A busy week with the press. All about Rights. One morning talk show ‘reported’ on women’s right to stay at home. Really? It’s a Right?….or just a Leftist ideation to convince the victim mentality to believe the government can/will provide everything. The right to stay home?
God given or legally given—Rights are arbitrary. The word itself is ambiguous if not down ‘right’ confusing. Right turn, right path, right hand, My Right.
Just to get the most insane notion off the board and for it never to be discussed again, let’s talk about ‘staying’ home.
A woman’s right to stay home (i.e. raise/care for a family without earning money outside the home) is pure, unadulterated nonsense. It is a moral, legal, fundamental obligation to take care of children whether you stay at home or work for income. If the left starts pushing for women’s right to stay home…it means tax payers will have to fork over hard earned money (they go out and earn it) to give these mindless women compensation for meeting their inherent responsibility. If a person wants to be a ‘stay at home’ caregiver, then it’s a discussion of importance between the spouse, partner, income earner who also chooses to engage in family responsibilities. If it’s a single parent…well then, it takes earned money to support the needs of a family. Wasn’t this all sorted out in Betty Friedan days…when women wanted and received the opportunity to work both sides of the fence?
Okay…next issue–so Clinton, the Hillary of the Hillary/Billary dangerous duo, comes out—no pun intended—to declare she’s for gay marriage. Oh really—that’s a surprise announcement? Hmmm….guess to those H/B followers who have been dambozzled (yes) by the carpetbagging couple who sway their opinion any way for any kind of vote are delighted with this announcement. Remember, Hillary was a big supporter of the right to keep a woman’s surname when married. The Rodham name of the H/B duo slipped off her back, fast, like a kid down a slide in a water park, as soon as political advisors declared it wasn’t a good way to gain the moderate’s vote. Then the happily married, I’m a Clinton gal forever, took off on a political run– far away from the priniciple of keeping her family name intact.
Okay, so H of the H/B duo, also stood by her man principle….that lying, cheating, conniving hound dog who dogged a dozen different ways and was (lacking a better word) stupid enough to get caught blue handed. So, how’s that for adhering to principles—keeping the sanctity of the family intact? Just another example of sticking up for the victim? One who’s transfixed on a humiliating, disloyal relationship for the good of a vote? I’m just trying to sort out the principle involved in this decision. A love relationship of the highest power? Power?
So, now we come to Leonard Pitts…a journalist who’s articles I indulge in quite frequently to keep me fair and balanced. He’s not a Krauthammer or K. Parker but he writes for the Miami Herald and his column is syndicated. Articles always interesting if not unbiased. He’s always angry about something. Rush Limbaugh does not make him laugh but his readers will when they reply to his constant bashing of anyone who isn’t sitting on his side of the fence.
Pitts recently wrote about the ‘Gideon’ promise unfulfilled. The fellow Gideon, about fifty years ago, found himself in a tizzy over an illegal act. Poor fellow Gideon had a bad habit of robbing others. Poor fellow Gideon couldn’t pay for a lawyer and was denied an attorney. Mind you this was in the early 60’s when the government was not a pay station for beggars and thieves. We’ve come a long way, haven’t we? So the supreme court decided, the poor, indigent have a right to an attorney if involved ina legal dispute–paid for by the state. Gideon served five years for his crimes but gained national recognition with the court’s ruling to never let an indigent criminal go without an attorney. Mr. Pitts declares the ‘Gideon’ promise has been unfulfilled. There’s just not enough public defenders for all the indigent criminals in the good ole U.S.A. Oh…really? Here’s the principle issue, Mr. Pitts, it’s all about too many criminals. Not too few defense attorneys paid for by taxpayers, the working kind, who don’t rob banks, kill, rape or terrorize real victims. How about this, Mr. Pitts—why not harp on the fact that bad people cause the problem. If they put themselves in a situation where they don’t have the luxury of a top notch criminal defense team who might get them off even if they are guilty beyond reasonable doubt, then perhaps it wouldn’t be an illegal injustice. It becomes their problem, their willful inherent right to pay the penalty for criminal behavior. They chose to put themselves in jeopardy no matter the level of income, schooling, social circumstance. Too many criminals, Mr. Pitts…that is the problem with the Gideon promise unfulfilled.
Now, I imagine that Hillary of the H/B duo who are vote seekers depending on the fence principle (which side you are seated on), will do whatever they can to help with fulfilling the gap in the defense system. They’ll go after the criminals “right” to vote…vote for more public paid lawyers, vote for more handouts, vote for more rules to ignore.
Yes, as Mr. Pitts declares, the system is broken. Yes, indeed. He says fix it.
I’d like to see more politicians and journalist fix it. Apply some principles, please.
Principles for the H/B duo and principles for the journalists.