#27 The New Abortion laws.

There have been a few laws lately being passed in state legislatures that abortion is now a hot topic once again.  Ohio, Kentucky, Virginia, New York just to name a few are either banning more procedures or allowing more procedures.  And the internet is going wild with stupidity.

It all comes down to human life.  We know that.  The question is, "when does life begin?".  One side says it is at conception.  One side says it's not until the baby is outside the mother's womb.  And another side says it is somewhere in between.  The answer is it is at conception.

Why is it not when the baby is finally outside the womb?  In no particular order:

A baby can survive outside the womb at 6 months.  So the last 3 months there is a fully functional life form.  Yes, it will need help to survive, but so does a 3 year old.  Here is an extreme but it is valid.  A baby that is being delivered is a few seconds from being "expelled" from the womb but is still connected by an umbilical cord.  How is one second the difference?  What if the woman accidentally pushed at the last second while the baby is being aborted and the child comes out...is it still abortion or murder?

Why is it not just before 24 weeks?  One argument I have seen in the last few months is ridiculous. One person said it's not a baby until 24 weeks, or 6 months.  He was claiming it was the same as a tumor before this point since it is "living".  Why is that wrong?  Again, in no particular order:

A tumor is an abnormal growth that hurts the body of the host.  The tumor cannot develop into something that can think, feel, and love.  The baby even before this magical 24 week period is destined given no tragedy to develop into a fully grown adult.  The tumor has no destiny.  The tumor left alone will in most cases kill the host and die with the host.  The baby left alone will continue to grow and push its way out and then continue to develop into an adult.  The person claimed tumors are life so it's the same as human life.  He also claimed there is a difference between human life and personhood.  That is a weak excuse.  Tumors are living cells but not human life.  Human life means there is soul.  A soul means feelings, thoughts, emotions and so forth are apparent.  Tumors will never develop into that.  Personhood I understand what they are saying is when rights are given to the human.  But what makes them human then?  This person claimed that human life is no more important than any other life.  That is not accurate.

Plants are monochotomous.  They only adapt and react to the environment.  They share no feelings.  They don't raise children.  They don't fall in love.  Animals are dichotomous.  They have feelings.  They show personality.  But they show no conviction.  They only have fight or flight response.  They make be able to think but they cannot reason the way we reason.  Humans are trichotomous.  We not only adapt.  We not only have personality.  We have more than just other life forms.  We have purpose.  We understand.  This is why we can eat plants with no problem.  This is why we feel we can eat certain animals.  But we do not eat humans.  So for this person to say that human life is no more important than other life must be ok with eating people.

Ok.  So that brings in law.  Roe v Wade made abortion legal.  Yes it is law and we have to respect that.  But keep in mind, the law allowed slavery at one point.  The law said African-Americans (slaves) counted as 3/5 of a person.  Just because it is law does not mean it is correct.  It only means how things are interpreted for the times.  However, it doesn't matter what laws are out there.  Laws will not stop abortion nor curb it.  The culture feels the need for it because of who we are.  Our promiscuity calls for abortion because many want to do the deed but not take responsibility for their actions.  And yes, both women and men need to take that responsibility.

Then the person talked about morality and claimed morality is subjective. 

That is both accurate and inaccurate.  It is accurate because people think they know better than other people so their ideas are superior.  It is in accurate because if we all have different morality systems and cannot agree on anything then the human race will die out.  It will be chaotic with no answers.  Murder is wrong.  We all agree with that.  We have an objective morality system.

The subjectiveness comes in the definition.  And those with no conscience or remorse (anti-social tendencies) define murder in a demented way, hence...abortion is not murder.

We live in a sick world.  This person is just an example of how sick we have become.  We have taken life and have downgraded it to a group of cells with no purpose.  This is what liberals and atheists have done.  Ohio and Kentucky may have the right heart but as stated before until the culture changes it won't matter how many laws there are banning abortion.  But on the other side laws that Virginia and New York are passing just send us down that pathway of destruction even farther.  Thank you liberals and atheists.

#23 School shootings are only a result

School shootings are not the problem.  They are a result of something bigger.

As with every new school shooting the two sides of the 2nd Amendment argument start to rear their ugly heads.  And it's the same argument each time.  One side says that guns should be regulated and we wouldn't have these issues if guns were off the streets.  The other side says that these things will still happen even if no one had guns and guns are the only things that stop the criminals.  Both sides are correct and both sides are idiotic.

These things will keep going on because we don't understand the problem.  Most are blaming the wrong things.   We fail to recognize that we are only treating the symptoms without addressing the disease.  Most don't even know the difference.  To every disease there are a few things we need to know about it.  There is a direct cause for the disease.  The disease shows symptoms.  Other factors come into play that affect the way the disease spreads. And then we have to deal with the results.  But just like any disease it could have been prevented if we know the cause.  Like most diseases it can be treated.  Like some diseases we can control the factors.  But once it gets this far, like no disease it can be stopped.

Here are the steps of the disease, in reverse order.

• The results---Death.  We have mass carnage that we have to deal with.  We have families that are torn apart.  We have children who are traumatized for life.  We have schools who feel unsafe and fear grips us.  Others get angry and start to blame the factors or symptoms.  We offer prayers.  We grieve.  And then we move on until it happens again.
• The factors---Blame.  We tend to blame these and feel as though dealing with these is the answer.  This is not to say that we should not be dealing with these because we should, but this will not solve the whole problem.  We shouldn't just blame these and feel justified.  Mental illness is a factor.  We live in a world that has fallen and mental illness is a result of that.  Bullying is a factor.  We live in a world where the stronger feel that they can control others through intimidation  Worshiping the famous is a factor.  We uplift those who are famous and want to be like them.  When others get attention it causes some to desire that infamy.  People get famous for the news they make.  Some even do it on social media and get paid millions of dollars for posting videos of how stupid they are.  That brings in the fact that social media is a factor.  It just adds into the infamy, bullying and worshiping that has already been mentioned.  And perhaps that biggest factor is how lazy we have become with parenting.  Adults who have children are no longer in the lives of their children.  They don't get  involved.  They don't ask.  They don't share in their feelings.  And they don't know what is going no in their lives.  Children have no guidance.  But all of these are results of the symptoms.
• The symptoms---Selfishness.  Guns are a symptom.  But it's not what you think.  The argument of "guns don't kill people, people kill people" and "yes, but if the person didn't have a gun then the gun wouldn't be a problem" is always brought up.  Look, both have good valid points.  If there were less guns then there would be less gun violence, period.  And yes, the gun in and of itself sitting there will not kill anyone. All should know about gun safety.  Blah, blah, blah.  Overall the gun is not the issue.  Freedom to own a gun is not the issue.  The issue about guns and what makes it a symptom is the fact that some feel the need to have a gun.  Guns have been around for 600 years.  It's only the last 50 years that the problem has been around and has escalated in the last 20 years.  The feeling we need to have a gun is the issue and a symptom.  The entitlement attitude is a symptom.  Some feel they need to have things and that they deserve things and the should have it now.  This causes self and instant gratification.  We become disrespectful of traditions, order, wisdom, and authority.  The main symptom is our selfishness.  But this selfishness is caused by the disease.
• The disease---Our culture.  We live in a world that has lost its purpose.  This disease has a cause.
• The cause---We lack love.  But even more we don't know what love is.  We have masked love as tolerance and acceptance.  We say that we love our partners, spouses, significant others, but too many times it's only lust.  We have so many distorted ideas of love that we feel love is only temporal.  Love is conditional.  We treat love as though it is okay to be apathetic.

The problem is that we think we can change the result if we find a cure.  But our cure to all of this is with anger and loud voices.  We can protest, write letters, run for office or whatever all we want.  We blame the factors by making wild claims and forget the other side.  We treat the symptoms by passing laws.  We get paralyzed by the results and settle for non-action.  We need to address the disease by acknowledging the cause.

The cure is true love.  True love is patient, kind, doesn't envy, doesn't boast, and isn't proud.  It's doesn't disrespect, or is self-seeking.  It is not easily angered.  It forgives.  It doesn't like evil but it rejoices in the truth.  It protects, trusts, hopes, and perseveres.  True love lays down its life for its friends.

Until we know this kind of love, the disease spreads.

#21 All forms of hatred need to addressed.

In light of the recent activity, Charlottesville 2017, the main sentence is that hatred never solved any issue in this world.  Donald Trump is not the greatest person on the earth and not the greatest of leaders.  He has already said some stupid things that conservatives do not agree with and certainly not with anyone from the other groups.  He does not stand for true conservative values.  The only reason why the GOP stands up for him, when they do, is because they want to try and keep the peace as much as possible.  Prediction is that soon they will abandon him.  With that said, there is some truth in what President Trump said about the riots; both sides are to blame...but for different reasons.

Why is the "alt-right" to blame?  First and foremost, they are not the alternative right.  They are in no way , shape, or form an alternative to conservative values.  It doesn't matter what they call themselves.  They are a hate group and it is embarrassing, and inaccurate, to be labeled on the same "side" as they are.  They spew hatred.  We do not.  They promote violence.  We do not.  They do not accept every race.  We do.  They have salutes and disrespect people who fought in wars.  We do not. The list can go on and on.  So, why are they to blame?  Simply put, they're idiots.  Idiocy is always a reason bad things happen.  They are promoting ideas that have been defeated by the USA twice (1865 and 1945).  Every thing they stand for slaps our military in the face.  Thousands died against this type of belief.  They have the legal right to protest per 1st Amendment, but do they have the moral right to do so?  No.  If they would just assemble, give their speech in a normal voice and then move on then fine.  But they do not.  They protest, not because it is their right, not because they are right, not because they actually want laws passed.  They protest for one reason only; to spark an event to get them noticed.  They are idiots.  But our laws allow them to be idiots.  They are to blame due to their hatred but even more so because of their actions.

So if they are wrong then why is the left to blame as well?  The answer is as simple as the first.  They are idiots too.  Are they wrong for hating the hatred that Nazis spew?  No.  They are correct.  All hatred should be hated.  Are they wrong for protesting?  No.  Are they wrong for protesting protesters on opposing sides?  No.  But they are wrong in how they approach the other side.  Even though the words they speak sound logical and are on the side of acceptance, they are not.  They use the same rhetoric and mannerisms that the Nazis do.  Hence, there is not much difference between Stalin and Hitler.  If they just showed up with their signs and in larger number and kept peacefully to themselves, their message would have been heard more and received by more.  But they think they have to yell louder than the other side.  And that doesn't work.  They claim to be the people of tolerance but they only tolerate those who agree with their views.  Many of them showed up with weapons and got violent.  Not only did they get violent, some of them started the whole violent scene. They did not come there to protest idiocy.  They did not come there to protest a protest.  They came there to be just as loud and hateful as the other side.  And for that reason alone, they were wrong.

Donald Trump is partly to blame.  His rhetoric and "no backing down" attitude is ridiculous.  But to say he caused the situation or because of him people feel they can be racist or sexist gives him too much credit.  These people were idiots before Donald Trump came along.

Barack Obama is partly to blame.  His victimizing the minority and "backing down" attitude was lame.  He took sides when it came to race relations and those who voted for Trump saw that and pushed many over to Trump's camp.

And above all, the media is to blame.  Trying to find a news source that only reported the story instead of casting blame to one side or the other, or trying to find a news source that did not only do a story about how Trump or Obama responded, or trying to find a news source that didn't only do a story about Nazis or Antifa is almost impossible, otherwise it would have been posted here.

When one side wants to protest, let them.  Let them get all of their angry words out there.  Let them fly their flags and march.  Let them have their moment.  Eventually they will lose their voice. Eventually people will fly higher flags.  Eventually larger numbers of people will march for better reasons.  Eventually their moment passes.  They are allowed to have their opinion.  They are allowed to assemble and stress their opinion.  Once they do they will realize they are the minority.  If we do not give them their moment to shine they will fade away.  But instead we all come to these rallies with guns blazing, locked and loaded.

Hate may come in different forms, but it is all the same.

No matter who is to blame, that young lady's life should never have been cut short.  That cowardly murderer should have now just forfeited his rights as a citizen.  Condolences and sympathies go out to the young woman's family who lost her during this event. Her life should never been in jeopardy.

#13 If Sanders is elected we will feel the Bern

Before anyone jumps on the anti-bandwagon, this will hopefully be a series of what is wrong with most, if not all the candidates.  This is the easiest one to start with.

This is not to take away from the person of Bernie Sanders.  It is not an attack on who he is but what his ideas and policies would do to the United States and why he would be wrong for the presidency.  He is a self-proclaimed "socialist".  Now most will argue with that and say, no he is a democratic socialist.  But so what, Hitler called himself a National Socialist.  It doesn't matter what you call yourself, it is what you do that matters.

In a perfect world Sanders would be correct.  But in a perfect world Sanders would be wrong too.  Let's look at the things he stands for and what may be the issue.  All these are coming from his own website.

A Living Wage--Proposes a $15 per hour minimum wage.  In a perfect world, it would be nice if everyone could live the life of a millionaire.  No one would have to work.  No one would have to worry about bills to be paid.  Everyone would have a 4 story home with a pool and 3 classic cars in the garage.  But in a perfect world he is wrong because to get all of those things someone has to do the work.  Someone has to build the pool, car, and house.  Someone has to produce the materials, even if you built these things yourself.  It would be great if everyone could have these things.  But in reality it cannot be done.  The $15 would almost double what most minimum wage earners are getting now.  So how would that hurt?  Large corporations would not offer all the products they do now.  They would cut back and specialize only on a few products.  Sure, maybe someone would pick up the product but no one would compete against them.  If there is no competitions then that company can charge all they want and you are stuck with their price.  Then the government would have to step in even more to create price ceilings and more regulations that slow the business even more.  Adam Smith  wrote about the laws of competition and how when companies compete, the consumer wins.  Smaller businesses would not hire as many people out of plain fear that their business would not be able to afford to hire anyone.  Plus, who really makes minimum wage anyway?  Good companies but not a whole lot of experience or education is needed; McDonald's, Walmart, teenagers at their first job, pizza deliverers. etc.  Not many companies start at minimum wage anyway.  Not many adults who are worth anything take these jobs.  You stand at Walmart and all you hear is "when do I get my break", while they are bagging your groceries.  You order a cheeseburger and you get a fish sandwich.  The teenager is on their cell phone.  The pizza comes cold.  Sorry Bernie, the hike would not work and is not needed.  However, there could be a law that was passed that raises the minimum wage $1 every two or three years.  This would allow small businesses to make arrangements to meet the demands and would allow larger corporations to expand when needed without many layoffs or stoppage of products.

Free College--Make tuition free so graduates have no debt when they enter the workforce.  In a perfect world everyone would be educated first at home then with each level everyone would be educated even more.  No debt, no real estate taxes, no books to be bought, computers for everyone with access to the internet and all the technology.  No tests to pay for, no graduation fees for cap and gown.  But in a perfect world he is wrong because again, all those things that he wants free someone has to work, create, and/or be paid for.  How would professors earn a living?  How would books be paid for?  How would buildings and newer facilities with that best of technology get paid for?  In reality, not all people are college material.  Some are barely high school material.  Some would say education is a right.  Actually it is a privilege.  Why?  Because some people do not care about education.  If you do not care then you lose your right.  Now public education for children should be free.  Estate taxes should be gone somehow. but then again how are schools going to be built?  How would teachers be paid?  How would new textbooks and technology be accessed?  Yes, there needs to be a change in education but free college?  It would be paid for, but by the upper and middle class. He says Wall Street will pay for it.  How?  If more people went to college free then thousands upon thousands may enter the college.  That sounds good until you have to incur the costs.  Wall Street would not be able pay for all fluxion and growth.  That means tickets to extra curricular activities would raise.  Food on campuses would raise.  Colleges would find other fess like travel fees, security fees,  and other smaller things that are already free.  All this would stop the middle class person from succeeding in college.  And don't be fooled, the middle class is still the largest group in the USA.  Yes, interest rates are too high.  But there are already many scholarships and grants that most people can get IF they actually cared enough to try and get in high school.  Sorry, Bernie, it would back fire.

Creating decent paying jobs--Claims he would put 13 million people to work.  But doing what?  In a perfect world everyone would have a job and work according to their ability and need.  All would afford their luxury and accrue their desires.  But in a perfect world he is wrong.  Look at the jobs he said he would create:roads, transit systems, bridges, airports, seaports, etc.  We can agree that these replaced.  But his plan is to create government paying jobs to get these done.  Who would pay for it?  The middle class again.  If these need done give incentives for privately owned construction workers to be hired.  Local communities should be in charge of it.  But taxes would still have to be raised somehow to pay for this, unless the local communities could find other ways to do it.  This one is a no-win situation.  But who would your rather have in charge of the project, the government or the one who works for a living?  Sorry Bernie, the concept is great but it needs improved.

Supporting Black Colleges--Providing higher education opportunities for African-American students.  In a perfect world ALL students/people of ALL ethnicities would have this opportunity.  No discrimination.  No racism.  But in a perfect world he is wrong, these type of programs only offer more divisive opportunities.  How would offering these programs help African-American students?  They are not offering real world opportunities.  In a real world we are all on the same page and those who do the best should get the best.  Many of these colleges are watered-down and do not give a real world view.  There should be no "white" colleges, no "black" colleges, no "all-male" colleges, and no "all-female" colleges.  If we want true equality then we do not water down anything.  We do not make things easier for people to do, that just makes people lazier.  We need to add programs that offer challenge, innovation, motivation, and inspiration for ALL Americans.  In a world of division, especially created by Obama, and can see where a Trump presidency would go, we need someone who brings unity not more division.  Sorry, Bernie, this would add to racism, not equality.

Expand Social Security--In a perfect world we would all be able to retire at a young age and be able to live off what we made and have some left over to give to the next generation.  All would be able to afford their medical expenses and have a next egg for rainy days.  But in a perfect world he is wrong because first of all social security is an insurance program.  INSURANCE!  Not something that should be controlled by the government.  It's YOUR money, shouldn't YOU decide what to do with it?  The program was not supposed to be a permanent solution to a temporary problem (1930's).  If you expand SSI then again, it has to be paid for by someone.  What we need are incentives for people to save their money.  The government should not tell you what do to with your money and how much you need to save.  If people are dumb enough to waste their own money then that is their own allotted stupidity.  This is just another program that makes us lazier and tells people let someone else pay for you.  The private sector could hire thousands of people and offer a competitive retirement plans, even off of Wall Street.

The Iran Deal-- He supports the Iran nuclear deal.  In a perfect world there would be no nuclear weapons.  No war.  No terrorism.  No bad trade deals.  But unfortunately for this issue we are nit in a perfect world.  Iran had proven time and time again that they are a country that reneges on deals and has supported terrorism all over the world.  What should be done is a deal that says prove your worthiness first; the more you comply the more you will be given.  They have already broken the del twice and nothing has been done.   Sorry, Bernie, Iran needs to be dealt  with not made a deal with.

Racial justice--Black lives matter.   If you say no to this then take your seat in the back of the bus and be quiet.  But black lives matter campaign is actually the negative response to injustice.  Blaming the police for everything is not right.  If you break the law then expect consequences and if you resist arrest what is a police officer supposed to do, wait for something bad to happen and then respond?  Sorry Bernie, all lives matter and if it comes down to supporting the criminals or the police then standing behind those in blue is a better choice.  Where are all the protest against violence and crimes period?  If we had no crime then police would be less needed.  They are under fire today because they have perhaps the worst job to do.  If they can't use force then the criminal wins.  If they use force then they are villainized.  He claims that African-Americans are disenfranchised since they have a felony on their record.  Well, all felons have this done to them.  Should there be a way for felons to get back their vote?  Sure.  But those in prison do not get the right to say, remember they are there because they took someone else's right away with their criminal act.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/21/police-kill-more-whites-than-blacks-but-minority-d/?page=all
https://www.yahoo.com/news/maryland-policeman-killed-unprovoked-attack-chief-005009853.html

Other issues he is wrong about but too long to go into:  abortion, higher tax brackets, and Obamacare.  See labels for these.

Now he does have some good ideas but how can we get them done?  Equal pay, fair immigration law, caring for our veterans, supporting family values (although we disagree on what that is), climate change (although don't go extreme).

These are just seven components of what makes Bernie Sanders' presidential bid bad for America.  Everything he is promising sounds good in a prefect world.  And that is what Karl Marx said; a utopia.  But we know utopia does not work when the government will have to intervene so many times.  Socialism is socialism, it doesn't matter what word you put in front of it.  Socialism on paper may open the way for equality and a friendlier atmosphere but it reality it only causes laziness and more division.  People feel entitled to everything and they are not.  Some would always have to work to get us everything we need.  There would still be the haves and the have nots only the haves would have less than they do now.  Hundreds of thousands of Americans have given their lives to fight the tyranny of socialism and communism.  They fought for freedom and so that people can have the free will that we have.  They died defending the right to choose.  And now we have candidates who support the idea of taking away individual choice but disguise it as "democratic socialism".  Change is not good just because it's change.

And perhaps the biggest point is, where in all of history has socialism been good for the whole?  Not one society has been successful without killing, propaganda, and anything of the like.  No thank you.

#9 Abortion is still wrong no matter how you spin it.

Yahoo, famous for their trivial, trying to start controversy, and mostly irrelevant articles posted this one yesterday:  Actress got abortion.

This article causes a little confusion to a conservative.  How is this about health care?  Was she sick? No.  Was the baby going to kill her?  No.  Was she raped?  No.  Or was it just going to put a damper on her economic situation?  Yes.  So, why should taxpayers pay for this through the ACA?  Her story is upsetting but for all the wrong reasons.  Her situation was tough.  Her decision could not have been an easy one when she got pregnant.  Her emotional state may have been compromised.  But this is not about "reproductive rights".  Her story should not be used as a flagship for law.  This is not PSA.  She was not a hero.  But that didn't stop Planned Parenthood.

"Insurance plans should cover abortion like other medical procedures, government programs should help low-income women who cannot afford abortion, and nonprofit groups that raise money to help women pay for abortion services should be fully funded,”--- Eric Ferrero, VP of communications for Planned Parenthood.

If she had her own insurance plan and she paid for it herself like any other "procedure" then maybe there wouldn't be such an issue but that is not what this was all about.  Ferrero's words aren't that bad from a legal standpoint.  Insurance plans should cover it if they want to, private insurance companies with their own policies that is.  Non-profit groups that are privately funded is okay as well.  However, other parts of people's insurance don't pay for even more expensive things like water damage to a basement which is not paid for by anyone but the policy holder due to it being an "act of God".  All of sudden there is a God under the law.  

But, there is another issue, a bigger picture, if you will.  What they fail to discuss are the other issues. What the fail to mention is the ethical and morality of the story.  Why was her pregnancy a shameful event?  Why couldn't she tell her mom?  Which part was she ashamed of?  Was it her pregnancy alone or the fact that she had sex outside of marriage?  The story is not consistent, nor ethical unless you base it on stupidity and liberalism.

She was an adult in college.  She was perfectly healthy when she and her boyfriend chose to have sex.  She used abortion to hide her actions.  She used this as a form of birth control because she knew her actions now had consequences.  But, it was too late; her baby was already a life form.

The link that is shared by the article is from  National Women's Law Center, State bans on abortion  And it claims that state bans on insurance coverage of abortion endanger women’s health and take health benefits away from women.  Since when does banning abortion endanger a woman's health?  The human race has been living for 6000 years and still thriving.  Health benefits?  Since when does banning abortions stop you from working out or taking vitamins?  What health benefits are they referring to?  Both of course have extreme cases that could be argued but only in rare cases and then exceptions may be applied as conservatives usually say.

Yes, her economic situation is not what she wanted.  But all of our actions have rewards and/or consequences.  If we all had abortions based on guilt or especially economics then the human race was doomed before it got started.  This is why the Affordable Care Act is wrong, it forces other people to pay for things that simply are not about medical issues but ethical issues.  And ethical issues also go on to hamper freedom of religion.

Point of this article was to push a liberal idea that abortion is okay.  In reality it is not.  Yes, abortion is legal.  Nothing right now can change it and maybe we shouldn't because that means more people will have unsafe back-alley abortions.  Nothing will change until we change the culture.  And that is what the real topic is about.  This young lady from this TV show was in an uncommitted relationship. Yes, they may even have loved each other but love is more than sex.  They were adults.  They knew how babies get here. They took the chance.  Even the girl knew something was wrong or otherwise she would never have been embarrassed, as an adult.  She tried to hide her actions and a life form paid for it.  The young woman should not be ostracized for her actions nor should any woman who has gone through similar situations.  But she should also not be used as model for getting laws passed or for younger woman to look up to.

Children used to be assets, now they are liabilities.  And we know what we want to do with liabilities...


Note:  the comments from AuntieChrist and the replies from me are taken from the comment section from Yahoo.

#5 Hobby Lobby stands up against the liberal war facades.

The newest "war on women"; the Supreme Court's decision to allow places like Hobby Lobby to disregard certain parts of Affordable Health Care Act (aka Obamacare) has been said to be another piece on the war on women.  There are many flaws with this assumption, or better this accusation.

1. First and foremost, the Act is a war on the middle class because it was created by lies about what it was supposed to be.  It was not supposed to be a tax but nonetheless the same Supreme Court said it was.  But this is a different story that has been chewed on way too many times, though the American people keep getting choked on it, including yours truly.  Who gets the burden the most for this tax? The middle class does.
2. Secondly, the Act is war on American democratic values by forcing people to pay for other's life choices.  Why should people who choose to live a healthier life have to pay for others who chose to live a riskier life?  This is what charities are for.  Why should people be forced to pay for things that are disagreeable?  Why is birth-control considered "health care" anyway?  People choose to have sexual relations.  If Americans are not forced to do something then they are more than likely open to give to the charities that are closer to their hearts.  Again, this is another topic that has been rehashed too many times, so let's move on.
3. Thirdly, and more on this topic, not this decision nor Hobby Lobby's stance is a war on women.  As a matter of fact it is actually the other sides' war on conservative values, if you will.  Not only forcing the average American to pay for unwanted actions or immoral choices, as in point number 2, but forcing religious groups to support not only life choices as aforementioned but the consequences of those life choices as well that go against their value systems.  But that's okay, apparently, to the liberal culture. Again, how is birth control considered health care? 
4. Fourthly, if this is a war on women then it is a war on conservative women who are made out to be sycophants or not real women in their thinking.  There are plenty of women who do not believe in abortion, or even birth control sometimes.  Yet, we have women who are in leadership positions that claim all women's rights are being threatened by this decision.  That is another lie.
5. Lastly for this paper, this is not a war Hobby Lobby has against its female employees but rather it is a war on companies like Hobby Lobby who have religious leadership.  Hobby Lobby did not say that were going to deny their female employees any coverage as a whole but only wanted the mandatory coverage on what is known as the abortion pill to be dropped.  Hobby Lobby is a Christian organization, and to be quite frank and all personal bias aside, is one of the best organizations in the country.  The lie that goes with this part says that this opens the way for other religious organizations to opt out of some of the Act.  These are the same people who argue about separation of church and state, mind you.  If we actually have this "separation" then religious organizations have always had and should always have this option anyway.  But, since this goes against liberal "values" then the separation is not valid (sarcasm).

Overall, the decision does not hurt women in any way, shape, or form.  If women who work for Hobby Lobby or the Catholic Church in a related topic that do not get the health care they wanted from these organizations, isn't that what the open enrollment for Obamacare was all about?  If they don't like their coverage, they do not have to take it and can sign up for their own personal account with the AHCA.  The rest is just liberal lies.  The real war on women is our culture.  Change the culture and there is no more war.

#2 Why liberalism is not the answer.

Why doesn't Liberalism work?  If all practiced the idea of liberalism it would die off.  It can't survive without Conservatism. There would be nothing for them to argue with or try and ruin for the rest of the majority.  Liberalism creates an atmosphere that causes dissension and contradictions.

• Liberalism states it wants freedom of speech yet when someone who disagrees with it speaks up on how they feel they are called racists, bigots, homophobes, hate-mongers, or go as far as having the ACLU sent after them.
• Liberalism states there should be more voting rights but even the Democratic National Convention has things called Super Delegates who possibly can overrule the will of the rest of their voters in the primaries.
• Liberalism states human rights violators around the world should be dealt with but when America deals with the violators, especially with military action, then we become the violators.
• Liberalism states the sanctity of human life is important and all should be free to make up their own minds yet it allows for the murder of innocent babies who can't speak for themselves.
• Liberalism states individual rights are natural but it stands for government programs that are man-made.
• Liberalism states the Constitution should be defended yet the ideas of liberalism allows interpretations into what it means instead of reading exactly what it says.
• Liberalism states there should be pursuit of happiness yet want to set up government programs that force people into using welfare and not allow them to have a choice in a medical facility/insurance/health care company of their own choice; and then force other Americans who do not agree with this into paying higher taxes for these programs.
• Liberalism states family values should be strong but the definition of family is so vague in liberalism that anything could be considered "family value".

There is no set of common morals to go by under liberalism.  Without any set of common morals there would be less order almost to the point of anarchy.  Without any set of common morals there are no consequences. Liberalism kills people in all kinds of ways.  It kills them openly.  It kills them silently.  It kills them mentally, emotionally, physically and spiritually but liberalism hides it.  And to the defense of those who practice liberalism, they believe they are doing the right thing.  The essence of liberalism is based on human flaws and its reasoning is based on human rationalization; human ignorance at its worse.  It takes away everything traditional.  It may take away all the mores and folk lore that hinder progress but it also takes away the values and morals that keep people going and that has kept people going since the creation of man.  With these traditions and morals diminished it sets up vulnerability to inside destruction such as what happened with Rome and other famous societies.  Americans lose their identity this way.  Yes, we are a melting pot, if you will, but the melting pot melted common goals and beliefs into one.  Liberalism allows the melting pot to become more of a salad bowl.

People wonder today why they hurt.  People wonder what is wrong with society and other people.  It's because they have been fed with the lie of liberalism for way too long.  When they actually hear the truth they are afraid of it.  It makes them so scared they get sick about it.  Fear makes us say things and do things that are not logical. And because of this fear any ounce of conservatism seems wrong to them, especially the logic of the Judeo-Christian value system.

#1 What is a true conservative?

A typical conservative will believe in most of the following in no particular order:

1. Establishing a system of morality- setting up an agreed upon system of values, mores, folk lores, and morals.  Without trying to infringe upon other people's beliefs the system is closely tied to Judeo-Christian Biblical values.
2. Sanctity of life- stopping the act of abortion.  Knowing that some circumstances may cause moral dilemmas, the bottom line is trying to protect the innocent that do not have a voice for themselves.
3. Preserving the Constitution and the Declaration- the original ideas, not the interpretation of it. Understanding that the Founding Fathers were not perfect and were ill guided due to their economic practices, the original ideas they had set up are by far the greatest in history as a country.
4. Strong military- maintaining a presence in the world.  Keeping the status quo with the power of persuasion and the idea of total protection for all its citizens from outside threats is to be seen by all.
5. Nuclear family values- building the strongest of families.  Wanting to keep traditional roles of the family, with the authority in the hands of the parents; one man, one woman, and only one of each as the greatest structure of a community.
6. Market System- opportunities.  Creating an atmosphere for innovation, invention, and progress without purposefully hurting others in the process.
7. Low taxes- it's your money.  Collecting only enough money from its citizens to keep a honest form of government running efficiently.
8. Preserving American way of life- Preserving the traditions, symbols, culture, and history of the ideas of Americans; not to conform to the rest of the world or be told by the rest of the world what to do; i.e., patriotism.
9. Death penalty- for punishment and deterrent.  Protecting and establish justice for the victim over the guilty.
10. Small government- no Big Brother.  All of the above wraps up into this idea.  With as little interference as possible from the federal government the people should be able to pursuit their happiness without interfering with the values and happiness of others.

These 10 ideas of conservatism are what this site will focus on.  If and when there is a subject that infringes upon these 10 ideas or effects these 10 ideas then perhaps a "paper" will be written.  Until then please refer to Discover your political view and Discover your economic view to start your journey.