About  Archives (Old ArchivesContact  Search  News  Troops  


Sexy Babe Skydiving Naked While Pregnant Exposes Heretofore Unrevealed Relationship Between ObamaCare Mandate and Abortion Issues.·

By Jim Wrenn, Editor, PoliSat.Com , PoliticalXray.Com . 
August 14, 2011--

            According to a highly reliable participant in numerous Tea-Party events, a picture of a sexy babe skydiving naked while pregnant exposes a heretofore unrevealed relationship between the ObamaCare mandate and abortion issues.  When PoliticalXray's Washington Bureau Drawer Chief asked how this is so, the answer was that "to discern what the picture really exposes requires careful study and analysis-- this isn't just a picture of a hot chick skydiving naked."

Asked what inspired this unusual campaign, the highly reliable source said it was an unusually clever Danish commercial featuring topless skydivers to promote the business of one of Europe's largest retailers.  Understanding how to discern the i.p. address for that commercial, which is risqué but unquestionably inoffensive, clever and entertaining, requires reasonably good detective work utilizing Sherlock Holmes' famous analytical process known as differential analysis in which eliminating false leads yields the solution to a mystery.  Re-emphasizing that such commercial merely served as inspiration for the "Naked/Pregnant Skydiving Babe" and messages associated therewith, the highly reliable source stressed that neither the retail company nor anyone appearing in, or involved in the production of, that commercial had anything whatsoever to do with the "Naked/Pregnant Skydiving Babe" or related messages.  Interestingly, there appear to have been pre-pregnancy skydives in a micro-bikini as well:

            When asked whether there is a sans-micro-bikini version of such pre-pregnancy picture, the reliable source said, "That also requires good detective work in analyzing a different set of clues."   PoliticalXray's Washington Bureau Drawer Chief asked the highly reliable source:  "But what is the point of all this?"   Seeming perplexed that it was not obvious, the source elaborated:

            There are several messages.  One is that most so-called "Tea-Partiers" are "fiscal conservatives" and "strong-foreign-policy conservatives" but even though most of these two groups are religious, they oppose incorporating theological beliefs or doctrines into political platforms, legislation or constitutional amendments.  Another message is that their "social" views tend to be more libertarian than the conservatives who tend to identify themselves as "religious" or "values" conservatives.  Another message is the message from these two groups to the religious-values conservatives that selection of a presidential nominee who espouses religious-values conservatism would be the best way to guarantee Obama's reelection by frightening independent voters (and especially those in the under-40 demographic) who are currently completely dissatisfied with the direction in which Obama and his leftist allies want to take the country into voting not "for" Obama but "against" what they will perceive as efforts by religious-values conservatives to inject too much religion into politics, laws and public policy.

            Many fiscal/strong-foreign-policy conservatives are "pro-choice" on abortion with respect to pregnant adults but also are pro-family in strongly opposing governmental policies designed to permit, or to attempt to require, exclusion of parents from the decision-making process with respect to pregnant minors.  In being "pro-choice," they are not absolutists-- i.e., they don't advocate abortion on demand regardless of the circumstances.  Instead, they favor the three-stage analysis articulated in Roe v. Wade seeking to reconcile constitutional rights of a pregnant woman with constitutional rights of a viable fetus-- in other words, they don't believe a fertilized egg has the same rights (vis-a-vis the life and physical health of the pregnant woman) that Roe v. Wade justly recognizes for a viable fetus .  

            Furthermore, many such fiscal/strong-foreign-policy "pro-choice" conservatives found Ronald Reagan's position acceptable (even though it was less "pro-choice" than Roe v. Wade) because his "pro-life" position recognized exceptions for abortions in three circumstances:  pregnancy induced by rape; pregnancy induced by incest; and pregnancy posing a risk to the mother's life.  Yet, despite Reagan having garnered overwhelming support from the religious-values conservatives, too many of the candidates seeking the nomination for President in 2012 have embraced a virtually absolutist anti-abortion ("pro-life") position.  For examples, during the debate in Iowa on August 12, 2001, Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachmann and Tim Pawlenty expressed support for "criminalizing" abortion in all circumstances except to save the life of the mother and thus expressed support for criminalizing an abortion to terminate a pregnancy induced by rape or incest.  Many (if not most) of the fiscal/strong-foreign-policy conservatives not classifying themselves as "religious-values" conservatives consider such position to be an example of religious totalitarianism.  

            To advocate that our constitutional system empowers government to compel a woman made pregnant by rape to bear the rapist's child is to invoke the kind of totalitarianism depicted in Animal Farm and Brave New World.  That an embryo created by rape is "innocent" because it's incapable of making moral decisions (as is also the case with every unfertilized egg and every wasted sperm) is irrelevant with respect to the rights of the woman to not become impregnated by rape.  No serious historian can claim that when Jefferson, et al, wrote "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" into the Declaration of Independence they (or any of their founding-father contemporaries) meant "Life From the Moment of Conception."   Despite the Declaration of Independence being the second greatest document authored in human history, it's not the "founding" document of our Constitutional Republic; rather, the U.S. Constitution (the greatest document authored in human history) is our "founding document."  Indeed, it superseded the ineffectual Articles of Confederation, which had superseded the Declaration of Independence.  

            The anti-abortion absolutists claim that all abortion is "murder."  That's as intellectually indefensible as to contend that every homicide is "murder," which would destroy the concepts of self-defense, justifiable homicide, accidental homicide, reckless homicide (manslaughter), unintentional homicide as "collateral damage" in warfare, and the killing of enemy combatants.  It's the same kind of literalistic thinking that leads some religious fundamentalists to claim that every word in the Bible (authored over many centuries by human beings) is literally true and correct.  It' the same kind of literalism that leads some religious fundamentalists to reject the overwhelming evidence of evolution as though such evidence were intrinsically incompatible with the existence of a Creator.  See GUTSPAR.Com.  Every cell in each of our bodies is "human life," but no such cell is a "human being."

Thus ended this explanation of the multiple messages from naked skydiving for constitutional rights.  Just as the campaign against breast cancer has occasionally and successfully used mild eroticism to facilitate its purpose, it's appropriate to use mild eroticism in a campaign against constitutional cancer.

--Jim Wrenn, Editor at PoliSat.Com.

Permanent links to this installment: 






 About  Archives (Old ArchivesContact  Search  News  Troops  


"662" align="left">


 About  Archives (Old ArchivesContact  Search--Use GoogleSearch Below  News  Troops  

WWW PoliSat.Com 

[FrontPage Include Component]