Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

The Contraception Smokescreen

March 7, 2012 by  

The Contraception Smokescreen

The Obama regime’s desire to find a wedge issue to exploit in a political season and the fill-in-the-blanks nature of Obamacare are behind the contrived contraception controversy that exploded into the headlines last week. The faux issue has nothing to do with “women’s reproductive rights” and everything to do with re-electing President Barack Obama and gaining a Democratic majority in Congress.

In filling in some regulations, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius determined that contraception should be “free” for everyone and mandated employers include it in their healthcare plans.

Never mind that nothing is “free,” save fiat dollars the Federal Reserve is spitting out to banksters around the world at 0 percent interest.

ABC News pretty boy and Democratic mouthpiece George Stephanopoulos telegraphed this as an issue in January during the New Hampshire GOP Presidential debate. The progressive Left and mainstream media (sorry if I just repeated myself) immediately found a hot button to push.

So Obama got out front and announced that contraception was to be provided by employers for free, and even religious institutions that objected had no say. Well, religious institutions, Catholics in particular, did have something to say, and a great hue and cry ensued.

The MSM have succeeded in turning the issue into a false argument that anyone who opposed “free” contraception was a woman-hating religious nutcase who wanted to deny contraceptive devices to women. Right-wing hero Rush Limbaugh’s denigration of Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke fanned the flames. The result: The false left/right paradigm is reinforced.

Never in the history of the republic has free contraception been part of a serious policy discussion, nor has it been a front-burner issue in political discourse. Yet now, when Obama needs a wedge issue to excite (or incite) his base, suddenly women across the country are being convinced Republicans are trying to prevent them from obtaining birth control.

The real issues should be: Where in the Constitution is a (non-Constitutional) Cabinet-level agency or President granted the authority to dictate what benefits (if any) an employer must offer employees who enter into a voluntary employment contract; where in the Constitution is a (non-Constitutional) Cabinet-level agency or President granted the authority to dictate what products or services a business (insurance company) must provide for “free”; and who or what is going to pay for these “free” products?

Bob Livingston

is an ultra-conservative American and author of The Bob Livingston Letter™, founded in 1969. Bob has devoted much of his life to research and the quest for truth on a variety of subjects. Bob specializes in health issues such as nutritional supplements and alternatives to drugs, as well as issues of privacy (both personal and financial), asset protection and the preservation of freedom.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “The Contraception Smokescreen”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at

  • s c

    I’d like to hear a) the current prez or better yet b) someone who WON”T LIE to us tell us how it’s MORAL to bless the planned murder of babies and claim to give a damn via contraception. On top of that, black babies are “sacrificed” more than any other ethnic group. How does that not continue SLAVERY?
    Obviously, compassion and character can’t be mentioned in the same breath as Obummer. If the murder of ANY babies is now considered compassionate, isn’t it time for the human race to do the honorable thing and commit suicide? Politicians first, of course.
    Politicians being what they are [subhuman filth, as a rule], it is proof that politics attracts the WORST to elected office. Where are the community pillars who can claim to have a shred of morality or decency? Where are the lawyers who know the difference between a pagan America and the America we’re supposed to have?
    Where are the “doctors” who CARE? Where are the mothers who know that life is more precious than a death that glorifies political, wannabe gods?
    Where are the masses of outraged citizens who know the PRO-DEATH mentality is diseased and must be removed from America? WHEN will the death-lovers at Planned NonParenthood have finally made enough MONEY through the systematic murder of innocent babies?
    Contraception? Responsibility? Maturity? Love? English is a dying language in America, people, and criminal politicians are the heart of this living curse. Pay for your own contraception, you lying, death-loving hypocrites. Better still, get yourselves sterilized and SOLVE the “problem.”

    • Robert Smith

      In fact it was Richard Nixon who took up the abortion issue to separate the catholic vote from the democratic party. It was cold and calculated.

      BTW, they also have Nixon on tape saying that babies of “mixed” race could be aborted.

      Did you know that with birth control for every “baby” (your term) not concieved is the potential for an abortion to NOT happen? Planned Parenthood by educating and making birth control available PREVENTS more abortions than any other organization.


      • GRusling

        Your argument is phony. Birth Control has been available (in one form or another) since before I was born, and I’m 71 years old! No one has EVER tried to deny birth control to anyone who wants it, and that includes RIGHT NOW, TODAY!

        This is all about “Freedom of Association” and the right of anyone who OBJECTS to “ABORTION,” not to be forced to participate. You need to read and TRY to understand what the new HHS RULE actually says, before you comment on it.

        This issue is not and never was about “Birth Control.” It’s about freedom of association and RELIGIOUS FREEDOM with regard to the Catholic Church and it’s associated organizations. Read the 1st Amendment. The federal government is SPECIFICALLY denied any authority at all where they’re concerned…

      • Robert Smith

        From G: “This is all about “Freedom of Association”

        No it isn’t. It’s about the catholic church imposing its beliefs upon those not of their flock. Members of the church can go off and not take birth control or have no abortions as much as they want, but for non-members they have NO control.

        I don’t like the idea of the church imposing control on folks outside the flock. If they hire someone not of the flock they should be held responsible so that person gets the same benefits as is mandated for any other employer.


      • Deadly Clear

        First, you are right – it’s a smokescreen. But let’s discuss the Wag the Dog issues that are not being discussed. Wall Street is in a securitization nightmare with over $600 Trillion (with a capital “T”) in debt being propped up with taxpayer money. While birth control is a dicey issue… And the freedom to speak before Congress derailed… It is not nearly as important as saving 75 million+ people from financial disaster and complete ruin. Wall Street’s securitization fiasco is one big Madoff X 10,000. Nobody is speaking to the primary financial disaster or doing the math. It isn’t going away folks. The big collapse is still out there and what Obama is or isn’t doing is not stabilizing it and nobody else is picking up the big stick and talking directly to America. See

      • kkflash

        Who’s imposing their beliefs upon whom? How can you accuse a church of “imposing control on folks outside the flock” but you’re OK with government imposing control over the benefits an organization must provide to its members or its employees? Why is it OK in your eyes for government to mandate the purchase of contraceptives by businesses for its employees? What gives government the authority to require health insurance to be purchased by anyone? You’re as hypocritical as Obama in saying it’s acceptable for government to forcibly take my money and spend it on something that’s against my religious principles, while simultaneously accusing the victims of trying to control the perpetrators. It’s just liberal double-speak.

      • Centurion


        I beg to differ with you. It is about freedom of association and free will. If an employer feels that certain “benefits” are morally repugnant, it should have the right to not offer them. And, potential employees, for whom those benefits are important can choose to go work somewhere else. The employer is not imposing its will or morality on the employee. The employee is free to use contraception and even to have an abortion. The employer is simply choosing not to pay for it. This happens in all sorts of other benefits as well. I’ve worked for companies that chose to offer dental plans and for others that did not. Similarly, life insurance, eldercare insurance, optical insurance, cancer coverage and a host of “cafeteria” benefits are competitively offered by some employers and not my others. Some of my previous employers provided me with a computer and a car, should that now become a mandatory level of benefit for every employer in the country?

        The point is, that the government does not have the authority to force a person to have or an employer to provide health insurance. It is part of a compensation package that should be competitive in the market. If dental insurance and a company car are important for you, go find an employer that offers them. If contraception and abortions are key benefits for you and your family, go find an employer that offers them or pay for them yourself. Under current law you have the right and access to these services. So, let’s all stop whining about this having something to do with women’s reproductive rights. Nothing in this argument prevents women from using birth control. What the unconstitutional regulation does is illegally force employers to provide funding for services they find morally reprehensible.

        This is not about healthcare and its not about women’s rights. It IS about making employer provided insurance so costly, so unattractive and so uncompetitive that employers will eventually stop providing health benefits forcing everyone into a one size fits all socialized health system. Once all the plans are the same and very expensive, everyone will demand a single provider government run system. When your doctor works for Washington instead of for you, good luck in getting the care you need when you need it because he or she will be working for other people with a different agenda than yours.

      • Angel Wannabe

        Deadly clear, Obama is gonna be pretty difficult to stop when most of Congress is playing the same game he is.

      • vicki

        Robert Smith says:

        It’s about the catholic church imposing its beliefs upon those not of their flock. Members of the church can go off and not take birth control or have no abortions as much as they want, but for non-members they have NO control.

        So it is ok for non-flock to pose its beliefs on the flock but not for the flock to impose their beliefs in the non-flock. This is your argument? Such is the blatant hypocrisy of the liberal.

        Oh and the non-flock can go work somewhere else. They are not slaves of the flock.

        I don’t like the idea of the church imposing control on folks outside the flock. If they hire someone not of the flock they should be held responsible so that person gets the same benefits as is mandated for any other employer.

        Thus you repeat your desire to force YOUR beliefs on the church. Nice and liberal of you.
        Oh and extra bonus liberal points for forcing your beliefs in any employer.

    • Robert Smith

      s c asks: “On top of that, black babies are “sacrificed” more than any other ethnic group. How does that not continue SLAVERY?”

      By giving not just black but all women the CHOICE to not be tied to an unwanted pregnancy. They can care for kids they already have, they can continue school, they can continue in their work, or they can continue growing up.

      It his HER choice, not yours. Why should she listen to you?


      • Mary

        Contraception is the best choice. We have a serious overpopulation problem. I believe women should make men responsible for the birth control pills. If she is loose pay for yourself. Nixon,the Rockefellers,Gates (the good boys club)etc.believes en Eugenics because of the degeneration of the people. The problem is in the homes of this country .We have to raise our daughters as ladies no tramps in few words with morals and that bad choices have bad consequences.

      • JimH

        Bob Smith(BS), It’s not about the Catholic Church forcing their views on non-Catholics. It’s about the government FORCING thier will against the Catholic Church. That violates their 1rst amendment rights. Like it or not. The spin people turned it from we want to trample all over someones 1rst amendment rights, into the Church wants to take away your contraception and the sheeple believed it. (you included)
        All the Constitution says is you can’t force someone to go against your religious beliefs and that is what that mandate would do.
        It isn’t about contraception, it’s about 1rst amendment rights.

      • smilee


        Catholics are off the hook now so it is no longer a religious issue. This only applied to religious operated public service organization not to those engaged in religious activities. What the Catholics wanted was to not furnish these to employees not of their religion or no religion and they have no right to force their beliefs on them and most religions are ok with that.

      • JimH

        Smillee, Again for those not paying attention. It doesn’t matter the belief or the faith of the employee. The employer shouldn’t be mandated to provide something that goes against their doctrine or faith.
        Since the Bill of rights is about an individuals rights, An employer of any business, not just a faith based employer should not be forced to provide something that goes against their conscience.
        It isn’t about contraception, it’s about 1rst amendment rights. To bad so many here are so eager to throw that away, or unable to see what the real issue is.

      • JimH

        The Church isn’t saying that their employees can’t use contarception, just that they aren’t going to provide it. They aren’t taking it away, just not providing it. It will be as availiable as it always was.

      • smilee


        Where is the beef? They will not have to furnish it to their employees. I think your take that individuals applies only to employers and not to the individual themself is nothing more than you spinning to meet what you want it to be and not what it is.

      • JimH

        Yes Smilee, I am talking about the individual employer. They are U.S. citizens entitled to the protection of the Bill of Rights also. What don’t you get?

      • kkflash

        Smilee, if the employer has to pay for it, they are furnishing it to their employees. What gives government the right to tell any employer what benefits must be provided to employees?

      • Nadzieja Batki

        There are ways not to have children and it may involve not having sex.Taxpayer paid sex education classes were instituted in schools so you would learn that.

      • http://butI'mtolei Smilee

        These employers no longer have to pay for it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • JimH

        NO employer should have to pay for it. The people who voted yes on this Un-Constitutional law only changed some of it because they got caught. They would have been happy to see it all be put into place,
        Food for thought, some of them are up for re-election. Should we vote for them to stay?

    • Karolyn

      How is it slavery when it’s their CHOICE to abort?

      • s c

        Say what you mean, comrade k. Babies have no choice in the matter. They were unlucky enough to have a mother who was coached to confuse compassion with murder.
        If you can read, there’s a very interesting book out there in the real world called Liberal Fascism. They connect the dots for readers who give a damn about people (adults AND babies).
        You’ll get to read about certain racial “icons” who think inferior breeders are breeding too much and superior breeders aren’t having enough babies. YOU have teamed up with some of the sickest people on the face of the earth, comrade k. Hitler would be so PROUD of you.
        Please change your ways, or get sterilized. You owe that much to America. Now, go READ and LEARN.

      • JUKEBOX

        Why are abortion opponents called “PRO LIFE”, while the antonym should be called “PRO DEATH”, not pro choice.

      • Alondra

        Karolyn, you wanted to say “their CHOICE to” KILL?

    • Angel Wannabe

      sc, The lawyers work for the US Corporation, the Doctors are bonused to death (unless you get a few who really care) and the people are willing to kill the innocent rather than care for them, and in the MSM THEN ITS CALLED PRO-CHOICE!___where is all the the compassion?__answer, They’ve been bought off!__

    • Warrior

      Folks, this “little” issue being framed by the chief usurper progressive and his minion ms. sebillius is testing the waters for the upcoming chapters of “obamacare”. Mark my words, ms. sebilius used the tactic that the “contraceptive issues” save money BECAUSE contraception is cheaper than having to bring a baby into this world.

      So, I can guarantee you right now strategies are in the works by, “our little progressive friends”, on what is the best sell for “end of life” counseling. After all, those old people cost so much to care for and they are too heavy a burden to bear in the scheme of providing for the “common good”. Oh, lest I forget, that little bonus feature of assisting with the “sustainability” of the social security program.

      “Progressivism = “liberalism = communism. Don’t believe it, just keep reading.

      • JUKEBOX

        If we had half of those 40 million babies, that were aborted, alive and in the work force today, we might not have the problem we have with Social Security going broke.

    • eddie47d

      Birth Control has everything to do with Contraceptives so the issue is valid and the right has for years made it a political issue. If FREE condoms upset you then make that the issue not birth control. I prefer free condoms to unwanted pregnacies and I also understand that nothing in life is truly free. Someone will be paying for it.

      • kkflash

        That’s right, someone will be paying for it. And government has no right to force me to pay for contraception for you. It has nothing to do with religion. It’s about government forcibly taking one citizen’s money and spending it for another citizens’ pleasure. Even you “general welfare” idiots should be able to see the inherent inequity in that.

    • Lee

      Doesn’t anyone realize that this ‘birth control/abortion’ issue hasn’t anything to do with the Church insuring abortion, or supplying birth control to women? This issue is a total gateway for Obummer to open the door for Sharia (SP) Law?? If the Catholic Church doesn’t have to do this, than Islam can use Sharia law. At least that is my take on the matter. It is all about destroying Christianity in America, so Islam will be the religion of America.

      • JUKEBOX

        Why would a woman, that is paying $200,000 for her education at Georgetown, need to be making an issue of paying $3,000 for birth control pills during that same period of time?

    • God’s Word

      Moral as in The Bible…then read Exodus 21:22. Death of the fetus is not murder but death of the mother is. Harm to the fetus is not punishable but harm to the mother is.

      Moral as in human DNA and living tissue… then consider gametes. They are living human DNA too. How many billions and billions of gametes are allowed to die everyday? Some in a dirty sock and some even by cannibalism! Perspective would indicate that a fetus is not a person: it cannot breathe on its own. What is it about a woman having the right (which can only mean choice) to bear a child that scares the leadership of both the GOP and the religious reactionary? If this really was a moral issue then there would be no argument over freedom of choice where induced miscarriage was concerned. The crime rate has decreased because fewer babies were born- who were unwanted and uncared for and fewer babies raised by those impoverished and fewer babies abandoned by their drug addled parents. ( If this was a moral issue, laws would exist that provide care for women or men with children and those children unconditionally.

      Analogous to denying women competency over their own bodies, denying that they are living moral human beings with the same rights as any man, would be not allowing men to be involved with anyone (even themselves) sexually until they are examined for genetic and emotional suitability. No more dead-beat dads and no more welfare system as all men would be indentured to their spermatozoa. That is what the leadership of the GOP and the religious reactionaries demonstrably want for women. In the name of equality, it would be what they want for men too (look out…perhaps they do, it’s just first things first).

      How is it that women are expected to protect the virtue that men lack- it is the man’s responsibility to protect his own virtue. Nowhere in the Bible is premarital sex a wrong or a sin. Representing one’s self as a virgin was a wrong and a sin. Cheating on your spouse or your betrothed was a wrong and a sin. Renting your body out for sex was a wrong. Still is I would think. Trying to control women because men can’t control themselves is ludicrous. Trying to prevent sex outside of committed relationships is ludicrous too. God’s Word and even The Bible figured that one out. Take responsibility for your actions and cease making someone else responsible for your failings as a moral human being.

      • Bob Livingston

        Dear God’s Word,

        You write: “Moral as in The Bible…then read Exodus 21:22. Death of the fetus is not murder but death of the mother is. Harm to the fetus is not punishable but harm to the mother is.” That is quite a tortured interpretation you have devised.

        You write: “Perspective would indicate that a fetus is not a person” Psalm 139:13
        For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb. (NASB)

        You write: “Nowhere in the Bible is premarital sex a wrong or a sin. Representing one’s self as a virgin was a wrong and a sin. Cheating on your spouse or your betrothed was a wrong and a sin. Renting your body out for sex was a wrong. Still is I would think. Trying to control women because men can’t control themselves is ludicrous. Trying to prevent sex outside of committed relationships is ludicrous too. God’s Word and even The Bible figured that one out.” I suggest you read I Cor. 6:9-10: 9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [f]effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
        Hebrews 13:4: 4 Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge.
        Matt. 15:19-20: For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, [i]fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders. 20 These are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man.”

        Your entire comment is but mindless argle-bargle.

        Best wishes,

        • RichE

          Ok, we won’t call it birth control, we’ll call it contraceptive sacrificing. There’s biblical precedence for sacrificing children, no Christen moral issues. Don’t know about the Koran. Oh, the Christians and Muslims have the same god.

      • Bob Livingston

        Dear RichE,

        You write: “Ok, we won’t call it birth control, we’ll call it contraceptive sacrificing.” I have no idea what you mean.

        You write: “There’s biblical precedence for sacrificing children, no Christen moral issues.” Please cite for me book, chapter and verse.

        You write: “Oh, the Christians and Muslims have the same god.” Wrong.

        Best wishes,

        • RichE

          Hi Bob,
          The biblical presidency for killing your children goes something this, “For God loved the physical so much he killed his kid”

          Really, the Christians, Muslims, and Jews don’t have the same god. I think you need to double check that one Bob.

      • God’s Word

        Dear Bob’s Word,

        “That is quite a tortured interpretation you have devised” regarding death of the fetus is not murder but death of the mother is. The passage is exceptionally clear on the matter. Most folk can follow it and double check with something like Strong’s Concordance to be sure their particular translation has not been corrupted. Your choice of the New American Standard Bible (NASB) is most astute as it avoids the Hebrew words “yeh’-led yaw-tsaw”- the baby fails, the baby miscarries or the baby dies.

        “Psalm 139:13 For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb. (NASB)” Just as Adam was formed at the hand of God and did not become a living soul until he breathed…(even in the NASB) Genesis 2:7

        You write: “I suggest you read I Cor. 6:9-10: 9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [f]effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
        Hebrews 13:4: 4 Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge.
        Matt. 15:19-20: For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, [i]fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders. 20 These are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man.”

        Yes…? The Bible provides no condemnation nor frowned upon premarital sex in any of those passages. Fornicators were prostitutes, idolaters worshiped gods like money and power as well as statuary etc. And on the list goes…

        Yes…Marriage and betrothals were positive social institutions. Yes! That is all good! All that is still true I would hope. That’s my religious and personal bias and I can stick to it.

        “Your entire comment is but mindless argle-bargle.” Isn’t that just how atheists attack believers in a moral universe created at the hand of God and people of faith? With an atheistic elitist like attack- “mindless”. A crass remark Bob, crass… But “argle-bargle,” okay I admit it, made me laugh.

        You write many thought provoking and insightful articles. I appreciate your voice and your clarity but sometimes- well sometimes I think you have an agenda not rooted in being insightful or providing clarity.

        Provoking certainly has its uses, but personal attacks in no manner generate the necessary dialogue that will result in people understanding what is behind the political stances they take and the possible conclusions that may follow. Personal attacks do nothing to establish the validity or lack of validity of an argument. This form of debasing an argument suggests a certain type of concern…

        Other than that, keep up the good work and God Bless,

      • independant thinker

        Although I do not have the Book, chapter, and verse handy I believe Soleman said “the spirit enters into the child in the womb”.

      • Alondra

        People, before to start an argument with GW, at least open the BIBLE and read the passage GW provided. Here you have it:

        “If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life” (Exodus 21:22)

        A woman “gave birth prematurely, yet no harm follows” which means “no harm follows” to CHILD or mother.
        GW, it was not fetus. God’s Word says it “CHILD”. Do not diminish God’s creation “CHILD”. God highly value innocent defenseless life.

        “My frame was not hidden from You, when I was being made in secret … Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in Your book were written every one of them, the days, that were formed for me, when as yet there were none of them.” (Ps.139:15-16)

        God knows how “the bones grow in the womb of her who is with child…” (Ecclesiastes 11:5)
        “The Spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life.” (Job 33:4)

        Your “leader” is for infanticide, but not HEAVENLY Father. His 6th commandment is: “You shall not murder.”

        WG, please do not spread your stupid ungodly LEFTIST’s propaganda, at least on this Web Site.
        “In all your ways acknowledge Him [God], And He shall direct[a] your paths. Do not be wise in your own eyes; Fear the LORD and depart from evil. It will be health to your flesh,[b] And strength[c] to your bones.” (Proverbs 3)

        God BLESS America and our troops.

      • God’s Word

        independant thinker,

        The passage you are seeking is (NASB, Ecclesiastes 11:5) “Just as you do not know the path of the wind and how bones are formed in the womb of the pregnant woman, so you do not know the activity of God who makes all things.” The book is attributed to Solomon as a sobering realization upon his return to God’s grace. One of my favorites!

      • Alondra

        RichE, Christians have HEAVENLY Father, Whose 6th commandment is: “You shall not murder”. But muslims’ god is allaha, who is jihadist and in muslim’s book Koran (I hope you heard about the book) allah commands 36 times to kill infidels. Do you know who infidels are? Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, atheists and of course leftists, even if they believe in allah. I guess you are infidel.
        RichE, do not forget to pray to allah 5 times a day.

        • RichE

          Alondra, I find it hard to believe a, “God is good” based belief would instruct believers to terminate non-believers. A levelheaded interpretation would be, “terminate the ignorance of the non-believer” not “terminate the life of the non-believer”

      • God’s Word


        Perhaps you are leftist? You wish to reform (reform; not meaning reshape) the world into your own image? Certainly the leftists I have had occasion to banter with were that way. Or is that a term you like to invoke because you fear it and hence anything which generates fear for you is treated to the label “leftist?” Personally, leftists do not scare me, they often offer amusing conversations. Well, having thrown that label at me pretty hard- I hope this conversation offers you some amusement.

        I liked your passage “The Spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life.” (Job 33:4) Wow! Doesn’t that just say it all “…and the breath of the Almighty gives me life.” Amen. For that is indeed when you became a living soul. I’ve already cited Genesis 2:7.

        You wrote: ‘A woman “gave birth prematurely, yet no harm follows” which means “no harm follows” to CHILD or mother.
        GW, it was not fetus. God’s Word says it “CHILD”. Do not diminish God’s creation “CHILD”.’

        I cited the Hebrew words used and you can choose to ignore them. I choose not to- having written: “the baby dies.” Fetus is a medical term for a baby that is more than a zygote, more than an embryo and less than born. But the real point is that the technology allowing (all but the very latest term premature births) the baby to breathe and thereby survive did not exist in those days. Certainly, though our knowledge and medical skills are phenomenal today, many premature babies who are not late term fail to survive and beyond all doubt died in those days. Seek out translations which are more literal and the harm references the woman, “and she lives” NOT “and she and the baby lives.”

        You wrote: “God highly value innocent defenseless life.” By that I presume you mean 24-28 week premature babies which cost millions of dollars to keep alive; some of which require a lifetime of specialized care. Talk about stealing from many people and giving to it all to another! Yet! We do not have this attitude toward children and families in general- only unborn babies and “preemies!” So the bias cannot really be about not trusting pregnant women to make the correct decision regarding the unborn baby.

        Your argument really goes something like this (paraphrasing)- “The mother’s sweet innocent defenseless fetus, her very child within her womb, cannot be trusted to her moral decision as she and God determine it. It’s amazing we allow women to raise children at all as they are so untrustworthy and capable of such immoral decisions (exactly who bit the apple first)! And no way am I going to trust God, much less any lesser being, to lead a pregnant woman to the proper moral decision about bringing this particular life into being. It is imperative to force the woman to bear children- as many as the Lord allows- as she is an incubator-nanny of more incubator-nannies and men. Men of course are exempt from this scrutiny and above reproach- they can’t give birth to babies! Besides, everyone knows the Bible says Adam became a living soul and not a word about his incubator-nanny Eve being a living soul. Women just need to stop rebelling against God’s role for them and accept their fate.”

        However, the bias is about something else- that much is obvious. That particular argument does not seem to be legitimate, especially coming from someone using a woman’s name. It would be unlikely that most women would choose to treat birthing a child or giving the child back to God as a flippant decision…even amongst the atheists (of course you think we need more godless people in this world?).

        The unborn baby is just that “bones formed in the womb of the pregnant woman.” Notice that the Word is not ‘the living soul formed in the womb” There is no need to make the womb dependent baby more than that. Furthermore, this argument was made public in 1999 by Rabbi Shira Stern (you probably have heard of her father). I trust her judgement regarding this matter and initially found her words and The Word (readings from the Bible) on this matter troubling (something along the lines of how would Jesus teach this). So I prayed. But it was not until I understood that a woman is a living moral human being, that my heart opened and love with understanding flowed in (and the following idea exists in Revelations as well):

        –A man is a living moral human being.
        –Woman came from his side and thereby is his equal in all matters.
        –As such, a woman must also be a living moral human being.

        There can be no question but that the fetus -unborn baby (as that makes you more comfortable)- is living human DNA and God’s wonder. But it does not have the same personhood that the mother does and by physical necessity brought about by its dependency on the mother, the unborn baby’s rights are abrogated to that of the mother’s psychological and physical health.

        You wrote: “please do not spread your stupid ungodly LEFTIST’s propaganda, at least on this Web Site.
        “In all your ways acknowledge Him [God], And He shall direct[a] your paths. Do not be wise in your own eyes; Fear the LORD and depart from evil. It will be health to your flesh,[b] And strength[c] to your bones.” (Proverbs 3)”

        If only you understood this website is about freedom from tyranny and the search for truth. And though some here do reduce their arguments to name calling and hiding behind label(s), that is really not the message- even though you participated in that obfuscation. The message in these forums is that most of us conservative sorts want a responsive and responsible government which is respectful of our rights. A government which only takes from our earnings or our wealth what is absolutely necessary to protect those freedoms and provide necessary services. Besides, I get the impression you have no idea what a leftist is other than being something you are supposed to fear and loath. However much you fear and loath me, that is hardly sufficient cause for me to turn into a leftist.

        If only you had read your last paragraph and understood it not only applies to me; the Word also applies to you. So might you pray and find peace in God’s Word. Or maybe just enjoy some amusement at my expense.

      • Bob Livingston

        Dear RichE,

        You write: “The biblical presidency (sic) for killing your children goes something this, “For God loved the physical so much he killed his kid” No. That’s not how it goes at all.

        You write: “Really, the Christians, Muslims, and Jews don’t have the same god. I think you need to double check that one Bob.” No, I don’t.

        Best wishes,

        • RichE

          Re: Christians, Jews, and Muslims having same god. I stand corrected on that even though I find it hard to fathom multiple singularities.
          Re: precedence. It’s my understanding the Christian god sacrifice his son Christos, therefor precedence.

      • Bob Livingston

        Dear God’s Word,

        You write: “The Bible provides no condemnation nor frowned upon premarital sex in any of those passages. Fornicators were prostitutes, idolaters worshiped gods like money and power as well as statuary etc.” Au contraire. WE Vine defines fornication as illicit sexual intercourse. Thayer defines it as any illicit sexual intercourse, differentiated from adultery (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon, pg. 532). “The N. T. is characterized by an unconditional repudiation of all extra-marital and unnatural intercourse (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. 6, pg. 590).”

        Perhaps I erred in using the adjective mindless. You obviously put thought into your argle-bargle.

        Best wishes,

      • Alondra

        RichE, What are you talking about? Your comment is so incoherent. Who told you that “‘God is good’ based belief would instruct believers to terminate non-believers”? Christ never preached “to terminate non-believers”! No one was threatened by Christ for non-belief. God gave to man a Free Will.

        But islamic allah gives instructions to his followers to kill infidels:

        “Allah is an enemy to unbelievers.” – Sura 2:98

        “Slay them wherever ye find them and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter.” – Sura 2:191

        “Fight against them until idolatry is no more and Allah’s religion reigns supreme.” Sura 2:193

        “Fight them until there is no persecution and the religion is God’s entirely.” – Sura 8:39

        “Prescribed for you is fighting, though it is hateful to you.”

        “Make war on them until idolatry is no more and Allah’s religion reigns supreme.” – Sura 8:39

        Please, Do not twist and do not distort Biblical God’s perception.

        Best wishes.

    • Warrior
  • http://none Claire

    sc–Your first sentence—none of us will be told the truth irregardless of who is in office. The American public is being “had”—this has been going on for years. Government will only do what they think is best for “them,” makes no difference what the issue is.

    • Matt

      there is no such word as irregardless-look it up

      • Angel Wannabe

        Matt there is no one here that cares except you….

      • Sirian

        Uh Matt, you’re totally wrong:
        irregardless |ˌiriˈgärdlis| adjective & adverb
        usage: Irregardless is widely heard, perhaps arising under the influence of such perfectly correct forms as , but should be avoided by careful users of English. Use regardless to mean ‘without regard or consideration for’ or ‘nevertheless’.
        Obviously, you need to look it up before you stick your foot in your mouth – not to bad of an idea, right?

      • Libertytrain

        and here as well
        1910–15; ir-2 (probably after irrespective ) + regardless
        Can be confused:  irregardless, regardless (see usage note at the current entry ).
        Usage note
        Irregardless is considered nonstandard because of the two negative elements ir- and -less. It was probably formed on the analogy of such words as irrespective, irrelevant, and irreparable. Those who use it, including on occasion educated speakers, may do so from a desire to add emphasis.

      • Bob Livingston

        Dear Matt,

        See my response to karlseidel below. It partly pertains to you.

        Best wishes,

      • Sirian

        It is rather obvious that you are a true “fly speckers”. Now go look that one up.

      • Blue Devil

        Matt — Wrong!!! My copy of Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary dsays that it neans the same as regardless!!!

  • Steven6032

    Thank you for addressing this new development. It drives me crazy when the network news airs soundbites of famous people decrying the offense that the “Conservative Right”=Republican party is trying to take away a woman’s “right” to contraception!! They are intentionally twisting reality in order to sway voters. First of all there is no “right” as in our constitution. Secondly, and more to the facts, I have not heard in years any legislation or any politician arguing for limiting access to contraception with the exception of the drugs that induce abortions. Just the other day on the Access Hollywood program they had famous actresses address the question of “how do you feel about the efforts to restrict availability of contributions?” Of course they show the most favorable responses. If one of the actresses were to respond, “that’s not the issue hear, nobody is trying to do that”, they just wouldn’t show that clip.

    These news programs are very crafty and manipulative. They can sway voters in profound ways without even naming names or political parties.

  • Karolyn

    Hasn’t this topic been beaten to death enough?

    • Warrior

      Nope, obamacare needs to be put to death. Now that’s an abortive procedure I can agree with.

      • Angel Wannabe

        “Hear, Hear”, Warrior!

      • Sirian

        I’ve got the guns and ammo, you got the post and blindfold? :)

      • Priscilla King


    • Jay

      Apparently not, Karolyn, as the corpse still twitches! What’s wrong, are you becoming fatigued, from defending your irrational, convoluted logic?

    • Alondra

      No, Karolyn, it’s not enough. I did not get response to my question not from you and not from your “leader”: Why I or any Tax-payer should pay for the orgasm of your partner even if you have it sometimes? And less I want to pay for sex-addicted slut like law student Fluke. She is paying tens of thousands for her school and she can’t afford contraceptives?

      Walgreens sells BC pills for $9 without insurance.

      In WalMart Choose from hundreds of drugs and over–the–counter medications for $4 for 30–day supply. $10 for a 90–day supply.

      Pay for your BC from your valet, not mine.

      Good luck.

  • sean murrey ILLInio

    They do want a demo majory again they can take a flying leap at a rolling donut.

  • Angel Wannabe

    Good Article Bob, You said -> “Never in the history of the republic has free contraception been part of a serious policy discussion, nor has it been a front-burner issue in political discourse. ”

    Food and Gas prices are through the roof, people are still losing homes left and right, un-employment is rampant (those low figures are manipulated), there is still Iran war gossip and this Admin wants to make sex an issue, ludacris.

    DC is Absolutely & purposely disconnected from the people, I’m throughly disgusted!

    • Angel Wannabe

      …and then right on time the Liberal Sheep appear who run around “preening” the elites talking points…

  • Rifleman

    What can you expect from the most corrupt administration in American history. Any means possible, no matter how criminal or sleezy, to attain their absolute control over ‘We the People’. Apparently they never studied American history, I know they never read, or understand what, our Constitution stands for. Until we drain the cesspool (Washington DC) nothing will change. That time is coming and the sooner the better.

  • karlseidel

    irregardless is not a real word; women have the right and the intelligence to make decisions on their own; silly dumb people making comments on this site – with all their misspelling is fairly indicative of the level of intelligence on this reactionary ill-informed site.

    • Bob Livingston

      Dear karlseidel,

      And your ignorant, poorly punctuated sentence demonstrates you will not last long if you attempt to engage in the dialogue here if this is indicative of the level of discourse you will bring to the discussion.

      Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

      Irregardless is considered nonstandard because of the two negative elements ir- and -less. It was probably formed on the analogy of such words as irrespective, irrelevant, and irreparable. Those who use it, including on occasion educated speakers, may do so from a desire to add emphasis. Irregardless first appeared in the early 20th century and was perhaps popularized by its use in a comic radio program of the 1930s.

      You write: “…women have the right and the intelligence to make decisions on their own;” The issue is not women’s ability to make a decision, the issue is about whether the government should steal from one to give to another.

      Best wishes,

      • God’s Word


        What an interesting point about stealing from one person to give to another by government- by which you might have meant government mandated health insurance. Most non-governmental mandated health insurance currently covers pregnancy and certain contraceptives. Are you advocating that pregnancy no longer be covered under health insurance programs?

        More interestingly, your argument would suggest that insurance (since this is how the money would be stolen from you and given to a woman to prevent pregnancy) is not about spreading risk amongst the insured and managing that risk. It would seem from the insurance company’s perspective that contraception would be one tool of managing pregnancy risk (which the AMA designates as having symptoms and treatments). Reducing pregnancy risk would reduce the cost of insurance, as pregnancy is the more expensive and poses the greater short and long term health risk to the woman. What other health coverages and forms of insurance coverages do you consider stealing and giving to someone else rather than mitigating risk and spreading risk.

        Thank you,


      • Angel Wannabe

        Bob Livingston__That’s why I like it here You get involved too!

      • http://none Claire

        Bob Livingston: Sorry I stirred up a hornet’s nest concerning “irregardless.” You are correct with your comment. It is nonstandard–and I edit many many manuscripts from educated authors that use “irregardless” quite frequently. Thank you for your explanation.

      • Jay

        Goodness gracious, Claire. As far as i am concerned, it’s a non-issue. Your apology was not necessary, certainly not from you; as you bring a good measure of grace, beauty, and character to this site. Rather than solicit an apology from you, we should all thank you for presence, and your wonderful wisdom!

  • David

    You mean the Obama team is finally taking a serious look at the Karl Rove playbook and adopting Republican rules for the dissemination of disinformation?
    What will they think of next?

    • Angel Wannabe

      David, you Liberals incessant support that Socialism/Communism is a good thing, is what I call disinfo!

    • Jay

      So David, you openly admit that the Obama administration is disseminating disinformation? It tickles me to no end to watch a prog stick his foot in his mouth! Btw, comrade, i think your Emperor would consider your post to be nothing short of treason! See ya, wouldn’t wanna be ya!

  • dagodave

    Every week there seems to be a new thing in the headlines-thus taking away the last one so as to keep the public on the run to cover up all his weekly B.S.! He should have never even been on the presidential ballot in the first place ! if I could i would put a curse of all curses on him and all the people that put him in that position! They all should be arrested and tried for treason!

  • Alexa

    We as American citizens have the choice to allow this to happen, but it takes time.

  • DavidL

    Ha Ha Ha. The Blunt amendment, a real wedge issue created by President Obama. Right.

    Access to contraception not only reduces the number of abortions, it also addresses women’s health issues. Yes, gentlemen, women use contraception for reasons other than to prevent pregnancy. Mind your own business, and stop trying to tell women what they need to do and what is in their best interests.

    • Warrior

      Stellar comments Rip! Now you can go back to sleep.

    • Angel Wannabe

      DavidL, you said –>” Mind your own business, and stop trying to tell women what they need to do and what is in their best interests.”

      If its a womans business about contraception (which its not) why are they making it the business of the GUV to cough up money for it?

      Oh how silly of me, its about having a lil’ fun on someone elses dime__now I get it!

    • joe1cr

      That’s fine David ,women can use them for what reason they want.
      But in all fairness, they and their lovers should also pay for them.

    • kkflash

      Nice try, hypocrite, but no one fell for your attempt to spin government over-reach into an attack on women’s rights. You and all the women can have all the birth control you want, but not with my money.

      • Words

        Dear Bob,


        Late Latin fornicatus, past participle of fornicare: to have intercourse with prostitutes, from Latin fornic-, fornix arch, vault, brothel
        First Known Use: 1552 AD (Fornication: 1303 AD)

        There is an excellent etymology at

        The translation and definitions you used are quite modern. But I understand the sentiment expressed, today casual sex can kill and certainly cause permanent harm. But the modern definition of fornication when applied to the Bible follows R.C. Sproul’s concept of legalism.

        I think the forum following your column demonstrates how strongly people feel about these ideas and also a great diversity of thought as well. We do need to find our moral compass. And sexual proclivities and mores stir great emotional responses whereas deceit and idolatry do not. Though the later is the greater danger. However, that is another discussion.

        Best Wishes,

  • http://cox possy


    • Robert Smith

      And if a right winger is elected can we expect more clinic bombings and doctor killings?


      • Angel Wannabe

        Geez, Rob tell us again about how the LEFT saved the world??__LMAO!

      • s c

        Tell us, comrade ‘r,’ when you CHOSE to follow Hitler to become another racially “pure” National Socialist [aka NAZI], what besides your ass did you sell? Tell us, BABY KILLER, HOW can you claim to have a CONSCIENCE?
        Are old people next on your COMPASSIONATE, MEAN-SPIRITED list? You’re a real piece of work, comrade. If you live long enough, you might realize that even the Mafia doesn’t kill babies.
        YOU, on the other hand, HAVE “STANDARDS.” How many ways can you define standards? How many murdered babies a day does it take to make BABY KILLERS like you HAPPY?

      • Blue Devil

        Robert — More clinic bombings and doctor killings? By whom?

      • eddie47d

        In Kansas where physical threats have been made against Dr Tillers replacement Where this new Doctor was told to check under her Mini-Cooper everyday because ” you will get what Teller did”.

      • Jay

        I have a better idea Robert. We close-down all the clinics, we charge all abortion practitioners with having committed mass-murder, and we throw them in the slammer for life, or, death by lethal injection! How’s that?

  • glenn blackwell

    Republicans using wedge issues to create smoke screens during election season is nothing new .
    Attacking “Obamacare” known in real life as: Affordable Healthcare for ALL AMERICANS is the reason behind the contraception controversy.
    The issue has nothing to do with women’s reproductive rights.
    It’s about doing anything to stop the re-election of President Barack Obama.
    And maintaining two levels of healthcare in this country: Excellent and substandard.

    The company I work for does not provide contraception costs with our insurance.
    The same as cosmetic surgery costs are not provided with our insurance.
    Because both of these methods are ELECTIVE. If you want it, buy it on your own dime.
    Condoms are not expensive. Cosmetic surgery is expensive. This is not an issue.
    It’s a smoke screen to hide the goal of the attack.

    • kkflash

      That wasn’t even a good try at spinning this issue as devisiveness created by Republicans. In fact it was just pathetic. The forced payment for contraception was created in Obamacare by the liberal left and no one else, so if any “smokescreen” is being created to mask another agenda, it’s by democrats, progressives, and liberals of all ilks. By the way, I do agree with you that the liberals purpose in this unconstitutional attack on individual rights is not the one they state.

    • Angel Wannabe

      Reagan warned us in 61 to beware that Socialism would come in the guise of Healthcare___Wa La _Obamacare!__Germany thought Hitler had all the answers too, History does repeat itself doesn’t it…….

    • Nadzieja Batki

      Can’t do your own thinking so you have to post from a Leftist playbook.

  • jopa

    Whether the employees health insurance offered birth control or not this should not even be an issue.Any good Catholic would not ask for the birth control therefor no cost to anyone.However 98% of Catholic men and women believe in birth control so I think the problem must be at the Vatican and these folks should sit down with the Pope and discuss the issue.It seems we have a President trying to please the American public but some other political party is just blowing a lot of smoke for political gain.

    • Angel Wannabe

      if the prez wishes to “please the public” then I’d say a good place to start would be, is to free up tax & regulation on business with a few incentives to come back on shore and bring some jobs back here__Oh hey hows about perhaps “drill baby drill” our own resources, and hows about not bullying every country in the world into another war_Ther is a hell of a lot more pressing issues than a womens contraception!

    • eddie47d

      There is indeed more pressing issues such as the false flag war with Iran. When contraceptives are brought up the Catholic Church is always involved and have been for years so they make it a major issue. Six Supreme Court Justices are Catholic so the issue is continually kept alive. Now when it comes to drilling in our country there is plenty going on and from coast to coast and north to south.

    • kkflash

      Obama is not “trying to please the American public”. He’s trying to buy more votes from the proles and pro-choice crowd by handing out contraceptives and abortifacents at someone else’s expense. Let’s just add birth control and abortion to the long list of government mandated entitlements.

      • Angel Wannabe

        kkflash, Bam Bam doesn’t need to buy votes, thats what were lead to believe__TPTB bought his first for year stint in the White House, I’d be willing to wager a bet, if they want Bam Bam back in there, they’ll buy it for another four years.

        __I’ve only been studying American History for about 3 years, but I’ll guran-dam-tee-ya things are not what they seem in America!!!

        I got this originally from TIME on this forum “The Season for Treason” youtube__ those vids will tell what its all about in a very short period of time, throw away what you think you know!

  • Trombone Player

    All Mr. Obama has ever done is create a void of cognitive reasoning void of answers to the relevant issues of our times. Remember, never forget, how he came to surface: he was a community organizer, period. That equates to non-stop, perpetual, chronic complaining. We must be careful to not allow ourselves to do the same. There is only one, very simple, solution. Vote him out of power.

    Spend some of your wisdom, a lot of your energy, and all of your influence, going out into your communities and instructing your circle of friends of what needs to be done. Vote him out = VHO BHO.

    Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois ; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary. What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks?

    In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama’s oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people — conservatives included — ought now to be deeply embarrassed. The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that’s when he has his teleprompter in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth — it’s all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years.

    And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?

    In short: our president is a small-minded, inexperienced, bafoon of a man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office. VHO in November.

    • Angel Wannabe

      TP, the Prez is not President, he’s a CEO of the US Corporation. He wasn’t voted in, he was an elitest pick from the getgo, just like Romney will be. You need to see we live in an illusion of the elitest creation, we’ve been going through the motions for years. _ ask yourself why NO MATTER who is voted in, things only get worse>

      • Nancy in Nebraska

        I agree with you, Angel!

    • smilee


      I respect your right to your opinion but my opinion, is you are wrong and what you say is only what you wished it was and not what is reality

      • Trombone Player

        OK, you were able to burp out a comment, now can you show show me one example where my opinion/facts are wrong or one example of how/where you (your opinion) is right?

        Everything I stated is indisputable. It is not an opinion.

    • Warrior

      Trombone – your music will be #1 hit.

  • 45caliber

    But those poor college women! Someone did some math on the amount that Fluke stated that they had to spend each year for birth control. Those poor girls have sex over 27 times a day to use up all those condoms! That’s more than once an hour, 24 hours a day. No wonder the poor things have trouble getting good grades! They are too busy to study! Its a wonder they don’t die of overwork! It must be due to having to service all those Congressmen and other government bureaucrats there in Washington.

    • smilee

      LOL!! Not one penny was for,condoms. They are not covered and she was not promoting that. I think you dreamed this one

  • Eric Siverson

    I can the goverenments right to sqash my grandchilds head in secret with out my knowledge be turned into a underage girls right to health care under the secret guidance of a over educated imoral guidance burrocrat . and hand me a bill that I must pay my fair share or go to jail .

    • Angel Wannabe

      Eric__ seems to be how its works, while they’re busy flippin the American people off with one hand, its the other hand we have to watch!

  • Peter

    Like the T-shirt says:


  • Eric Siverson

    How can the goverenments right to squash my grandchilds head without my knowledge ? be turned into a underage girls right to health care with the secret guidance of a professional immoral goverenment employee . And than have the gual to hand me a bill to pay my fair share or go to prison ? If this is freedom ? I don’ want it .it .

    • Eric Siverson

      Why did Santorm allow this debate to be changed to contraception and a birth control issue , rather than a secret goverenment right to murder of my grandchild without my knowledge . Herman Cain and Newt best get this issue clairfied or Santorm will lose the whole debate , and perhaps even the election . We can easily Santorm has strong Catholic faith , Thats not what the debate is about . We are not at all mostly interested in his faith on contraception . But we are very interested in stopping a goverenment that believes they have the right to murder our grandchildran in secret and then hand us the bills to pay for it . calling this a womens health issue .

  • carolinerh

    Let’s be succinct. The leftist forked tongues can say what they want and no backlash. Those who speak the truth are suspect and hounded. We all know that Fluke the you know what maybe spent $3,000 but probably because she had to BUY her sex because contraceptives are cheap. One can only hope she will never have children to bug us as well. It appears she was a set-up by the leftists, Obama and cabal just to irritate the you now what out of us. She is a radical and radicals are loved, while we who truly love America are verbally kicked and denigrated. We MUST change everything as quick as possible in this country even before November! We should never apologize until they do, and that will be the 12th of never from them! No reason to waste our breath and brains on them without brains!

  • Capitalist at Birth

    The trolls and useful idiots will be out in full force. I have one question to ask. What gives you the right to tell me what I must or must not purchase?

  • Pete0097

    Contraceptives are an OPTIONAL medication much like eating an apple every day. Medicines for disease control are not optional as without them you die. If people want contraceptives, they should pay for them. If you are on medicade, you probably can already get them. We had a teenage foster child that got the monthly shots (her social worker took her to the public health unit without us knowing about it) and she didn’t pay for it, we all did. That is what the public health units are already in place for. Working people should not need to get them from the government, just like any food. If every woman of child bearing years went on birth control, the insurance costs would go up geometrically (as opposed to going up a similar amount. I know that I don’t want my health insurance going up an additional $1000 per year just to support her sex life. ( I have been willing to personally pay for us to get contraceptives and I have always bought the condoms for my wife and I) Even the ribbed and studded ones are less than $1000 per year.

  • Priscilla King

    Good points. Personally I’m miffed by all the attention going to a man who shouldn’t have nibbled on this bait. As a woman, and a woman who worked as a legitimate social escort in Washington when I was Fluke’s age (legitimate = didn’t use or need contraceptive pills), I have so much more of a right to scold this idiot girl. But you’re right, Bob–it’s merely a smokescreen.

  • RichE

    Irregardless: my two cents.

    Personally, I believe ‘irregardless’ is an ad hominem form of ‘regardless’. The two negatives, ‘ir’ and ‘less’ do not form a double negative, but pertain to the messenger and the message. The person who uses the word, ‘irregardless’ is trying to kill two birds with one stone, discrediting the messenger and the message with one word.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      Maybe your believing is the problem. Start doing some thinking but reading your posts tells on you that this is an impossibility.

  • Sam

    They did not become government issues until some one put it up there. Many of those issues were initiated by republicans. Democrats were not any better. We, you and I made them government issues. If we all just do our jobs and teach and educate our children from the very beginning, we would not be in such a bind.

    If you really believe that you have the right to control some else’s choice than create programs to go with it. That will take care of those single mothers and their children. Be prepare to help educate them. Do not talk the talk if you are not going to walk the walk.

    It might be interesting to know that some of those pregnancies are caused by conservatives. Take a look at your sons and your daughters and ask yourselves this question. Can I live with it if it was my daughter?

    I know many conservatives that found their daughters in such a bind and they did not hesitate to tell them to get rid of it. They could not bear the shame. I also know may conservatives whose children are gay and have disowned / disavowed them. It is a great shame that they cannot love their children and work with them. It must be easy to be perfect and throwing stones. Well to each his/her own!

    It is a wonder that many or all of you have daughters and would allow an absolute idiot and small minded UFA to call someone else a slut and a prostitute. I know, Limb what ever was calling his mother, his daughters, grand daughters, great grand daughters sluts and prostitutes. If he was my dad, I would have punched him.

    • Angel Wannabe

      Sam, The Libs called Laura Ingram a slut, I don’t hear ya b*thchin’ about that one, or all the smear campaign the Libs they put on Palin and her kids… Hmmmm…..funny isn’t it?

      • Nadzieja Batki

        Sam’s paper reads like a class essay using all the cue words of the Left.

    • Angel Wannabe

      and besides sam, our Daughter wouldn’t have gone on National TV to grip about someone else paying for HER Contraceptives, especially for Obama, she doesn’t like him either ! :)

    • kkflash

      There are already ample privately-funded AND taxpayer-funded programs to provide for single mothers and children who are incapable of caring for themselves. There are also ample sources of free birth control for those incapable of paying for their own pleasure. There is also plenty of information being disseminated to educate everyone about the importance of responsibility in the exercise of your sexual choices. So, there really are no valid excuses for intentional termination of a pregnancy. We simply have a society that is being taught to take no responsibility for its actions, and that notion is supported and exemplified by a president that takes no responsibility for his actions.

      • Angel Wannabe

        kkflash_ your absolutely right!__Today we blame someone else for everything, or pop a pill because a disease or a mental disorder made me do it, or we do drugs not to face it!

    • Nadzieja Batki

      Stop looking to the government to clean up the messes that you make. Best ever don’t make the messes in the first place. How difficult can thinking be or are you just led around like a dog in heat?

  • Bob M

    Lets call is the Houdini factor, The main reason for all the hype it gets your mind off of the real crimes committed by our elected leaders. Where it comes from is the church needing more members and to perpetuate the flock. No more, no less. there was a time when a good catholic family had as many as 10 to 15 offspring’s. that is what they want!
    This brings up the reason for the one child policy in China. This is all about food to feed the people. Unrestricted birth rate will cause, starvation. Sounds cruel but think about how many people would die for the lack of food. India has the same problem, but you never hear about how many people die because of this.

    • Angel Wannabe

      Bob M, you said “Unrestricted birth rate will cause, starvation”

      They’re would be plenty of food if the GUV got out of our lives!___(1) Let the farmers alone, they are our food growers! (2) Get rid of Monstanto and they’re GMO they’re nutrient dead food! (3) Stop using our corn for ethanol (4) stay out of peoples back yard who grow they’re food!____ and last but not least__ God Fed 5000 (I believe) with two fish and a few loaves of bread, when the people were full, they collected all of the uneaten food…..

      • Angel Wannabe

        and besides Bob M, I have to ask you, since God put us here, who here on earth has the right to say how many people are to be born and how many should die?__

  • MaryLovesGod

    Bob M—————-how ignorant can one be! It’s in the bible “be fruitful and multiply”. There is no such thing as overpopulation. That’s just a crock! When there are too many people – God takes care of the situation. The problem is man wants to be god. God has his laws and we are expected (obliged) to keep them if we want to spend eternity with Him. If we don’t want to spend eternity with the Almighty then we’ll spend it in the fires of hell. Which would you rather have? huh?

  • Brian

    I agree with the author, if Obama is talking about the economy or ObamaCare or pretty much anything else he will lose. If he can pose himself as the guy who wants to keep birth control legal and the opponent as the guy who wants to make it illegal then he accomplishes two things. One is that he keeps everybody talking about all of this sexual morality stuff which has nothing to do with his record or policies or ideology which he needs desperately. The other is that he spread this false idea that Republicans want to make contraception illegal. It’s false but why should that stop him? He lies all the time,and the Republicans aren’t doing themselves any favors when they don’t stand clearly on the side of legal contraception (there are a few of them out there who don’t take that position). They can defuse this whole issue by being completely clear on that and pointing out that this is a lame manufactured issue and then by not talking about it at all and getting back to the real issues of the day which is the economy, taxes, regulations, and violations of our liberty. Those are the winning issues for Republicans and not this stupid contraception non-issue.

  • RichE

    Re: Christians, Jews, and Muslims having same god. I Googled and it appears no Christian authority will commit. As of right now only George Bush and I believe Christians and Muslims worship the same god.

    • Angel Wannabe

      RichE, Well Google’s your second problem!

      • RichE

        Thanks for cataloging my problems, Angel.

    • BigBadJohn

      If there is only one God and he is the true God. Then ALL religions that pray to one God are praying to THE SAME God. The only difference between all of those religions is how MAN interprets what he perceives as Gods will. ALL religions are organizations based on the notion of how to best control their followers minds and therefore grant authority to the state.

      A prime example is Christianity, Emperor Constantine needed a way to pull the Roman empire back together – his solution – The Holy Roman Catholic Church which is where all Christianity comes from. The pages of the bible where selected to best suit Constantine’s goals.

      • Jay

        You are partly right, BBJ, but not entirely. It’s a little more complicated then that. But not so complicated that one cannot come to a clear understanding! You suggest; throwing the baby out with the dirty bath water? Before i would do that, i would closely consider, and examine what made the water dirty in the first place! You may be surprised to discover that the baby is completely innocent. However, should you choose to forgo inspection/investigation, and give consent to the baby’s destruction; let me leave you with these words; “And upon this Rock i shall build my Church, and the gates of hell shall NOT prevail against it”!

      • RichE

        Yep, control the masses. It’s odd to me why any far-right, religious, individualistic person would champion something that would ultimately suppress their individualism.

      • Jay

        Religion is no arbitrary invention

        It is most absurd, therefore, to maintain, as some do, that religion was devised by the cunning and craft of a few individuals, as a means of keeping the body of the people in due subjection, while there was nothing which those very individuals, while teaching others to worship God, less believed than the existence of a God.

        I readily acknowledge, that designing men have introduced a vast number of fictions into religion, with the view of inspiring the populace with reverence or striking them with terror, and thereby rendering them more obsequious; but they never could have succeeded in this, had the minds of men not been previously imbued will that uniform belief in God, from which, as from its seed, the religious propensity springs. And it is altogether incredible that those who, in the matter of religion, cunningly imposed on their ruder neighbours, were altogether devoid of a knowledge of God.

        For though in old times there were some, and in the present day not a few are found, who deny the being of a God, yet, whether they will or not, they occasionally feel the truth which they are desirous not to know.

        We do not read of any man who broke out into more unbridled and audacious contempt of the Deity than C. Caligula, and yet none showed greater dread when any indication of divine wrath was manifested. Thus, however unwilling, he shook with terror before the God whom he professedly studied to condemn. You may every day see the same thing happening to his modern imitators.

        The most audacious despiser of God is most easily disturbed, trembling at the sound of a falling leaf. How so, unless in vindication of the divine majesty, which smites their consciences the more strongly the more they endeavour to flee from it. They all, indeed, look out for hiding-places where they may conceal themselves from the presence of the Lord, and again efface it from their mind; but after all their efforts they remain caught within the net. Though the conviction may occasionally seem to vanish for a moment, it immediately returns, and rushes in with new impetuosity, so that any interval of relief from the gnawing of conscience is not unlike the slumber of the intoxicated or the insane, who have no quiet rest in sleep, but are continually haunted with dire horrific dreams.

        Even the wicked themselves, therefore, are an example of the fact that some idea of God always exists in every human mind.

        All men of sound judgement will therefore hold, that a sense of Deity is indelibly engraven on the human heart. And that this belief is naturally engendered in all, and thoroughly fixed as it were in our very bones, is strikingly attested by the contumacy of the wicked, who, though they struggle furiously, are unable to extricate themselves from the fear of God.

        Though Diagoras, and others of like stamps make themselves merry with whatever has been believed in all ages concerning religion, and Dionysus scoffs at the judgement of heaven, it is but a Sardonian grin; for the worm of conscience, keener than burning steel, is gnawing them within.

        I do not say with Cicero, that errors wear out by age, and that religion increases and grows better day by day. For the world (as will be shortly seen) labours as much as it can to shake off all knowledge of God, and corrupts his worship in innumerable ways.

        I only say, that, when the stupid hardness of heart, which the wicked eagerly court as a means of despising God, becomes enfeebled, the sense of Deity, which of all things they wished most to be extinguished, is still in vigour, and now and then breaks forth.

        Whence we infer, that this is not a doctrine which is first learned at school, but one as to which every man is, from the womb, his own master; one which nature herself allows no individual to forget, though many, with all their might, strive to do so.

        Moreover, if all are born and live for the express purpose of learning to know God, and if the knowledge of God, in so far as it fails to produce this effect, is fleeting and vain, it is clear that all those who do not direct the whole thoughts and actions of their lives to this end fail to fulfil the law of their being. This did not escape the observation even of philosophers. For it is the very thing which Plato meant (in Phoed. et Theact.) when he taught, as he often does, that the chief good of the soul consists in resemblance to God; i.e., when, by means of knowing him, she is wholly transformed into him.

        Thus Gryllus, also, in Plutarch, (lib. guod bruta anim. ratione utantur,) reasons most skilfully, when he affirms that, if once religion is banished from the lives of men, they not only in no respect excel, but are, in many respects, much more wretched than the brutes, since, being exposed to so many forms of evil, they continually drag on a troubled and restless existence: that the only thing, therefore, which makes them superior is the worship of God, through which alone they aspire to immortality.
        –John Calvin

      • Words

        Thank you Jay for a worthy read.

  • jopa

    Perhaps Rush Limbaugh really didn’t mean what he said or realize what he said.He is known for heavy drug usage and has been to rehab and was the target of a major drug bust that netted thousands upon thousands of pills known on the street as Oxycotton.Perhaps he needs some more rehab like Lindsy Lohan and the other addicted celebs.In the meantime he should be taken off the airwaves until he gets his head on straight again doesn’t go out and attack someone else’s daughter for days on end with slanderous lunatic rants.Anyone backing this person should be ashamed of themselves for this vicious attack on this young woman.

    • Libertytrain

      to me he’s just another big mouth entertainer – yet not quite as insulting to women as bill maher – bill maher also an example of a big mouth entertainer continuously cuts down women… that ok with you? And the news and/or entertainers that denigrate women – is ok with you or do you just knock the ones who are “conservative” and praise the lib potty mouths? I think they are all ignorant fools…pandering for attention….

      • Jay

        Don’t forget the “porn industry” Libertytrain. A industry highly prized and closely guarded by the degenerate left, under the “freedom of speech” flag; and, an industry, which undoubtedly performs the most heinous of degradation upon women one could possibly imagine; and yet, not a peep from the liberal progs. Yet, upon hearing the word “slut” uttered from the lips of a conservative, radio-talk-show-host, are reduced to slobbering champions of virtues and values! What is one to do with such hypocrites?

    • Nancy in Nebraska

      Rush is rude and crude. If you don’t like rude and crude, don’t listen to Rush. But, he spoke the truth. The girl is a slut by any definition that I’ve ever heard. But you know, the liberals are famous for changing the definitions of words. So they may have a new definition for the word. Anyway, I’d like to know why it’s OK when liberals are rude and crude but when a conservative is OMG. All of this is only a smokescreen for the real issue which is…why should any of us have to pay for someone else’s birth control? We’re not talking about access to birth control, there is already full access to birth control!

      • Words

        You wrote: “why should any of us have to pay for someone else’s birth control?” Presumably for the same reason that VIAGRA and PREGNANCY is covered under most health care plans. At $5-6 a pill and 2-3x a week, you are paying otherwise impotent men a lot of money to have sex…more than you would be paying most woman to not get pregnant (to use contraception). Pregnancy is even more expensive with short and long term health effects for the woman. If you have health insurance, you are already paying for people who also have health insurance to have sex. If you pay taxes, a small amount of your taxes goes to paying for the poor and indigent to have babies. I personally am tired of paying for drug addled parents dropping their meth and crack addicted babies off at hospitals- a taxpayer born expense (which means me and everyone else who pays taxes)- these babies are seriously expensive as regards public and health resources not only in the birthing process but for their entire lifetimes.

        You wrote: “The girl is a slut by any definition that I’ve ever heard.” One is hardly a “slut” because they use contraception and it is covered by health insurance. One is hardly a “slut” for explaining why contraception, for most women a prescribed medication, would be covered under the pharmaceutical portion of health insurance and the benefit of that coverage for those with various medical conditions (such as cystic ovaries). One is not a “prostitute” for saying that over the course of several years the cost of contraception adds up and some people can’t afford it. Furthermore, a university (much less any business) is hardly a church or a religion (though some liberal arts programs really make me wonder).

        Sandra Fluke’s “testimony” (if you can call it that) was hearsay and anecdotal. It wouldn’t have merited but the briefest of paragraphs in the news. Her “testimony” hardly accounted for anything. I read her “testimony” and found it amusing. She was well spoken and it was obvious Georgetown University is producing stellar students but I found her story more imaginative than factual. And I said all that without attacking her character, which you did without looking at what she said. Which means Rush was wrong.

        What Rush did was unconscionable. He carried on a several day assassination of Sandra Fluke’s character at a personal level. He also assaulted every woman who uses contraception as being something a lot less than moral. He just had to make this a right-left political issue. Decency does not say everyone else is doing it so this is okay too. I hope you raised your children better than that (if you were/are fortunate enough to have one or any). I hope after thinking about it, you are better than that.

  • Jay

    Did you know all 44 U.S. presidents have carried European royal bloodlines into office? 34 have been genetic descendants from just one person, Charlemagne, the brutal eighth century King of the Franks. 19 of them directly descended from King Edward III of England. In fact, the presidential candidate with the most royal genes has won every single American election.

    “This information comes from Burke’s Peerage, which is the Bible of aristocratic genealogy, based in London. Every presidential election in America, since and including George Washington in 1789 to Bill Clinton, has been won by the candidate with the most British and French royal genes. Of the 42 presidents to Clinton, 33 have been related to two people: Alfred the Great, King of England, and Charlemagne, the most famous monarch of France. So it goes on: 19 of them are related to England’s Edward III, who has 2000 blood connections to Prince Charles. The same goes with the banking families in America. George Bush and Barbara Bush are from the same bloodline – the Pierce bloodline, which changed its name from Percy, when it crossed the Atlantic. Percy is one of the aristocratic families of Britain, to this day. They were involved in the Gunpowder Plot to blow up Parliament at the time of Guy Fawkes” -Researcher/Author David Icke, “Alice in Wonderland and the World Trade Center”

    If America declared its Independence from the European monarchies in 1776, how is it possible that every single president has descended from European monarchs? If presidents are democratically elected as we are told, what are the odds that we would always choose members of British and French royal bloodlines to lead us?

    “The Americas have always been owned and governed by the same royal families of Britain and Europe that conventional history states as being among those defeated during the wars of so-called ‘Independence.’” -Michael Tsarion, “Astrotheology and Sidereal Mythology”

    “If it really is the Land of the Free and if, as is claimed, anyone really can become the president, you would fairly expect that the 43 presidents from George Washington to George W. Bush would express that genetic diversity. You’re having a laugh. The presidents of the United States are as much a royal dynasty as anything in Europe, from whence their bloodlines came.” -David Icke, “Tales from the Time Loop”

    Researchers like David Icke, Michael Tsarion, and Fritz Springmeier, along with foundations like the New England Historical Genealogy Society, Burkes Peerage, the Roman Piso Homepage, and other reliable genealogical sources have documented these royal presidential bloodlines. Actually, by branching out far enough on the presidential family tree, the dedicated researcher will find that all 44 presidents share kinship, belonging to the same general ancestry, often called the 13th Illuminati bloodline, the Merovingian line, and/or the Windsor-Bush bloodline.

    “If you go deeply enough into the genealogical research you will find that ALL the presidents are from this line …A spokesman for Burkes Peerage, the bible of royal and aristocratic genealogy based in London, has said that every presidential election since and including George Washington in 1789 has been won by the candidate with the most royal genes. Now we can see how and why. United States presidents are not chosen by ballot, they are chosen by blood!” -David Icke, “The Windsor-Bush Bloodline”

    Granted the relationships are sometimes distant 10th or 15th cousins, but in a country with hundreds of millions to choose from, this simply cannot be chance or coincidence. Gary Boyd Roberts, a genealogist at the New England Historic Genealogical Society thoroughly traced these connections in his book “Ancestors of American Presidents.” George W. Bush himself is directly related to 16 former U.S. presidents including George Washington, Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce, Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses Grant, Rutherford B. Hayes, James Garfield, Grover Cleveland, Teddy Roosevelt, William H. Taft, Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Richard Nixon, and Gerald Ford.

    Bush is closely related to the king of Albania and has kinship with every member of the British royal family and the House of Windsor. He is related to 20 British Dukes, the 13th cousin of Britain’s Queen Mother, and of her daughter Queen Elizabeth. He is 13th cousin once removed from Prince Charles and has direct descent from King Henry III, Charles II, and Edward I of England. Through the House of Windsor and King Henry III, the Bush’s and Bill Clinton are genetically related as well.

    “According to Burke’s Peerage, even according to the official genealogy, Bill Clinton is genetically related to the House of Windsor, the present royal family in Britain; to every Scottish monarch; to King Henry III of England; and to Robert I of France.” -David Icke, “Alice in Wonderland and the World Trade Center”

    In 2004 George W. Bush ran as a “Republican” against “Democrat” John Forbes Kerry – his 16th cousin. These cousins, related to the same British and French monarchs, are also secret society brothers in the infamous Skull and Bones fraternity. John Kerry descends from King Henry II of England and Richard the Lionheart, leader of the third Christian crusade in 1189. He also has links to royalty in Albania, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Russia, Persia, and France, but still not enough royal genes to top George Bush. Earlier in 2000 we see the same story – George W. Bush ran neck and neck with Al Gore; another supposed democrat and cousin of the Bush family.

    “Al Gore is a descendant of Edward I, Roman Emperors Louis I, II, and Charles II and is direct descendant of Charlemagne which makes him a distant cousin of Richard Nixon and George W. Bush. So the top “democratic” candidates against Bush in 2000 and 2004 were actually his cousins!” -Michael Tsarion, “Where History Ends DVD”

    “Never in the history of the United States have two presidential candidates been as well endowed with royal alliances. There has always been a significant “royal factor,” in those who aspired to the White House, with Presidents George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, among others, all boasting blue blood links. Al Gore…a descendant of Edward I, he is also a cousin of former U.S. President Richard Nixon, who resigned from the White House in 1974 for his part in the Watergate scandal. However, Al Gore does have direct links to the Holy Roman Empire. He is descendant of Roman Emperors Louis II, Charles II, and Louis I and is therefore also a direct descendant of Charlemagne, the eighth-century Emperor. The problem is that Gore’s Charlemagne links also make him a cousin of George W. Bush.” -Harold Brooks-Baker, Burke’s Peerage Publishing Director from p. 7, NEXUS magazine, Vol. 8, No 1, January-February edition

    By placing bloodline members on both sides of America’s faux political dichotomy, the old monarchs have guaranteed their right to throne under the guise of democratic elections. Back in 1996 we see the same tactic as “Democrat” Bill Clinton defeated “Republican” Bob Dole, his cousin.

    “Even Bill Clinton and Bob Dole, who ‘opposed’ each other at the 1996 election, are distant cousins. They can trace their ancestry to England’s King Henry III, who reigned from 1227 to 1273, and US Presidents William Henry and Benjamin Harrison …Clinton has far more royal blood than Dole and is directly descended from the same bloodline as the House of Windsor, every Scottish monarch, and King Robert I of France. This is why he was the Brotherhood’s choice.” -David Icke, “The Biggest Secret” (191-192)

    • Words

      So based on your reading, what is your understanding of who has the most “blue-blooded” connections and hence most apt to win the 2012 presidency?

      • Jay

        Jon Huntsman, Jr., Former Governor of Utah and US Ambassador to China, declared his candidacy on June 21, 2011. After coming in third in New Hampshire, he suspended his campaign on January 16, 2012, endorsing Mitt Romney. He remains on the ballot in most states prior to Super Tuesday, and as of February 22, has received 51,168 votes.

        Romney is connected to Presidents George W. Bush (10th cousins, twice removed),

        George H. W. Bush (10th cousins, once removed)
        Franklin D. Roosevelt (8th cousins, twice removed) through Ann Marbury Hutchinson, a key figure in the development of religious freedom in America and early settler of Rhode Island and New York.

        Romney is related to Presidents Calvin Coolidge (10th cousins),
        Herbert Hoover (10th cousins)
        Franklin Pierce (6th cousins, 4 times removed) through Thomas Richardson, an English landowner in the late 1500s from Hertfordshire.

        Not far behind in presidential pedigree is former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, whose family tree boasts four former heads of state: Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt, Coolidge and both Presidents Bush.

        Huntsman is related to Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt (8th cousins, 3 times removed), George H.W. Bush (11th cousins)
        George W. Bush (11th cousins, once removed) through Ann Marbury Hutchinson.

        Huntsman and President Calvin Coolidge are 7th cousins, 3 times removed, through William Goddard, who brought his family toMassachusetts colony in 1665, escaping London’s plague and searching for better opportunities. Goddard appears to have had a slight political slant himself – serving in the town government of Watertown, Mass.

        Huntsman is related to ALL 44 U.S. Presidents! How can he be behind any of the other candidates?

        Huntsman is related to Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt (8th cousins, 3 times removed), George H.W. Bush (11th cousins) and George W. Bush (11th cousins, once removed) through Ann Marbury Hutchinson.

        Yes, but has much closer relationships to them, than that!

        Huntsman and President Calvin Coolidge are 7th cousins, 3 times removed, through William Goddard…and again he has a closer relationship to Coolidge than that.

        Here are some of Jon Huntsman’s relationships to our 44 Presidents:

        George Washington is a 2nd cousin 8x removed through Hannah Atherold & Col. William Ball and also Mildred Reade & Col. Augustine Warner
        John Adams is a 3rd cousin 8x removed through Edith Rosamund Squire & Hanry
        Thomas Jefferson is a 12th cousin 6x removed through Baron James Touchet
        James Madison is a 6th cousin 10x removed through Margaret Whittington & Thomas Throckmorton
        James Monroe is a 13th cousin 8x removed through Margaret de Holand & Earl John Fairborn de Beaufort
        John Quincy Adams is a 4th cousin 7x removed through Edith Rosamund Squire & Hanry Adams
        Andrew Jackson is a 12th cousin 7x removed through Elizabeth de Percy & John de Clifford and also Margery le Despencer & Roger Wentworth
        Martin Van Buren is a 4th cousin 6x removed through Maritje Ariensz & Pieter Quackenbosch
        William Henry Harrison is a 5th cousin 6x removed through Jane Pyle & Thomas Ludlow and also John Cary
        John Tyler is a 10th cousin 5x removed through Anna Catherine Vaux
        James Knox Polk is a 13th cousin 8x removed through Margaret de Holand & Earl John Fairborn de Beaufort
        Zachary Taylor is a 5th cousin 9x removed through Rose Davis & Edward Allerton
        Millard Fillmore is a 5th cousin 5x removed through Hester Hyde & John Post
        Franklin Pierce is a 4th cousin 7x removed through Ann Batt & John Webster
        James Buchanan is an 18th cousin 4x removed through Margaret de Burgh & Earl Richard de Burgh
        Abraham Lincoln is a 5th cousin 4x removed through Sarah Ludlow & Nathaniel Brewster
        Andrew Johnson is a 16th cousin 6x removed through Margaret de Burgh & Earl Richard de Burgh
        Hiram Ulysses Grant is a 5th cousin 5x removed through Elizabeth Scudder & Samuel Lothrop
        Rutherford Birchard Hayes is a 7th cousin 4x removed through Amy Doggett & John Eddy
        James Abram Garfield is a 6th cousin 5x removed through Anna Eames
        Chester Allen Arthur is a 5th cousin 6x removed through Anne Wheeler & Aquila Chase
        Grover Cleveland is a 6th cousin 4x removed through Hester Hyde & John Post and also Sarah Caulkins & Deacon William Hough
        Benjamin Harrison is a 5th cousin 4x removed through Sarah Haines & Barnabas Horton
        Grover Cleveland is a 6th cousin 4x removed through Hester Hyde & John Post and also Sarah Caulkins & Deacon William Hough
        William James McKinley is a 17th cousin 5x removed through Margaret de Burgh & Earl Richard de Burgh
        Theodore Roosevelt is a 14th cousin twice removed through Margaret Welles & Thomas Dymoke
        William Howard Taft is a 5th cousin 5x removed through Alice Godfrey & Deacon Peter Holbrook
        Thomas Woodrow Wilson is a 12th cousin 9x removed through Margaret de Holand & Earl John Fairborn de Beaufort
        Warren Gamaliel Harding is a 8th cousin twice removed through Anne Almy
        Calvin Coolidge is a 6th cousin twice removed through Elizabeth Wright & Eleazer Bateman
        Herbert Clark Hoover is a 10th cousin through Dorothy Yorke & Gov. Thomas Dudley
        Franklin Delano Roosevelt is an 8th cousin twice removed through Elizabeth Scudder & Samuel Lothrop
        Harry S. Truman is a 12th cousin 3x removed through Agnes Saville
        Dwight David Eisenhower is a 15th cousin 3x removed through Margaret Willoughby & Lord William Fitzhugh
        John Fitzgerald Kennedy is a 17th cousin 4x removed through Margaret de Holand & Earl John Fairborn de Beaufort
        Lyndon Baines Johnson is a 12th cousin 4x removed through Katherine Marrow & Sir Robert Throckmorton
        Richard Milhous Nixon is a 9th cousin twice removed through Ann Bates & Rev. Stephen Batchelder and also Margaret Picke & Richard Harrison and also Audrey Barlowe & William Almy and also Hannah Webb & John Ayer
        Gerald Rudolph Ford is a 8th cousin once removed through Mary Johnson & Cpt. Samuel Ayer
        James Earl Carter is a 9th cousin twice removed through Audrey Barlowe & William Almy
        Ronald Wilson Reagan is a son of a 13th cousin through Cicely Grey & Baron John Sutton
        George Herbert Walker Bush is an 8th cousin twice removed through Elizabeth Scudder & Samuel Lothrop
        William Jefferson Clinton is an 18th cousin 3x removed through Margaret de Holand & Earl John Fairborn de Beaufort
        George Walker Bush is a 9th cousin through Mary Moss & John Peck

        Barack Hussein Obama is a 12th cousin twice removed through Alice Hunt & Robert Welles

      • Jay

        George Washington, 1st President of the USA → Capt. Augustine “Gus” Washington, Sr.his father→ Mildred Warner his mother → Elizabeth Warner her sister→Major David Lewis her son → Hannah Lewis his daughter → Susannah Browning her daughter→Annie Overall her daughter → George Washington Overall her son → Susan Clark his daughter → Gabriella Armour her daughter → Ruth Armour her daughter → Stanley Armour Dunham her son → Stanley Dunham his daughter → Barack H. Obama, 44th President of the USA her son.

      • Jay

        Genealogist Christopher Child said that while the candidates often focus on pointing out differences between them, their ancestry shows they are more alike than they think.

        “It shows that lots of different people can be related, people you wouldn’t necessarily expect,” Child said.

        Obama has a prolific presidential lineage that features Democrats and Republicans. His distant cousins include President George W. Bush and his father, George H.W. Bush, Gerald Ford, Lyndon Johnson, Harry S. Truman and James Madison. Other Obama cousins include Vice President Dick Cheney, British Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill and Civil War General Robert E. Lee.

        [Bush] is closely related to every European Monarch both on and off the throne,” says Brooks-Baker. Some of the governor’s royal kin include Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II, the Queen Mother, Duchess Sarah “Fergy” Ferguson and even the late Princess Diana.

        His most prominent ancestor may be England’s King Charles II, who shared the governor’s vision of a strong military. Going back nearly 1000 years, Brooks-Baker points out both the Bush and Pierce families [Barbara Bush's maiden name is Pierce] were high society. “Not one member of his family was working class, middle class, or even middle, middle class,” he notes.

        Gore’s family members weren’t exactly peasants. The vice president’s family tree includes Charlemagne and three Holy Roman emperors. And a good fight wouldn’t frighten the vice president’s most famous ancestor, England’s Edward I – best known today as the king who defeated, then executed Braveheart. Gore is running a bit behind Bush in the European royal count, his blood-line runs close to some American home-grown nobility, including Thomas Jefferson.

        As for John Kerry, “the 60-year-old can trace his roots back to the first Massachusetts governor, John Winthrop, to every great family in Boston and to a host of royals in Europe. Kerry can almost certainly be traced back to King James I and to the bloodlines straight through the Windsor and Hanover families,” Brooks-Baker said. “But both candidates have a remarkable number of royal connections and both are related to Queen Elizabeth.”

        What about Bill Cinton ? In an Associated Press article published in The Daily Oklahoman, October 28, 1996, Harold Brooks-Baker said: “Bill Clinton was born William Jefferson Blythe, but took his stepfather’s name as a teenager. Clinton’s ancestry can be traced back, on his mother’s side, to King Henry III who ruled England from 1227 to 1272. He is descended from King Robert I of France.

        Furthermore, he is related to every Scottish monarch to the current British royal family. Clinton’s royal roots include several medieval monarchs and Simon de Montford, a statesman and soldier under King Henry III. Through de Montford, Clinton is related to every ancient aristocratic family in Britain today.”

        In the same article, the journalist revealed that “Bill Clinton’s family goes back to William Henry Harrison and Benjamin Harrison, making him related to Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. His kinship to Ford makes him ‘near kin’ to Richard Nixon and George Bush.”

        Small world, isn’t it? And this seems to be a jealous guarded secret as over the past years, the President had all records of his family history, school records, medical history, etc. sealed.

        Still think that the Democratic Revolution has changed the Aristocratic Governments ? Now think twice :).

  • BigBadJohn

    “The faux issue has nothing to do with “women’s reproductive rights” and everything to do with re-electing President Barack Obama and gaining a Democratic majority in Congress.”

    Absolutely correct – just like republicans voting as block against everything this president has proposed, has nothing to do with the issues and everything to do with trying to make him look bad – so they can gain power! Welcome the the ugly state of politics today.

    • JimH

      BBJ, The Reps. voting against everything this president(and I use the term loosely) might have more to do with what Obama proposes being harmful to this country and not to make him look bad. Obama does a better job of making Obama look bad than anybody else.

      • BigBadJohn

        So you think unanimously blocking a jobs recovery act was in the best interest of the country when unemployment is 10%??? Interesting……

      • JimH

        BBJ, When the plan would have done nothing to recover jobs, and just add more to the debt, yes, block it.
        Just because the title said job recovery act, doesn’t mean it would work.


    Forcing A to pay B’s bills for contraception or anything else is a government mandate that forces A into slavery to B. That is illegal, unconstitutional, immoral, and wrong.

    On the other hand, freedom gives individuals motivation to reduce poverty by creating wealth, and insurance companies and voluntary charities provide safety nets without creating a slave class, a parasite class, a criminal political class, rampant poverty, and massive public debt.

    Not enough of us care so few of DC employees do.

  • JimH

    Georgetown University doesn’t supply contraception to its sluts and Brigham Young University doesn’t supply kegs of beer to the frat party’s.
    Those darn religious people forcing their views on others by not paying for their fun that they are entitled to, even if it violates the Universities 1rst amendment rights.
    What is this world coming to. (sarcasm, for those who didn’t recognize it)

  • G F Palmer

    I agree 100%, Our TAX Dollars have Zero business going to contraception, Killing babies, ect. This is not health care. This bunch of liars, perverts & conmen & women (Obama, Pelosi, Cantwell, ect) claim Republicans are Anti-Women’s rights which is so far from reality it’s a joke BUT what they are gambling on is this issue will take away from the Facts that they have Failed, we are the laughing stock of the world.
    No where does the Constitution give this Narcacist President the right to circumvent the Constitution of the USA. The Constitution was written in case America was dupped, drugged or so screwed up themselves a Dictator like B. Hussein Obama could not make his personal agenda law. Please even if the opposition is a real Monkey vote for the Monkey!
    “When a Fool is in Power the people Suffer”

  • http://none Joe Justice

    Smokescreen Blog! If Obama was behind this controversy – It Worked. You and most of your respondents are attempting to put women back in their place. This issue about contraception/abortion/reproductive rights was first sought in the days of prohibition – the 20′s. BEFORE women got the right to vote. The continued distoration like yours about health care. Most of your respondents express themselves as anti black and anti women. Repeated comments that are racist and express HATRED. Get over it…there is a black President who occupiies the White House and who will be there for another 4 years. Thanks for your help. Women will put him there.

    • JimH

      Joe, Count yourself among the many sheeple who fell for the smokescreen.
      The first amendment is being trampled all over and you and many other drones don’t see it.
      We don’t oppose Obama because he is black, just because his policy is wrong.
      Womans health care(however loosely defind) won’t be denied, just as peoples 1rst amendment rights shouldn’t be denied.
      Since you can’t debate or refute what I say with facts you run and play the race card.(how 7 year old)
      Read the constitution, Bill of Rights and the Enumerated Powers Doctrine. It will amaze you just what’s in it.

  • BigBadJohn

    BOTH SIDES use wedge issues to try to make their side look better.

    A prime example was the republicans pushing for immediate approval for the XL pipeline – WHEN THEY KNEW IT WENT THROUGH AN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA. None the less, they claimed Obama is anti-pipeline when he only wanted time for the EPA to do its job.

    “The legislation, introduced on the floor of the Senate this afternoon, would start construction of the project immediately, but would allow “as much time” as needed to draw up a new route through Nebraska for the pipeline.

    The proposed route for the pipeline that the Obama administration rejected would have taken it through Nebraska’s Sand Hills, an area where the Ogallala aquifer is exceptionally close to the surface. Questions had been raised about the risk to the aquifer, which is vital to farmers, if there were a spill from the pipeline in that area.”

    At least they now want to allow “as much time as needed”.

    • JimH

      Thousands of miles of already existing pipeline already goes through the Sand Hills area. No mishaps. Good example of another Obama smokescreen though. Nice of you to point it out, John.

  • bychoosingy

    When it comes to lobbying power, Big Oil has nothing on the drug industry.

    In fact, as Tim Carney writes in The Washington Examiner, since the start of Obama’s presidency, “the drug industry’s $635 million lobbying tab exceeds that of Wall Street and the oil and gas industry, combined.” Carney also reports that Big Pharma spent more than any other industry on lobbying in the period from 1998-2011, with expenditures totaling $2.2 billion.

    Not only that, but in every year from 1999-2011, the health/pharmaceuticals sector was
    the top lobbying sector in the US, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

    So maybe we shouldn’t have been too surprised when the Obama administration announced that all health insurance providers would soon be required to provide first dollar coverage for birth control (including so-called “abortion pills”) under the guise of “preventive care.” After all, this is essentially a huge subsidy for birth control manufacturers: As of August 2012, all insurance plans must cover their products and virtually all citizens must buy those insurance plans.

    Planned Parenthood– which, interestingly enough, was invited to contribute to deliberations about whether birth control should be defined as a preventive service, and thus be mandated by Obamacare– also stands to benefit from this subsidy. According to Carney, Planned Parenthood has partnered with drug companies for profit in the past, including the makers of the “Plan B pill,” which is covered under the HHS’s new regulations.

  • Jay
  • Pingback: Mr. Cardinal’s Futility : Personal Liberty Alerts

  • Salty1

    Whats really sad is some people call us a Christian nation ( we were only influinced by Christian people) but the problem is people don’t teach their children that FORNICATION and ADULTERY are sins against GOD,now they commit two sins Firnication and murder, WHAT A GREAT SHAME.


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.