Celll Phones and Abortioin: Which is the Greater "Right"

Hacker Boy (hackng into this disgraceful bog and still denying Si8p's assertoin that I am Piers Morgan, or some other agent of the parent company of the unfair and unbalanced netrwork who learned this sort of hacking in the U.K.): "Skip, you can't possibly be equating the Constitutional right to an abortion with cell phones. You are becoming more unhinged every day."


Skip: "I can always depend on Hacker Boy to miss the point It is not ME who has become unhinged, but the government of our country. Back to the article, to explain this to Hacker Boy (and the rest of you).


I just learned todaythat the Obama Administratonion is giving FREE CELL PHONES to people who qualify for food stamps (itself an incredible number, fully justifying Gingrich's characterization of Obama as the "food stamp Presdient"). No, it is nott just that you can get a free phone courtesy of the government (which my brother tells me are known as "Obama phones"--my brother being previoiusly aware of this, while I was not), but your monthly ACCOUNT is PAID by the government (up to a certain amount of "free" minutes, sort of like an ordianry cell phone account that some of you actualy PAY FOR (fools that you are, when the government will take carfe of you--see Ayn Rand and "Atlas Shrugged", who predicted it all more than 50 years ago). Why did this subject make news today? Well, it came out that the government is not only providing FREE cell phone service to people, but is providing a REFERRAL REWARD for referring people to get one of these Obama phones, and set up one of these GOVERNMENT accounts (the reward being something like 100 additonal free minutes). No one cold make this stuff up. The government is paying a REWARD for people to sign up to TAKE TAXPAYER MONEY.


I don't have a cell phone. I have never had a cell phone. You heard me. I tend to think we would be better off without them. I have never felt the urge to have one. Oh, I understand how they can be useful, even if I wonder how when I cn NEVER seem to finish a consersation with someone who has one. If I were still a practicing attorney, as I was for more than 30 years in Texas, I would probably be virtually forced to have one (although I successfully avoidedit in the last years of my practice). Still, I am living proof that you don't HAVE to have a cell phone. I don't remember that we gave FREE PHONE SERVICE (regular phone service) to people in the past (or even now?). We, as a country, have simply gone certifiably insane.


No, I am sorry. You do NOT have a "right' to have ME (who does not even own a cell phone, or use one in my daily life) help pay for YOUR cell phone service. Again, we have gone NUTS. This, alone, should get Obama DEFEATED . However, are we going to here ROMNEY bring this upo as an ABSURD program? Any bets? Maybe he HAS brought it up. If so, I invite someone to comment and give the facts. Waht about Santorum (who I endorse, while refusing to vote for Romney againstgainst anybody)? Santorum REALLY needs to start USING examples like this. This "program" evidently is costing something like 1.6 BILLIN dollars a year, and they are obvisuly pushing to EXPAND the program (with INCENTIVES, yet, to REFER peole to take taxpayer money--I still can't even believe it).


The headline is actually someting of a trick. Did you know that there is NO "right' to abortion in this country? No, I am not kidding, or giving you an opinion. This is a FACT. Now Planned Parenthood, and most of the left, will try to give you the idea that there is such a "right" in this country declared byt he Surpeme Court. That is NOT TRUE. By the way, there is a BETTER case for taking my money togive peole free cell phone service than there is for taking my money to provide people with what I regard as INFANTICIDE service. However, it is NOT TRUE that the Surpeme Court decided that women have a "right" to an abortion--notwithstanding the LIES of Palnned Parenthood (by far the most dishonest, non-criminal organization to ever exist in this country, and my tax money IS being used to SUPPORT that orgainzation, without the GOP being willing to do anything about it--another reason I have LEFT the GOP FOREVER).


Hacker Boy (ignoring Skip's insulting dismissal and condescension): "Skip, you may have heard of Roe v. Wade, since you claim to have been an attorney who graduated from the Unitversity of Texas Law Scholl with high honors."


Skip: "Hacker Boy is just like the team that was there to lose to the Harlem Globetrotters--always defeated. Roe v. Wade did NOT provide for a Constitutinal "right' to an abortion, desite the LIES of the left."


What (returning to the article) Roe v. Wade did was say that the government could not "invade privacy" to RESTRICT abortion in ways that the legislators of the Supreme Court did not like. The Supreme Court, by the way, has pretty much ABANDONED the "privacy" rationale of Roe v. Wade, while still keeping the holding. Thus, the Supreme Court held--wrongly--that the government (state governments in the case of aboriton) can "invade lpricacy" by PROHIBITING fishermaen from killing dolphin, but cannot declare abortion a form of infanticide. Absurd. But a far cry from a "right" to abortion. Nope. This is a FACT: Abortion is NOT a "constitutional right", even under the present decisions of the Supreme Court. Rather, the state is simply not allowed to "invade a private decison of the "mother" (whose womb becomes a death trap for the life within her). The state is perfectly free to CNDEMN abortion (like in a resolution), or PROMOTE alternatives to abortion The state is perfectly free, as is the Federal Government, to REFUSE to pay for aboritons. The state simply cannot unduly RESTRICT the supposed "private decision" of the "mother". No one has ever explained why the state can restrict the "PRIVATE DECISION of both parents not to commit infanticide after birth. Still, the point remains. This is NOT a Constitutional "right" to an abortion, and leftists LIE (not an opinion, ubt a fact) every time they represent otherwise. The Supreme Court has NEVER held that women have a "right' to an abortioni. The Supreme Court has simply held that the state cannot invade the "private decision" of the mothe. Now I would say that the Supreme Court could use the SAME rationale to STRIKE DOWN OBAMACARE, since why is it not a private decision" whehter to purchase health care insurance, or WHAT kind of health care insurance you want to purchase. However, the analogy is flawed, since the laws PROHIBITING abortion date back to the founding of this country, while the idea that the government can FORCE you to buy health insurance--health insurance of a SPECIFIC TYPE--is totally new to this country and to the idea of a Constitutionally limited Federal Government. in other words, the case against Obamacare is MUCH BETTER than the case against abortion laws (a totally manufactured case which never had ANY justification in the Constitution itself). The Supreme Court decison on abortion and ObamaCare are BOTH cases of FEDERAL OVERREACING, in violatin of the Constitution. Yep. The Supreme Court IS part of the Federal Government.


I don't want the "subplots" to get in the way of the central plt here: There is NO "right" to abortion in this country, and the Supreme Court has never held otherwise. There evidenty is, however--according to the Obama Administration--a "right" to cell phone service.


Who knew we now lived in this kind of country. You can see, I hope, why I keep ending up in a fetal position on the floor--laughing and/or crying (you can't tel which) hysterically. It also explains why I get depressed. HOW can we possibly "cut" spending, the deficit or debt if we (read the GOP here) cannot even "cut' things like "free" cell phone service. What a country!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (And, in this particular instance, I do NOT mean this in a good way.)


P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).