Article III

The Affordable Care Act, a/k/a ObamaCare, had its hearing before the United States Supreme Court this week, the case against it having been brought by twenty six states of the union.

No sooner had the oral arguments closed before the court then the political and media hacks began their sadly tired, predictable presentation on the biases and political slant of the high court.

Before addressing the core of the actual issue that was presented to the court, and the subsequent ignorance demonstrated by mass media, an understanding of exactly what the Supreme Court is and its responsibility within the triumvirate of government that is American democracy and self rule is in order.

To wit:

The relevant excerpts from the United States Constitution are as follows:

Article. III.

Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

Section. 2.

Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--…;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;…--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

The framers and founders left little to the interpretive sciences when delineating the role and nature of the Supreme Court.

What is troubling is that the Supreme Court must have the full support of the body politic and the electorate at large if it is to have any manner of credibility; such support seems to be lacking and in its place what remains is taken as sport. The nonsensical diatribes about the courts' political leanings may seem acceptable political theater to the proponents of the argument, but they are either ignorant or outright stupid to the damage such hyperbolic claims can do to the necessary integrity of any court, especially the American Supreme Court.

The reality is that if there were no disputes, no disagreements to fact, there would be no need for courts; the explicit and implicit social contract to their impartiality is a fundamental truth of democracy.

The American people should vigorously pursue their causes and beliefs, but once the court hasmade its final decision, it must be accepted. This is not a mere matter of good sportsmanship, but rather a point of how a free people settle their arguments in a nation of laws; to do otherwise denigrates the citizen, the nation, and the legacy we hold and entrust to our posterity.

To the actual issue that was the cause of action brought by the twenty six states, the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act and its mandate that each and every citizen purchase health insurance, in the opinion of the Madison Conservative, while in no manner a legal or constitutional expert, it seemed as though the basic case for the unconstitutionality of the mandate was not addressed.

To wit:

The mandate does, in essence and in actual practice, require every citizen to enter into a contract for services it may not request, require, or want. Basic contract law expressly forbids a contract to be made under any form of duress. If an American does not wish to purchase a health insurance policy but is forced to under threat of penalty, the contract is by definition unenforceable.

The attempted corollaries to such things as being required to purchase some level of automobile insurance is specious, at best. Driving is a privilege, and one can decide to opt into providing auto insurance as a prerequisite requirement to driving; the health care mandate requires no other required act save for being alive.

The Act is unconstitutional; if the Supreme Court decides otherwise, in a free and open democracy such as America, then it is the law of the land.

The equation is that simple, and must not be allowed to be obfuscated in any other way. To do so would be to challenge the fundamental basis upon which America was founded and constructed.

http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/

http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/

At a time when the body politic is abuzz with the utter nonsense of such things as etch-a-sketches and as the sheer abject folly of the primary season seems to captivate and enthrall the media, it is perhaps a fitting time to turn our attention to a matter of true national importance.

To wit:

There are many worthy charities that need to be supported by the public at large. There is currently running a series of commercials promoting the cause of the Wounded Warrior Project. The one that created the impetus for this blog post featured Trace Adkins.

http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/

The charity is focused solely on helping returning disabled veterans and their families cope with the adjustments inherent with a disability coupled with the stresses related to the rigors of war inflicted upon the mind and body of our returning veterans.

The website address is being repeated throughout this blog to show support and solidarity with their intended mission.

That being said, and speaking as a United States Navy veteran, the fact that this organization was created out of a need to fill a void should be an embarrassment upon the military bureaucracy specifically entrusted with the care of our veterans, and should be an outrage to the electorate at large.

It is a disgrace that in the United Sates of America our veterans need to have an organization outside of the military ask for funds to help with their transition back to civilian life, to say nothing of asking for financial support to aid in their adaptive needs for a war inflicted disability.

http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/

There is constant dialogue throughout the nation that we must “support the troops even if we disagree with the mission”, one of the hard learned lessons at the expense of our Vietnam War veterans: a true national disgrace whose wounds we are hopefully beginning to heal by acknowledging the treatment of those particular veterans and doing all we can to guarantee that such treatment of our military is never repeated.

It is crucial to understand that there is absolutely not one infinitesimal bit of daylight between the Madison Conservative and the wonderful folks at the Wounded Warrior Project.

The issue here is that there should never be a need for the private sector to provide anything of substantive necessity for our veterans and their needs when they return from battle. The men and women of our all voluntary military provide the protection and safety that allows us to become enraptured with the absurdities of any number of inconsequential matters, such as the current national political electoral theater.

The members of our armed forces choose to fill the role of protector, and their families bear the emotional and financial burdens of that decision. They should never be placed in the position of having to ask  any private enterprise for help in providing whatever support – physical, emotional or financial – the veteran and their family may need as they acclimate back to a civilian life  while coping with a injury suffered in defense of American liberty and freedom.

http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/

If we break the explicit and implicit social contract with our soldiers, seamen, marines and airmen, America will no longer be the home of the brave and land of the free.

We will be too busy having telethons to raise money for guns, and asking corporations to help with a ‘buy a bullet’ campaign.

The Wounded Warrior Project is truly a charity that speaks to our higher ideals; but it should fall onto the American people through the military bureaucracy to insure that no veteran should ever need to ask a private entity for help.

We as a people are better than that.

http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/

The NAACP & The United Nations Human Rights Council

The merits and salient issues relative to the recent adoption of so called “Voter ID“ legislation  in states across the nation will be discussed in a future blog post, but it is crucial that before any such discussion can be intelligently engendered, the stance of one party to the discussion must be presented and understood.

To wit:

The NAACP this week presented its request to the United Nations Human Rights Council to investigate and to intervene as it claims state governments in America  are colluding to "block the vote" for minority communities ahead of the 2012 election.

The first amendment to the United States Constitution includes specific language that provides that each and every citizen has the right “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The premise that any American organization would consider it appropriate to circumvent the Constitution for some manner of political advantage is curious, but one must accept their claims on face value, and protect their right to employ whatever mechanism they believe proper. The supposition of nefarious intent would merely cloud the issue with political obfuscations and hinder the opportunity to shed light upon an issue that many consider itself an assault upon the intent of the framers and founders.

Once the merits of the argument are accepted as viable, the core issue of requesting United Nations oversight provides the true context of this debate.

The United Nations has a revolving membership of committees and councils; the belief was that such a rotating format would preclude a monopolization of any such committee or council.

The real concern here is that the NAACP chose to request the Human Rights Council to be the instrument to handle their concerns, and therein lies the most troubling aspect of the entire affair.

Consider for a moment some of the current members of the United Nation Human Rights Council:

The Syrian Arab Republic is currently engaged in the wholesale slaughter of its people in defending the Assad government, proposing that any violence is being fomented by ‘outside terrorists’.

Sudan is currently allowing its population to starve; actor/activist George Clooney was this week arrested outside the Sudanese embassy for protesting the actions of the Sudanese government.

Saudi Arabia has decided that women in their country will have the right to vote – in 2015. The female population of Saudi Arabia is still unable to drive, or to travel abroad without the permission of a male guardian.

North Korea continues to isolate itself under worldwide sanctions for the choice to pursue nuclear weaponry at the expense of its people.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has a publicly stated policy to remove Israel from the face of the map. Its leadership questions the occurrence of the Holocaust during World War II. It is currently pursuing nuclear weaponry and refusing to allow United Nations weapons inspectors to enter their country to determine the intent of their nuclear program.

In addition, these current members of the United Nations Human Rights Council recently issued a report that valiantly attempted to make the claim that the Libyan regime of deposed dictator Gaddafi was a shining example of positive human rights policies in action.

Quotes from member nations contained within the report of the council included the following commentaries on that premise:

--“Qatar praised the legal framework for the protection of human rights and freedoms.”

--“Sudan noted the country’s positive experience in achieving a high school enrollment rate and improvements in the education of women.”

--“The Syrian Arab Republic praised the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for its serious commitment to and interaction with the Human Rights Council and its mechanisms. It commended the country for its democratic regime.”

--“North Korea praised the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for its achievements in the protection of human rights.”

The fact that this is the body that the NAACP has chosen to help provide governance on their complaints against certain states in America seems to defy logic and strains credulity that they are truly interested in voter right protections.

A serious partner in what should be an internal national debate should not look for allies that currently comprise the United Nations Human Rights Council; it makes intelligent dialogue impossible and the NAACP should reconsider its position.

Happy Birthday

This week we celebrate the birthday of our namesake. We felt it appropriate to provide a thumbnail sketch; the following is courtesy of his official biography at whitehouse.gov.

At his inauguration, James Madison, a small, wizened man, appeared old and worn; Washington Irving described him as "but a withered little apple-John." But whatever his deficiencies in charm, Madison's buxom wife Dolley compensated for them with her warmth and gaiety. She was the toast of Washington.

Born in 1751, Madison was brought up in Orange County, Virginia, and attended Princeton (then called the College of New Jersey). A student of history and government, well-read in law, he participated in the framing of the Virginia Constitution in 1776, served in the Continental Congress, and was a leader in the Virginia Assembly.

When delegates to the Constitutional Convention assembled at Philadelphia, the 36-year-old Madison took frequent and emphatic part in the debates.

Madison made a major contribution to the ratification of the Constitution by writing, with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, the Federalist essays. In later years, when he was referred to as the "Father of the Constitution," Madison protested that the document was not "the off-spring of a single brain," but "the work of many heads and many hands."

In Congress, he helped frame the Bill of Rights and enact the first revenue legislation. Out of his leadership in opposition to Hamilton's financial proposals, which he felt would unduly bestow wealth and power upon northern financiers, came the development of the Republican, or Jeffersonian, Party.

As President Jefferson's Secretary of State, Madison protested to warring France and Britain that their seizure of American ships was contrary to international law. The protests, John Randolph acidly commented, had the effect of "a shilling pamphlet hurled against eight hundred ships of war."

Despite the unpopular Embargo Act of 1807, which did not make the belligerent nations change their ways but did cause a depression in the United States, Madison was elected President in 1808. Before he took office the Embargo Act was repealed.

During the first year of Madison's Administration, the United States prohibited trade with both Britain and France; then in May, 1810, Congress authorized trade with both, directing the President, if either would accept America's view of neutral rights, to forbid trade with the other nation.

Napoleon pretended to comply. Late in 1810, Madison proclaimed non-intercourse with Great Britain. In Congress a young group including Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun, the "War Hawks," pressed the President for a more militant policy.

The British impressment of American seamen and the seizure of cargoes impelled Madison to give in to the pressure. On June 1, 1812, he asked Congress to declare war.

The young Nation was not prepared to fight; its forces took a severe trouncing. The British entered Washington and set fire to the White House and the Capitol.

But a few notable naval and military victories, climaxed by Gen. Andrew Jackson's triumph at New Orleans, convinced Americans that the War of 1812 had been gloriously successful. An upsurge of nationalism resulted. The New England Federalists who had opposed the war--and who had even talked secession--were so thoroughly repudiated that Federalism disappeared as a national party.

In retirement at Montpelier, his estate in Orange County, Virginia, Madison spoke out against the disruptive states' rights influences that by the 1830's threatened to shatter the Federal Union. In a note opened after his death in 1836, he stated, "The advice nearest to my heart and deepest in my convictions is that the Union of the States be cherished and perpetuated."

Equality, then and now.

The excerpt below from Dr. Kings’ speech, now universally identified as his “I Have A Dream” speech delivered August 28^th, 1963, is presented here for what the Madison Conservative believes it to be: the definition of the aspirations of all Americans to find the true sense of equality that generations of Americans have held as the ideal vision of America.

Please read it through; there are comments following the transcription excerpt, but they need to be read directly after Dr. Kings’ speech.

And so:

“I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of "interposition" and "nullification" -- one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight; "and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together.

This is our hope, and this is the faith that I go back to the South with.

With this faith, we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith, we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

And this will be the day -- this will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with new meaning:

My country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing.

Land where my fathers died, land of the Pilgrim's pride,

From every mountainside, let freedom ring!

And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true.

And so let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire.

Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York.

Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania.

Let freedom ring from the snow-capped Rockies of Colorado.

Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California.

But not only that:

Let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia.

Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee.

Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi.

From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

And when this happens, when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:

                Free at last! Free at last!

                Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!

There can be little added that would speak to the hopes and dreams of all Americans to make Dr. King’s eloquent vision of true equality become the reality all Americans should strive toward. The American electorate and body politic as a whole should demand of their elected officials to do all within their power to move America forward on this goal.

That all being said, it should then alarm, outrage and sadden the American people that President Barack Obama recently launched a new re-election campaign project entitled “African-Americans for Obama”.

The cynicism and cold political calculations involved in such an enterprise go beyond the ability to merely condemn within the confines of this blog.

It is hoped that Dr. King’s dream will not go quietly into that goodnight.

Contraception - 2-26-2012 - part two

(ed. caveat: there is no reason to attempt a true discussion of the matter at hand unless one avoids employing colorful euphemisms and politically correct terminology. This subject requires frank and direct language and thus it is used as required – if you are overly sensitive, please find something else to occupy your time other than reading this blog)

The hue and cry over the ongoing contraception debate within the national body politic is an example of reflexive political correctness hysteria run amok. The real issues have been ignored and obfuscated to the point of distraction by intellectual lightweights interested not in true public policy, but rather with an eye to securing a place at the table of power, never understanding that all power and fame is fleeting to those who would treat it in such a cavalier manner.

To wit:

Consider the fact that somehow rape has been introduced into the aforementioned national discussion revolving around the voluntary process of employing contraceptive methodologies. Rape is not about sex; rape is a physical assault, an act of violence. We as a nation should be outraged that our elected officials have opted to entangle and intertwine this crime with the debate on health care. A victim of rape has as much to do with the subject of contraception in the form of a ‘morning after pill’ as a naval base has being designed for the city of Denver; to tie the crime of rape to contraception is nothing more than adding another level of assault upon the victim. The issue of rape and incest should be dealt with within the realm of the criminal courts, with an eye to inflicting a more appropriate penalty to the perpetrator; the victim is issued a lifetime sentence dealing with  the trauma – the same should hold for the assailant, with the added guarantee of castration to guarantee that the crime can never be repeated by the now soprano  criminal. The diminishing recognition that rape and incest are violent, heinous, vicious attacks has allowed the weak of political mind to casually group such crimes with ‘women’s health’. The American electorate should demand of their local officials to legislate harsher penalties, preferably as delineated above, to help secure some manner of preemptive protection for the public, and some attempt to provide justice to the victims.

Once rape and incest are properly removed from the subject of contraception, the issue becomes one of responsibility and rights. It strikes an odd chord that the media and certain public officials seem so comfortable equating contraception as inclusive solely with women’s health rights. When last it was examined, conception cannot take place without two consenting members of each required gender. The fact therefore that the issue of contraception has become part of the discussion of women’s reproductive rights seems to imply that the responsibility for addressing the responsibilities for birth control lies solely with the woman; is it not a matter of mutual consent?

The reality is that ‘reproductive rights’ is the new politically correct euphemism for abortion.

There are issues of conscience and morality involved with the subject of abortion and thus by definition should be kept out of the governmental discourse of the subject. With that point being made, however, there are matters of public policy that do in fact need to be addressed as part of the overall reality of the contraception debate.

Consider this  all too familiar scenario:

Lady A is impregnated as matter of mutual consent, or as a result of combined poor planning, by Gentleman B. If the political point is to be understood by those who group such matters into ‘women’s health’, the woman has the sole responsibility to decide whether she opts to have the pregnancy brought to term. “Brought to term’ is one side of the debates description of the issue; the opposing side chooses to describe it as the birth of a baby.

These are the lines of demarcation in the debate; it’s becoming accepted as merely a matter of semantics.

If Lady A decides to terminate her pregnancy, Gentleman B is considered by some as to have no say in the woman’s decision relative to her ‘reproductive rights’. Any attempt by Gentleman B to assert any level of input into the decision is derided by many of a political slant as being an infringement on a woman’s’ ‘right to choose’ – it is her body and she should have sole say into any decision affecting that body.

If Lady A decides to bring the baby to term, society now requires that Gentleman B provide financial support for the child and the mother until the child reaches the age of eighteen. He has no say in this decision either, as again it is the woman’s ‘right’ to decide what she does; Gentleman B is merely an appendage to that thought process.

These two apparently accepted principles are in direct conflict with each other, yet neither the mass media not the political class that accepts this as axiom chooses to fully comprehend that fact.

How does one have no say in what their fiscal responsibilities will be, and should Gentleman B opt to vanish from his public policy stated responsibilities, it is the public at large who is then charged with supporting that child for the next two decades.

Understand and be clear of the point being made here: any and all questions of morality and conscience have been removed as to avoid the aura of hysteria currently surrounding these questions within the body politic. It is essential to have this national debate absent any position of moral responsibility; once that Rubicon is crossed, the United States of America will transform itself into nothing more than a theocracy of any given current majority.

So the debate further extends to the nebulous and ridiculous of the choice between right and responsibility. The arc of the debate as being currently framed by the political extremes, leads us inexorably towards a point that has no location on any map of reality. The ‘right’ of ‘reproductive health’ by definition gives consent to it apparently to being a right solely held by Lady A in our example. Gentleman B is nothing more than a vessel, both for procreation and financial sustenance; his voice is silenced by those who feel that the male of the species have no viable existence in the conception and raising of their young. There is no comparable narrative with which to point out the absurdity, arrogance and intellectual dishonesty of such perceptions put into governmental action.

There can be no right without any corresponding responsibility; democracy, as does nature, abhors a vacuum; the belief that there can be action without consequence is folly. The argument is being made that the choice of contraception is a reasoned approach to accepting responsibility of an action. The reality remains that said choice should remain solely to the individual; there should be no public, or governmental involvement in the choice, or financial subsidy attached.

The hypocrisy involved with the inherent conflict of these arguments in staggering in scope. There is widespread outcry that the government has no business being involved in the bedrooms of the electorate; the chorus of the political elite of the entire political spectrum is heard clear and strong on that point.

It appears, however, that such a salient argument only holds when the attempt is made by the opposing political force to imbue their version of morality and conscience choice into an issue that the body politic has no business injecting itself in; the adage that holds what’s good for the goose is good for the gander - but the rights of what’s good are by political fiat held solely by the goose.

This debate must be taken as a whole if America is to address issues of abortion, contraceptive rights, reproductive rights, and whatever terminology the intellectual lightweights involved in the issue decide is the term of the month to describe the legislation of human sexuality.

The summation of this argumentative framework is thus:

- Rape is a violent crime of assault and must be treated apart from any discussion of consensual sexual interaction.

- Morality and conscious, while major imperatives in a personal decision making process, must be removed from the public debate, for at its heart it requires one to understand the machinations of another’s mind, and that is never a quality starting point for a rational debate.

- It takes two to conceive, or to opt not to conceive – each party has rights and responsibilities within that decision; society at large must determine what the boundaries and limitations of those should be.

-  Poor planning should not result in the public picking up the tab for one’s passion – abstinence should not be considered an unacceptable option.

Unless a reasoned framework is employed to debate the issue, America is slated to follow in the footsteps of other societies and civilizations that opted for a policy that everything is acceptable. It is not, but the boundaries of responsibility must be decided by the electorate, not by those who will say only what they believe to be of greater self interest to secure positions of political power.

Our posterity, should it be allowed to arrive, deserves no less.

Contraception - 2-19-2012 - part one

There occurs from time to time a convergence of particular realities that demonstrate the hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty of intransient political dogma; the appearance of light when all that is evident is nothing more than the heat generated by the blather of idiocy.

The recent nonsense of the contraception debate performs the exact function as stated above.

The Madison Conservative will discuss the inherent flaws in the actual positions taken by both political extremes in a later post; the more immediate concern is to provide a particular insight into the twisted logic of those vying for political power at the expense of American democracy.

Consider the following.

In  what was heralded by certain media flacks as a concession to specific religious organizations  objections over the mandate that the aforementioned  groups must ignore issues of conscious, not to mention fundamental tenets of their theology, the President of the United States announced that those groups would not need to fund the costs of providing contraception. He stated unambiguously that the costs associated with that particular service would be fully borne by the insurance companies.

This is remarkable both in the scope of arrogance and the breadth of executive fiat. This simple decision should concern freedom loving people across this nation.

To understand the danger of such executive mandate, the issue needs to be broken down into its several components. This blog will attempt to do that, addressing the aforementioned parts in no particular order of significance, as all the relevant issues bear equal importance and significance.

The constitutionality of the presidents’ signature domestic legislation, derided by some as “ObamaCare”, lauded by others as the “health care Insurance Reform Act” is at the core of the concerns. If the Supreme Court finds that indeed the individual mandate is constitutional, this president and future presidents of varying political lineage will be able to announce that private business, companies that are not part of government but provide a service to the public, will now do the bidding of the government, under the heading of whatever the topic, that it falls under the banner of ‘healthcare’. There is little in daily life that could not be attributable to ones health, from the manner of their transportation, to their individual diet, to the materials used in home décor. The ability of the government to regulate and control aspects of a citizens ‘ life, for what is euphemistically noted as being ‘for their own good’ strikes at the heart of American independence and individuality, the American sense of self. 

The United States Constitution is a restriction on the rights and powers of the government, designed specifically to allow for the individual to decide how they would opt to live their life. A nation that is tethered to the political vision of a president is not democracy, but rather tyranny. The ability for a president to unilaterally decide how private business will conduct itself, “for the common good” is nothing short of a third world dictatorship, bumped up to super power status.

The belief that removing the financial burden from an issue of conscious is simultaneously arrogant and stupid, no easy feat, and speaks volumes to those who see an issue in that simplistic a light.

There are many private, religious entities that self-insure; how do they provide coverage for issues that they fundamentally disagree with. The argument that such entities take federal monies and so must follow governmental edict is ignorant. The logic would then follow that if there were a federal guideline for gay marriage, churches would be forced to provide clergy to perform the ceremony. Any objections would be dismissed with the clarification that the church would be financially compensated for the service. Where then would the line exist between freedom of religion and the power of the state to ignore that right based solely on the premise of the ‘public good’ and the perceived power of the dollar.

It might behoove certain parties in this public debate of imbecility to brush up on their King James editions.

This entire spectacle is claimed to be centered on the ‘right’ of contraception, and that either one is fully supportive of contraception as a health right, or one is a Neanderthal low brow who would prefer women have no access to any level of healthcare.

As noted above, the Madison Conservative will address the specific salient point in a later blog; for now the theater of the political absurd is the issue.

The absence of intelligent dialogue should be troubling to the electorate at large. The speed and ease with which particular issues are granted the status of a convoluted constitutional ‘right’ is breathtaking.

The American mindset knows instinctively that there is no ‘right’ without an accompanying responsibility. The right to vote is secured only through the responsibility of civic action at the ballot box.

The right to freedom of speech is only garnered through the responsibility to defend that right for those whose speech is anathema to all you hold close and dear. The right for a redress of your grievances to the government comes with the responsibility to do so in a peaceful assembly.

The ‘right’ of contraception does not carry with it any announced corresponding responsibility, and so cannot be considered a ‘right’.

There is a place for such medical applications, and those will be discussed within the framework of a blog focused on the debate on health care.

In the interim, however, the body politic should take two aspirin, lie down, and wait for the blood to return to its brain.