The New Left Crow

The name Jim Crow is often used to describe the segregation laws, rules, and customs which arose after Reconstruction ended in 1877 and continued until the mid-1960s. How did the name become associated with these "Black Codes" which took away many of the rights which had been granted to blacks through the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments?

-Ferris State University

“The New Left Crow offers a devastating account of a legal [social and growing economic] system doing its job perfectly well. We [are] simply replac[ing] one caste system (Jim Crow) for another one (economic destruction, social pariah making, mass censorship of ideas and a growing body of laws) that keeps the majority of minorities [and women] in a permanent state of [entitlement]. [The author] looks in detail at what [MSM] usually misses, namely the entire legal structure of the courts, parole, probation and laws that effectively turn a perpetrator of [no] crime into a moral outlaw who is unworthy of rehabilitation [that he often does not need]. . . [The Author] does a fine job of truth-telling, pointing the finger where it rightly should be pointed: at all of us, liberal and conservative, white and black.” —Forbes [lifted and reworded from here. Forbes did not and does not endorse this entry.

For the purposes of this piece we focus on the "laws, rules and customs" as it applies to the rights of persons legally residing in or are citizens of the United States.

I suppose it's fate that I finally get to write this particular post on the day set aside to recognize Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Who wished for all people to have equal access to liberties established by the founding documents. That persons would be judged by the content of their character rather than simply by the color of their skin.

Since at least 2008 there has been a mood and a movement arising from the left that are in blatant violation of these principles and resemble that which we have known as Jim Crow. Lets look at some events.

Last summer in Ferguson a white cop was deemed a racist killer simply for being white. Lets be clear. I have written enough about it, with plenty of quotes to know this to be the case. To make matters worse there were people openly asking for a lynching of officer Brown. How do a people who have been the subject if lynching then call for one?

On the one hand black folks rightly proclaim that they should not be seen or assumed to be criminals because they are black. They have rightly proclaimed that they should receive fair justice when accused of crimes. Black folks have rightly proclaimed that extra judicial "justice" is unacceptable. And yet, when faced with a real test of those convictions, black folks as a group failed miserably in applying these very principles which today they are tasked with observing in the person of MLK Jr.

Anyone that brought up the relevant facts of the case, including Brown's just attempted strong arm robbery was branded as a racist on the level of Bull Conner. How has it become the case that the truth and the facts are not relevant?

How did the case of Mike Brown overshadow the far stronger case of Eric Garner who was, for all intents and purposes arrested and killed for selling loose cigarettes which NY State had already gotten sales taxes on when he bought the original pack (assuming said cigarettes originated in NYS)?

So after all that, the usual suspects start talking about changing the grand jury process. Why? Because the outcome they desired did not occur. That's a poor reason for changing an entire process and certainly NOT was being fought for by MLK Jr.

Moving on from Mike Brown and Eric Garner we had the UVA Rolling Stone article that slandered the reputation of a fraternity and a university. Rather than defend the concept of due process and do what is commonly referred to an impartial investigation, the head of the university enacted group punishment on all Greek letter organizations. Once again, anyone who asked serious (and obvious) questions about the story as reported and pointed out the journalistic errors (not confirming the existence of the accused and other characters), were branded sexist rape apologists.

Of course the "sexist, rape apologists" were correct in their critique of the story. What happened? No punishment for the liars. Further scrutiny of greek letter organizations who had done nothing wrong.

This in a current atmosphere where it's NOT OK to mention that some women falsely claim rape because they regret the sexual activities they engaged in but it IS OK to get on a program and make the inference that all men are rapists until taught otherwise. It is where a father tells his 5 year old son that he is a rapist.

It is where men, exclusively men can be discriminated in public spaces, in this case an airplane, by being seated away from a child passenger he is not related to, because of fears of molestation. Never mind that such things rarely happen and that most child abuse occurs between children and women (typically a close relative including and mostly the mothers).

Can you imagine what would happen if a black man was told he couldn't sit next to white women because black men, statistically speaking, rape and sexually assault white women more often than they do any other group of women? Or how about since some white people aren't comfortable with black people for whatever reason they ask to not have one seated next to them?

We do not and should not treat black people like they are all criminals yet for some reason it is deemed OK by certain airlines to treat all male customers as if they are child molesters. This is a knew and recent phenomenon brought to you by the New Left Crow where fear of a statistically rare event is cause for deep concern and anyone who points out how rare the event is and therefore how overblown the response is is deemed to be an enabler of criminal activities if not an outright supporter of said activity.

A principled business response to such women making such requests would be that they should buy themselves a ticket and fly with their child or kindly fuck off with their business because they do not treat their paying customers as criminals. And then back that statement up when the social media chatter starts.

Before the UVA case we had the events of Ray Rice and his wife (then engaged). We had black talking heads in the sports commentary world who were calling for Rice's head (and any other dude merely accused of anything). Once again I had to wonder how those who belong to a group of people who had been subject of lynchings on the say so of any random white person could even have two brains cells spark up the idea of assumed guilt.

Currently we have NYS governor Cuomo who ran the last few weeks of his campaign as the women's governor has proposed a new NYS law based on the one in California.

Calling campus sexual assault a national epidemic, the governor said: “This is Harvard and Yale and Princeton, Albany and Buffalo and Oswego. It is not SUNY’s problem by origination. I would suggest it should be SUNY’s problem to solve and SUNY’s place to lead.”

I don't know what qualifies as an "epidemic" but of all crimes rape is one of the least prevalent in Western nations. Since most leading rape prevention organizations have debunked the 1 in 5 stat as well as dismissed the whole "rape culture" theory. Why is it that the head of state, responsible for upholding the US and NY State constitutions is proposing laws that further erode the concept of due process?

“Consent is clear, knowing and voluntary,” the SUNY rules will say. “Consent is active, not passive.

“Silence, in and of itself, cannot be interpreted as consent.”

Consent need not be verbal, but it must be unambiguous and mutual.

So which is it? Not silent or silent? That no one even bothered to question this man on such a contradictory statement is evidence of the New Left Crow. That there are even laws on the books now trying to regulate the details in intimate human interactions is even more evidence of the totalitarian nature of the New Left Crow.

The proposed changes also include a Sexual Assault Victims’ Bill of Rights, a simple and widely distributed document to inform victims of their right to go to the police, as well as campus security, with complaints;

What crime victim does not know they have the "right" to go to the police or security? Serious question. These are people who successfully graduated from High School right? Here's a suggestion: If the prospective student does not know that they should go to the police after being a victim of a crime, do not admit them to your campus.

a promise of immunity for students who report sexual assault but who might have been violating laws or campus rules, like the prohibition on under-age drinking;

Special rules for alleged victims. Lets understand this in the context of Eric Garner. If a woman, no girl, goes to a party and has alcohol, which she legally cannot consume because the law exists to protect her from the exact situation which might happen due to her poor judgment, she cannot be held responsible for her actions. Meanwhile Eric Garner lies dead because he had to face the consequences of selling a loose cigarette on the street.

I wonder, would such rules apply to a student who has been wrongly accused? Would the university say, oh by the way we know you were drinking under age and supplying a minor with alcohol in blatant violation of the school rules, but since you were wrongly accused and all, we'll let that slide. In my experience in witnessing what happens to people accused of breaking "school rules" where it involves a female, the school WILL usually stoop to punishing him (and it's usually him) with whatever incidental rules broken.

It all leads reasonable people to ask whether women and girls are in fact considered fully human adults capable of being responsible for themselves or if they actually require supervised environments to live in. Of course such a question is "sexist" under the Left Crow regardless to how much evidence points to this being the case.

Some people are clearly more equal under the law than others....just like the old Jim Crow.

SUNY encompasses almost a half-million students, at two-year community institutions and colleges with bachelor’s and graduate programs. Excluding the community colleges, the university reported 238 sexual assault complaints among 219,000 students during the 2013-14 academic year.

238 out of 219,000 students in the represented group of institutions?

That's 0.108675799087% of the total population that has reported a sexual assault. There would have to be two orders of magnitude increase in reporting to get anywhere near the 1 in 5 number that has been claimed by various parties. What kind of epidemic is this? And those are "reports" not even proven cases.

But this is the New Left Crow. Using fake stats to further demonize a population and then enact laws that either puts unconstitutional burdens on them, like the recent proposal that those accused of rape must prove they had consent, effectively shifting the burden of proof off the state to the defendant.

That is just like the literacy tests imposed on black folks (as shown in the movie Selma). It was wrong and unconstitutional then and such moves are wrong and unconstitutional now. Simply because the target is a formerly "super enfranchised" group now does not make any of it OK. Another sign of the New Left Crow is David Agema's censure by the RNC.

David Agema, a Michigan national committeeman who has come under fire for recently re-posting an article from a white supremacist magazine on his Facebook page.

Seriously? Posting a link to a page from a source gets you 'under fire"? Under fire from whom? Why? I've read the article in question and regularly follow the website in question. In fact anyone interested in issues of race ought to be following that and other sites. They are certainly following black websites. Quite carefully I might add. Does that make me a white supremacist? Does it mean I endorse the website and its ideology? Or does such assumption or not, only come with certain skin tones and ancestry?

If a post on said White Supremacist site is a review of an article from say the NY Times or some peer reviewed journal like Nature, does that make the NYT or Nature a disreputable source of info since it is "supportive" of or "referenced by" a white supremacist?

Is 2+2=4 only true if it appears on The Atlantic?

Per the article that David Agema posted to Facebook. I too have posted it (and others) to my G+ page (only social media I participate in). Is it OK for me to do so because I am black? Is it OK if such a piece was referenced in say Slate, Huff Post, etc. because those sites are "legitimate"? What if I were to act like I didn't find the material on said sites and went to their source information and pass it off as if I found it myself? Does that now make the material more legitimate? And what happens when I see "mainstream" and "legitimate" publications writing the same material, particularly in such a way that it is clear as day that they sourced the information and ideas from said "illegitimate" sources. Should they be called out? Is their writing illegitimate?

What are these rules under the New Left Crow that determine who and under what circumstances on may post a link to a writing by any group? And why aren't people in a political party under the US polity defending the fundamental freedom of speech of it's members? Why is the RNC afraid of the New Left Crow?

As for the linked article, I found it interesting because of it's implications for black people entering the criminal justice system. If so called "liberal" lawyers actually view their clients in such a way as described in that linked piece shouldn't the public know it? I know for a FACT that at least one other such lawyer thinks as the lawyer in that piece does because I know someone who dealt with such a lawyer, who was did not believe that his client was in fact Ivy League educated and thought that his "proper speech" was some kind of game.

The book that the AmRen posting references also discusses the experiences of a teacher and MTA employee. Again, with those stories I knew of events and experiences of current teachers and MTA employees that confirm those kinds of events. So is it racist to mention it? Or is it only racist when certain people mention it? And if one decides that censorship is how you deal with information one doesn't like doesn't that make said information, which is not only factual but observable by any seeing person, migrate to those entities who are not afraid of the New Left Crow but are also economically independent of those institutions that are beholden to the New Left Crow.

That would also mean that the public at large is less informed because more and more information is hidden from view lest one of the special groups are offended.

Then we have the "anti-gay" link entitled :Everyone Should Know These Statistics on Homosexuals which included:

Consider this dubious bullet-point from the essay: “The median age of death of lesbians is 45 (only 24% live past age 65). The median age of death of a married heterosexual woman is 79 (8)."

What makes it dubious? I've never looked into the media age of death of lesbians. Though since I know that median means the middle number of a given set of data. I know that half of the deaths were before that, indicating highly probable suicides and half are after that, indicating deaths from other causes. Given the history of homosexuality in the US shouldn't it be obvious that "out groups" like lesbians would be subject to more suicides, therefore bringing the median age of death down relative to heterosexual women who do not experience such ostracizing? But the author of the article doesn't even bother to look into that and present counter statistics. Declare the stat "dubious" and move on.

This is the New Left Crow. They dismiss that which they do not like and name call the person. But they rarely engage in the data.

Then there is this:

The Fields facts used in the essay reposted by Agema (and written by Joseph) are all similarly outrageous: “37% of homosexuals engage in sadomasochism,” “60% say they have had sex with strangers in bathhouses,” “Homosexuals are 100 times more likely to be murdered,” etc...

I don't know whether the statement is true. I don't spend my time researching the sexual practices and fetishes of homosexuals. Nor have I looked into how often they are murdered relative to the heterosexual population. But again, there is no rebuttal of the statements with any data. I would suppose that given what I've seen on the news, and read, that homosexuals are a targeted group, usually by heterosexual men who somehow think that proving that they are "better" than homosexuals is done by beating on homosexuals rather than by, I don't know..fucking women and raising their kids. Therefore homosexuals would be murdered at a higher rate than heterosexuals if homosexuality is one of the reasons one might be murdered for.

I do know that early in the AIDS epidemic one of the things that was cited for the quick spread within the NY homosexual community was the fact that they were engaging in sex in bath houses and whatnot (Chicago Tribune, NY Times). This was stated in public many times. So exactly what is the problem with pointing out what is likely a fact?

Ahh the New Left Crow, where you cannot point out facts about a group that can show that group in a negative light. Then of course comes The Smear(tm):

“Edward Fields has been active in white supremacist and anti-Semitic groups since he was a teenager in the late 1940s ... Fields was a significant force in the racist world ...”

Ahh this guy is not to be believed because not only is he a non-practicing Chiropractor, like you can only know about your particular field of employment, but he's racist to boot. Of course when asked whether 2+2=4 even if it is written by a racist, the answer completely guts the "and he's a racist" argument.

This the essence of the New Left Crow. Nowhere does the article actually deals with the actual claims of the offending articles in question. Rather we are brow beaten into believing the articles are "bad", "racist" and "homophobic" simply because "we" are not supposed to agree with the kinds of people making the statement. And even worse, the statement is verboten!

See Watson, of famous Watson and Crick, made some statements regarding the intellectual capacity of Africans (and various other races of people including admixtures thereof) and he's a pariah. Good luck teaching about genetics without mentioning him. I recently finished reading The Bell Curve, because I finally decided I wasn't going to let other people tell me what subject matter was "racist" without actually reading the material myself.

The book is not racist. Having read it I can honestly say that whoever is calling it racist has either not read the book, did not understand the subject matter, or understood the subject matter and decided to label it racist anyway because they were deeply disturbed by the implications of what was presented.

While reading the book I took a Raven Progressive Matrices test. I did so because I didn't want to take the author's or the reviewers word on how "biased" the test would be. It is not biased. Well no, that's not true. It is biased against blind people. If you can recognize patterns you can take the test. The only way to say that it is biased against black people is if you honestly believe black people are incapable of recognizing patterns. THAT would be racist.

And the thing that stood out to me the MOST with the discussion of IQ in that book (and of other studies I've read) is that for a concept that is allegedly biased against "People Of Color", Asians seem to do quite well. Quite well indeed. Why would a people who believe themselves to be The Master Race go out of their way to create a test in which they perform worse than those "yellow chink bastards"? No one ever seems to have an answer for that question. And that's the New Left Crow. They don't have to answer the question. They get to point and call names. Unless Asians aren't people of color....

Also,no one ever asks teachers, the ones who see the students every day. What do THEY see? Do they not see that when they give an exam that a subset of students tend to finish first with high scores, a bulk finishes later with average scores and then there is a trailing end of students who finish last (or do not finish) and do very poorly?

Is that not prima facie proof that there is intelligence and it varies?

Has anyone asked the teachers who have mixed racial composition in their classes about which groups fall mostly into each categories of finishers?

Don't many schools have advanced placement classes for students of exceptional (above average) ability? Isn't it the POINT of those classes to give those students so gifted the kinds of intellectual challenges that they do not get when having to deal with students of lesser ability? Do we know the proportion of students of each race that make it into those programs? Yes we do. And the data closely reflects what is written in The Bell Curve.

And what is worse for the Left Crow is that because there is a standardized test (which yours truly barely remembers taking...and not liking one bit) the low enrollment cannot be blamed on bias in admissions by admissions officers. It is strictly merit. You either are qualified or you are not. You spend time watching TV and playing video games, you're unlikely to make the cut. And as The Bell Curve has laid out in great detail, test prep only does so much (I also know this from my own pre and post test prep SAT exam scores).

Offending data No.1

Offending data No.2

Once you understand the data presented above you understand why so few black students attend the merit based elite high schools in NYC (and elsewhere). I think the reason that many people dismissed The Bell Curve is because they are at the far left of the curve and do not come into contact with those on the other side of the median (as suggested by the authors). I know from my own experiences in web forums and attending higher education that ranges from Ivy League to HBCU, I can say I was PAINFULLY aware when I was in the company of persons not simply more informed that I was but who were much more intelligent (in terms of grasping complex concepts (particularly math) than I was.

It is the case that in everyday life most people do not interact with people who are much brighter than they are (it would usually be a quite aggravating experience for both parties) or much richer (or poorer) than they are. Therefore what they consider "average" is highly skewed by their experiences. So when people do research of large swatches of people and those researchers come to the same conclusions, your average person thinks there is something wrong.

In addition to that the New Left Crow has an entitlement complex. Just as Jim Crow operated to keep the undesirables in line, the Left Crow increasingly leverages the law to enforce it's on privileges. No longer is it the case that you should leave those one dislikes or disagrees with alone. One must also endorse that which they do.If you do not you are to be sanctioned. Do you own a store that happens to make wedding cakes. If you don't make one for a gay wedding you get to have a day in court and possibly get run out of business. Is it because you told the gay couple to get out your store?

Nope.

Is it because you would sell them a muffin, coffee, birthday cake, retirement cake or any other cake? Nope?

That doesn't matter. Because all that matters is the wedding cake. And the courts amazingly allow these suites to not only go forward but for the plaintiffs to win. It never occurs to these judges that all one has to do is put the shoe on the other foot and have a business, say a black or jewish singing group provide services to the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. Suddenly they would understand you don't make people provide services for group events one does not wish endorse. That businesses have a legitimate reason to decline services in such a way that is not legally discrimination. A business may not be allowed to decline a person of service because of that person but a business can decline to provide service to behavior they do not wish to be associated with.

Of course what is also entirely different here is that none of the Knights of the KKK would bother to BOTHER such a group to begin with. But not for these folks. The Left Crow says it's OK to purposely invade other peoples spaces and force themselves on them.

Similarly folks on the left thought they could force a business to pay for women's contraception simply because the employee is a woman. These self-centered people feel entirely entitled to other people's money to support their own lifestyle choices. They think this to be a fundamental right trumping the enumerated rights of those person's who object. And what do they call those who object? Sexist!

Used to be that the objective was to get the government out of the reproductive decisions of individuals. Now The New Left Crow is all about using the levers of government to get into the reproductive decisions of individuals.

These are but a few examples of this new era that is upon us. Hopefully this little piece helps to restore, better yet, create a balance where the adults are in control and the emotional cripples are kept in check. Some may object to my comparison to Jim Crow. That's fine. The important thing is to recognize the patterns of behavior and the purposes of those behaviors. They are more similar than it seems.

Hobby Lobby Vs. Entitlement Queens (And Their Trusty Knights)

I was wrong about exactly ONE thing in my previous discussion of the Hobby Lobby case: That the men on the court would be afraid to take on the women. Yes, I know Breyer voted with the women, but like I said, the Men...While a few commentators noted the political divide in the decision, I noted that there would be a gender breakup and it happened that way. I will give Kagan credit for not joining the entire dissent, probably seeing it for the shrillness for what it was. Let me point out a few items. First I want to point out one thing that bothered me most about the decision AND the dissent.

The ACA contraception mandate rests on a particular and peculiar assumption: Free contraception, as in free to women, is a right.

There was no challenge to this assumption and that in itself is problematic. Such an idea, in my opinion, seriously undermines some long held beliefs about a thing called adulthood. Adults are expected to pay for themselves. They pay for the food they eat. They pay for the roof over their head. They pay for their clothes. They pay for their transport. They are supposed to have children when they are able to afford to have them. It has never in the history of this country, been the expectation that the government had any responsibility whatsoever in providing the means of preventing fertilization for adults. If an adult wanted to engage in sexual activities and not produce offspring, the responsibility to negate the chance of having offspring was entirely the responsibility of those persons involved.

I mentioned in my major Hobby Lobby piece that the very fact that the ACA did not provide for no cost contraception for men showed that this was not about "contraception" per se, but a gendered war on religious people. I have seen for myself what happens when gender is put up against religion. Gender almost always wins in the court of popular opinion. Moreover such a mandate was a clear violation of equal protection. That also went unnoticed on by the justices. Again, I don't think the government or any private individual should be on the hook for anyone elses contraception decisions. But it is clear that a lot of people do think so.

How did the population get to the point where no-cost contraception (at a cost to someone else) is thought of as a God given right? How is it that there are women who are actually upset and angry that they do not even understand that this ruling does nothing at all to block their access to contraception. How is it that the thought of actually having to pay for your own sexual choices so repugnant? Why is nobody publicly questioning this clear case of Entitlement Syndrome?

Lets look at some commentary from some Entitlement Queens. First up Hillary Clinton:

Clinton said she found the implication that “a closely held corporation has the rights of a person when it comes to religious freedom” to be “deeply disturbing.”

Well no actually. If Clinton read the actual decision she would see that the court did not declare that a corporation has the rights of a person. The ruling states:

d the laws of those States permit for-profit corporations to pursue “any lawful purpose” or “act,” including the pursuit of profit in con - formity with the owners’ religious principles. 15 Pa. Cons. Stat. §1301 (2001) (“Corporations may be incorporated under this subpart for any lawful purpose or purposes”); Okla. Stat., Tit. 18, §§1002, 1005 (West 2012) (“[E]very corporation, whether profit or not for profit” may “be incorporated or organized . . . to conduct or promote any lawful business or purposes”); see also §1006(A)(3); Brief for State of Oklahoma as Amicus Curiae in No. 13–354.

So no, Mrs Clinton. It is that corporations, profit or non-profit, can be organized for any legal purpose and one such legal purpose may be to make money in a way consistent with the founder's religious beliefs. Shocking, I know. Therefore what is actually disturbing is that a person seeking the highest office of the land (again) not only doesn't read court decisions before commenting on them, but doesn't understand how and why corporations may be formed. Of course, when you think you are entitled to shit, such things do not matter. Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!

Clinton continues:

“It’s very troubling that a sales clerk at Hobby Lobby who needs contraception, which is pretty expensive, is not going to get that service through her employer’s health care plan because her employer doesn’t think she should be using contraception,” Clinton said.

Notice the entitlement. Sales clerk wants contraceptives, well certain types of contraceptives, but the clerk should have it paid for by the employer rather than out of her own pocket. This same clerk I presume would be aghast if the employer were to tell her who and under what circumstances she should have sex. How exactly do you fix your mouth to demand someone else pay for your private activity while simultaneously demanding they stay out of your private business? But even IF she thinks someone else should pay for her contraception (other than the man she's planning on having sex with, who is, IMO the logical target for such an pay scheme), It does not dawn on Clinton that there is a far more constitutional means to do so: Government can pay for it (and provide it).

And also look at the sleight of hand that Clinton used: She said "employer doesn't think she should use contraception". That was not and is not at stake. What was at stake is WHO PAYS for contraception. Whether the employer thinks it's a good idea or not is immaterial and was not in dispute.

Clinton discussed how her career has focused on the rights of women and girls in particular. Chief among those rights, she said, “is control over their bodies, control over their own health care, control over the size of their families.”

You know what, I'm totally on board with that. Women deserve and have a right over their own bodies. 100%. They deserve and have control over their own health care. Control over the size of a family is a joint decision IMO. But the point here is that NOTHING in the Hobby Lobby decision impacts any of that. Hobby Lobby (and others) wants no parts of certain choices. That is totally in line with Clinton' thinking. A woman's control over her body should and has No bearing on my wallet or my business. I want no parts in the decision on what doctor, facility or whatever that a woman chooses to provide for her healthcare. And that decision should have no parts of my wallet or my business. What Clinton and her ilk don't understand, because they are Entitlement Queens, is that she is actually promoting putting other people into the private business of women and she expects them to sit back and take it. I kinda blame Bill (what the meaning of is is) Clinton for that. He has spent a few decades kissing Hillary's ass to make up for his past behavior. Women who are not regularly told "no" by men are unfamiliar with the concept.

“So does this mean whoever wrote that concurrence is in favor of a single-payer system for contraception?” Clinton asked.

The Ghost has been and is 100% for single payer healthcare. The Ghost also noted, multiple times, that such a scheme would have constitutionally addressed a number of issues. I will remind the reader that it was DEMOCRATS that took single payer off the table in favour of what we know of as ACA.

She also warned that companies may soon try to roll back coverage for treatments like blood transfusions. “I mean, this is a really bad slippery slope,” she said.

This is a stinking red herring of an argument that I dealt with in my previous commentary. Firstly, the scope of this ruling was pretty clear in that not all objections can or will be sustained. Secondly as pointed out in earlier postings, blood transfusions, unlike contraception is a life saving technique. A patient may decline immediate life saving treatment via living wills and the like, but not an insurance company (and we're not talking experimental cancer treatments, or non experimental treatments that are known to have slim chances at life savings). There is exactly zero chances that such a claim, even if made, would be approved. Clinton is being shrill and she knows it. Let's look at the protestors:

I agree with the Entitlement Princesses on display. "Bosses don't belong in the bedroom". Agreed 100%. So make sure "bosses" aren't asked to pay for your reproductive choices. Problem solved.

"Getting Birth Control Shouldn't be Thas [sic] Difficult"

Really? According to who? And what constitutes "difficult"? Because I'm not of the opinion that anything that is not "free" is "difficult". But this is typical Entitlement Princess type of behavior. If I can't have my way, then something is wrong.

"This guy shouldn't get to decide about my birth control" (looks like a picture of fictional character Don Draper.

Well sure. And that guy shouldn't be made to pay for it if he objects to it. Anything else is, you know, theft.

Here's Josh Earnest playing White Knight:

Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, said that the court’s decision “jeopardizes the health of women employed by these companies” and added that “women should make personal health care decisions for themselves, rather than their bosses deciding for them.”

Serious question: How is contraception jeopardizing women's health? Do you get pregnant by sharing a needle? Do you catch pregnancy by inhaling a virus or bacteria? Do you get it from food poisoning? Is pregnancy, generally speaking a life threatening condition and if so, why was that chick running a 800 meter race while pregnant?

The answer of course is that the lack of "free" contraception (they even object to co-payments) is not a jeopardy to women's health anymore than the lack of free Motrin is.

Secondly, this decision does not prevent any woman from making personal healthcare decisions for themselves. It actually, in fact affirms that they have to make health decisions for themselves and not with the assumption or expectation that everyone and anyone else is obligated to finance those decisions.

Mr. Earnest urged Congress to find ways to make all contraceptives available to the companies affected.

Which, I will note, they ARE available, just not for free to the purchaser.

A supporting brief from the Guttmacher Institute, a research and policy group, said that many women cannot afford the most effective means of birth control and that the coverage requirement will reduce unintended pregnancies and abortions. Justice Ginsburg cited the brief in her dissent.

Quick note. The most effective means of birth control is not having sex. This is beyond dispute. Once one decides that one will have sex, then one takes on the responsibilities for the consequences of such actions. If one is unable to pay for whatever means of chemical or physical birth control, then it is also likely that one is not in a position to deal with the consequences of said behavior. Why then should private citizens be on the hook for financing the choices made by people who are not being responsible in their decisions?

Lets look at statement from Ginsberg:

“The court forgets that religious organizations exist to serve a community of believers,” she wrote. “For-profit corporations do not fit that bill.”

Ginsberg shows her complete ignorance of certain religious bodies and their texts. Since the debate is focusing on Christians then I will remind inform Ginsberg that Christians have an order to go out into the world proclaiming Christ. And that their central figure, whom they claim to follow, spent much time dealing with non-believers and that one of the main purposes of such organizations is to spread the word to non-believers via there words and actions. It is pretty clear that Ginsberg is not fully informed on the subject matter. You'd think someone so uninformed would recuse themselves or at the bare minimum inform themselves on the parts they know nothing about. Here's Cicile Richards:

“The thought of your boss telling you what kind of birth control you can and can’t get is offensive and it certainly is motivating to women to vote,” said Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, which plans to spend several million dollars this year to campaign for Senate candidates.

Again, the Entitlement Princess does not even think that there is anything wrong with forcing someone else to pay for her life choices. It is beyond her comprehension. How dare these folks say "no" to me. Along with that she completely confuses the issue. It is not your boss telling you what kind of birth control you can and can't get. It is your boss telling you what he or she WILL and WILL NOT pay for. Why is this so hard to understand? Why is it these folks feel entitled to make other people do things and pay for things they have no wish to pay for? Do other people (non-females) have rights that others (females) must regard? Here's Lori Lamerand

“It’s really unbelievable that we’re still fighting for access to birth control in 2014,” said Lori Lamerand, president of Planned Parenthood Advocates of Michigan

Of course the fact is that "we" are not fighting for access to birth control. "We" are fighting the idea that an enumerated right to free exercise of religion can be abridged by the government over the planned privilege of free to the user birth control. Not a single woman, not a one, is unable to get birth control as a result of this ruling. Women have the same right to birth control that they had before the ruling. But here goes the Entitlement Queen perspective: How dare these men say "No" to providing for me a product I desire.

Am I the only person who recognizes entitlement language when I see it?

“A woman’s decision to use birth control should have nothing to do about her boss or her bosses’ beliefs. We can imagine a scenario where a woman has to lobby her boss to be able to use birth control pills.”

Let me guess, Lori also imagines the 1 in 5 statistic to be true as well. I can imagine a lot of things. Quite the opposite (religious schools excepted), this ruling takes the boss out of the equation. If the boss cannot pay for contraception, then the boss has no interest or say in who gets to use it either. It's that whole "he who pays the piper" logic. If I pay for my own shit, then nobody can tell me what I do with it. Of course Entitlement Queens think that not only should the boss pay the piper but that the boss should pass the tune request he paid for to someone else.

We close this post with a quote from a non-Entitlement Queen, U.S. Rep. Candice Miller:

The congresswoman also said the court’s decision does not limit the rights of any American to use the form of birth control they choose just because a small employer decides not to cover certain services under employee health coverage.

Shockingly logical. Surely she hates women and being a woman.