic liberty) – that all health insurance companies provide coverage for contraceptives. Catholics (among others) don’t condone the use of contraceptives, and so Catholic organizations were about to be forced, by Obama, to violate their own religious beliefs. He claims he put the issue to rest by allowing people’s premiums to be the money that covers the contraceptives (as opposed to capital from the insurance company…is there any difference?). This, of course, violates individual Catholics’ religious liberties, as many of them are aligned with the Church’s position in this matter. Mr. Obama seems not to care.

Nancy Patricia D’Alesandro Pelosi
Mrs. Pelosi has shown herself to be a friend of radical liberalism and an enemy of the Constitution and liberty throughout her tenure in Congress. She has spoken directly against the Church’s position on contraception and even abortion, referring to the problematic “conscience thing” that keeps Catholic charities/hospitals from being forced to perform abortions.
The Republican-controlled Congress blocked the testimony of a woman who had been brought by Democrats (led by Pelosi) to testify about the need for free (insurer-provided) contraceptives. In her now-typical “screw them” fashion, Mrs. Pelosi held her own hearing, allowing this woman – a 30-year-old law student from Georgetown University named Sandra Fluke – to speak. And speak she did.

Sandra Kay Fluke
Sandra Fluke is a 30-year-old law student at Georgetown University. She received her bachelor’s degree from Cornell University in Feminist, Gender, & Sexuality Studies. At Georgetown, she is the former president of an organization named Law Students for Reproductive Justice.
Ms. Fluke testified to Congress that, for poor college students, paying for contraception (birth control pills) is a heavy financial burden amounting to around $1,000 per year. She argued that insurers should, indeed, be forced to cover this cost.

Rush Hudson Limbaugh
Mr. Limbaugh hosts a widely-listened-to radio show where he generally talks politics, playing the roles of entertainer, sophist, and self-appointed articulator of conservatism. He regularly draws the ire of Democrats for his political positions and for his caustic language about their positions. In the words of Mr. Limbaugh, he “[illustrates] the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week.”
Mr. Limbaugh, in commenting on the Sandra Fluke testimony (and the broader issue of government-mandated contraception coverage), called the woman a “slut.” Contextually, he was pointing out that she was essentially asking the government and insurance companies for money to have sex. He said, “What does it say about the college co-ed Susan Fluke who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex—what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute.”
In the wake of his comments, in spite of an apology by Mr. Limbaugh, seven of his advertisers have disassociated themselves from his show, and Republican presidential candidates have opined about his language.

Iconized in a statue of a robed woman holding a torch, liberty is one of the main ideas that governed the authors of America’s Constitution. It is what animated those who left oppressive European nations for America. It is what the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution attempt to guarantee for all its citizens.
All of the aforementioned are at enmity with liberty. The first three represent the frontal assault on liberty and the American way that has occurred – well, really since the founding of the U.S., but especially in the last 100 years with the likes of Theodore Roosevelt, FDR, JFK, LBJ, and BHO. Mr. Limbaugh, however, represents the faction of liberty’s army that dreams of defection. They are like those Afghanis of whom we recently hear that have been trained by U.S. soldiers to defend their land, but who turn on the very men who trained them and shoot them in the back. Mr. Limbaugh, in his implicit (not explicit – but these are the ones of whom he clearly speaks well) endorsement of candidates such as Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, has turned the hearts of many of his listeners (and there are many) to these pseudo-conservatives. He has even gone so far as to say, “Everybody is guilty of some transgression somewhere against conservatism…except Santorum.” This is clearly false. Mr. Santorum himself has apologized for at least one specific transgression against conservatism – the No Child Left Behind Act. He has also squirmed under questioning concerning his support of labor unions and voting against “Right to Work.” He has voted myriad times to raise the federal debt ceiling, and has voted to give taxpayer dollars to Planned Parenthood. Neither Rush Limbaugh nor Rick Santorum are friends of liberty.

Articulated by philosophers throughout the ages, logic is the formal language of argumentation that, when adhered to, is effective in unveiling formerly-veiled issues and giving glimpses of truth.
Mr. Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Sandra Fluke have violated logic in employing myriad fallacies as they argue for “free” contraception. First is equivocation. Nothing is free, but the usage of the word “free” (meaning “free for the user of contraceptives…in that they didn’t directly pay”) has the intended effect on those weak-minded, lascivious individuals who would complain about the cost of birth control while they sip their Starbucks coffee. Second is hasty generalization. Ms. Fluke cited the story (the validity of which has been challenged by at least one doctor) of a woman who needed birth control pills to control her poly-cystic ovarian syndrome, but couldn’t afford them. This, according to Ms. Fluke, resulted in an expensive operation to remove at least one of the woman’s ovaries. Ms. Fluke uses this one story to argue that contraception should be free for everyone (most people don’t have ovarian cyst disorders) Third is straw man. The issue is really about contraception for birth control, but Ms. Fluke pretended – in telling the aforementioned story – that it was about “human health.” No one would vote against human health, but people might very well vote against mandated contraception coverage.
Rush Limbaugh has violated logic in using a classic ad hominem attack on Ms. Fluke. Ad hominem means “to the man,” and it refers to the logical fallacy in which the speaker attacks not the argument but the person making the argument. This is generally name-calling. Whether or not Mr. Limbaugh is right that Ms. Fluke is a “prostitute” or “slut” makes no difference to the issue at hand. A prostitute could potentially make a logical argument (just like anyone else), so the idea: “She’s a slut – she can’t be right!” is fallacious. Second, Mr. Limbaugh employed the fallacy of tu quoque (“you too”) in defending his comments. He revealed that famous liberal television personality Bill Maher has donated a million dollars to President Obama’s re-election super-PAC. Since Bill Maher has repeatedly referred to Sarah Palin as a “c-word,” Limbaugh argued that Obama should give back the money. Actually, this is a red herring combined with a tu quoque. Mr. Limbaugh’s argument is, “Well, you did it too!” – which is no argument. And, he diverted the attention from his comments to someone/something else (red herring).

The Constitution and Restoration of Liberty
It falls on the American people to make these solutions reality. We do it with our language and interactions, and with our ballots. The only presidential candidate I’ve seen who defends liberty at every turn and who has refused for three decades in Congress to violate the Constitution is Ron Paul. It’s not about the man – it’s about the principles. Anyone else could say what he is saying, and live how he is living, and vote how he has voted, and I’d vote for them, too. But no one else is doing those things – at least, no one who’s running for President.
I encourage you – support Ron Paul and support the Constitution. Go to your state caucuses and primaries, and urge others to do the same – and urge them to vote for Ron Paul!
Only courage, and the refusal to accept tyranny, and the refusal to capitulate to the weak-hearted leaders who would trade our freedom for their wealth – only those things will restore America.

This entry was posted in Nathan and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Liberty: Just A National Fluke?

  1. taylor says:

    What i recall from Braveheart is the group of Scotts you left Wallace at one point in the in the story. Can Liberty become more valuable to Americans than Fox news on a flat screen?

    • The more rare a commodity becomes, the more people want it. I imagine we’ll lose more before we gain more.

      • friendmouse says:

        And I imagine you’re right…which is unfortunate. Well, it’s not unfortunate for you to be right; but it’s unfortunate that what you imagine here likely will occur.
        To me, it’s a very sad state in which we find ourselves presently as a nation. Over the years, for a multitude of reasons, the electorate seems to give more weight to style over substance. It appears that more are influenced by “who” is saying it, and “how” they are saying it, rather than “what” they are saying. Just a hypothetical, but Rick Santorum to speak Ron Paul’s words, and were Ron Paul to speak Rick Santorum’s words, would the vote counts and poll numbers reflect that? I seriously doubt it. Several years back, Canon (or maybe it was Nikon?) ran an ad campaign on TV using a tennis star as the subject of the photographs. Their “catch-phrase” was “Perception is reality.” Well, it is not. But it may as well be for the majority of our society these days. And that, too, is sad.

      • Good point about Santorum and Paul. Sad indeed.

Your thoughts here. As long as they're not vulgar. Or spam.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s