Obama is attacking Religious Freedom in America (Just like everything else)

[Soul Crusher]

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/02/08/cardinal-designate-dolan-president-obama-needs-to-stop-intruding-into-internal-life-of-a-church



This thing is exploding.   Fuck Obama and his evil cabal of communists and marxists. 

[Soul Crusher]

         
Email   Print   47Comments   Share
February 7, 2012
Obama's Assault on the Poor
By Michael Gerson
WASHINGTON -- Some issues fade; others fester. The Obama administration's contraceptive mandate on religious charities, hospitals and universities is the festering kind.

The initial reaction concerned the rights of institutions. Catholic organizations naturally resent being forced to buy health insurance that covers sterilization, contraceptives and drugs that can end a pregnancy soon after conception. The Obama administration seems to have calculated that since contraceptives are popular and the Catholic Church is not, the outcry would be isolated.


But religious liberty is also popular, given the Constitution and all that. Even those who have no objection to contraception -- the category in which I have repeatedly placed myself -- can be offended when arrogant government officials compel religious institutions to violate the dictates of their conscience. Religious liberty that applies only to doctrines and practices of which we approve means nothing.

In this case, however, the main harm Barack Obama has done is not to institutions. It is to the people they serve.

The provision of social services in America, and by America abroad, is a partnership between government and religious groups, both of which have advantages. Religious charities are compassionate and trusted by communities. Government has greater reach and resources.

A humane partnership between the two has depended on an uneasy compromise. Religious groups must use public funds for public purposes, not for proselytization. Government, in turn, allows religious charities to maintain views and practices that are different from those of public institutions.

At first, Obama endorsed this consensus -- in his "Call to Renewal" speech in 2006 and his Zanesville, Ohio, speech in 2008. Now his administration is applying an ideological wrecking ball. It asserts that only churches merit serious religious liberty protection. The government's views and standards must prevail when religious groups serve nonmembers -- an apparently unlimited power to regulate religious institutions that don't distribute the bread and wine.

The health care mandate is not an aberration; it is a culmination. In the Hosanna-Tabor Supreme Court case, the Obama administration opposed any special ministerial exception to federal law -- a radical argument unanimously repudiated by the court. The Department of Health and Human Services recently denied a grant to the Migrant and Refugee Services committee of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to assist women rescued from sex trafficking, ostensibly because the organization does not refer for abortions.

In a variety of international settings, I have seen religious groups, with support from the U.S. government, engaged in AIDS treatment, fistula repair, malaria control and the promotion of child and maternal health. Dr. Ram Cnaan of the University of Pennsylvania has documented the domestic role of "sacred places that serve civic purposes" -- homeless shelters, food banks, health care, welfare-to-work, prisoner re-entry programs. Cnaan estimates the "replacement value" -- the cost to government agencies of assuming these roles -- to be about $140,000 each year for the typical community-serving religious institution.

Take the case of one city: Philadelphia. There are about 2,000 such faith-based institutions, many of them Catholic. Replacing them would require about a quarter of a billion dollars every year. Catholic Social Services helps more than 250,000 people a year in soup kitchens, shelters and centers for the disabled. Its Community-Based Services division runs adoption and foster-care programs, staffs senior community centers and supports immigration services. The Catholic Nutritional Development Services, working in partnership with public agencies, delivers nearly 10 million meals a year -- accounting for about half of all meals delivered to poor children in Philadelphia in the summer months when school is out.

Much of this good work -- and similar work across the country -- is now threatened. If federal policies make it impossible for religious nonprofits and hospitals to work in conjunction with federal, state and local agencies in providing social services, millions of poor and vulnerable Americans -- Catholic and non-Catholic, religious and nonreligious -- would suffer. The task of building alternatives would cost hundreds of billions of dollars -- and then lack the distinctive human touch provided by religious groups.

All because Obama seems determined to establish secularism as a state religion. There is, however, an easy solution to the problem: The president could respect the rights and views of those who disagree with him. The relevant portion of the Bill of Rights is easy to find, because it comes first. 

Copyright 2012, Washington Post Writers Group

   

[Soul Crusher]

Deny Communion to Pelosi urge canon lawyer, popular priest-blogger
Life Site News ^ | February 8, 2012 | PATRICK B. CRAINE
Posted on February 8, 2012 4:23:31 PM EST by NYer

WASHINGTON, D.C., February 8, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – After pro-abortion House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi defied America’s bishops last week by proclaiming she would stand with her “fellow Catholics” in support of President Obama’s contraception mandate, one of the web’s most prominent priest-bloggers has issued an impassioned plea for her bishops to deny her Holy Communion in accord with canon law.

“For the good of souls, Nancy Pelosi must be denied Holy Communion and the Catholic people should be informed that she is being denied Holy Communion,” wrote Fr. John Zuhlsdorf (aka Fr. Z) on his blog Tuesday.

Fr. Zuhlsdorf is calling on Archbishop George Niederauer of San Francisco and Cardinal Donald Wuerl to invoke canon 915, which states that those who have been “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.”

Niederauer has said in the past that he was considering denying Pelosi Communion, but Wuerl has said such an act would turn the Eucharist into a “weapon.”

The priest got support Tuesday from leading canon lawyer Dr. Edward Peters, who holds the Edmund Cardinal Szoka Chair at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit and serves as a consultant to the Vatican’s highest court.

On his In the Light of the Law blog, Dr. Peters writes that Pelosi is perhaps the best case for applying canon 915 in the United States.

“If her prolonged public conduct does not qualify as obstinate perseverance in manifest grave sin, then, in all sincerity, I must admit to not knowing what would constitute obstinate perseverance in manifest grave sin,” he writes.

Last Wednesday, a CNSnews.com reporter asked Pelosi if she would stand with her fellow Catholics in resisting the contraception mandate, which would force Catholic institutions to offer coverage of contraception to employees.

In reply, Pelosi, a self-professed devout Catholic, said, “First of all, I am going to stick with my fellow Catholics in supporting the Administration on this. I think it was a very courageous decision that they made, and I support it.”

Catholics have been calling for Pelosi’s bishops to invoke canon 915 for many years, but her remarks last week were particularly poignant as at least 169 Catholic bishops across the country, representing over 90% of the country’s dioceses, have blasted the mandate, in many cases ensuring that letters were read to the faithful during Sunday Mass calling the mandate unconstitutional and unjust.

“Nancy Pelosi considers it consistent with what Catholics do to take a stand against the bishops in favor of a policy that would force Catholic institutions to violate the teachings of her Church,” wrote Fr. Zuhlsdorf, noting that she is one of the most visible public figures in America.

“Your Excellency?  Your Eminence?  How much longer does this have to go on?  What else does she have to do?” he asked.

To concerns that such a strong action would launch a media firestorm, Fr. Zuhlsdorf replied, “Damn straight! Let there be national repercussions and a media firestorm.”

“Nancy Pelosi has publicly chosen sides against the Catholic Church’s teachings and against the bishops,” he said. “Let her choice be publicly confirmed by those same bishops.”

According to Dr. Peters, Pelosi’s comments suggest that her views “like Pharaoh’s heart, have only hardened with time.”

“Canon 915 … is not about impositions on individual conscience, it’s about public consequences for public behavior,” he said. “It’s about taking people at their word and acknowledging the character of their actions. It’s about not pretending that people don’t really mean what they repeatedly say and what they repeatedly do.”

“My view is that Nancy Pelosi deserves to be deprived of holy Communion to bring home to her and to the wider faith community the gravity of her conduct and the need to avoid such conduct altogether or, that failing, at least to repent of it. Quickly,” he said.

“Nancy Pelosi obviously means exactly what she says, and she regularly backs up her words with deeds. She deserves to be taken seriously. Very seriously,” he added.

LifeSiteNews.com did not hear back from the Archdioceses of San Francisco or Washington by press time.

To contact Archbishop Niederauer:
info@sfarchdiocese.org

To contact Cardinal Wuerl:
chancery@adw.org

[Soul Crusher]

Wash Post Journalist: 'Maybe the Founders Were Wrong' to Guarantee Free Exercise of Religion
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2012/02/08/wash-post-journalist-maybe-founders-were-wrong-guarantee-free-exerci ^
Posted on February 8, 2012 8:44:57 PM EST by chessplayer

Washington Post political writer Melinda Henneberger shockingly stated, Wednesday, that "maybe the Founders were wrong" to guarantee religious liberty. Henneberger appeared on Hardball to discuss the Obama administration's decision to force the Catholic Church to provide birth control in health care.

Discussing the battle between the left and those who see it as a threat to the First Amendment, she declared, " Maybe the Founders were wrong to guarantee free exercise of religion in the First Amendment but that is what they did and I don't think we have to choose here. " Henneberger's awkward comment came as she attempted to defend the Catholic Church. [See video below. MP3 audio here.]

[Soul Crusher]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204136404577211280758375336.html



This monster needs to be defeated in November.    He is the spawn of Satan. 

[Soul Crusher]

Affordable Health Care Act
Motive, means and opportunity: Obama’s assault on Catholics


- Doug Hagmann  Wednesday, February 8, 2012
(0) Comments | Print friendly | Email Us
  5
The current headlines that describe the Obama administration’s full frontal assault against our Judeo-Christian values and specifically, the Catholic church in America through mandatory birth control policies, reveal a much larger and more disturbing agenda that is being missed or deliberately omitted by the corporate media.

Investigation into what has been taking place behind the scenes exposes alarming facts that will affect everyone in America, regardless of their faith.


 
Despite the administration’s claims and the sound bites from lawmakers, the current battle is not about providing Americans with affordable health care and never was. By following the money trail and influence behind the actions of this administration, it is clear that the current rift is a byproduct of final stages of implementing Marxist-Leninist socialism in America.

Motive: the Socialist agenda
Since his first day in office, Obama has been leading the U.S. on a direct path to socialism. He has nationalized portions of the banking industry, taken over parts of the automobile industry, and is now engaged in socializing our health care industry, which encompasses about twenty percent of our national economy. Replacing capitalism with socialism requires control over that segment of our national economy.


 
Obama and the globalist powers behind him know history. They understand that the most formidable obstacle to socialism in the former USSR was religion and the church. True socialism cannot coexist with Judeo-Christian principles, as socialism denies the fundamental tenet of religious faith that God created man and man needs God.

Means: Divide and conquer
To neutralize and then eliminate the obstacle of the church, Obama and his agents are using the divide and conquer strategy. Within the last decade, there has been a skillfully orchestrated approach to dividing the Catholic church through the formation and funding “Catholic” organizations that adhere and promote the socialist agenda. Two of the larger organizations, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United, both promote “social justice” and the tenets of socialism.

Research has documented that both organizations have received funding, in part, by George Soros through his Open Society Institute (OSI). Throughout the last decade, it was discovered that Soros’ OSI group gave Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good $150,000 (2005 and 2006).  Investigation found that John Podesta, founder of the Center for American Progress (CAP) which is funded in part by George Soros and tightly connected to both Obama and the Clintons, serves on their advisory council among other progressive activists. A review of 501(c)3 documents also shows a financial connection between Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United.

By promoting the progressive agendas of these and similar organizations, Obama is successfully creating a division within the Catholic church in an attempt to cause chaos from within. Unless exposed, it just might work.

Opportunity: the Affordable Health Care Act
The last remaining obstacle in the U.S. to implementing a full socialist agenda in the U.S. is the church. In Obama’s world and those who are behind him this “obstacle” must be removed for his agenda to be successful. They were readily provided the vehicle to accomplish this in full view of every American through the Affordable Care Act.

 
Doug Hagmann
Most recent columns

Copyright © Douglas Hagmann
Douglas Hagmann, founder & director of the Northeast Intelligence Network, and a multi-state licensed private investigative agency. Doug began using his investigative skills and training to fight terrorism and increase public awareness through his website.

Doug can be reached at: director@homelandsecurityus.com
Older articles by Doug Hagmann

[Necrosis]

HAHAHA you are insane, you are responding to yourself and posting article after article, you have OCD want some help?

[LurkerNoMore]

HAHAHA you are insane, you are responding to yourself and posting article after article, you have OCD want some help?

Quiet!!  The voices in his head are talking to him.

[Soul Crusher]

 .  How original of both of y obamabots. ou

[LurkerNoMore]

Are you still blaming this retarded spelling on your Auto Correct being ON?

[Soul Crusher]

Are you still blaming this retarded spelling on your Auto Correct being ON?

You leftists who call yourself "pro choice" are such a joke.   you are only for the choice of an abortion, and nothing else. 

[Soul Crusher]

February 9, 2012 4:00 A.M.

Unconscionable
By The Editors

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/290603/unconscionable-editors

HHS secretary Kathleen Sebelius




The Obama administration is now telling liberals that it is not backing down on its new health-care mandate, even as it coos of compromise to religious groups appalled by it. These messages may seem to be contradictory, but actually the administration has been quite consistent: Nothing it has ever said on this issue has been trustworthy.

Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, has been the leading misleader. The administration, recall, has decided that almost all employers must cover contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients in their employees’ insurance plans — even if those employers are religious universities, hospitals, and charities that reject those practices.


AdvertisementSo she has tried to make the mandate seem more moderate than it is. In USA Today, she writes that “in the rule we put forward, we specifically carved out from the policy religious organizations that primarily employ people of their own faith.” Taken at face value, this statement would seem to imply that Notre Dame could escape the mandate if it fired its non-Catholic employees. That policy would be outrageous: What gives the federal government the legitimate authority to tell a religious institution how it should structure its mission? But in fact the administration would make the university jump through several more hoops. It would also have to expel its non-Catholic students. And even these changes would not be enough, since the university would continue to do much more than attempt to inculcate religious beliefs in its students — which is another test the administration requires for the exemption to apply.

Sebelius says that three states have religious exemptions as narrow as the one the federal government has adopted. The notion that the federal government is imposing the model of three very liberal states — New York, Oregon, and Vermont — on the entire country is not comforting. But even in those states, some employers have been able to sidestep the mandates by, for example, organizing their insurance under federal regulation, which until now has not overridden conscience. The new mandate eliminates that escape route.

Joel Hunter, one of Obama’s pet pastors, says “this policy can be nuanced.” (“I have come to bring nuance,” as Matthew 10:34 does not say.) He is wrong. Either the administration will back off, and allow religious organizations to follow their consciences, or it will not. If it chooses the former course, it may still find a way to increase access to contraception — which is not especially scarce, by the way — but it will have to replace its current policy, not just “nuance” it.

Two bills in Congress would reverse the administration’s policy. Senator Roy Blunt (R., Mo.) and Representative Jeff Fortenberry (R., Neb.) have legislation to protect conscience rights generally. A bill from Senator Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) would allow religious groups to refrain from providing sterilization and contraception. Both bills are praiseworthy, but both have drawbacks. The former, broader bill might allow liberals to conjure up hypothetical scenarios — what if a pharmacist decided he had a moral objection to painkillers? — rather than address the administration’s hostility to religious freedom.

The narrower bill, on the other hand, would leave conscience rights weaker than they were at the start of the Obama administration. Before Obamacare, a businessman had no obligation under federal law to provide health insurance covering anything he considered immoral. Whether his objection was moral or religious did not matter, and nor did whether his organization met criteria an administration in Washington, D.C., had established. Leaving these matters to individual consciences and free labor markets has worked fine, and not seriously impeded anyone’s access to needed medical services. Any “compromise” the administration offers should be measured against this standard: the standard of the pre-Obama American tradition of religious freedom, a tradition that has constitutional protection even if it lacks the administration’s sympathy.

editor’s note: This article has been amended since its initial publication.

[LurkerNoMore]

Are you still blaming this retarded spelling on your Auto Correct being ON?

[blacken700]

You leftists who call yourself "pro choice" are such a joke.   you are only for the choice of an abortion, and nothing else. 

you can have the choice to an abortion or not to have an abortion,that's a choice

[Soul Crusher]

you can have the choice to an abortion or not to have an abortion,that's a choice

Should the church have the choice as to what insurance it wants to offer? 

[Necrosis]

Should the church have the choice as to what insurance it wants to offer? 

NO, the church is not a dictatorship if even one woman in the church wants birth control they should offer it, what are you a fascist? You seriously feel comfortable allowing church officials to dictate health policy and dictate a proven life saver in cases from it's staff because of a belief? If they want certain things they should offer there own health care, they are billionaires, why the fuck should we pay for it, you fucking commie.

[Soul Crusher]

NO, the church is not a dictatorship if even one woman in the church wants birth control they should offer it, what are you a fascist? You seriously feel comfortable allowing church officials to dictate health policy and dictate a proven life saver in cases from it's staff because of a belief? If they want certain things they should offer there own health care, they are billionaires, why the fuck should we pay for it, you fucking commie.

Yes, absolutely!   Those not happy with what is being offered can work elsewhere or pay for it themselves. 

 

[Necrosis]

Yes, absolutely!   Those not happy with what is being offered can work elsewhere or pay for it themselves. 

 

K i agree, so does Obama, perhaps he went about it in a shitty way but he did the right thing, you see you have to play dirty to win. I realize that now, the GOP have been doing it, now obama is, well he has been.

It needs to stop on both sides. The church should fuck right off, government is too big they need to get these leaches off there backs, including the welfare recipients. However, they need to pay for education for these welfare folks to make sure they can contribute, just handing people money will only make them lazier.

[Soul Crusher]

Some Democrats break from Obama on new contraception policy, as GOP vows to reverse it
Published February 08, 2012 | FoxNews.com



Some members of President Obama's own party are voicing opposition to his administration's controversial rule that religious schools and hospitals must provide contraceptive coverage for their employees.

As Democratic women lawmakers put up a united front in defending the administration, other Democrats are split over the new birth control policy, which has been condemned by Republicans as an "unambiguous attack on religious freedom in our country."

Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., who faces re-election in November, sent a letter to Obama complaining that the mandate is a "direct affront to religious freedoms."

Rep. Dan Lipinski, D-Ill., said in January that the decision "violates the long-standing tradition of protection for conscience rights in federal law."

Tim Kaine, a Catholic seeking the Senate seat in Virginia, said he supports contraceptive coverage but thinks there should be a broader exemption for religious organizations.

Others have voiced strong support for the policy.

"Women's health care should not depend on who the boss is," said Illinois Rep. Jan Schakowsky.

The White House pushed back in the face of the political firestorm, arguing that Obama was sensitive to the objections and looking for a way to allay the concerns. Sen Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey said Obama discussed the issue during a closed-door retreat Wednesday with Senate Democrats.

"He affirmed his view," Lautenberg said. "He's sticking by what he said, and he said we should be very careful to explain that an exception was made for those that have the religious objections ... Otherwise, (contraception) is going to have to be supplied."

The fight over the administration mandate escalated as House Speaker John Boehner accused the administration of violating First Amendment rights and undermining some of the country's most vital institutions, such as Catholic charities, schools and hospitals. He demanded that Obama rescind the policy or else Congress will.

"This attack by the federal government on religious freedom in our country cannot stand, and will not stand," Boehner, a Catholic and Ohio Republican, said in a floor speech rare for the speaker.

The contentious issue has roiled the presidential race and angered religious groups, especially Catholics, who say the requirement would force them to violate church teachings and long-held beliefs against contraception.

It also has pushed social issues to the forefront in an election year that has been dominated by the economy. Abortion, contraception and any of the requirements of Obama's health care overhaul law have the potential to galvanize the Republicans' conservative base, critical to voter turnout in the presidential and congressional races.

Clearly sensing a political opening, Republicans ramped up the criticism. Shortly after Boehner spoke, GOP senators gathered on the other side of the Capitol to hammer the administration and insist that they will push ahead with legislation to undo the requirement.

Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., called the new rule "an unprecedented affront to religious liberty. This is not a women's rights issue. This is a religious liberty issue."

The issue is not contraception, said Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., but "whether the government of the United States should have the power to go in and tell a faith-based organization that they have to pay for something that they teach their members shouldn't be done. It's that simple. And if the answer is yes, then this government can reach all kinds of other absurd results."

Several Senate Democrats said they would challenge any effort to reverse the policy.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., pointed out that for about 15 percent of women, birth control pills are used to treat endometriosis and other conditions.

"It's medicine and women deserve their medicine," she said.

The White House, facing a public and political outcry, engaged in damage control, circulating letters and statements from outside groups defending its position.

Administration officials had signaled on Tuesday that a compromise was possible and made clear Wednesday it was still looking for a way to deal with the issue.

"The president is committed, as I've tried to make clear, to ensuring that this policy is implemented so that all American women have access to the same level of health care coverage and doing that in a way that hopefully allays some of the concerns that have been expressed," said White House spokesman Jay Carney, who added, "We're focused on trying to get the policy implementation done in the right way."

Options could include granting leeway for a church-affiliated employer not to cover birth control, provided it referred employees to an insurer who would provide the coverage.

Another idea, previously rejected by the administration, calls for broadening the definition of a religious employer that would be exempt from the mandate beyond houses of worship and institutions whose primary purpose is to spread the faith. That broader approach would track a definition currently used by the IRS, bringing in schools, hospitals and social service agencies that deal with the general public.

A group of House Democratic women sought to frame the issue in economic and health terms, arguing that birth control reduces health costs and stops unintended pregnancies.

In a conference call, Rep. Lois Capps, D-Calif., who said she spoke as a nurse, mother and grandmother, pointed out that 28 states have similar rules on coverage for birth control. Schakowsky pointed out that the rule affects nurses, secretaries and janitorial staff who may not be Catholic.

Rep. Gwen Moore, D-Wis., said the church "can't impose its religious views on people and whether they can have health care."

Fox News' Trish Turner and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

 Print     Close
URL

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/08/some-democrats-break-from-obama-on-new-contraception-policy-as-gop-vows-to/



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/08/some-democrats-break-from-obama-on-new-contraception-policy-as-gop-vows-to/print#ixzz1luKcdd9a

[Soul Crusher]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/9/rubio-blasts-obama-over-contraceptive-mandate


Obama is going to be forced to cave on this.   once the presits in the hispanic churches tell them what evil thugbama is shoving down their throats, they will not vote for him.   

[Necrosis]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/9/rubio-blasts-obama-over-contraceptive-mandate


Obama is going to be forced to cave on this.   once the presits in the hispanic churches tell them what evil thugbama is shoving down their throats, they will not vote for him.   

so are you for the right thing or just into politics. Obama isn't playing politics with them like all others he is telling them exactly what i have outlined. He is not attacking religious freedom at all, he just wont support barbaric practices based on silly superstitions because they deserve special rights. He is saying fuck off, get in line and do what ever other tax paying american has to do.

They are rich, child raping, fugitive safe haven bullshitters. I don't support denying any medical options unless logic dictates otherwise, im sorry i wont pay for a program that risks others lives because these morons believe in talking snakes and noah's ark. They don't support birth control, i get it, they are wrong and the world is moving past their outdated and dangerous views. They support the status quo, they blow dicks and should judge lest you be judged. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, apparently these hypocrites think they are the final judgement, birth control? saves lives? saves kids from suffering mental illness, mother from rape induce pregnancy etc etc.. to say this can't be on the table is idiotic and downright dangerous, how about fuck them and let others in the church choose what they want for themselves.

fuck man, you guys all speak about freedom but apparently you support socialism for select groups, the rich, the powerful and the church, anything else?

logic is against them, people are against them, they are tax exempt billionaires in teh vatican, why does obama have to apologize again? for not caving in to fucking stupidity. If he caves he has no back bone and should be beaten with a stick.

he has shown he will compromise to the point of giving in, i understand he is dealing with psychos like newt for example but he has to be more assertive.

i support alot of what he has done, but he has failed due to lack of backbone, if he caves again he has shown me that he can be manipulated. Not a quality i would suspect a leader to have.

obama is right here.

[Soul Crusher]

LOL.   More garbage.   Its not about the church! ! ! !   Its about the govt mandating what employers have to provide employees. 

Employers should have the right and freedom to offer what ever the fuck they want or dont want!   

[Soul Crusher]

Rick Warren vs. HHS Mandate: ‘rather go to jail than cave’
By Kathryn Jean Lopez

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/290654/rick-warren-vs-hhs-mandate-rather-go-jail-cave-kathryn-jean-lopez

February 9, 2012 11:48 A.M. Comments




Rick Warren tweets:

I’m not a Catholic but I stand in 100% solidarity with my brothers & sisters to practice their belief against govt pressure

and

I’d go to jail rather than cave in to a govement mandate that violates what God commands us to do. Would you? Acts 5:29

Warren delivered the invocation at Barack Obama’s inauguration.

[Soul Crusher]

Obama, Contraception, and Freedom of Association: Constitutional Guys Finish Last  | Print |     
Written by Selwyn Duke     
Thursday, 09 February 2012 09:45 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2844393/posts




It’s ironic that it is Barack Obama now ramming a contraception policy down Catholics’ and other Americans’ throats. Little more than a month ago, former Clinton operative George Stephanopoulos spent 10 minutes in a Republican debate grilling presidential contenders Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney on, of all things, contraception.

What inspired the bizarre questions? First, Santorum is a practicing Catholic who doesn’t believe in the use of artificial birth control. Second, responding to a query from ABC’s Jake Tapper about a week prior to the debate, Santorum reiterated a constitutional fact: States have a right to ban contraception should they so choose.

To place the matter in further perspective for Tapper, Santorum gave the example of the Texas sodomy law overturned by the Supreme Court. Santorum said that he personally wouldn’t support the law, but nonetheless, states have a right to pass such legislation. He then criticized the judicial activism that overturns these laws and pointed out that, if the people find such a law unjust, the proper way to seek redress is through their state legislatures. This, my friends, is Constitutionalism 101.

For having the temerity to grasp and explain the supreme law of our land, Santorum was portrayed as the second coming of Tomás de Torquemada. Ms. Magazine ran with the deceptive headline “Santorum…Touts Anti-Contraceptive Position.” OutsidetheBeltway.com went one better, telling an outright lie with its headline, “Rick Santorum Favors Making Birth Control Illegal.” Meanwhile, the drama queens at Salon penned the header “Rick Santorum is coming for your birth control.” Ooh, that’s right, ladies! If Santorum becomes President, you’ll be having babies every time you sneeze! As for Tapper at ABC, he (or his editors) ran with “Santorum…Still Supports State Right to Outlaw Contraception.” Uh, well, yes. There’s a good reason for that.

The Constitution hasn’t changed since the last time he supported the state right to outlaw contraception.

Or did the nation pass another amendment and I missed it?

Let’s be clear: Our Constitution clearly dictates that states have a wide array of powers. In fact, if a state wants to outlaw apples, it may do so. And guess what?

I support a state’s right to outlaw apples.

Now people can say that Selwyn Duke touts an anti-apple position, favors making apples illegal, and is coming for your apples. My, just how will you keep the doctor away?

Meanwhile, in Gotham City (on the Potomac), we know what the big news is. Obama and his minions actually have used the force of law in the area of contraception. As part of their ObamaCare Death Star mandates they’re forcing all employers — even religious ones, such as Catholic hospitals — to offer birth-control through their worker health-insurance coverage. Not only that, this includes drugs such as the “morning-after” pill, which can induce abortion and destroy innocent human life. And the kicker is that Obama is doing this on the federal level, in clear violation of the Constitution.

Do you see the irony? As a devout Catholic, Rick Santorum doesn’t believe in using birth control; he also knows that he must attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days. Yet he never implied that he would outlaw contraception any more than he would attempt to make Mass attendance compulsory. And every sane person knows this. Yet, because he personally adheres to the morality of his Catholic faith, and because he knows that we all should adhere to the legality of the Constitution, he’s the bad guy. Moreover, the media, playing this for all it’s worth, actually makes a federal (or is it state?) case out of this in a major Republican debate, as if there is a real possibility of having an Anti-Contraception Act of 2013.

So here’s what we’re to believe: Saying that states have a right to outlaw contraception is some kind of constitutional error, but to mandate contraception federally is securing a right. Santorum merely mentions that states could enforce a contraception law at the end of a gun, and he’s a threat; Obama actually does enforce one at the end of a gun, and he’s a savior. Okay, got it.

Speaking of constitutional confusion, has anyone noticed what has gotten lost in this debate? Everyone is talking about freedom of religion, but what about freedom of association? Huh? What’s that, you say? “What are you, Duke, Ron Paul or somethin’?” Well, let’s talk about it.

No one would dispute that I have the right to associate, or not to do so, with whomever I please; this includes the right to include certain people in, or exclude them from, my home on any basis I choose. This might mean excluding punk rockers, churchgoers, tennis players, used-car salesmen or some other group.

Such as contraceptive users.

Now, why should I lose this right because I decide to offer medical services on my property for payment? It is still my castle, paid for with my money and created by the sweat of my own brow.

Even more to the point here, would you support a law forcing parents to buy their sons and daughters contraception? If not, you certainly wouldn’t want the government to force people to buy it for strangers. But then, why should anyone lose that right to not be subject to such coercion simply because he decides to offer those aforementioned medical services?

I know, the Supreme Court way back when decided to label businesses “public accommodations” and ruled that such places couldn’t discriminate. But this is a judicial-activist rationalization. A court ruling doesn’t change morality; it doesn’t change the Constitution. And if you have built a business with your own money and effort, you have the moral right to freedom of association and to establish terms of employment. To rob us of these rights legally is nothing less than tyranny.

Yet we haven’t heard anyone talk about this in relation to ObamaCare. Why not? Because Uncle Sam’s trampling of freedom of association is now so much the status quo that we’ve become inured to it. We’ve so blurred the lines between public and private property that people don’t even question treating the latter as public accommodations.

Of course, if any politician dared espouse freedom of association with all its implications, he’d get the Santorum treatment. This is why we have no one to blame but ourselves when statesmen refuse to uphold constitutionalism. At election time, constitutional guys finish last.

 

[Oly15]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204136404577211280758375336.html



This monster needs to be defeated in November.    He is the spawn of Satan. 

That he is.