Employers Should Get to Choose What to Provider Workers

I was very relieved to see that Senator Mitch McConnell is standing up for the most abused people in the country today–employers–when he vowed to fight the President Obama compromise on the birth control/ insurance debate.

From a religious standpoint, McConnell is, of course, right. It’s a shame that the government thinks that people should be able to make their own choices about family planning–that’s half of what God does. He sits up there in Heaven and points out who should have a successful sexual outcome (meaning between a man and woman!!!!) and is blessed with a child and who doesn’t.

Man has no business making those types of decisions for themselves.

But that religious debate aside, it only makes sense that employers should decide what types of coverage they’re comfortable in providing to employees across the board–sort of like the chef at an all-you-can-eat Chinese restaurant. If a chef doesn’t like to provide Shrimp with Lobster Sauce, whether it’s because it’s too expensive to make or because he doesn’t like the flavor, then he doesn’t have to put it in the bar.

It’s the same with health care–the employee is the boss, meaning that he gets to make the decisions.

If he doesn’t want to provide contraceptive insurance, he shouldn’t have to. If he doesn’t want to provide coverage for diabetes insurance because it’s too expensive or because he, himself, doesn’t have diabetes, then he shouldn’t have to put it in the insurance package.

Let’s face it: American employees are spoiled brats who expect a free lunch when it comes to health insurance–and it’s the poor employers who are left with the tab of an all-you-can-use health insurance bar.

It’s time that we get these health care costs under control, and the most logical way is by providing less coverage to more people.

War on Christians Continues

The Pope says no to contraceptives, so as far as I’m concerned, even having condoms available in drug stores is a violation of the religious freedom of Christians everywhere. (I know, technically, it’s the Catholic faith, not Christians in general, who were being targeted by this ridiculous attack; however, since Catholics are Christians, it’s an attack on all Christians.)

I’m talking about this today, of course, because of the compromise related to the  health insurance companies paying for contraception controversy. But how do you compromise on a blatant attack against religious freedom? That’s like compromising on the Bible.

Liberals, of course, will make the assinine (I added the extra s since we’re talking about liberals) argument that just because contraceptives are being made available doesn’t mean that you have to use them, but they clearly don’t understand the whole concept of Christianity.

You see, Catholicism and Christianity are based on Adam and Eve–and temptation. Those two puritans of Christianity (they were Christians BEFORE Christ was even born–talk about devotion) could not pass up a tempting apple, so who thinks that Catholics are going to pass on free contraceptives? And with all of these free contraceptives floating around out there, there will eventually be fewer Catholics (and therefore, fewer Christians).

That’s the goal of the loony left–eliminate all Christians so that we can live in a godless world of equality for all.

By the way, if it weren’t for that damn apple, we’d still be waltzing around the warm Garden of Eden while wearing loin cloths. Tell me that doesn’t sound better than getting our shovels ready to push around another round of glo-bull warming that’s headed our way.

Duped by A Liberal “Joke”

I should have known that such a common sense plan as changing the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America was too good to be true in today’s world, where liberals think the political system is their personal playground.

It turns out that it was another one of their satirical jokes, which is what the liberals say when they’re trying to make fun of we conservatives. If I’d have done a little more research, it would have been obvious that Representative Steve Holland was joking with this good idea–he’s a Democrat. That’s all you need to know.

I still think it’s a good idea, and I hate satire.

I’m depressed again, but I’m going to keep blogging. Maybe a re-run of Cops is on.

Legislation to Change Gulf of Mexico to Gulf of AMERICA!

Just when I think that the liberals have run so far amok that we’ll never be able to get back to good, conservative values, a good story like this comes along: Mississippi Rep Wants the Gulf of Mexico Renamed ‘Gulf of America.”

We let the Mexicans use it since it sort of touches their country, too, but what country is more important? That’s what the liberals call a rhetorical question since we all know the answer.

God bless America, and its Gulf!

By the way, we should probably look into renaming New Mexico as well.

Representative John Fleming Duped By Conniving Liberals

A lot has been made by the liberal media of Representative John Fleming (Republican, Louisiana) falling for some fake article about an Abortionplex, thinking it was real.

Us conservatives don’t like satire because it’s too hard to tell what’s real and what’s fake. In fact, I don’t even understand the concept of satire. Either something is funny, or it’s not. It doesn’t need to be more complicated than that.

• What’s funny is when you see one of them home video shows, and a guy sleds down a steep hill until he hits a tree or parked car. That’s funny!

• What’s funny is when you turn on Cops (best show on tv), and the cop pulls over a guy who’s been drinking and driving while driving his tractor. That always cracks me up.

• What’s funny is when a greedy contestant on Wheel of Fortune knows the answer but spins one last time to try to make more money and lands on “Bankrupt.” Then, the person next to him solves the puzzle with $250 in his pot. Ha!

What’s not funny is when you take a serious topic like abortion and turn it into a joke that seems so close to the truth that an innocent and hard-working man’s man of a congressman gets duped into thinking that it was a real article written by real liberals.

That’s what happened to poor John Fleming. The original article from some news outlet called “The Onion” is called Planned Parenthood Opens $8 Billion Abortionplex.

Even the title seems real. Planned Parenthood loves abortions, and liberals would be happy to give them $8 billion (all of which would come from hard-working Americans like Donald Trump and Mitt Romney)–who wouldn’t believe the article? I mean, by their own admission, Planned Parenthood spends 3% of their money on abortions–only 97% is spent on non-abortion related activity. They’re like the McDonald’s of abortions.

But here are a few other “fake” facts from the article:

• The Abortionplex is located in Topeka, Kansas. That’s exactly where liberals would put an abortion factory because it would annoy the good conservatives of Kansas. They wouldn’t put it in New York City because it would fit right in and not make anyone mad.
• Their motto is: No Life Is Sacred. Are you telling me that’s not the motto of the average liberal? I mean, geez, I guess they like the lives of minorities and poor, but they don’t think any other lives are sacred, especially Christians who they’re always at war with. Most of them wish Christmas came twice per year just so they could get mad twice.
• Their goal is to do a million abortions per month. That sounds about right, which makes me wonder why liberals always want to give away birth control. It limits their abortion business.
• Abortionplex includes movie theaters, bars, coffee shops, and night clubs. Liberals want return patients, so they want everyone to be comfortable–very comfortable, if you know what I mean.

The article is very close to being believable, which is why the liberals and their so-called humor isn’t funny. I could have been fooled, too, and none of my conservative friends ever accused me of being dumb.

Can’t Argue with Logic!

I am the first to admit that I don’t know everything there is to know about this whole deficit ceiling, but I do understand good, American logic. And, boy, did John Boehner hit the nail on the head with this one, explaining why House Republicans should support his deficit-reduction plan:

Barack Obama hates it. Harry Reid hates it. Nancy Pelosi hates it.

That’s all I need to know. If they hate it, then I love it.

Of course, the bill won’t pass without the support of and Dumbocrats and Obama, but there are more important things than saving the economy of the United States and the world–and that is standing up for our principles.

If we don’t cut Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security now, then when will we? Through a normal legislative process? Yeah, you’ll get the liberal loonies to sign off on cutting government handouts. We need to do it now, when they’re scared.

God bless America.

Michelle Bachmann, John Boehner Lead on Taxes

Roughly 80% of Americans believe that taxes should be increased on millionaires as part of any debt-reduction package.

This means two things:

• 80% of Americans are wrong. (I don’t know how many times I have to say it, but ALL TAXES ARE EVIL.)
• John Boehner and Michelle Bachmann are true leaders! Any elected officials that take the correct stand (no new taxes for millionaires) regardless of a political risk are the true leaders.

Boehner Finally Stands Tall

Boehner has shown signs of leaning toward the socialist left in this country by initially agreeing to cut/revenue ratio of 4 to 1 in debt-reduction talks with President Obama. That means that a reduction in deficits would be only 75% cuts in expenditures (Social Security, Medicare, etc.) and a whopping 25% in increased revenues (code for raising tax rates for the rich and corporations to levels of 10 years ago–a radical idea).

The good news, however, is that Boehner refused to even talk about going to the truly socialist position of a 3 to 1 ratio by walking away from talks with Obama today. Boehner had already compromised his beliefs by moving 25% toward Obama’s position–how could he be expected to move 33% in Obama’s direction?

Just to be clear: Obama thought that it would be fair to have revenue increases account for a full 1/3 of deficit reduction, while having the rest of the debt reduction (including cuts to handout programs like Social Security and Medicare) represent only 2/3 of deficit reduction.

If Boehner had let Obama get away with that, the next thing you know Obama would want a 50/50 compromise. Can you imagine the uproar from the Tea Party?

Bachmann Has Right Idea: Tax the Poor!!!

I know that I said in the introduction that all taxes were evil, but to clarify, I was talking about all taxes on the rich and corporations. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having the poor pay higher taxes, which is what Michelle Bachmann wants to see.

A significant portion of Americans makes so little money that their standard deductions and deductions on mortgage interest, etc., are high enough that they owe no federal taxes!!

In other words, they work the system by picking jobs with poor pay just so they don’t have to pay taxes.

That is simply not fair. The system should be changed so that they have to pay their taxes first; then, if they have some money left, they can pay for children, food, housing, etc.

Not Popular, But Correct

I know that taxing the poor instead of the rich is not be a popular idea, but it’s the right thing to do.

You never want punish anyone who might possibly someday consider taking a small portion of their money and possibly investing it into a business that might eventually create additional jobs by placing any kind of a tax burden on them. Ask Grover Norquist.

Corporations should be tax free. It’s the same with the rich who might someday want to start a corporation.

Tax the poor instead, especially if they’re going to continue to insist on luxuries like Social Security, Medicare, and public schools.

It’s common sense–and some leaders are bright enough to realize it.