... you wanted a scrap for social issues? Well, have at it.
.
But first, when you lose Chris Matthews...
Here's "Tingles" opining on the regime's decision to force Catholic employers to cover, free of charge, contraceptive devices in their health care plans for their employees:
Matthews didn't seem sure how to broach the subject. Talking to E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post and Susan Milligan of U.S. News and World Reports, he warned, "It gets to that interesting point to me, which is frightening, when the state tells the church what to do."
Matthews took the Obama administration's decision to its logical conclusion: "If they start financing, under the law, what they are called to do, do they have any more credibility on the issue of birth control or anything else?"
Matthews as a Catholic, is more concerned with the Church's credibility than we are. What we are concerned with, however is, if the state can force you to sign up for health insurance and they can force employers into policy which violates their religious beliefs, what can't they do?
That battle cry of "Keep your laws off my body" from years past has now fallen strangely silent from the lips of shamelessly hypocritical liberals whom we now can only assume used the term "choice" as a false front for the singular purpose of the unfettered right to abortion on demand.
.
Modern liberalism: all the courage of conviction of a zombified runway model
.
But help may be on the way. As much as they have cheezed us off over the years, the ACLU has still managed to find its way to our side of an issue from time to time and certainly with respect to the federal government violating religious conscience, this outfit would see its way to defending the oppressed.
The ACLU's Alicia Gay warns that the "powerful lobbying arm of the Catholic Church" mistakenly claims that the HHS contraception mandate violates their religious liberty.
Individuals who choose not to pay for employees' contraceptives, the ACLU counters, are forcing their beliefs on their employees.
"The fundamental promise of religious liberty in this country doesn’t create a right to impose those views on others, including ignoring civil rights laws or denying critical health care," Gay insists.
.
Wait, what?
How in god's name is choosing not to cover contraceptives in one's healthcare plan forcing a belief? We were unaware that employees covered by Catholic healthcare plans were unable to obtain contraceptives outside those same plans.
Congratulations, ACLU. Never more will we even attempt to give you the benefit of the doubt in such matters as religious freedom and violation of conscience: wholly unprincipled tools of the state is all you are.
.
And for those many Catholic organizations that jumped in bed with the Obama administration back in 2009 and '10 when ObamaCare was being ground out: how does that 8 AM walk of shame feel now?
A round-up of news items, articles, columns and blog posts that caught our eye this past week.
Our blog buddy, Harrison is taking a little winter vacation and has just wrapped up his visit to Yellowstone. Check out his site here for some great pictures and where he makes this observation regarding the self-serve and self-regulated warming huts in and around the Park:
I wonder what would happen were one of the Yellowstone warming huts to be set up in San Francisco, New York City, Detroit, Boston, or Seattle? The axe would certainly be stolen and used to commit a crime. The logs would disappear as well while the iron fireplace would be extinguished and be covered in graffiti before being stolen for scrap, and the building itself would be occupied by a bunch of smelly losers with no job until the police were called in to evict everybody before the structure was torn down.
He's right and which helps explain why collectivism on any large scale doesn't work. Counting on moral and cooperative behavior on anything of a larger scale than a warming hut and a "population" more prone to self-sufficient and altruistic motives is simply a fool's errand.
Most people are familiar with so-called affirmative action policies that favor blacks (purportedly to redress past discrimination) and Hispanics and penalize whites. Racial preferences are discriminatory toward individuals of Asian descent as well.
According to Bloomberg, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights is investigating complaints that Harvard and Princeton discriminate against Asian students in admissions.
Naturally, the schools deny the claims. Harvard “does not discriminate against Asian-American applicants,” spokesman Jeff Neal told Bloomberg. “Our review of every applicant’s file is highly individualized and holistic, as we give serious consideration to all of the information we receive and all of the ways in which the candidate might contribute to our vibrant educational environment and community.”
Apparently, it may also extend to athletics...
"I'm sorry, sir, there is no volleyball at the gym tonight"
Jeremy Lin, currently the toast of Manhattan as he has been tearing it up of late for a Carmelo Anthony-less New York Knicks (addition by subtraction - Anthony is one of the most talented yet clueless players in the NBA right now). Lin, a Taiwanese-American, born in L.A. and raised in Palo Alto, CA, was asked to walk on at several Pac-10 schools after a highly-decorated high school career, instead enrolled at, um, Harvard. He signed as an un-drafted free agent with the Golden State Warriors and did some D-league duty before signing with the Knicks prior to this season. According to Pops, the Lakers had a shot at signing him, ultimately passing on that opportunity. Man, they could use that shot in the arm he is now providing the Knicks.
Barack Obama's politics meant nothing to Samuel L. Jackson because the "Pulp Fiction" star only voted for the president for one reason and one reason only ... because he's black.
In an interview with Ebony magazine, Jackson explained, "I voted for Barack because he was black. 'Cuz that's why other folks vote for other people — because they look like them ... That's American politics, pure and simple. [Obama's] message didn't mean [bleep] to me."
We know for a fact that's why a lot of white people voted for him.
The officers on Saturday got Cover to stop filming, not by telling him to cease recording or seizing his camera. They told him he was loitering, and that he had to move along or risk arrest.
It's a caveat - some might say loophole - in the new general order publicly trotted out by police on Friday, three days before they're due in court to argue in a lawsuti brought by the ACLU that they are properly addressing citizen's right to record.
The new rule says that citizens have an "absolute right" to photograph or video record the enforcement actions taking place in public view. The chief legal counsel for the agency called it "an extension of the citizen's right to see. [An officer] wouldn't go up to a citizen at a crime scene and tell them to close their eyes, so the officer can't tell them they can't film."
But the rules also says that the person recording may not "violate any section of any law, ordinance, code or criminal article" - such as loitering - while doing so. The officers on Cross Street seemed aware of that fine print.
Funny, we didn't see the ol' "loitering" charge brought out against Occupy. Good thing the ACLU is all over this. Did we mention that the ACLU can go straight to hell?
Without former Michigan Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak, President Barack Obama wouldn’t have gotten his health care overhaul in 2010 passed through Congress.
But Stupak, a pro-life Catholic who voted for the health care reform after being promised that federal dollars wouldn’t fund abortions, now isn’t happy with Obama.
Appearing Wednesday night on Fox News, Stupak made clear he opposes the Obama administration’s insistence that religious-affiliated organizations are not exempted from the law’s requirement that health insurance plans cover contraceptives.
“I’m disappointed that the administration would put forth such a rule,” Stupak told host Greta Van Susteren.
Stupak? Really? No one gives a rat's ass what this guy has to say. His name will go down in political history as being synonymous for getting rolled and being played for a total chump. See also: "patsy" and "tool".
Oh, and Dionne is all whiny also:
Another liberal Catholic who isn’t happy with the new rule is columnist E.J. Dionne of The Washington Post.
In his column, Dionne recently wrote that Obama “utterly botched the admittedly difficult question of how contraceptive services should be treated under the new health-care law.”
“His administration mishandled this decision not once but twice,” he wrote. “In the process, Obama threw his progressive Catholic allies under the bus and strengthened the hand of those inside the Church who had originally sought to derail the health-care law.”
Oh, please. Dionne is bent because Team O has made such political hash of this mandate business rather than being upset over any religious conscience violation.
You give this much unilateral authority to one department and specifically one person in Health and Human Services Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, who serves at the pleasure of the most radical pro-abortion administration ever, what the hell were these people expecting?
That the respective priests of Sebelius, Kerry, and Pelosi have the balls to deny them communion. What absolute disgraces.
Students at Shippensburg University in Pennsylvania can get the "morning-after" pill by sliding $25 into a vending machine, an idea that has drawn the attention of federal regulators and raised questions about how accessible emergency contraception should be.
The student health center at Shippensburg, a secluded public institution of 8,300 students tucked between mountain ridges in the Cumberland Valley, provides the Plan B One Step emergency contraceptive in the vending machine along with condoms, decongestants and pregnancy tests.
"I think it's great that the school is giving us this option," junior Chelsea Wehking said Tuesday. "I've heard some kids say they'd be too embarrassed" to go into town -- Shippensburg, permanent population about 6,000 -- and buy Plan B.
So, let's get this straight: accessability is such an urgent and pressing issue for contraceptives that they are now vending machine-ready yet the thugs in the Obama administration are forcing Catholic employers to provide the same, free of charge, to their emplyees. Got it. Not an option, there, Chelsea.
OK, gang. That's probably it for today. We'll see you all tomorrow.
Good news on the religious freedom front and in the fight against the free contraception mandate imposed by the federal healthcare law aka ObamaCare and specifically with Hobby Lobby's efforts in court to be exempted from this mandate.
A federal appeals court in Denver has reversed a lower court's decision to deny Hobby Lobby Stores Inc.'s quest for an injunction against part of the Affordable Care Act that requires it to cover the cost of emergency contraceptives for some of its employees.
In a 168-page ruling issued Thursday, the appellate court sent Hobby Lobby case back to a lower court for further review.
The panel of nine appellate court judges who heard arguments in the case in May ruled unanimously that Hobby Lobby and its affiliated Christian bookstore chain Mardel have the right to sue over the Affordable Care Act.
The ruling is a blow to the federal government's argument that as for-profit corporations, the companies cannot claim that the health care law is a violation of constitutionally protected religious freedoms.
Five of the nine judges found that Hobby Lobby meets at least part of the legal standard to receive a temporary injunction against the health care law while its lawsuit is ongoing.
The other four judges said the company fully meets the legal standard and that the appellate court should order the lower court to grant the company an injunction.
Hobby Lobby's lawsuit will now head back to U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, which earlier ruled against Hobby Lobby's quest for relief from the health care law.
Beginning in July, the company faces fines of as much as $1.3 million a day for failing to comply with the health care law.
Of course, as free market types, we're perplexed by this distinction between for-profit and non-profits in the given context, as in, what the hell is the federal government doing in the health insurance business in the first place?
Somehow other lines of business from the auto manufacturing industry to the bar and restaurant industry can provide a dizzying array of options for customers without being told what cars to make or what to put on the menu or on tap by the federal government. And if they can't figure out what the public wants, they go out of business. No harm, no foul.* Why should the health insurance industry be any different?
No matter, we'll take these victories in shoving it up ObamaCare's wazoo where we can.
And in totally related news and in the wake of the Supreme Court decisions on the Defense of Marriage Act and California's Prop. 8, the President moved quickly to assure everybody that despite those victories for proponents of same-sex marriage, he would not force churches to perform same-sex marriages.
Of course, we were thrilled with this monumentally magnanimous gesture towards the rule of law and constitutional republicanism as dubious as his actions have been in those areas.
However, remembering this is the same person who is forcing Catholic health insurance providers to provide free contraceptive and abortive devices, his reassurances have, in our humble opinion, the staying power of a puddle of water on a strip of pavement on an August afternoon in Yuma.
* Any Chick Hearn reference automatically raises the quality of your post/article by 15%-28%. This advice is free of charge. You're welcome.
This is a re-post of a running series/theme we started around two years ago and which seems quite timely given the date on the calendar. Please feel free to share with your Bush-hating and/or undecided friends.
.
You've waited six long months for it, but we've finally got around to our running post that either makes Bush-hating liberals squirm or perhaps develop a severe case of amnesia regarding what they were saying about the man from about 2003 to the very early part of 2009.
First, however, a totally related Fast and Furious update:
Prior to the miserable hack that runs the Justice Department getting a Congressional Oversight committee contempt charge leveled at him (House floor vote coming next week) for stonewalling on the upper reaches of the Justice Department's knowledge and involvement in Fast and Furious, the federal government's (contrary to what the article below says) highly successful gun-running scheme, he was granted Executive Privilege from his BFF, the President (perhaps a little pay-back for the home-work assignment Holder was tasked after the President said it would be unprecedented for the Supreme Court to strike down a law that was on the books).
From the NY Times (whose article at the link may constitute more column-inches on F&F than all other articles they published on the same subject combined):
Republicans on the House oversight committee voted on Wednesday to recommend holding Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. in contempt of Congress in a dispute over internal Justice Department documents related to the botched gun trafficking operation known as “Fast and Furious.”
The 23-to-17 vote, which fell along party lines, came after President Obama invoked executive privilege to withhold the documents and communications among Justice Department officials last year as they grappled with the Congressional investigation into the case. As part of the operation, weapons bought in the United States were allowed to reach a Mexican drug cartel in an effort to build a bigger case.
It was the first time that Mr. Obama had asserted the privilege since taking office, and it sharpened the long-festering dispute between Mr. Holder and Representative Darrell Issa, Republican of California, the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Democrats called for the panel to hold off voting on the contempt citation during an often acrimonious partisan debate, but Republicans pressed forward with it.
Now take a wild guess who wasn't too keen on Executive Privlege just a short 5 years ago? If you guessed the back-bench senator from the Land of Lincoln, take a seat at the head of the class.
You may have thought that the perfectly legal firing of political appointees to be somewhat unseemly but it's not even in the same ballpark when it comes to 2 dead federal agents, hundreds of dead Mexican officials and innocent civilians and scads of guns that are still un-accounted for.
Exit question before the roll call: If, as Holder has asserted, the President had no knowledge of Fast and Furious, how then does Executive Privilege apply?
And now, the O > W electric boogaloo (newbies set off by asteriks):
Closing Keeping open Gitmo.
Ending Formalizing the indefinite detention of suspected terrorists.
Ending Maintaining military tribunals.
Not letting unemployment get above 8 10.5 percent with a $800 billion stimulus package.
Discontinuing Continuing other Bush-era policies like rendition, Project Gunrunner and TARP.
Shutting down Operating a seeming revolving door between the White House and Wall Street and K Street.
Signing legislation that would allow the military to indefinitely detain terror suspects, including American citizens arrested in the United States, without charge. Got 4th amendment? Not anymore, you don't.
Pushing through health care reform legislation in the sleaziest, most cynical, un-hopenchangey and business-as-usual manner possible.
Actually authorizing a drone strike hit that killed American-born Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan (from this point forward, we never... never want to hear a peep about water-boarding)
*Forcing Catholic institutions to violate their faith conscience by not only mandating them to provide coverage for contraceptives but making it completely free of charge as well.*
Our system of checks and balances and separation of powers was set up this way to prevent acts of tyranny, a lesson this part-time Constitutional law lecturer didn't forget - he just never believed it in the first place.
Please let us know if there is anything about the above that does not make him absolutely power-mad and Bush a complete rank amateur in that department by comparison.
The more we think about it, the more we think this Bush/Obama mash-up does an extreme disservice to President Bush.
Share it. Share it, brothers and sisters with friends, family and particularly all those alleged Bush-hating Obama supporters to see who it is are the hypocrites in your life. Maybe they aren't hypocrites, however. Maybe they were just jealous that all that Costitution-shredding and amassing of executive power wasn't being done by their guy. Well, they're getting back in spades, now.
One of two chimeras worked into the contraceptive "compromise"/"revision" by the Obama aministration a couple of weeks ago was that Catholic employers would not have to pay directly for the subject contraceptives or abortifacients and that cost would be covered by the insurance companies (the other being that the Catholic employers could strike that specific policy language from the policy... but they'd be forced to provide it anyway. No, really. This is what passes for legislative and policy logic with these people).
Insurance providers, as you might imagine, we're rather puzzled by this turn of events.
The insurance industry is concerned it will take a hit from the Obama administration’s mandate that they provide birth control in health plans for employees of religious organizations that object to the coverage.
Publicly, the health insurance industry has avoided getting involved in the fight.
But in private, the industry is dubious of the administration’s argument that the insurance industry wouldn't take a hit because birth control is cheaper than unwanted pregnancies.
The trade group America's Health Insurance Plans has limited its comments to saying it worries about the "precedent" the mandate would set. The concern is that the government could eventually require health plans to cover any number of preventive services – even prescription drugs - without copays or deductibles, under the theory that they save money in the long-term.
When the text of ObamaCare has over 700 instances of "The Secretary (of Health and Human Services) "may" or "shall", insurance providers have every reason to worry about arbitrary mandate shenanigans in the future.
They would also like to remind everyone that "free" really isn't free.
Privately, however, insurers say there's nothing "free" about preventing unwarranted pregnancies. They say the mandate also covers costly surgical sterilization procedures, and that in any case even the pill has up-front costs.
"Saying it's revenue-neutral doesn't mean it's free and that you're not paying for it," an industry source told The Hill.
Doctors still have to be paid to prescribe the pill, drugmakers and pharmacists have to be paid to provide it - and all that money has to come from insurance premiums, not future hypothetical savings, the source said.
This notion of long-range savings from the prevention of unwanted pregnancies doesn't really do the insurance companies any good as they are expected to balance their sheets and turn a profit this year.
So, if in the "revision", Catholic employers/employees are freed the burden from paying for this, who is going to pay for it?
It's not clear how those costs would be passed on. The regulation bars the health insurance plans from raising the religiously-affiliated employers' premiums, so it's possible workers at companies that directly offer contraceptive coverage would get stuck with higher premiums to make up the lost revenue.
Excellent. Paying for someone else, not even covered under the same policy, to have sex.
For a bill that wasn't even read, stand by for a continuing stream of absolutely non-sensical and confounding "revisions" and "compromises".
And it is duly noted that the only time the statist-left becomes interested in cost-savings, they are talking condoms and the pill.
We leave you this evening with the Master, talkin' about "free":
"No doubt we could go on forever..."
No, actually since Friedman laid waste to that smug professor's notion of "free", we can all go home now.
The President's assurances that if you liked your health care coverage, you could keep it, not very reflective of reality. National Franciscan University, to our knowledge, becomes the first but certainly not the last Catholic institution to stop providing health care coverage to their students and employees.
National Franciscan University appears to be the first casualty of the new Obama HHS mandate that requires Catholic colleges, groups and businesses to pay for drugs that may cause abortions and birth control for their employees.
Although President Barack Obama declared "If you like your health care coverage you can keep it," when it came to passing Obamacare, a Catholic college in Ohio has determined it will no longer offer a student health insurance plan.
"The Obama Administration has mandated that all health insurance plans must cover "women's health services" including contraception, sterilization, and abortion-causing medications as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)," the university says in a new post on its website. "Up to this time, Franciscan University has specifically excluded these services and products from its student health insurance policy, and we will not participate in a plan that requires us to violate the consistent teachings of the Catholic Church on the sacredness of human life."
And it's not just the conscience violations that are cause for Franciscan University for dropping their healthcare coverage. When you mandate additional coverage, that has to come out of hide somewhere and almost invariably that hide will be increased premiums for the individual.
"Additionally, the PPACA increased the mandated maximum coverage amount for student policies to $100,000 for the 2012-13 school year, which would effectively double your premium cost for the policy in fall 2012, with the expectation of further increases in the future," FUS continues.
"Due to these changes in regulation by the federal government, beginning with the 2012-13 school year, the University 1) will no longer require that all full-time undergraduate students carry health insurance, 2) will no longer offer a student health insurance plan, and 3) will no longer bill those not covered under a parent/guardian plan or personal plan for student health insurance," the college said.
(italics, ours)
Expectation. Allow us to translate: With a healthcare law littered with verbage like "The Secretary (of Health and Human Services) shall determine...", you can expect even more mandates for additional coverage and thus higher costs.
Back to the linked article:
Franciscan University says the current student health insurance plan will expire on August 15.
Writing at CatholicVote, Tom Crowe, an employee at Franciscan University, blamed the mandate for Franciscan's decision.
"Employers, until Obamacare was passed, were not compelled to offer health insurance but they did do because it is expected and good for business-good luck getting top-notch employees if health insurance coverage is not among the benefits. Under Obamacare employers can both assure that employees have health insurance coverage by dumping them onto the exchanges, and can save lots of money and headache. Win-win," he writes. "But now there is another device by which Obamacare violates the "if you like it you can keep it" pledge: the HHS Mandate."
Bingo. For all you folks out there bummed out that ObamaCare did not contatain a public option: relax. Through a combination of heavy-handed dictates and inherent incompetence written into the law, expect many, many more Americans to get booted from plans they like and dumped into expensive, one-size-fits-all government exchanges subsidized by the tax payer.
More from Crowe:
"See, part of reason I like my current health insurance plan offered by my employer, Franciscan University of Steubenville, is that it does not waste money on things I will never use because they are morally repugnant to me, like contraceptives, sterilization, and abortofacients. The HHS mandate purports to force me into a plan that I do not want rather than the plan I've been very happy with. But that's a still-pending issue because of the one-year extension given (not that we will comply even after a year, of course)," he continues
.
In a similar vein of befuddlement, our healthcare plan covers us for drug and alcohol counseling which we find highly dubious because we figure if we put ourselves into that situation where we required counseling, we should pay for it out of pocket instead of putting the rest of our risk pool on the hook for it. We're paying higher premiums for coverage we find morally objectionable and which we cannot opt out of.
How about a little smack? Mr. Crowe?:
Crowe says the Obama mandate has left students "high and dry" and some students now may not have health insurance as a result.
"Who knows how many will have insurance, how many will not, how many will have insurance of the quality we offered before, how many will be able to stay on their parents' insurance through the extended adolescence provision of Obamacare," he writes. "But there you have it: thanks to the government's firm desire to make sure the one or two women left in the country who did not have easy and cheap access to contraceptives, abortofacients, and sterilization procedures, our 2,500 students will no longer have an insurance plan ready and waiting for them."
(italics, again, ours)
Our buddy and devout Catholic, KT of The Scratching Post shared his thoughts on the matter via email:
This is really sad. What a waste of time. Five years ago (to pick a time frame at random), these Catholic institutions were behaving normally, educating kids and providing social services. Now they have to waste their time fighting that idiot, Obama. And all of it so he could score a couple of political points with single women.
You don't need to be a Catholic or even a person of faith to realize what a grave threat to freedom ObamaCare represents.
The One who came to unite has only served to divide us instead.
This is a re-post of a running series/theme we started around two years ago and which seems quite timely given the date on the calendar. Please feel free to share with your Bush-hating and/or undecided friends.
.
You've waited six long months for it, but we've finally got around to our running post that either makes Bush-hating liberals squirm or perhaps develop a severe case of amnesia regarding what they were saying about the man from about 2003 to the very early part of 2009.
First, however, a totally related Fast and Furious update:
Prior to the miserable hack that runs the Justice Department getting a Congressional Oversight committee contempt charge leveled at him (House floor vote coming next week) for stonewalling on the upper reaches of the Justice Department's knowledge and involvement in Fast and Furious, the federal government's (contrary to what the article below says) highly successful gun-running scheme, he was granted Executive Privilege from his BFF, the President (perhaps a little pay-back for the home-work assignment Holder was tasked after the President said it would be unprecedented for the Supreme Court to strike down a law that was on the books).
From the NY Times (whose article at the link may constitute more column-inches on F&F than all other articles they published on the same subject combined):
Republicans on the House oversight committee voted on Wednesday to recommend holding Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. in contempt of Congress in a dispute over internal Justice Department documents related to the botched gun trafficking operation known as “Fast and Furious.”
The 23-to-17 vote, which fell along party lines, came after President Obama invoked executive privilege to withhold the documents and communications among Justice Department officials last year as they grappled with the Congressional investigation into the case. As part of the operation, weapons bought in the United States were allowed to reach a Mexican drug cartel in an effort to build a bigger case.
It was the first time that Mr. Obama had asserted the privilege since taking office, and it sharpened the long-festering dispute between Mr. Holder and Representative Darrell Issa, Republican of California, the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Democrats called for the panel to hold off voting on the contempt citation during an often acrimonious partisan debate, but Republicans pressed forward with it.
Now take a wild guess who wasn't too keen on Executive Privlege just a short 5 years ago? If you guessed the back-bench senator from the Land of Lincoln, take a seat at the head of the class.
You may have thought that the perfectly legal firing of political appointees to be somewhat unseemly but it's not even in the same ballpark when it comes to 2 dead federal agents, hundreds of dead Mexican officials and innocent civilians and scads of guns that are still un-accounted for.
Exit question before the roll call: If, as Holder has asserted, the President had no knowledge of Fast and Furious, how then does Executive Privilege apply?
And now, the O > W electric boogaloo (newbies set off by asteriks):
Closing Keeping open Gitmo.
Ending Formalizing the indefinite detention of suspected terrorists.
Ending Maintaining military tribunals.
Not letting unemployment get above 8 10.5 percent with a $800 billion stimulus package.
Discontinuing Continuing other Bush-era policies like rendition, Project Gunrunner and TARP.
Shutting down Operating a seeming revolving door between the White House and Wall Street and K Street.
Signing legislation that would allow the military to indefinitely detain terror suspects, including American citizens arrested in the United States, without charge. Got 4th amendment? Not anymore, you don't.
Pushing through health care reform legislation in the sleaziest, most cynical, un-hopenchangey and business-as-usual manner possible.
Actually authorizing a drone strike hit that killed American-born Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan (from this point forward, we never... never want to hear a peep about water-boarding)
*Forcing Catholic institutions to violate their faith conscience by not only mandating them to provide coverage for contraceptives but making it completely free of charge as well.*
Our system of checks and balances and separation of powers was set up this way to prevent acts of tyranny, a lesson this part-time Constitutional law lecturer didn't forget - he just never believed it in the first place.
Please let us know if there is anything about the above that does not make him absolutely power-mad and Bush a complete rank amateur in that department by comparison.
The more we think about it, the more we think this Bush/Obama mash-up does an extreme disservice to President Bush.
Share it. Share it, brothers and sisters with friends, family and particularly all those alleged Bush-hating Obama supporters to see who it is are the hypocrites in your life. Maybe they aren't hypocrites, however. Maybe they were just jealous that all that Costitution-shredding and amassing of executive power wasn't being done by their guy. Well, they're getting back in spades, now.
Do you remember when the President told us that if we liked our current health care plan, we could keep it? Well, you could keep it unless you are a Catholic.
The following is the entire text of a letter issued by U.S. Catholic bishops voicing their objections to what they feel are the conscience-violating provisions of ObamaCare and which according to Gateway Pundit was read in churches across the country on Sunday:
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ:
I write to you concerning an alarming and serious matter that negatively impacts the Church in the United States directly, and that strikes at the fundamental right to liberty for all citizens of any faith. The federal government, which claims to be “of, by, and for the people,” has just been dealt a heavy blow to almost a quarter of those people — the Catholic population — and to the millions more who are served by the Catholic faithful.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced last week that almost all employers, including Catholic employers, will be forced to offer their employees’ health coverage that includes sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs, and contraception. Almost all health insurers will be forced to include those “services” in the health policies they write. And almost all individuals will be forced to buy that coverage as a part of their policies.
In so ruling, the Obama Administration has cast aside the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, denying to Catholics our Nation’s first and most fundamental freedom, that of religious liberty. And as a result, unless the rule is overturned, we Catholics will be compelled to either violate our consciences, or to drop health coverage for our employees (and suffer the penalties for doing so). The Obama Administration’s sole concession was to give our institutions one year to comply.
We cannot—we will not—comply with this unjust law. People of faith cannot be made second class citizens. We are already joined by our brothers and sisters of all faiths and many others of good will in this important effort to regain our religious freedom. Our parents and grandparents did not come to these shores to help build America’s cities and towns, its infrastructure and institutions, its enterprise and culture, only to have their posterity stripped of their God given rights. In generations past, the Church has always been able to count on the faithful to stand up and protect her sacred rights and duties. I hope and trust she can count on this generation of Catholics to do the same. Our children and grandchildren deserve nothing less.
And therefore, I would ask of you two things. First, as a community of faith we must commit ourselves to prayer and fasting that wisdom and justice may prevail, and religious liberty may be restored. Without God, we can do nothing; with God, nothing is impossible. Second, I would also recommend visiting www.usccb.org/conscience,to learn more about this severe assault on religious liberty, and how to contact Congress in support of legislation that would reverse the Obama Administration’s decision.
Sincerely yours in Christ,
+Alexander K. Sample
Most Reverend Alexander K. Sample
Bishop of Marquette
(emphasis, ours)
We blogged about this last week, here. We're not letting this go as this represents perfectly how ObamaCare isn't about providing better health care to more Americans but rather it's about control and power. What better way to flex authoritarian muscle than by trampling over a group's religious beliefs and tenents. To wit, we were heretofore unaware that the contraceptives Catholic employers will now be forced to provide their employees were so inaccessible.
And it matters not whether you are a person of faith... If you are a person of freedom this should chap your hide and compel you to question whether or not your government takes the 1st amendment seriously and what it is they will force you to do that would violate your conscience. It's only a matter of time
We stand in solidarity with the Catholic church against this assault on religious freedom and their stand against these egregious provisions in ObamaCare.
Taking heat all week for their decision to force Catholic employers to provide, free of charge, contraceptives and sterilization procedures to their employees, the White House trotted out Celia Munoz in the hopes of smoothing things over. From the White House blog:
Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, most health insurance plans will cover women’s preventive services, including contraception, without charging a co-pay or deductible beginning in August, 2012. This new law will save money for millions of Americans. But more importantly, it will ensure Americans nationwide get the high-quality care they need to stay healthy. Under this policy, women who want contraception will have access to it through their insurance without paying a co-pay or deductible.
These economic illiterates that have infested the White House like vermin have yet to adequately explain to anyone how offering a "free" good or servie will make the overall cost of healthcare go down. Someone is paying for that good or service. Oh, that's right - that someone is you paying for someone else's entirely elective procedure in the form of higher premiums. So, again, where is the money saved?
And lest you think they are heartless bastards for "forcing" Catholic employers to provide free birth control pills and what not, just check out the compassion oozing forth:
•No individual health care provider will be forced to prescribe contraception: The President and this Administration have previously and continue to express strong support for existing conscience protections. For example, no Catholic doctor is forced to write a prescription for contraception.
• No individual will be forced to buy or use contraception: This rule only applies to what insurance companies cover. Under this policy, women who want contraception will have access to it through their insurance without paying a co-pay or deductible. But no one will be forced to buy or use contraception.
Well, color us relieved. Relieved that no one is going to have their jaws wired open for forced injestion of the pill and relieved that any deemed undesirables are not going to be spirited off in the dead of night to an undisclosed location for any forced sterilization procedures. We feel so much better now. Thanks for the clarification, Celia.
We're that we were not forced to be subjected to this entire ObamaCare debacle in the first place.
We're not letting this go and if the reception given to upstate Democratic New York representative Kathy Hochul at a town hall meeting Thursday night is any indication, neither are a few other people.
"We were taking care of this country's sick long before the government got involved"
And as for this "accommodation" Hochul speaks of, either she has been misinformed or she is outright lying as Catholic employers will not have the choice, nay, they will be forced to provide contraceptive devices in their insurance plans. Catholics and other persons of freedom realize this and this is why this issue is not fading away as Team O has hoped.
Related:
We had to revisit the WaPo column written a month ago by liberal Catholic, E. J. Dionne and what he said that continues to misrepresent/mislead the public in this particular debate (for the record, Dionne is not specifically against the mandate, he's just bummed that the Prez botched the optics on it):
Speaking as a Catholic, I wish the Church would be more open on the contraception question. But speaking as an American liberal who believes that religious pluralism imposes certain obligations on government, I think the Church’s leaders had a right to ask for broader relief from a contraception mandate that would require it to act against its own teachings. The administration should have done more to balance the competing liberty interests here.
(italics, ours)
Competing liberty interests...
That would mean there are more than one liberty interest, right? Well, we certainly can identify one and that would be the Catholic church and Catholic employers. But who is/are the other competing liberty interests? There is/are none. The other side of the debate wants Catholic employers to provide free of charge, contraceptives and abortifacients. That has nothing at all to do with liberty... nothing. Nothing that is unless you are coming from a cultural and societal viewpoint that makes up rights out of thin air.
A right to affordable housing, a right to a job and a now reproductive rights means that the government can insert itself into the role of the Catholic Church and compel them to violate their conscience with this "accommodation".
Now, how's that for some separation of church and state?
Sean Stone, son of American Oscar-winning director Oliver Stone, said on Wednesday that Islam is the religion of justice and equality.
'Unfortunately, those displaying grievances over the injustice imposed by the capitalist and liberal governing system in the worldwide Occupy protests are not aware that they would not achieve their goals in the absence divine religions and Islam as well,' Sean said.
Not to mention being the religion of stonings, honor killings and genital mutilation. So, yeah, maybe Islam and Occupy is a good fit.
Here is what Cardinal Bernardin said in the Gannon Lecture at Fordham University that he delivered in 1983:
Those who defend the right to life of the weakest among us must be equally visible in support of the quality of life of the powerless among us: the old and the young, the hungry and the homeless, the undocumented immigrant and the unemployed worker.
When you start equating the rights of the unborn to clothing the homeless, you start backing yourself into some morally untenable situations.
Selling out to social justice will do that for you. Go ahead and read the whole excellent piece at Ricochet.
Is it really for the kids? We start watching our backside whenever we hear about legislation couched in that manner.
Leslie at Temple of Mut wonders why her children and church are being weaponized against her.
But let's also be clear about the game being played by the rest of the EU. An anonymous commenter previously posted that it is not really that big a deal if the Greeks default, the worry is the example set and the impact to banks. Much of the worry has been about the spread of bank failure if Greek default causes Italian and Spanish bond yields to rise. Once again, too big to fail leads to irrational economic policy. No one wants to learn this lesson, not the U.S. and not the Europeans. Heck even the Chinese prop up their banks with enforced savings and below market interest rates for the working stiff. So instead of too big to fail, why don't we require ever increasing capital reserve requirements as banks become larger? That would make it harder for big banks to leverage access to cheap capital from the Fed to make easy money, but that should be their problem.
No, you wouldn't. No, you wouldn't be mistaken if you sensed a complete lack of seriousness, worldwide, when it comes to making hard decisions with respect to sovereign debt. It's 10 PM, the final exam is tomorrow but everbody in the dorm is munching out on Hot Pockets and playing Mortal Combat.
This is why the wisdom of America's founders is so profound. We are supposed to be a society where people on their unique paths are free to join or separate in the pursuit of happiness. Even if you take a dead end job, you have the opportunity to become your own boss through individual effort. Unions, governments and other tyrants should not control the fate of you, your property or your hopes and dreams.
We are here for a fleeting moment in time. Forge your own path or join with us who wish to ensure future liberty. Whatever you decide, do not give up, do not surrender, and do not lose your dreams. Andy Whitfield pursued his happiness and contributed to freedom, so can you.
After a months-long absence Secular Apostate is back. Check out his most excellent blog at the link.
OK, gang. That's probably it for today. We hope to enjoy the remainder of our 3-day weekend so we'll most likely give the staff the rest of the day off and see everybody tomorrow.
.
A round-up of news items, columns, articles and blog posts that caught our eye this past week.
.
Work prevented us from attending one of the many "Stand Up for Religious Freedom" rallies that were held around the country on Friday.
One who did, Dawn Wildman of the Southern California Tax Revolt Coalition had this to say:
Today I attended one of the 140 Stand Up for Religious Freedom rallies. This one took place in San Diego, CA , where over 2000 people exercised their First Amendment right in all its forms. They stood up against the HHS mandate that flies in the face of their religious beliefs. They held a peaceful assembly of citizens seeking redress of the federal government due to this latest assault on the US Constitution. For those that are a little fuzzy on the First Amendment this is it in its entirety:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So while Congress did not actually make the HHS mandate which forces religious affiliates as employers to pay for and give their employees free contraception, it is still the government under the tutelage of Secretary Sebilius who is demanding that religious organizations facilitate this law. Many speakers referenced this mandate as a “conscience tax” and I couldn’t agree more.
I was struck by how impassioned both the speakers and participants were. The President's policies are uniting people of faith against him. The speakers all spoke of the importance of freedom and conscience to the proper functioning of government. They spoke of the continued assault on religious liberty. They spoke of the laughable accounting shell game of the administration: "Religious associations don't have to pay for birth control, only their insurers will be required to provide that." My personal estimate was that about 700 people turned up. We got honks of support throughout the rally.
“Religious freedom is not a gift from politicians: It is a gift from God,” said Bishop Flores. “Today’s debate is not about the access to contraceptives…it is about the federal government forcing the Church to act against its teachings”.
And Leslie of Temple of Mut has a very comprehensive round-up here to which she adds:
Our opponents must be very worried. They sense they have “awakened a sleeping giant and filled it with a terrible resolve”. The elite media reports I am reviewing, with the jaundiced eye of a recovering reporter, are going out of their way to minimize this unification of religious faiths across this country in standing behind the Catholic Church in its defiance to implement the Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate to offer contraceptive/abortion/sterilization coverage in health plans.
For those of you in the tea party/freedom coalition movement who are either pining for or conversely running away from any social issues, relax! This issue is perfect. An authoritative and overreaching government mandating goods and services provisions upon a private entity and which also happens to violate the fundamental religious conscience of a religious entity. What are we missing?
If you wanted an issue over which to beat the head of a dreadful administration and which also helps define your guiding principles, it doesn't get any more basic and fundamental than the 1st amendment, gang, so let's have at it and pull no punches!
And speaking of dreadful... similar to his Skip Gates the police acted stupidly remarks, the President can't help putting his foot in his mouth whenever he goes off-script and away from the teleprompter.
President Barack Obama weighed in Friday on the shooting of unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin, calling it a national tragedy — and saying that the young man reminded him of his own children.
"When I think about this boy, I think about my own kids," Obama said in the Rose Garden. "I think every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this. And that everybody pull together."
Obama has come under fire from some black leaders for failing to comment on a case that has become a major national story — and brought thousands of Americans into the streets for demonstrations calling for the arrest of Martin's shooter. One black leader even wondered why Obama called a Georgetown student who was attacked by Rush Limbaugh but not Martin's family. Obama's comments Friday represent the first time the president has addressed the growing controversy.
"My main message is to the parents of Trayvon Martin. You know, if I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon,"
Obama said. "All of us as Americans are going to take this with the seriousness it deserves."
That's his main message? Bizarre yet entirely predictable. There you have it, ladies and gentlemen: when asked to offer some commentary and perspective on the shooting, he serves up one of the most self-serving and narcissitic statements we have ever heard. Gawd, this guy is a piece of work.
"Obviously we wish Solyndra hadn't gone bankrupt. Part of the reason they did was the Chinese were subsidizing their solar industry and flooding the market in ways Solyndra couldn't compete. But understand, this was not our program per se."
-- President Obama talking to National Public Radio's "Marketplace."
President Obama is on a swing-state campaign blitz this week, looking to stifle voter anger over high energy prices. While the White House is casting the trip as an effort to lay out Obama's vision for future energy abundance, much of the message is aimed at reducing the supply of blame.
And how does that square with reality? From FactCheck.org:
President Obama exaggerated when defending his administration’s approval of a $535 million loan guarantee to Solyndra, a now-defunct solar company.
Obama referred to Solyndra’s loan at an Oct. 6 press conference as “a loan guarantee program that predates me.” That’s not accurate. It’s true that the Energy Policy Act of 2005 created a loan guarantee program for clean-energy companies developing “innovative technologies.” But Solyndra’s loan guarantee came under another program created by the president’s 2009 stimulus for companies developing “commercially available technologies.”
The president also overstated past Republican support for the program, saying “all of them in the past have been supportive of this loan guarantee program.” Republicans overwhelmingly opposed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, and some of them even voted against the Energy Policy Act of 2005 at a time when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress.
Independent auditors and even officials within the administration warned Team O that Solyndra was a dog but they cronied ahead anyway with highly favorable interest rates and then shoved their cronies to the front of the bankruptcy line ahead of the tax-payers when the $535 million house of cards came tumbling down.
Several key White House offices were involved with the Obama administration’s messaging plans and other preparations as the collapse of the taxpayer-backed solar company Solyndra was imminent, newly released documents show.
The latest White House documents delivered to House Republicans on Friday again highlight the extent to which senior administration officials braced for the fallout as Solyndra – a company President Obama had personally visited – was about to go under.
A White House memo that noted the danger of “imminent bankruptcy” at the end of August 2011 says, “OMB, DPC and NEC have been working with press and OLA to be prepared for this news to break.”
Acronym translation: OMB is the Office of Management and Budget, DPC is the Domestic Policy Council, NEC is the National Economic Council and OLA is the Office of Legal Affairs.
(italics, ours)
Working with the press? We were previously unaware that one of the job descriptions of the 4th estate was to frame a message and provide cover for incompetence if not outright malfeasance in the executive branch. We kind of knew it along along, however, there is still some shock value to see it mentioned in such a casual and matter-of-fact manner.
More media double-standard red meat, this time with respect to gas prices/energy policy:
Obamacare contains 20 new or higher taxes on American families and employers. Five are especially-harmful for women, be they Moms, singles, or retirees.
The jobs-killing Obamacare law contains 20 new or higher taxes on American families and employers. Many of these tax increases fall on families making less than $250,000--a direct violation of candidate Obama's promise not to raise "any form" of taxes on these families. In less than a week, the second anniversary of Obamacare being signed into law will take place. The Supreme Court will be hearing oral arguments about the constitutionality of Obamacare next week.
Out of the 20 new or higher taxes in Obamacare, here are the five that most hurt women.
Read about them at the link.
And finally, the way NFL commissioner Roger Goodell was firing off suspensions and fines this past Wednesday as punishment for the New Orleans Saints' participation in Bountygate reminded us of Michael Corleone wacking members of the other crime families in the baptism scene of the God Father I.
Sean Payton. Wack. Mickey Loomis. Blam. Greg Williams. Pop. Joe Vitt. Wham.
More carnage than we've ever seen in one day in the NFL. Lessons learned: don't lie, don't ever lie to Roger Goodell.
We've been running around so far this Labor Day weekend, up to Orange County to hang out with family and then back down again to San Diego to enjoy some opening weekend college football with friends. Result being, we have not had time to formulate any long-form thoughts on any of the events or happenings with respect to what went down at the Republican National Convention. A few observations will have to do.
With respect to Clint Eastwood's "empty chair" sketch: If you thought it was a bit rambling, non-sensical and perhaps even inappropriate, this is where you consider the fact that it's not Clint Eastwood that's a heartbeat away from the Presidency.
In fact, instead of a campaign sign in your front lawn, how about an empty chair?
Despite our increasingly libertarian ways, the RNC reminded us of why we are still registered (R)s. There was a message of optimism in the American ideal and that of the individual over the collective. If the previews of the DNC are to be believed, we will be getting healthy doses of cynicism, fear-mongering and victimhood.
But others saw it differently. Here's David Brooks, alleged house righty of the New York Times:
But there is a flaw in the vision the Republicans offered in Tampa. It is contained in its rampant hyperindividualism. Speaker after speaker celebrated the solitary and heroic individual. There was almost no talk of community and compassionate conservatism. There was certainly no conservatism as Edmund Burke understood it, in which individuals are embedded in webs of customs, traditions, habits and governing institutions.
Because the ideology and practical application of "compassionate conservatism" worked so well the last time around. Can we just all admit that Brooks is a double agent. We know it must be tough working for the Times and all, but it's obvious Brooks was not watching and listening to the same stuff we were.
The RNC was nothing but a parade of people giving thanks and paying homage to their their family, their faith... their community who supported their endeavors in both the public and private realms. Those were fantastic stories by credible and accomplished people who drew upon the strength of loved ones to accomplish what they did
.
Governor Susana Martinez talked of being a teenage security guard for her parents' start-up company there in New Mexico. A Latina talking gun rights and private enterprise all in one sentence. At that moment on Wednesday night, that sound you heard was the heads of liberals exploding.
We think we'll end things with one of the best lines of the convention delivered by, dare we say, the Republican Party's Jimmy Carter, Mike Huckabee:
I want to clear the air about something that has been said. People wonder whether guys like me, an evangelical, would only support a fellow evangelical? Well my friends I want to tell you something, of the four people on the two tickets, the only self-professed evangelical is Barack Obama. And he supports changing the definition of marriage. Believes that human life is disposable and expendable at any time in the wound, even beyond the womb. And he tells people of faith that they have to bow their knees to the God of government and violate their faith and conscience in order to comply with what he calls, health care. Friends I know we can do better.
Let me say it as clearly as possible, that the attack on my Catholic brothers and sisters is an attack on me.
The Democrats have brought back that old dance, the limbo. To see how low they can go in attempting to limit our ability to practice our faith. But this isn’t a battle about contraceptives and Catholics, but about conscience and the Creator. Let me say to you tonight, I care far less as to where Mitt Romney takes his family to church, than I do about where he takes this country.
Romney made his excellent "Religion in America" speech four years too early. He may need to dust off portions of it as it blew away Obama's odd, pedestrian, yet much-more ballyhooed "Race in America" speech.
Yes, it is about the economy, stupid, but Huck's message cut to the core of our founding ideals that we are an independent people whose right to practice or not practice religion shall not be infringed upon in any way by the government.
The unemployment numbers may dictate the outcome of this election but the overreach of government power that this administration has demonstrated should not be forgotten or overlooked by the electorate come November.
We're a little late to the party but we are having just too much fun with this particular subject.
Why it's not smart to make impertinent remarks regarding the courts' right to judicial review: you just might get assigned a homework project. Check that. You don't get that homework, rather your BFF does.
In the escalating battle between the administration and the judiciary, a federal appeals court apparently is calling the president's bluff -- ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law, according to a lawyer who was in the courtroom.
The order, by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, appears to be in direct response to the president's comments yesterday about the Supreme Court's review of the health care law. Mr. Obama all but threw down the gauntlet with the justices, saying he was "confident" the Court would not "take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."
Overturning a law of course would not be unprecedented -- since the Supreme Court since 1803 has asserted the power to strike down laws it interprets as unconstitutional. The three-judge appellate court appears to be asking the administration to admit that basic premise -- despite the president's remarks that implied the contrary. The panel ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power, the lawyer said.
(italics, ours)
Epic. Smackdown. We don't believe we've seen an administration taken out to the woodshed in this fashion before.
And the fact that Holder's homework assignment is even spec'ed-out in this manner is one of the most awesome things we have seen in quite some time. (What... I can't even double-space this thing?)
But what is with Obama? We don't ever remember a chief executive who is so into picking fights with other people. Rush Limbaugh, Catholics (and by extension everybody else who believes in the fundamental concept that whom you choose to have sex with is an entirely personal undertaking as well as is the act of paying for the contraceptives applied for said undertaking) and now the Supreme Court.
Reagan, Bush the Elder, Clinton, Bush the Younger... we don't recall seeing such insecure, petulant and frankly, un-Presidential behavior from the Commander-in-Chief.
So today, in his appearance before the Associated Press–the ultimate friendly audience–Obama tried to walk back yesterday’s blunder in response to a softball question:
MR. SINGLETON: Mr. President, you said yesterday that it would be unprecedented for a Supreme Court to overturn laws passed by an elected Congress. But that is exactly what the Court has done during its entire existence. If the Court were to overturn individual mandate, what would you do, or propose to do, for the 30 million people who wouldn’t have health care after that ruling?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, let me be very specific. We have not seen a Court overturn a law that was passed by Congress on a economic issue, like health care, that I think most people would clearly consider commerce — a law like that has not been overturned at least since Lochner. Right? So we’re going back to the ’30s, pre New Deal.
And the point I was making is that the Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitution and our laws, and all of us have to respect it, but it’s precisely because of that extraordinary power that the Court has traditionally exercised significant restraint and deference to our duly elected legislature, our Congress. And so the burden is on those who would overturn a law like this.
Now, as I said, I expect the Supreme Court actually to recognize that and to abide by well-established precedence out there
.
Economic issue? We thought this was supposed to be about health care. But no matter: as John Hindracker of Powerline points out at the link above, there have been plenty of instances whereby the Supreme Court has struck down economic-based laws and statutes including the sweeping 1990 Mushroom Promotion, Research and Consumer Information Act.
Oh, well. We've probably been taking far too much joy in this but continual episodes of self-inflicted foot-in-mouthitist have a train-wreck quality to them. Especially, when it involves a, you know, constitutional scholar.
And we can't wait to read what the miserable hack came up with for his take-home assignment tomorrow.
Posts
