on “When Republicans Act Like Democrats, They Lose”
Romney is such a shameless fraud, which is something else than he has in common with Obama, that when reading or listening to his drivel, it's hard to keep your lunch down!
Santorum And Saint Thomas Aquinas Are Right As The Catholic Bishops Have Been Wrong Up To Now - Judas GOPE Has Death Wish For America With RINO Romney Candidacy - Wake Up America To The Forgotten Man As Obama Rewrites The First Amendment - Obama By The Numbers - Obama's Abuse Of FEMA Declarations - Komen Reverses Decision To Fund Planned Parenthood
on “When Republicans Act Like Democrats, They Lose”
We get nowhere being "nice" to those who are doing everything possible to destroy our country from within, turning the American dream that many of us had, and enjoyed, as a function of it being secured by our Armed Forces in wars foreign and domestic, into the nightmare intended by Obama and his enablers who are, basically, indistinguishable from him, other than making it easier for them to do so.
I'm speaking as a Vietnam Era Navy vet who, when he attended A and C school in the late 60s, was in the company of not a few Navy and Marines who never made it back from Vietnam, I later found out.
There is too much at stake now to not tell it like it is for the sake of a country fit to live in for our children, grandchildren, and future generations of Americans deserving of our unalienable (God-given) rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as opposed to the Obamunists bastardization of same into man's perversion of death, slavery, and the pursuit of misery.
We owe that to our military who fought and died for us. My uncles who lived through the hell of Iwo Jima, one shot up so bad that he was in and out of VA hospitals all of his life, would roll over in their graves to see how mealy-mouthed those they fought for are in watching their precious freedoms being stolen from them by a man who only can be accurately described as a communist tyrant by those aware of his background in terms of who influenced him.
See the following link in that regard as to just who we're dealing with in regard to Comrade Barack Hussein Obama. Anyone who believes that the proven pathological liar Obama can be trusted after reading this link, which explains in detail just who Obama really is, and what he stands for, is a candidate for an asylum.
"If the bishops ever again trust this man who believes there is no objective truth; no objective ethical standards; that the ends justifies the means; that corruption in the civic leader is a virtue; and that it is the duty of the radical to ‘crush the opposition’; they will only have themselves to blame for the destruction they visit upon themselves and their flock."
Do The Bishops Know With Whom They are Dealing?
What Obama Learned from Alinsky “Crush the Opposition”
We had quickly better come to understand that everything is on the line in the Nov 2012 election, i.e., the very surival of America as a Constitutional Republic worthy of God's blessing, not His condemnation. And that means taking no prisoners when it comes to doing everything that we can to fight for our country using every media available to us that has not been co-opted by the Goebbels' agitprop arm of the Obamunists, PRAVDA USA.
on They're back: Social issues overtake US politics
The economy doesn't trump the moral order because without the latter, civilizations collapse, which is exactly where America is headed under the Godless tyranny of a Marxist Socialist like Obama who would transform the country into his warped image of a Soviet Satellite state as Governor under the control of his puppet master Soros, an America hater extraordinaire. Any economic difficulties are the spawn of the aforementioned moral order disintigration.
Let's get real here. We're talking about the an egregious violation of the freedom of religion of people of faith that will not stand, moreover that MUST NOT STAND if America is going to be a free country in the vision of the founding fathers, and not a gulag for Comrade Obama's enemies!
We need to recognize just who Obama is, and what he stands for, as described unequivocally in the enclosed link which correctly observes that "if the bishops ever again trust this man who believes there is no objective truth; no objective ethical standards; that the ends justifies the means; that corruption in the civic leader is a virtue; and that it is the duty of the radical to ‘crush the opposition’; they will only have themselves to blame for the destruction they visit upon themselves and their flock."
Do The Bishops Know With Whom They are Dealing?
What Obama Learned from Alinsky “Crush the Opposition”
on White House to announce 'accommodation' on contraceptive policy
We're supposed to believe a diabolical pathological liar who is willfully destroying America from within?
How gullible to the Obamunists think we are? Do they think that we've forgotten Obama's worthless executive order purportedly guaranteeing that what an HHS headed by one of most notorious pro-aborts on the planet would not do in order to pass Obamacare, the lynchpin for turning America into a Marxist Socialist state, JUST DID!
GET REAL, as Obama will do anything to STAY IN POWER WHICH IS ALL OBAMA CARES ABOUT!
See the following link in that regard as to just who we're dealing with in regard to Comrade Obama. Anyone who believes that the proven pathological liar, Obama, can be trusted after reading this link, which explains in detail just who Obama really is, and what he stands for, is a candidate for an asylum.
"If the bishops ever again trust this man who believes there is no objective truth; no objective ethical standards; that the ends justifies the means; that corruption in the civic leader is a virtue; and that it is the duty of the radical to ‘crush the opposition’; they will only have themselves to blame for the destruction they visit upon themselves and their flock."
Do The Bishops Know With Whom They are Dealing?
What Obama Learned from Alinsky “Crush the Opposition”
We had quickly better come to understand that everything is on the line in the Nov 2012 election, i.e., the very survival of America as a Constitutional Republic worthy of God's blessing, not His condemnation. And that means taking no prisoners when it comes to doing everything that we can to fight for our country using every media available to us that has not been co-opted by the Goebbels' agitprop arm of the Obamunists, PRAVDA USA.
on Obama announces change in contraceptive policy
What gives the tyrant Obama the Constitutional authority to mandate to private companies what they can and cannot do? NOTHING, which should come as no surprise, given Obama's continuous violation of his oath-of-office by trashing The Constitution on a daily basis, a Constitution that he swore to preserve, protect and defend!
That's the whole point that is being missed here, i.e., the BIG PICTURE, as Obama, basically, has caved on NOTHING!
No one capable of rational thought would believe that someone is not going to have to pay for Obama's social engineering agenda to placate his radical left constituencies, as the insurance companies are not going to take this unconstitutional mandate to them lying down! Look for premiums to immediately go up.
Catholics should have little solace that Obama left them off the hook this time, given his BALD-FACED LIE of an executive order which was supposed to guarantee that no abortion mandate of any kind existed in Obamacare in order to ensure its passage by duping the brain-dead gullible that, somehow, Obama is an honorable man, as what Obama gives with one hand, he takes away with the other at HIS WHIM!
By Fred Lucas
February 10, 2012
(CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama announced today that “religious organizations” such as charities and hospitals will not be forced by the federal government to directly pay insurance premiums that cover sterilization, contraception and abortifacients but that their insurance providers must nonetheless provide those services free of charge to women insured by those organizations.
Obama did not announce any change at all to the administrations’ sterilization-contraceptive-abortifacient mandate insofar as it applies to individuals and private-sector business owners who will still be forced by the government to buy and/or provide health insurance plans that cover sterilizations, contraceptives and abortifacients even if those things directly violate the teachings of their religion and their conscience.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops had directly and specifically asked that the administration to rescind the regulation in its entirety so that all individuals, employers and insurers, including Catholics, who have a religious or moral objection to sterilization, contraception and abortifacients would not be forced by the federal government to act against their faith and their consciences.
The bishops said that the First Amendment guarantee of the free exercise of religion protected Catholics and others who have a religious objection to sterilization, contraception or abortion from being forced by the government to buy insurance that pays for those things.
In recent days, leaders of other religious denominations have joined their voices to those of the Catholic bishops, decrying the regulation as an attack on the religious liberty of individuals as well as institutions.
Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission made a forceful appeal for Baptists to resist the regulation.
“Does the government have the right to intrude on the consciences of people to force them to pay for that which they find unconscionable?” said Land. “This goes contrary to our tradition in this country and contrary to our understanding of the First Amendment's religious freedom protections.”
"In my opinion, a Baptist needs to take a stand on this issue,” said Land. “Our Baptist forefathers went to prison and died for the freedoms that we have, and now it's our responsibility in the providence of God to defend these freedoms lest they be taken away by government fiat.’
Still, President Obama did not budge today in insisting that his government will order all insurance companies in America to provide all women with free sterilizations, contraceptives and abortifacients—and that everyone other than a religiously based organization will be forced to pay for it, whether it violates their religious beliefs or not.
“Today, we've reached a decision on how to move forward,” said Obama. “Under the rule, women will still have access to free preventive care that includes contraceptive services--no matter where they work. So that core principle remains.
“But if a woman’s employer is a charity or a hospital that has a religious objection to providing contraceptive services as part of their health plan, the insurance company--not the hospital, not the charity--will be required to reach out and offer the woman contraceptive care free of charge, without co-pays and without hassles,” said Obama.
“The result will be that religious organizations won’t have to pay for these services, and no religious institution will have to provide these services directly,” said Obama. “Let me repeat: These employers will not have to pay for, or provide, contraceptive services. But women who work at these institutions will have access to free contraceptive services, just like other women, and they'll no longer have to pay hundreds of dollars a year that could go towards paying the rent or buying groceries.
“Now, I've been confident from the start that we could work out a sensible approach here, just as I promised,” said Obama. “I understand some folks in Washington may want to treat this as another political wedge issue, but it shouldn’t be. I certainly never saw it that way. This is an issue where people of goodwill on both sides of the debate have been sorting through some very complicated questions to find a solution that works for everyone. With today’s announcement, we've done that. Religious liberty will be protected, and a law that requires free preventive care will not discriminate against women.”
Obama took no questions after making his statement.
At Catholic Masses across the country over the past two Sundays, Catholic priests have read letters from their local bishops explaining the church's view that the mandate is a direct attack on the First Amendment and calling on Catholics to resist it.
For example, in Catholic churches in Virginia on Sunday, priests read a letter from Arlington Bishop Paul S. Loverde and Richmond Bishop Francis X. DiLorenzo that said: “In so ruling, the 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 either to violate our consciences, or to drop health coverage for our employees (and suffer the penalties for doing so). The administration’s sole concession was to give our institutions one year to comply.”
“We cannot — we will not — comply with this unjust law,” the bishops wrote.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops told HHS in September that the regulation was an “unprecedented attack on religious liberty."
Many Democratic lawmakers defended the mandate, saying an aggressive campaign was being waged to stop it.
“Those now attacking the new health-coverage requirement claim it is an assault on religious liberty, but the opposite is true,” Democratic Sens. Barbara Boxer of California, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire and Patty Murray of Washington, wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed. “Religious freedom means that Catholic women who want to follow their church's doctrine can do so, avoiding the use of contraception in any form. But the millions of American women who choose to use contraception should not be forced to follow religious doctrine, whether Catholic or non-Catholic.
Breaking: Catholic and pro-life leaders slam White House ‘compromise’ on birth control mandate
Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:32 EST
WASHINGTON, February 10, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The White House announced today that, instead of forcing religious employers to pay for birth control, it will force insurance companies to offer the drugs free of charge to all women, no matter where they work.
The plan, put forward as a concession to freedom of religion, was immediately denounced by Catholic Rep. Chris Smith as fundamentally the exact same mandate.
“The so-called new policy is the discredited old policy, dressed up to look like something else,” said Smith. “It remains a serious violation of religious freedom. Only the most naive or gullible would accept this as a change in policy.”
“The White House Fact Sheet is riddled with doublespeak and contradiction,” Smith continued. “It states, for example, that religious employers ‘will not’ have to pay for abortion pills, sterilization and contraception, but their ‘insurance companies’ will. Who pays for the insurance policy? The religious employer.”
In a statement released today, the White House said, “Under the new policy announced today, women will have free preventive care that includes contraceptive services no matter where she works.”
“If a woman works for religious employers with objections to providing contraceptive services as part of its health plan, the religious employer will not be required to provide contraception coverage but her insurance company will be required to offer contraceptive care free of charge.”
Click “like” if you want to end abortion!
The birth control rule announced last summer was intended to force virtually all employers to cover sterilizations and contraception, including abortifacient drugs such as ella, a sister drug to RU-486. The religious employer exemption essentially applied only to houses of worship, creating an uproar in the Catholic and Christian community as hospitals, schools, and charities would have been forced to pay for the drugs. The furor only grew stronger when the administration announced last month that the concerned religious organizations would be given an extra year to comply.
President Obama reiterated the statement in a press conference this afternoon, saying that “the insurance company, not the hospital, not the charity, will be required to reach out” to women employed by such institutions to offer birth control “without copays, without hassles.”
Before it was released, the new rule was expected to be similar to coverage laws in Hawaii that allow employers with religious objections not to directly pay for contraception, but instead to direct employees on how to conveniently access all such drugs and procedures, an option one Catholic spokesman already said would be materially inadequate.
“It would be no improvement to say: ‘Sure, you don’t have to include the coverage, you just have to send all your lay employees and women religious to the local Planned Parenthood clinic,’” Richard Doerflinger of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said in an email to the Weekly Standard.
The reworded mandate offered even less of a concession to religious freedom than the Hawaii rules, as it still leaves religious employers footing the premium bill for employees receiving free contraception through their insurance.
Bill Donohue of the Catholic League said the new phraseology merely “adds insult to injury.”
“If the insurance plan of a Catholic institution must cover services it deems immoral, then such a healthcare plan is offensive, plain and simple,” said Donohue in a statement Friday. “When it comes to the First Amendment, there is no such thing as a half loaf.”
Eric Scheidler of the Pro-Life Action League also told LifeSiteNews.com that the new rule amounted to a “shell game.” “At the end of the day, religious employers are still required to provide insurance plans that offer free contraceptives, sterilizations and abortifacients in violation of their moral tenets,” he said.
The country’s Catholic bishops have not yet responded to the White House’s statement. However, both Planned Parenthood and the Catholic Health Association (CHA) have expressed satisfaction with the new plan.
“The framework developed has responded to the issues we identified that needed to be fixed,” said Sr. Carol Keehan of CHA. Keehan and her organization are perhaps best known for flouting the position of the Catholic bishops during the fight over Obama’s health care reform, throwing their weight behind the bill despite the opposition of the U.S. bishops over concerns the bill would increase abortion funding. Keehan was personally singled out by former USCCB President Cardinal Francis George for condemnation for her role in helping pass the health reform law.
Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards issued a statement, saying: “In the face of a misleading and outrageous assault on women’s health, the Obama administration has reaffirmed its commitment to ensuring all women will have access to birth control coverage, with no costly co-pays, no additional hurdles, and no matter where they work.
“We believe the compliance mechanism does not compromise a woman.s ability to access these critical birth control benefits. However we will be vigilant in holding the administration and the institutions accountable for a rigorous, fair and consistent implementation of the policy, which does not compromise the essential principles of access to care.”
The pro-abortion news source, RH Reality Check, lauded the news, noting that the rule is convenient because women would not have to purchase a separate rider for the contraception coverage.
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012
Subject: No compromise
Dear CV Friend,
What just happened?
The truth: the assault on religious liberty just got worse.
Moments ago President Obama introduced an accounting gimmick to appease voters over his recent Health and Human Services mandate. The so-called compromise will continue to force virtually all employers, including religious institutions, to pay into insurance policies that cover abortion drugs and other immoral medicines and procedures.
What's the catch?
To protect himself from the national backlash, the President announced a "compromise" that will allow religious institutions to withhold premiums paid to insurance companies for select medicines and procedures they believe are immoral.
But these immoral medicines and drugs will continue to be provided by the same insurance plans for free -- to everyone, including every employee of Catholic institutions!
So President Obama decided to use insurance companies to hide his assault on religious liberty.
Separating the premiums paid to insurance companies does not change what these policies will cover. The very same policies funded by religious institutions will continue to cover contraception, birth control, and abortion drugs for every employee of these organizations. To pretend, by an accounting gimmick, that the premiums paid by the employer will not subsidize these services is simply absurd.
Furthermore, self-funded insurance plans (like many of those used by Catholic institutions) will continue to be forced to provide these immoral medicines.
And owners of businesses who believe abortion drugs are immoral? Sorry. To hell with liberty. Pay up.
All Americans should shudder at what has just transpired.
Despite repeated promises during the healthcare debate in 2009, the President of the United States has created a sham conscience compromise, and ordered all insurance companies to pay for abortion drugs -- and all religious institutions will be forced to pay into these plans.
He thought he could get away with this assault on our freedom. We called him out and forced him to respond. Now we must call his bluff.
This isn't the end.
CV President Brian Burch has been on the phone all morning with members of Congress urging them to immediately introduce legislation that will protect the conscience rights of all Americans.
Catholics don't want an accounting gimmick.
We want freedom.
And we won't rest until we get it.
- Your Friends at CatholicVote.org
P.S. Nothing speaks louder on this decision than the fact that Planned Parenthood is happy with it.
The President explained that the specifics of his compromise will be worked out over the next year. This is nothing but an election year "fix" that will be undone if President Obama is re-elected. Some leaders, including Sr. Carol Keehan have already caved. Stay strong. And please, please keep praying.
And if you want to chip in to help with a donation, we definitely need your help.
National Right to Life: Obama mandate ‘scam’ paves way for national abortion mandate
Fri Feb 10, 2012 16:26 EST
WASHINGTON, February 10, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - President Obama’s defense of his deceptive rephrasing of the birth control mandate on Friday - suggesting that insurers can provide the drugs for free because fewer children means less overall health costs - lays the groundwork for a future abortion mandate, the National Right to Life Committee has warned.
In order to assuage outrage from Catholic groups, President Obama on Friday afternoon essentially claimed that religious employers wouldn’t really pay for the birth control their employees receive in health care plans because insurers would chalk up the drugs as balancing out the potential costs of bearing a child.
“President Obama today promulgated a scam that, if he is re-elected, will allow him to mandate that every health plan in America cover abortion on demand,” said NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson.
“The same twisted logic will be applied: By ordering health plans to cover elective abortion, health plans would save the much higher costs of prenatal care, childbirth, and care for the baby - and under the Obama scam, if a procedure saves money, then that means that you’re not really paying for it when the government mandates it.”
The supposed “revision” of the birth control mandate drew strong praise from abortion and family planning groups such as Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America.
Johnson said the same “doublespeak” could be used to say that Medicaid, prior to the Hyde amendment blocking abortion funding, was not really “funding abortion” because “after all, every abortion that the government paid for also saved the government money.” The same reasoning could even be applied to physician-assisted suicide in states where it has been legalized, he said, since “each suicide would result in a net savings to the plan” and thus “it is really free and nobody really pays for it.”
The NRLC also pointed out that the Institutes of Medicine “panel of experts” Obama cited as recommending universal birth control coverage was loaded with progressive ideologues.
Johnson, who was heavily involved in the abortion debate surrounding the federal health care bill, emphasized that contrary to some reports, the bill certainly allows an abortion mandate.
He explained: “The law prevents the Secretary of Health and Human Services from including abortion in a list of federally mandated ‘essential health benefits.’ But the birth control mandate is based on an entirely different provision of the law, which allows the Secretary to mandate that all health plans cover any service that the Secretary places on a list of ‘preventive’ services. There is nothing in the law to prevent the Secretary from placing abortion, assisted suicide, or any other additional services on the preventive services list.”
Bill Donohue: Obama’s mandate about abortion, not birth control
Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:53 EST
WASHINGTON, D.C., February 10, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Fiery Catholic commentator Bill Donohue says the media has deliberately downplayed the significance of Obama’s HHS mandate by framing it as an issue of birth control instead of abortion.
On January 20th, the Department of Health and Human Services confirmed that under Obamacare they will require religious institutions to cover sterilizations and FDA-approved contraceptives in employees’ health plans. But that includes abortion-inducing drugs such as Ella, which is a sister drug of RU-486. (Update: This morning the Obama administration announced that it will no longer require religious organizations to pay for the drugs, but will instead force the organization’s health insurance company to pay for them - an “accommodation” that is being universally panned by pro-life leaders.)
Bill Donohue, Catholic League President
“The media are framing the issue in terms of the least offensive issue,” Donohue, who serves as president of the Catholic League, said Thursday.
“When pollsters ask about the Obama healthcare plan, framing the issue as one about birth control, it is not going to set off the alarms: mention abortion and everything changes,” he added.
Donohue explained that a Lexis-Nexis search turned up 345 stories for the keywords “Catholic,” “Obama,” and “birth control,” but only 62 when he added “morning-after pill,” 31 when he added “abortifacients,” and 20 when he added “abortion-inducing drugs.”
“Why does the Obama plan include abortion-inducing drugs? Because that’s where he wants to go—he would like nothing better than to force all religious institutions to provide abortion coverage—and this is his way of prying the door open,” Donohue said.
“This issue is, first and foremost, about the First Amendment right to religious liberty. Secondly, it is about abortion,” he continued. “The lust for abortion that this administration has is unparalleled, and its unrelenting drive to shove its radical secular agenda down the throats of the faithful is equally unprecedented.”
The Jan. 20th announcement prompted universal backlash from America’s Catholic bishops with letters in over 170 dioceses, many of which were read to the faithful at Mass.
But Evangelical, Orthodox, and other religious leaders have rallied alongside the Catholics with some of them pledging to go to jail rather than obey the mandate.
By Michelle Malkin • February 10, 2012 09:06 AM
‘To Stop the Multiplication of the Unfit’
by Michelle Malkin
If you aren’t creeped out by the No Birth Control Left Behind rhetoric of the White House and Planned Parenthood, you aren’t listening closely enough. The anesthetic of progressive benevolence always dulls the senses. Wake up.
When a bunch of wealthy white women and elite Washington bureaucrats defend the trampling of religious liberties in the name of “increased access” to “reproductive services” for “poor” women, the ghost of Margaret Sanger is cackling.
As she wrote in her autobiography, Sanger founded Planned Parenthood in 1916 “to stop the multiplication of the unfit.” This, she boasted, would be “the most important and greatest step towards race betterment.” While she oversaw the mass murder of black babies, Sanger cynically recruited minority activists to front her death racket. She conspired with eugenics financier and businessman Clarence Gamble to “hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities” to sell their genocidal policies as community health and welfare services.
Outright murder wouldn’t sell. But wrapping it under the egalitarian cloak of “women’s health” — and adorning it with the moral authority of black churches — would. Sanger and Gamble called their deadly campaign “The Negro Project.”
In other writings, historian Mike Perry found, Sanger attacked programs that provided “medical and nursing facilities to slum mothers” because they “facilitate the function of maternity” when “the absolute necessity is to discourage it.” In an essay included in her writing collection held by the Library of Congress, Sanger urged her abortion clinic colleagues to “breed a race of thoroughbreds.” Nationwide “birth control bureaus” would propagate the proper “science of breeding” to stop impoverished, non-white women from “breeding like weeds.”
Speaking with CBS veteran journalist Mike Wallace in 1957, long after her racist views had supposedly mellowed, Sanger again revealed her true colors: “I think the greatest sin in the world is bringing children into the world — that have disease from their parents, that have no chance in the world to be a human being practically. Delinquents, prisoners, all sorts of things just marked when they’re born. That to me is the greatest sin — that people can — can commit.”
Sanger also elaborated on her anti-Catholic animus, telling one of Wallace’s reporters that New York Catholics had no right to protest the use of their tax dollars for birth city birth-control programs: “(I)t’s not only wrong, it should be made illegal for any religious group to prohibit dissemination of birth control — even among its own members.” When Wallace pressed her (“In other words, you would like to see the government legislate religious beliefs in a certain sense?”), Sanger laughed nervously and disavowed the remarks.
Fast forward: Five decades and 16 million aborted black babies later, Planned Parenthood’s insidious agenda has migrated from inner-city “birth control bureaus” to public school-based health clinics to the White House — forcibly funded with taxpayer dollars just as Sanger championed.
Several undercover stings by Live Action, pro-life documentarians, have exposed Planned Parenthood staff accepting donations over the years from callers posing as eugenics cheerleaders who wanted to earmark their contributions for the cause of aborting minority babies. “We can definitely designate it for an African-American,” a Tulsa, Okla., Planned Parenthood employee eagerly promised.
What has cheap, easy and unmonitored “choice” for poor women in inner cities wrought? Nightmares like the Philadelphia Horror, where serial baby-killer Dr. Kermit Gosnell and his abortion clinic death squad oversaw the systematic execution of hundreds of healthy, living, breathing, squirming, viable black and Hispanic babies over 4 decades — along with several minority mothers who may have lost their lives in his grimy birth control bureau.
City and state authorities looked the other way while jars of baby parts and reports of botched abortions and infanticides piled up. Beltway Democrats who now bray about their concern for “women’s health” were silent about the Gosnell massacre and countless others like it in America’s ghettos. Why?
The Obama administration is crawling with the modern-day heirs of the eugenics movement, from Planned Parenthood golden girl Kathleen Sebelius at the Department of Health and Human Services to the president’s prestigious science czar John Holdren — an outspoken proponent of forced abortions and mass sterilizations and a self-proclaimed protege of eugenics guru Harrison Brown, whom he credits with inspiring him to become a scientist.
Brown envisioned a government regime in which the “number of abortions and artificial inseminations permitted in a given year would be determined completely by the difference between the number of deaths and the number of births in the year previous.” He urged readers to “reconcile ourselves to the fact that artificial means must be applied to limit birth rates.” He likened the global population to a “pulsating mass of maggots.”
Listen carefully as this White House dresses its Obamacare abortion mandate in the white lab coat of “reproductive services” for all. The language of “access to birth control” is the duplicitous code of Sanger’s ideological grim reapers.
By Michelle Malkin • February 10, 2012 10:05 AM
“How to fake a walkback.”
With its unconstitutional, coercive, discriminatory Obamacare abortion mandate under fire, the White House announced…nothing today. A supposed “accommodation” to the policy will result in no compromise in the impact of the HHS edict forcing religiously affiliated health care providers and employers to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives, abortifacients, and related services that violate the religious principles and freedom of the mandate’s targets.
In fact, close observers say today’s announcement will make things worse.
White House under fire for its new rule requiring employers including religious
organizations to offer health insurance that fully covers birth control
coverage, ABC News has learned that later today the White House — possibly
President Obama himself — will likely announce an attempt to accommodate these
religious groups. The move, based on state models, will almost certainly not
satisfy bishops and other religious leaders since it will preserve the goal of
women employees having their birth control fully covered by health insurance.
Sources say it will be respectful of religious beliefs but will not back off from that goal, which many religious leaders oppose since birth control is in violation of their religious beliefs.
officials are likening it to the so-called Hawaii compromise.
Phony baloney, say Catholic bishops:
difficult to know what people may mean by the “Hawaii compromise.” But a central
feature of the Hawaii law is that every religious organization that is eligible
for the exemption has to instruct all employees in how they can access all
methods of contraception and sterilization locally “in an expeditious manner.”
Just a few days ago the White House was saying that this is just about coverage, that no one has to be involved in getting people to the actual services they object to. It would be no improvement to say: “Sure, you don’t have to include the coverage, you just have to send all your lay employees and women religious to the local Planned Parenthood clinic.” The Administration’s press release of January 20 hinted at such a requirement.
That would not be a compromise. In some ways it would be worse.
this defiant administration keeps digging itself deeper.
The Hill calls Obama’s announcement a “retreat.”
House will announce a retreat from its controversial rule requiring religious
organizations like charities and hospitals to include contraception in their
President Obama has come under heavy criticism from the Catholic Church and other religious organizations, Republicans and even some Democrats over the issue, and Vice President Biden has suggested a compromise could be worked out.
A White House official on Friday confirmed an announcement on changing the rule would be made Friday. The White House is referring to the change as an accommodation.
It’s not a
retreat. It’s a re-trick.
It’s not an accommodation. It’s an abomination.
Update 11am Weekly Standard reporter John McCormak is on a conference call with White House officials providing background on the policy head fake.
Sr. admin off.: “the insurance company, not the hospital, not the charity will be required to reach out” to women to provide contraception
So religious groups will still be mandated to offer plans that cover contraception, and the abortion drug ella.
Reporter asks if WH even consulted bishops before announcing ‘accommodation.’ Sr admin official won’t say.
To clarify, religious groups have to contract with INSURERS who do offer the pills, then the insurers offers free pills to women.
Update 12:26pm EST – From his brief press conference, Obama attacks “cynical” opponents of abortion mandate. He says “principle” of “access to free preventative care including contraceptive services” will stand.
“Religious liberty will be protected.” Translation: You’re still screwed.
Update: On Fox News, Kathleen The Shredder Sebelius attempts to defend the policy as a “no-cost strategy” by citing “actuaries” who claim that contraceptive coverage will actually “save money.”
You know who she’s citing? The pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute.
Jonathan Imbody, Vice President for Government Relations for the
Christian Medical Association, called the revisions “offering a distinction
without a difference to mute opposition.”
He said the revision fits a pattern of contempt for conscience that includes how Obama “has gutted the only federal regulation protecting the exercise of conscience in health care, denied of federal grant funds for aiding human trafficking victims because a faith-based organization refused to participate in abortion; lobbied the Supreme Court to restrict faith-based organizations’ hiring rights; and issued a coercive contraceptive mandate that imposes the government’s abortion ideology on every American.”
Heritage Reacts to White House “Accommodation” to Religious Liberty Posted By Jennifer Marshall On February 10, 2012 @ 1:14 pm In Family and Religion,Featured,Health Care
After two weeks of increasingly intense criticism over Obamacare’s disregard for religious liberty, the White House woke up this morning in a mood to “accommodate” its critics .
Perhaps White House officials should have signaled that to Senate Democrats yesterday before Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid blocked an amendment  sponsored by Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) to preserve faith-based groups’ religious liberty and not force them to take actions contrary to their beliefs and teachings.
Instead, the White House maintains its goal-overriding objections of conscience to mandate insurance coverage for birth control, abortion-inducing drugs and sterilization—while slightly shifting how to get there.
Under the President’s proposal , employers and employees will still bear the cost of paying for coverage of contraception, abortion-inducing drugs, and sterilization because insurance companies will simply pass on the cost of this “free” service with higher premiums to the employer.
It’s clear that this route does not veer off President Obama’s current collision course with the religious liberty of faith-based groups. Those organizations provide vital services and ministries-from hospitals to religious schools to work with prisoners-across the country.
Problems like these will be with us for as long as Obamacare is the law of the land – they don’t go away with the President’s announcement.
We will continue to react to the President’s announcement in the coming hours and days.
Article printed from
The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation: http://blog.heritage.org
URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/10/heritage-reacts-to-white-house-accommodation-to-religious-liberty/
URLs in this post:
 a mood to “accommodate” its critics: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/white-house-to-announce-accommodation-for-religious-organizations-on-contraception-rule
 blocked an amendment: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72698.html
 proposal: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72719.html
RUSH: There's no "compromise" in his "compromise" here. It's all BS. And the media is perfectly willing to support the notion of Obama having dictatorial powers now because they support them. But this is how, folks, the public is dumbed down. This is how he just hacks away at the First Amendment.
February 10, 2012
RUSH: Everybody's reporting that Obama's caving on this mandate
that the Catholic services provide abortion and all. There's not a cave
here! There may be an accommodation, but there's no big cave-in
here. It's still the government mandating this stuff happen.
They're just changing the provider. It's not done by the church. He says he
gave them a way out of it by mandating the insurance companies do it, but that's
not the point here.
Great to have you. It's Friday. Let's go to!
JOHNNY DONOVAN: Live from the Left Coast at our satellite studios in Los Angeles, it is Open Line Friday!
RUSH: Never mind, I can't hear you anyway. Greetings, welcome back, Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network. Open Line Friday. And you know the rules on Friday. When we go to the phones, you get to determine what it is we talk about, ladies and gentlemen. Monday through Thursday, you have to talk about things I care about, but on Friday, I take a giant career risk unseen anywhere else in major media. And that is you get to determine what we talk about, whether I care about it or not. Great to have you. Here again the telephone number is 800-282-2882. The e-mail address, ElRushbo@eibnet.com.
So everywhere I'm reading that Obama is caving on the mandate in Obamacare that Catholic churches -- well, not churches, but the schools and hospitals are mandated to provide contraceptives and abortion-related services that they religiously disagree with. "What's happened here is that Obama's caved! He has seen, he has heard, and now he's gonna shift that burden to the insurance companies!" Now, there are a bunch of stories today -- that one and another one involving a woman getting on an airplane, trying to get on an airplane to fly to Denver who was not permitted to get on an airplane because there were no female TSA agents to pat her down. None were on board.
She even said (paraphrased), "Look, I'll wave it. I'll let a guy pat me down. I need to get to Denver." They said, "Nope, not gonna have any of that. You have to take a different flight on a different day." It's a small down, small airport, not a whole lot of flights. And her reaction is instructive. My point here is, ladies and gentlemen, we are losing freedom and liberty inch by inch. It's not being taken -- well, in some cases it is, but in most cases it's not being taken from us in giant grabs. It's little by little by little such that people don't even see it. It doesn't even register. Let me start with the AP version of the Obama story. "Retreating in the face of a political uproar, President Barack Obama on Friday will announce that religious..."
He's supposed to do it in five or six minutes now, right in the middle of this program. President Obama "on Friday will announce that religious employers will not have to cover birth control for their employees after all, The Associated Press has learned. The administration instead will demand that insurance companies will be the ones directly responsible for providing free contraception." And we're supposed to applaud this? We're supposed to think that we have emerged with a big victory here? Obama can mandate that we buy insurance, and now Obama can mandate what insurance companies must offer -- and after mandating what insurance companies must offer, then Obama can mandate what insurance companies can charge for it?
Freedom doesn't mean anything to this guy! Freedom doesn't mean anything to this regime or this administration. To me, this is breathtaking. This is an incredible sight to behold here. So Obama is said to "offer a compromise proposal that is respectful of religious concerns," and everybody's applauding today. Now, look at this. The right to religious liberty in this context is unequivocal in our country and in the Constitution. It's right there in the Bill of Rights. Since when does a president have the power to threaten to issue a rule gutting religious liberty? That's the first thing. And, by the way, I don't think any of this a mistake.
I don't think this religious kerfuffle is something that they overreached on. I think roiling this country and distracting people, setting up these extreme things like this and then walking them back to create the illusion, "Okay, you know what? We're not gonna take your freedom," it's all BS, folks. And this is being spun in such a way to make it look like the winners are winning and the losers are losing, and they're not. The First Amendment -- the Bill of Rights of the Constitution -- explicitly says that government shall have nothing to do with religion. You hear, do you not, the left constantly caterwauling, whining and moaning about "separation of church and state"?
When do they do that? Whenever a religious Republican or conservative seeks political office! They start to worry about "the imposition of religious moral values on people," and say, "This is intolerable! This is intolerable. It's not permitted! It's a violation of the Constitution." So the left hates the Constitution when it's an impediment to what they want to do.
When it supports what they want to do, they're the biggest constitutionalists in the world. So they're all concerned about separation of church and state? No, they're not! They are opposed to opposition. They will do anything to defeat opposition, and if the Constitution is in opposition to them, they'll do whatever they have to do there.
So here we have again from the top: Obama's gonna offer a compromise proposal said to be respectful of religious concerns. He started this. He started it by demanding that Catholic organizations provide birth control and other abortion-related services. That's unconstitutional. He cannot do it. There is an appropriate uproar. The regime says, "Okay, we'll walk it back and then we'll make the insurance companies do it." He's still getting everything he wants! He's getting mandated federal funding of abortion services -- and, in the process, trampling all over the Constitution. The right to religious liberty in this context is unequivocal in our country. It's in the Constitution!
Since when...? I'm gonna ask this again: Since when does a president have the power to threaten to issue a rule gutting religious liberty and then claims the power to make compromises on that issue? This is how, folks, we lose our liberty. This is how we lose the Constitution. The suggestion that Obama has the power to alter that which he doesn't have the power to do in the first place, is simply unacceptable. The first thing he does he doesn't have the power to do. He doesn't have, constitutionally, the power to mandate that religious organizations provide -- free of charge or otherwise -- any abortion-related service with which they disagree. He doesn't have the authority. Then to supposedly correct it, he then engages in more authority that he doesn't have!
"Okay, tell you what: I'll tell the churches they don't have to do it." It's none of his business what the churches do! He doesn't have the authority to do any of this. The very idea that Barack Obama has the power to alter that which he doesn't have the power to do in the first place? This is two exercises of power he doesn't have. The first exercise is telling the churches what they have to do. The second exercise of power is then changing what he told the churches they have to do. There's no compromise, no negotiation. There's no phony balance here. Obama is simply not empowered to interfere with religious liberty. No president is!
It's no different than recess appointments when not in recess. There's no "compromise" in his "compromise" here. It's all BS. And the media is perfectly willing to support the notion of Obama having dictatorial powers now because they support them. But this is how, folks, the public is dumbed down. This is how he just hacks away at the First Amendment. Then, after there's an uproar, said to be compromising his position when, in fact, the First Amendment's being destroyed with both moves, with both efforts here!. So his effort to make people think he's compromising and caving is working. The press is reporting that. I even had friends of mine say, "Hey, we beat this back!" We didn't beat anything back. In fact, it's far more complicated than what is actually being reported.
Somebody in the White House has been leaking to the media all morning about what Obama's gonna do. It involves the Hawaii rules. It really is far more complicated here, the change, than is being report. The second example of this that I want to cite is this little story about a woman who wanted to fly to Denver. She just wanted to get on an airplane and go to Denver. That's all that mattered to her. "A Denver woman claims she couldn’t board a flight from Wyoming to Denver because of her gender. Jennifer Winning makes the flight from the small airport of Rock Springs, WY to Denver often, but on January 29th it was different.
"'They wouldn't let me get on the plane because I'm female,' Winning said. She said she checked in and arrived at security about 35 minutes before the scheduled departure of her United flight. 'They asked if I was on the flight to Denver, I said yes, they said that they couldn't screen me because they sent all the female TSA agents home,' Winning said. A female agent was necessary because of the new security pat-downs. 'I said, 'Would you be willing to let me sign a waiver and I would approve for a man to pat me down if necessary?' and they said no,' she said. Winning missed her flight and wound up renting a car for $165 and driving the roughly 350 miles back to Denver. She said she’s getting over her anger, but thinks the policies need to be clearer."
Now, I don't know how that story hits you, but I'll tell you how it it's me. Here we have an American citizen in Rock Springs, Wyoming, who wants to get on a flight to Denver that she takes frequently. And there's no female TSA agent there. So she's told she can't get on the airplane. She's an American, she's not a security risk, she never has been. She can't get on the airplane. She offers to sign a waiver. Look at the freedom this woman readily surrendered. What is she mad about? She's not mad at the encroachment in her daily life by the federal government via the TSA. She's doesn't seem to be all bothered by that. What she's mad about was that they sent all the female agents home.
This is how we lose our freedom! I don't blame her for being mad but she doesn't see the big picket. She passively accepts the premise that the government can easily tell her she can't get on an airplane. Despite no evidence that she intends any farm, despite no track record that she's ever been a problem on this flight. She's a semi-regular on this flight. So she passively accepts the idea that the simple fact that there no female TSA agents means she can't fly, that's what she gets mad about. Not at the fact that the federal government has encroached so much over her individual liberty and freedom.
And I submit to you that this is how we end up losing it, slowly but surely and in ways that people don't even recognize, in ways that people don't even see it. And during all of this, we have to listen to the media and we have to listen to the president and the Democrats tell us that we're the party of "no" and that they are the party that liberates people. And we're the ones, the old-fashioned conservatives, we want to deny people a good time, we want to deny people fun, we want to deny people all these things in life. So we have yet another example of life in America under the thumb of an ever-expanding state with central planning, otherwise known as "well-intentioned liberalism."
From violating religious rights where there is no power permitted to do so, to mandating the purchase of products, to now mandating insurance companies sell certain products at a price that's also mandated -- from czars to denying the right to travel -- it's all here. We're living in a country that's becoming unrecognizable! Who is the party of "no"? Want to throw a football in a public beach? It's the Democrats that say "no!" Can you believe it? You can't throw a football or a Frisbee on a beach in Los Angeles County, only a volleyball! Why? Did somebody get hit? Why can't you throw a football on a beach? Or a Frisbee, for crying out loud?
Who's the party of "no"? You want to exercise your religious rights, provide health insurance to employees that respect those rights? Democrats say, "No, you can't do that!" You want to buy a health insurance policy when you want buy it? No! Democrats say, "You can't do that." You want your government to operate on a budget. The Democrats laugh at you and say, "We don't need no stinkin' budget. Wait 'til Republicans are in charge of and then we'll need a budget." You want to flatten the tax code, get rid of the crony capitalism, Democrats say, "No, we're not gonna give people more access to their hard-earned money!"
You want to reform entitlements that are eating away your kids' and grandkids' future? Democrats say, "No, we can't touch any of that!" You want to become energy independent using America's natural resources and the resources of an ally that borders our country with a pipeline, bringing much-needed oil right to our Gulf of Mexico? Nope, can't do it! Democrats say, "No." And we're "the party of 'no'"? We're the party trampling on people's liberties? Want to travel freely about the country? Democrats say, "No." You want the border tightened and shut down so that people cannot get in here illegally? No! The Democrats say, "No." You're the governor of a state that tries to enforce federal immigration laws? Democrats say, "No," and the President sues that state and the governor of that state!
Now, the Republicans want to privatize the Transportation Security Authority, the TSA, and Democrats say, "No! You can't do that. We gotta keep this in the hands of our union buddies." So each and every day, little by little, Barack Obama tramples on the Constitution, usurps authority that he doesn't have, in the midst of an uproar. He might surrender a little bit of it where everybody thinks that they're winning and they beat back the ugly collectivist, when in fact the collectivist and the central planner has solidified his claim to power that he doesn't have over the Constitution. He's out there saying (paraphrased), "Yeah, I never saw this as a political issue. This mandate, health insurance mandate on Catholic Churches and abortion, I never saw it as a political issue. No, no, no way!"
So the insurance company is now gonna have to give out free contraception. The insurance company is gonna have give out free abortion pills. And, by the way, it isn't gonna be free. So no religious organizations will have to pay for the coverage now. But somebody's gonna have to. It's being mandated. And somebody's gonna have to make it available. It's being mandated. And somebody's gonna have to pay for it. Whether they see it's free to the end user or not, it's never free to the end user. He's not taking any questions about this.
RUSH: So after the president speaks... I just got a note, by the way, that in St. Louis they cut out of the program and carried the president. That mighta happened at other affiliates, too, in which case you people missed (laughing) a grand-slam home run. I don't know that I should try to repeat it here. It'll come up. It'll be woven in as the program unfolds, what you missed. I was basically responding to the president. I didn't need to hear what he's saying. I know what he's doing. He is usurping constitutional authority he does not have. There's no "compromise" here. The president didn't cave. He's not giving anything back. The evidence is on MSNBC, they immediately went to a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood -- who's delighted!
The Planned Parenthood babe, person was delighted, and why shouldn't she be? Because, guess what now's been codified? Insurance companies have to pay for birth control and abortions! This is a huge achievement for Obama. This is a major accomplishment. Doesn't matter to him if, okay, the churches don't have to but now the insurance companies do. Birth control and abortion pills have just become a right! This entire health care plan is unconstitutional based on that mandate that requires everybody to buy insurance or pay a fine if they don't. That renders this whole thing unconstitutional, I don't care what the Supreme Court says. But now look what's happened. While everybody's celebrating here Obama "caving," he has just succeeded in mandating, in telling... He does not have the right to tell insurance companies what to sell. He doesn't have the constitutional authority to tell 'em what to charge for it. He just did, and people are out there applauding, like Planned Parenthood.
RUSH: Let me tell you what's just happened here. The regime, Barack Hussein Obama... I don't know how many of you people think Obama caved. I'm simply reacting. I got a bunch of e-mails, "Hey, Rush, we won, man! We won! Obama caved." He didn't cave on anything. That's what I'm reacting to here. All that's happened here... The Obama regime, they didn't see they don't have the power to force the Catholic Church to give up its religious views. They just said, "You know what? We changed our mind. We're not gonna make the Catholic Church do it. We're gonna make the insurance companies do it."
Big win. Biiiig win. Right. "We're not gonna make the Catholic Church, right now, 'cause you people don't quite understand. So, okay, we're not gonna make the Catholic Church give out abortion stuff but we'll make the insurance companies do it." So now people who oppose abortion pills are going to be paying for them. Do you think the insurance companies gonna reach into their personal back pockets and pick up the charges for this? Insurance premiums are gonna go up to cover the increased cost associated with Barack Obama, the president of the United States, telling them: What they have to sell, what they have to include, what they have to cover. The president of the United States has just told the insurance companies, "You know what? I changed my mind.
"I'm not gonna make the church do this, I'm gonna make you do it." They say, "Okay, fine." The insurance companies, they don't have a beef about anything, so they'll just raise their premiums. So Obama now mandating that private companies charge other citizens for the cost of abortion pill. This unprecedented as far as I know. It's completely unprecedented. And don't for a minute think that the administration has given up trying to tell the Catholic Church what it will and won't do. That'll come later. They'll come back for a further bite of the apple. They'll do something. I also got a note (snidely), "Well, Rush, okay, the woman who wanted to fly to Denver, we can't do anything to TSA. What do we do? You sound like you want that woman..."
Yeah, I want that woman to wake up and become part of the army that votes against Democrats. That's what I want. I'm not suggesting the woman stand up and get into a fight with the TSA. That's not what I'm talking about. My whole point here is that people are having freedom and liberty taken away in a ways they don't even see. This woman in Denver, she's upset, but at the wrong thing. She's accepted the premise that the government can tell her she can and can't get on an airplane if there aren't any female TSA agents around. Her anger is that they wouldn't let a male pat her down or they wouldn't going to do a female and bring her back to work to pat her down. That's what she was mad about.
I'm not complaining at her by any means. I'm hoping that people dig a little deeper and figure out what is happening to everyday liberty and freedom and realize who's responsible for taking it away from you -- it's the Democrat Party and Barack Obama -- and vote against them. I've always said this program takes place in the reason of ideas. What we want, the way we effect -- in my mind -- meaningful, lasting, substantive change is an informed electorate voting and changing the course of history. That's, if there is an autobiography here above and beyond satisfying the radio business requirements for success, it would be that. I'm not trying to tell some woman to get into an argument with TSA people. That isn't gonna go anywhere. That's not gonna accomplish anything. There's a much larger issue out there.
I want to spend a little time, not much, on what Obama just did here. And I first saw this being alluded to in a flash report by our old buddy Jacob Tapper at ABC News. And Jacob's story was headlined: "White House to Announce Accommodation for Religious Organizations on Contraception Rule -- With the White House under fire for its new rule requiring employers including religious organizations to offer health insurance that fully covers birth control coverage, ABC News has learned," because the White House called them, "President Obama will announce an attempt to accommodate these religious groups. The move, based on state models..." That's where the rub of this is.
"The move, based on state models will almost certainly not satisfy bishops and other religious leaders since it will preserve the goal of women employees having their birth control fully covered by health insurance," in a mandate that Obama doesn't have the power to issue. Jacob didn't say that; he never would. I'm throwing that in. "Sources say..." This is Jacob writing here. "Sources say it will be respectful of religious beliefs but will not back off from that goal" of mandating abortion services being provided for in Obamacare. Now, so we go to the AP story on this: "Retreating in the face of a political uproar, President Barack Obama on Friday will announce that religious employers will not have to cover birth control for their employees after all...
"The administration instead will demand that insurance companies will be the ones directly responsible for providing free contraception." Right. Okay. They get it right here. But to say that Obama is retreating? It's not a retreat whatsoever. Obama simply took a sidestep. And then later in the AP story: "By keeping free contraception for employers at religious workplaces -- but providing a different way to do it -- the White House will assert it gave no ground on the basic principle of full preventative care that matters most to Obama."
Right. What if I said, "You know, we need to mandate helmets for bicycle riders!" What is it about contraception? What is it about abortion that makes it sacred? Birth control pills, RU-486, what is it that makes this sacred?
It's because that stuff is the sacrament to the religion of liberalism. And then later on in the AP story, it says, "The White House consulted leaders on both sides of the debate to forge a decision. And officials..." These are unnamed officials, by the way. "And officials said Obama has the legal authority to order insurance companies to provide free contraception coverage directly to workers. He will demand it in a new rule." He does not have legal authority! Do you realize, folks, if Barack Obama has the legal authority to order insurance companies to provide free contraception coverage directly to workers, he's got legal authority to demand anything. He's got legal authority to make you go guy a Chevy Volt. He's got legal authority to make you stop voting Republican.
If he's got the legal authority to demand this, he's not bound by any restrictions whatsoever. And the simple fact of the matter is he does not have this authority. He does not have this power. It's the First Amendment, the Bill of Rights. This whole separation of church and state issue? You notice how it's vanished now? Separation of church and state doesn't matter anymore? I think this is outrageous what is happening. Let's go to the audio sound bites. This is Karl Rove last night on Greta Van Susteren. They were talking about this, and she said to him, "First of all, this fight over contraception, it's sort of something we were talking about today and tomorrow, but come November, is this gonna have any impact at all on 2012, or is it a big issue?"
ROVE: It's a big issue. Look, the biggest group of swing voters in the electorate are Catholics. They represent roughly 25% of the electorate. And any presidential election in the modern era, Catholics have tended to go with the winner. Bush won them in 2000, 2004. Obama won 'em in 2008. And it's been thus for decade. So it's beyond me why they're picked this fight. And the president has picked this fight and dug in his heels on it.
RUSH: Yeah, and he's exactly right. He's dug in his heels on it. He's picked it because this is what he wants. He's making a claim for power outside the Constitution, and nobody's stopping him on that. Nobody is challenging the primary premise here, which is that the president of the United States can order employers or insurance companies to provide anything at any price. He doesn't have that authority. I'll tell you something else is gonna happen. Since Obama now here is essentially said, "Okay, you religious bunch? I'll exempt you. In my magnanimity, I'll transfer the burden over to the insurance companies."
So how many employers are now gonna get religion and say that they have a religious opposition? 'Cause they don't want to pay for this. Do you realize what's happened here is that contraception, abortion pills, all of this... It has now been mandated that somebody provide it and pay for it under the notion that it's free. Well, it isn't free. So now the employers are now gonna trying to find a way to off-load it to insurance companies. So they'll get religion faster than you've ever seen anybody get religion. You watch. (interruption) See, Snerdley says, "Why are you against women's health?" That's another thing.
I got a sound bite coming up from a woman talking about the health risks of pregnancy and how abortion is actually medicinal. It is, but that's not new. The e idea that abortion is life-saving, that birth is life-threatening has been a common technique used by the feminazis throughout the last 20, 25 years. This is not new, the idea that you could buy giving childbirth and abortion is the way to save a woman's life. They've tried everything. I'm stunned by this. I really, really am. More Rove, one more spite from Rove. He went on to say he doesn't know why the regime is picked this fight...
ROVE: He is more afraid of Barbara Boxer and the pro-abortion crowd in the Democratic Senate caucus that he visited here in the last day or so, than he is of every cardinal, every bishop -- you know, every priest, every nun, every brother -- in the Catholic Church. His attitude is, "That doesn't matter to me. I just gotta go placate my left-wing allies, the secular left wing; and not worry about, you know, what used to be the bulwark of the Democratic Party, working class Catholic households. They're out."
RUSH: Well, as far as it goes, he's right. But that's not what Obama's doing here. The New York Times had the story before the end of the year last year that "white working-class Americans" are no longer targeted in terms of Obama's reelection. There's a big story. I forget who wrote it but it was a column in the New York Times, and it will come to me who wrote it. Some former Washington Post guy, columnist, who's now big at the Huffing and Puffington Post, wrote this. Was it Dan Balz? I forget who it was. He said that the regime was not interested in "white working-class voters." They said we're not gonna go after those voters. Rove is interpreting it as: Well, we're not gonna go after the Catholic vote.
That's not what's going on here. When Karl says he's more afraid of Barbara Boxer and the pro-abortion caucus, this is what I mean by -- in my humble opinion -- people missing the point. This is where the RNC, the Republican establishment, doesn't quite get what's going on here. Obama is not doing what he's doing to make Barbara Boxer happy or the pro-abortion crowd happy or the Democrat Senate Caucus happy. He knows that's gonna happen. What he's doing is violating the Constitution. He is coalescing extra-constitutional power. He is making a power grab here that is unprecedented in the history of the presidency. (interruption)
Thomas Edsall, that's right. Thomas Edsall wrote that piece in the Nuev Orc Times, former Washington Post columnist. So I don't think... This has been my if you then argument with the Republican establishment from the get-go with Obama. I don't think this is traditional politics at all. I don't think traditional politics has anything to do with why Obama's doing this. This is about fundamentally transforming this country from a representative republic to a pure, straight democracy with the president assuming he's the majority and therefore can do whatever he wants to do. We're not dealing with the average, "Okay, the Democrats won the White House. They're gonna have it for four or eight years. We gotta try to stop 'em however we can and we'll get power back."
There's something unprecedented going on here.
Woodrow Wilson dreamed of this.
FDR dreamed of this.
Obama is doing this.
RUSH: I'm told -- I didn't see it but I'm told -- that Obama spend most of his TV appearance a half hour ago talking about how important birth control pills are to women's health.
Birth control pills prevent cancer. That's why most women take birth control. Did you know that, Snerdley? Most women are taking birth control pills to prevent cancer. Do you know that? Yep! The president of the United States just said it: Women taking birth control pills is the most important that they can do for health, because it prevents cancer. (interruption) What? (interruption)
Okay, great. It even helps with acne, so it's an added benefit. They're not taking birth control pills to prevent pregnancy. No, no, no! We've been under the illusion that they're trying to stop getting pregnant all these years. It's to prevent cancer. The president just said so. Abortion, they say, "Oh, yeah, abortion is a much safer procedure than -- than -- than -- than -- than -- than -- than birth is." Yeah, well, what about the baby? Do we forget there's a baby involved here? Oh, well. Back to the audio sound bites. Catholic cardinal, Cardinal Donald Wuerl was on with Mika Brzezinski on Morning Joe today discussing the issue here. And I want you to listen to this. This is quite interesting.
BRZEZINSKI: I want to add another dimension to this (snickers) conversation which is a little uncomfortable, but do you keep in mind also that mmmany Catholics -- possibly even a predominant number -- use birth control? And how do you factor that into this?
WUERL: The first responsibility --
BRZEZINSKI: Are they not Catholics?
WUERL: Oh, they're Catholics. I don't want you to shock you, Mika.
BRZEZINSKI: (cackling) Okay. We have to just go there, because this is --
WUERL: I don't want to shock you, but, you know, there are even Catholics in jail.
BRZEZINSKI: I understand but --
WUERL: There are Catholics that do bad things and there are Catholics that do things that they know their Church is opposed to. That's between... As they is this work out their conscience. That doesn't mean that they're going to say because I don't live up to all the rules of the Church, the government should be able to silence my Church. I think that's where many, many Catholics are.
RUSH: Do you realize the power and purpose of the point there that Cardinal Wuerl was making? It doesn't mean that Catholics gonna say, "Because I don't live up to all the rules of the church, the government should be able to silence my church." So Mika Brzezinski wants to say, "Ah, a bunch of Catholics! You know, you cardinals and you bishops and you monsignors, you're a bunch of hypocrites. You have all these restrictive rules denying women the fun of being alive in 2012, and they're still going out and they're violating all of what you say." The Cardinal says, "It doesn't mean the government can tell my church that it can't practice its belief. Nobody's infallible." Everybody sins. We all know this. But here we go again: The demand for perfection, as defined by Obama, and if it doesn't get met -- if that demand for perfection doesn't meet Obama's standards -- then Obama can shut down what isn't perfect in his mind, or he can limit what it can do. This... Folks, it's a wake-up time here. A wake-up call.
RUSH: No, no. Here's my point, folks. I don't care if most Catholics do use birth control or if most Catholics don't use birth control. What's that have to do with the government imposing its will on the Catholic Church? It doesn't matter. The government has no right to impose its will on the Catholic Church regardless what practicing Catholics do or don't do. It's irrelevant.
Contraception Mandate is About ‘Women’s Health,’ Religious Freedom is an
Never a concern about the health of the innocent in the womb, our posterity, whose blessings of liberty are supposed to be secured, per The Preamble to the Constitution, for this radical left lunatic who should have been committed years ago!
- Sher Zieve
With regards to government intervention into religion, the First Amendment to the US Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” First, Congress is the Constitutional body that has the authority to make laws for the United States of America. Second, it is to steer clear of anything pertaining to freedom of religion.
The president of the United States has no authority—whatsoever—to make any laws or influence religion in any way, whatsoever. Therefore, Obama had and has NO authority to demand that anyone or any body—let alone the Catholic or any other Christian Church or Jewish synagogue—must appease him by providing birth control, abortions or anything else the tyrant requires. Further, he does not have the authority to compromise or ‘work a deal’ with any Church about anything. Question: Does anyone in this country still remember that the US Constitution is our foundational LEGAL document? And what is it about “no authority” that seems to confuse so many of the Obama media?
As I have written over and over again for years, if Obama is allowed to get away with flaunting the Constitution and its essential Bill of Rights, it’s as if our founding document no longer exists and Obama may now make up any law he wants to install.
But, as Congress continues to illegally give Obama more and more dictatorial powers (sadly, I wrote that—if Obama was elected—this would occur in October 2008), we have now reached the point that Obama is—fully—the Dictator-in-Chief of the USA. I have also written myriad columns warning that Obama is grabbing more and more power for himself, gutting more and more programs in order to pull in more and more money for himself and his friends yet, no one in Congress or the courts are even trying to stop him. And all too many of the former We-the-People will do anything about it.
As Obama continues to decimate our economy by destroying the US treasury and gut any of our remaining freedoms in order to force us into submission, I’m reminded of the tribes of Israel when they originally settled in Egypt. Genesis 47:19 states: “Wherefore shall we die before thine eyes, both we and our land? buy us and our land for bread, and we and our land will be servants unto Pharaoh: and give us seed, that we may live, and not die, that the land be not desolate.” They were willing to become slaves to Pharaoh for bread and grain.
Knowing that Obama truly is the one who has systematically devastated our country—by design—in order to subjugate its people (he is a true Alinskyite) are we, nonetheless, now ready to be his slaves? Are you?
“This is a radical attack on the First Amendment that cannot stand,” Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette said.
Says Conservative Reform Happens ‘One Step at a Time’
What does an Obama enabler extraordinaire like Boehner know about conservative reform?
America will be long since dead and buried waiting on "conservative reformer" Boehner's "one step at a time approach."
on Open Thread
As accurately reported by Lindsey Burke for FOX news yesterday, the "no child left behind waivers" let Team Obama seize control of your child's education. No surprise here as every aspect of the lives of "we the serfs" are to be controlled by Obama's ruling politburo.
These things happen when Marxist Socialist indoctrination masquerading as education creates a generation of Americans who see nothing wrong with allowing a communist in the Oval Office!
Per Burke, President Obama has mistaken bipartisan dissatisfaction with No Child Left Behind (NCLB) for a mandate to unilaterally re-write federal education law.
What the Obamunists won't tell you is the catch, i.e., these are not simply waivers to provide relief to states from the onerous provisions of No Child Left Behind. These are conditions-based waivers, and the strings attached to this “relief” further tether states to Washington.
Burke correctly observes the following:
1) States need relief from No Child Left Behind. It’s a flawed law, and the bill’s 600-plus pages of legislative language—combined with additional thousands of pages of regulations—burden state and local leaders while failing to improve educational outcomes. Instead, it has merely deepened Washington’s involvement in local education, continued a maze of non-performing federal education programs, and fueled a massive increase in federal education spending.
2) Imagine how that burden will grow when states that have received waivers must begin complying with the new conditions layered on them through the administration-imposed extra-legislative process.
3) One of the most concerning conditions attached to the waivers is a requirement that states adopt common standards and tests or have their state university approve their standards. None of the waiver-approved states opted for the latter. The administration’s various carrots and sticks ($4.35 billion in Race to the Top grants and potential Title I dollars) had already pushed them to begin implementing the Common Core national standards and tests.
4) When national organizations and the Department of Education dictate standards and tests, they effectively control what can—and can’t--be taught in local schools. The degree to which these critical decisions are about to be centralized and nationalized is unprecedented in America.
5) By circumventing Congress to grant strings-attached waivers, the White House has demonstrated disregard for the legislative process and determination to further tighten federal control over education. If the Obama administration were truly interested in providing relief to states from NCLB’s mandates, it would be supporting Congressionally-borne alternatives like the A-PLUS proposal, which would fundamentally reduce the federal role by allowing states to completely opt-out of NCLB – no strings attached.
The BOTTOM LINE is Burke's final statement below.
Educational control rightly belongs to parents and teachers and to state and local officials responsible for assuring that the children under their care get a get education. If decision-making is to be restored to its proper place, states must resist this latest federal power grab, resisting the siren call of waivers and, instead, demanding genuine relief from Washington.
Parents have always been recognized as the primary teachers of their children with the state acting in a support capacity only, i.e., "in loco parentis (in place of the parent)", not USURPING PARENTAL AUTHORITY!
Read more: http://www.centredaily.com/2012/02/09/3084413/obama-gives-education-waivers.html#comment-435208123
Cutting the Nuclear Arsenal Even Further Posted By Baker Spring On February 10, 2012 @ 1:00 pm In Protect America |
Representative Edward Markey (D–MA) has grave misconceptions regarding contributions that nuclear weapons make to the U.S. and allied national security. On Wednesday, he introduced a bill that would cut  $100 billion in nuclear weapons programs. This bill is co-sponsored by 34 other Representatives.
Not only would such cuts be disastrous for the already under-funded U.S. nuclear weapons infrastructure; they would also call into question U.S. commitment to extended deterrence and viability of the New Strategic Arms Reductions Treaty (New START) with the Russian Federation. In addition, the proposed cuts would do very little to solve  the country’s fiscal problems.
Last October, Markey sent a letter to the Joint Select Committee on the Deficit in which he stated  that the U.S. spends “over $50 billion a year on the U.S. nuclear arsenal” and called on “the Super Committee to cut $20 billion a year, or $200 billion over the next ten years, from the U.S. nuclear weapons budget.”
But according to Principal Deputy Undersecretary of Defense James Miller, the figure was close  to $214 billion over 10 years (about $88 billion for the Department of Energy and more than $125 billion for the Department of Defense). Markey’s initial call of gutting $200 billion over the next 10 years would result “in the immediate and unilateral nuclear disarmament of the United States,” according  to Congressman Mike Turner (R–OH). A $100 billion cut would be just as devastating.
Currently, more than 30 countries all over the world rely on U.S. nuclear weapons. These countries have not developed their own nuclear weapons or expanded their current arsenals because they have believed that the U.S. would respond with a devastating force if they are threatened. Credibility—whether an enemy actor believes the U.S. will come to the aid of its allies—is a key consideration  for any opponent when deciding whether to launch an attack. The credibility of U.S. nuclear weapons will diminish if they are not properly maintained. This could cause allies to develop or expand their current nuclear weapon arsenals.
During the Senate’s consideration of New START, the Administration promised to increase funding for the U.S. nuclear weapons complex. The Administration deemed  these investments “essential to facilitating reductions while sustaining deterrence under New START and beyond.” The Administration, however, did not manage to secure funding for maintaining nuclear weapons laboratories and their core competencies in the fiscal year 2012 budget. Representatives supporting this bill are people who overwhelmingly support President Obama’s policies. To that end, it is even less clear that the Obama Administration will honor its earlier commitments to nuclear modernization.
Article printed from
The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation: http://blog.heritage.org
URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/10/cutting-the-nuclear-arsenal-even-further/
URLs in this post:
 solve: http://savingthedream.org/
February 10, 2012
talk about a candidate who is perfectly positioned to draw the most distinct
contrast to Obama and the Democrats and what's going on right now?
February 10, 2012
RUSH: I want to move on to Rick Santorum. You talk about being perfectly positioned? Rick Santorum is a practicing Catholic, a pro-lifer. You talk about a candidate who is perfectly positioned to draw the most distinct contrast to Obama and the Democrats and what's going on right now? Santorum speak at CPAC this morning, the Conservative Political Action Conference. We have five excerpts from Santorum's speech which fired up CPAC. Here's the first of them...
SANTORUM: "We have to learn our lesson that we need to compromise, do what's politically reasonable, and go out and push someone forward who can win." Well, I think we have learned our lesson, and the lesson we've learned is that we will no longer abandon and apologize for the policies and principles that made this country great for a hollow victory in November. The other thing we should recognize [is] as conservatives and Tea Party folks, that we are not just wings of the Republican Party, we are the Republican Party.
RUSH: Here is another bite. Santorum discussing the origin of human rights...
SANTORUM: We see what happens when government gives you rights. When government gives you rights, government can take away those rights. When government gives you rights, government can coerce you into doing things and exercising the right that they gave you. I've been traveling around this country talking about how Obamacare will crush economic freedom, will make people dependent upon government for the most important things: Their very lives. And as a result, government will own you, because you will have to pay tribute to Washington in order to get the care you need for your children. One of the reasons I'm in this race -- in fact the major reason I'm in this race -- is because I think Obamacare is a game-changer for America.
RUSH: Right on, right on -- and here is a bite. This is Santorum discussing the Health and Human Services mandate. He says it's about much more than contraception.
SANTORUM: He's now telling the Catholic Church that they
are forced to pay for things that are against their basic tenets and teachings,
against their First Amendment right. Ladies and gentlemen, this is the
kind of coercion that we can expect. It's not about contraception.
It's about economic liberty. It's about freedom of speech. It's about freedom
of religion. It's about government control of your lives, and it's gotta stop.
RUSH: And next up, Santorum goes after Romney...
SANTORUM: Who has a record of supporting health savings accounts and tort reform and bottom-up, consumer-driven health care for 20 years? And who has supported, in fact, the stepchild of Obamacare? The person in Massachusetts who built the largest government-run health care system in the United States, someone who would simply give that issue away in the fall. Give the issue away, of government control of your health. Ladies and gentlemen, we're not gonna win with money. We're gonna win with contrasts. We're gonna win with ideas. We're gonna win by making Barack Obama and his failed policies the issue in this race!
RUSH: You're probably gonna hear a little bit more of this, Santorum targeting Romney, going after Romney. Then he nukes the notion, Santorum does, that you can only win independents with a moderate candidate.
SANTORUM: We won in 2010 because conservatives rallied. They were excited about the contrasts. They were excited about the candidates who were put forth in that election, and that's why we won. We always talk about, "Well, how we gonna get the moderates?" Why would an undecided voter vote for a candidate of a party who the party's not excited about? ... We need conservatives now to rally for a conservative, to go into November, to excite the conservative base, to pull -- with that excitement -- moderate voters and to defeat Barack Obama in the fall.
RUSH: I like the premise here, and it's a good question: "Why would an undecided voter vote for a candidate of a party who the party is not excited about? " This is something the Republican establishment often overlooks. Okay, the Republican base has a problem with any candidate. Candidate A. If that candidate happens to be the establishment's choice, the establishment says, "Yeah, but we need that candidate to go get moderates." Yeah, well, fine and dandy, you go get the moderates. So what if you're not gonna get your base out of this? This is one of the big problems that the Republican establishment has now.
And Santorum is exactly right here, folks: The 2010 midterms saw independents flooding to the Republican Party. By the way, that election was not about anybody but Barack Obama. There wasn't a Republican name that was attracting these independents. It was total opposition to what Obama was doing. It was anger and opposition to Obamaism. The Republican Party should have understood. I'm even hearing Republicans and some consultants say, "Ah, the 2010 midterms have nothing to do with the November 2012 election, Mr. Limbaugh. You just -- you're not a professional like we are, and you don't understand elections. You may be good at radio, but you don't understand elections. And that 2010 midterms had nothing to do with the president."
Really? Nothing to do with the presidential race?
"No, totally separate issues, individual congressional races, no national mandate."
The hell you say! No national mandate? The independents that you covet abandoned the Democrat Party in droves, and there wasn't a moderate Republican for them to go to. It was the pure abandonment of Obama. Why? They didn't want what Obama is doing or stands for. Wouldn't it stand to reason if you keep pounding that message, that those independents will stay with you? But there's such a defensive posture, there's such fear that the Republicans think to hold onto those independents in a presidential race, we gotta moderate, nominate a moderate somebody that's not offensive, somebody's not conservative.
The consultants told me, "But, Rush, you're missing the boat. Those independents that voted Republican, they weren't voting for conservatism."
Really? They weren't voted for the purpose conservatism?
"No, they're not ideological. They just don't like what Obama was doing."
Okay, fine. They don't like what Obama was doing. What was Obama doing? Socialism, liberalism! What do we stand for? The exact oppose. Give it a voice, give it a candidate. It's not hard! I don't understand what is so hard about this. I understand it's different businesses. I understand getting votes is a far different thing from getting listeners to a radio show, an audience, but I don't quite understand... Well, do. I understand this total devotion to moderates and independents, because it comes from pure fear and their belief that a conservative will end up being landslide defeated like Goldwater was, which is the formative memory they have.
on Mann details intricacies, ethics surrounding climate change
Mann is positively shameless in his continuing promotion of a lie that is being increasingly debunked in the scientific literature on a daily basis with the links providing evidence of same presented in detail in previous CDT articles rebutting the fallacies of Mann's "research", and, as a retired engineering math professional, having worked for 43 years doing applications for the Navy, industry, and academia, I use that term loosely in regard to Mann and his ilk who have given science, which is supposed to be a search for the truth, not lies, a bad name.
When you have the documented testimony of over 31,000 scientists against you, you would think that would get your attention. But, alas, not the likes of Michael Mann who is incapable of admitting to a mistake, which many in the scientific community having "pangs of conscience" are now doing in the admission that they were "duped" by the climate doomsayers, that is having repercussions throughout a dying economy resulting in untold misery for millions who have lost their jobs and their families because of the lies of Mann's Gore green goblin colleagues who couldn't care less!