Is There a Constitutional Right to Free Contraceptives?

Freedom of Religion is in the Bill of Rights.  Every woman's right to free contraception is not.  It's not even a penumbra.  The pills we are talking about are relatively cheap.  Why can't Sandra Fluke buy her own contraception?  I think the real issue here is the Liberal/Progressive Democrat Party's desire for absolute governmental power.  This article gives the real motive away by making a slippery slope argument that once businesses can resist government orders on religious grounds, there's no end to the other government orders that might be resisted.  Sandra Fluke wants everyone to be forced to do the government's bidding no matter how arbitrary the rules are and no matter how often and capriciously they change.  Just to be totally clear, there is no desire on the part of the businesses involved to outlaw contraception.  They just don't want to have to pay for it.  If people think free contraception is a desirable outcome, they can set up charities to fund it.  Why does government coercion have come into the picture?  It's clear to me that private enterprise is a check on government power, and that's why enforcing arbitrary regulations is so important to Sandra Fluke and friends.  They want an all-powerful government. 

I don't understand why the government has to force businesses to pay for things. If government wants women to have free contraception, the government should pay for it directly. If the government chooses not to pay for contraception, then private charities can be organized to do this. Contraceptives are available for purchase legally at every corner drugstore. The folks who are forcing things down throats are the Big Government Democrats trying to coerce others to pay for things because the Feds are too broke to buy it themselves. Nobody is advocating making contraception illegal. The argument is about who has to pay. 

The left wants to claim more and more power for the central government. They will lie, cheat and steal to achieve their goal. Contraception is cheap and available at every corner drugstore. Why is the contraception mandate the only thing our Dear Leader won't change about Obamacare?  The reason is the left wants unquestioned obedience to government edicts. The level of outrage liberals are expressing towards religion in particular and diverse beliefs in general, is a measure of how badly they want to crush any resistance to any government edict. I think they object to the resistance to government edicts much more than to the specifics of this case. This is about removing any private organizational checks on the exercise of governmental power. The specifics are just a smokescreen. 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2014/03/25/a_women039s_rights_catastrophe_328428.html

Sochi Olympics Was a Cover Story for Crimea Invasion Preparations

This invasion was planned way in advance. Ironically, all that Russian bragging about how there were 40,000 troops guarding Sochi for the Olympics shows that Sochi was the cover story for concentrating Russian troops within striking distance of the Crimea. I remember several comments on military sites and also in the TV coverage that the Russians were over reacting and 10,000 should have been enough. It's possible that the Russians advanced Sochi as a site in the first place with a Crimean invasion in mind. Remember, Putin is a chess player who thinks many moves ahead. The One We Weren't Really Waiting For doesn't even think about his next move. The Community Organizer in Chief makes it up as he goes along. Our Dear Leader is sending food rations to the Ukraine so as not to upset Putin. LOL. Welcome to the second coming of Jimmy Carter. 

Mess in the Ukraine, Global Implications

War weary commentators of the left and right are arguing that the Ukraine is not our problem.  In disagreement with any contrary argument, these folks like to ask whether the holders of opposing viewpoints are willing to be on the front lines personally.  I think they are completely wrong.  Remember that NATO now includes Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria. The first 3 are Baltic States that used to be part of the USSR and might be next on Putin's list of targets. We made a commitment to the Ukraine to guarantee its territorial integrity in exchange for Ukrainians giving up their Soviet era nuclear weapons. If we ignore our commitment, we will need to quickly move a large number of US and NATO aircraft to Poland, because at that point Putin will really be tempted to grab the Baltic States. Regardless, just letting the Ukraine be cut up will make countries like Saudi Arabia and Israel wonder about our commitment to them. This could start a general, probably nuclear, war in the Middle East brought on by Iran's unchecked move towards making their own nuclear weapons. So enjoy playing games with who's going to get shot at. And get some popcorn, because the show is only just beginning. 

I think the best possible response to Putin would be to withdraw from the New START disarmament treaty now in effect with Russia. It is a unilateral step that the president can take immediately. Unfortunately, the One We Weren't Really Waiting For will not do this. As I said before, another thing we could do is start moving a significant number of US and NATO aircraft to Poland and the Baltic States. Our Dear Leader won't do that either. Our Smartest President Ever will at best tell Putin that the Ukrainian border is a red line he should not cross. Most likely, our Community Organizer in Chief will warn Putin that Russia risks condemnation from the whole international community and all Citizens of the World if he grabs any more Ukrainian territory. I feel sorry for the Ukrainian people. They lost the last US election and will have to pay for it even though they didn't get to vote.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/373392/putin-opens-second-front-ukraine-tom-rogan#comment-1285280931

Give US Army a Better Air Force

The Pentagon Budget assumes retirement of all of our best ground support aircraft, the A-10 "Warthog." As an Air Force vet, I have a solution to the A-10 "Warthog" problem. Give them to the US Army. They really want to keep "Warthogs" and would cut something else to keep them. The Air Force has never liked dedicating airplanes and pilots to the single purpose of tactical air support. The key is the plane is low tech. That means it's relatively cheap to maintain, but not the "dual capable" holy grail of USAF desire. The Army lost almost all of its aircraft in a deal in 1948 that gave the newly established Air Force all current and future fixed wing aircraft. Currently, the Army can only operate helicopters as attack aircraft. But helicopters are a lot less capable and a lot more expensive to operate than "Warthogs." Congress should revoke the 1948 deal and give all the A-10 aircraft to the US Army.  The Army should also be allowed to buy other fixed wing ground attack aircraft as needed in the future.