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

[Soul Crusher]

you post so much shit i don't think you read most of it,some of the shit makes you look,well, just plain dumb

Like what specifically?   Under the HHS regs you support thugbama and his henchcunt Sebeliius could order any business to give away free stuff because they feel like it using even the flimsiest reasoning.   

[blacken700]

i think obama going to mandate how many post you can put on getbig on any given day

[Soul Crusher]

ObamaCare endangers human life
by Rep. Charles W. Boustany, Jr. and Rep. Phil Gingrey
02/14/201286


http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49504



As physicians and Members of Congress we were deeply disappointed in President Obama’s new so-called “contraception mandate,” including his decision to coerce employers into providing coverage for medications that terminate human life.

Legal experts say this ruling is a direct violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, signed into law by President Clinton in 1993. That law “prohibited government action that has the effect of substantially burdening religious practice.” To comply with the Administration’s latest ruling, religious-affiliated employers face three options: act against their religious beliefs and help terminate human life, drop all employees from health coverage, or exclude Americans of other faiths from employment or charitable services. The Obama administration cannot demonstrate a compelling government interest to justify this attack on freedom of speech and religion, so it refuses to do so.

The new mandate will require employers to offer emergency contraception drugs with no copayment, including ulipristal acetate. Premium costs will increase, as will the total cost of ObamaCare as religious employers are forced to drop coverage for their employees, but the end result is even more troubling. Like RU486, ulipristal acetate or Ella, is a selective progesterone receptor modulator. By blocking progesterone receptors, it can destroy a pregnancy and prevent implantation of a human embryo. In 2010, the American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists cited several studies documenting these effects in written comments to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

By pandering to groups who profit from abortion-on-demand, President Obama has even managed to alienate Americans who once supported his 2010 law. One Senate Democrat called the recent mandate “un-American.” Another former House Democrat mentioned the ruling as a reason she regretted voting for Obamacare. The President should reverse the ruling and respect religious freedoms enshrined in our First Amendment.

Beyond this egregious mandate, Obamacare endangers human life in several ways, including the President’s new Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius insisted this panel may not “ration” seniors’ medical care, before admitting this word remains undefined in the law. She has not announced any plan to define the term in regulations. By slashing payments below costs, IPAB will delay or block seniors’ access to life-saving treatments.

It’s time to repeal the 2010 health law, once and for all, and replace it with solutions that lower costs while protecting the lives of all Americans, and respecting First Amendment freedoms.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congressman Charles Boustany is a retired heart surgeon. He was elected to Congress in 2004 and serves as Oversight Subcommittee chairman on the House Ways and Means Committee.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congressman Phil Gingrey, M.D. (GA-11) is co-chair of the GOP Doctors Caucus, a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and a pro-life OB/GYN with over 25 years of experience.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Soul Crusher]

i think obama going to mandate how many post you can put on getbig on any given day

And of course you would support that since you support tyranny and stalinism. 

[blacken700]

ObamaCare endangers human life
by Rep. Charles W. Boustany, Jr. and Rep. Phil Gingrey
02/14/201286


http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49504



As physicians and Members of Congress we were deeply disappointed in President Obama’s new so-called “contraception mandate,” including his decision to coerce employers into providing coverage for medications that terminate human life.

Legal experts say this ruling is a direct violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, signed into law by President Clinton in 1993. That law “prohibited government action that has the effect of substantially burdening religious practice.” To comply with the Administration’s latest ruling, religious-affiliated employers face three options: act against their religious beliefs and help terminate human life, drop all employees from health coverage, or exclude Americans of other faiths from employment or charitable services. The Obama administration cannot demonstrate a compelling government interest to justify this attack on freedom of speech and religion, so it refuses to do so.

The new mandate will require employers to offer emergency contraception drugs with no copayment, including ulipristal acetate. Premium costs will increase, as will the total cost of ObamaCare as religious employers are forced to drop coverage for their employees, but the end result is even more troubling. Like RU486, ulipristal acetate or Ella, is a selective progesterone receptor modulator. By blocking progesterone receptors, it can destroy a pregnancy and prevent implantation of a human embryo. In 2010, the American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists cited several studies documenting these effects in written comments to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

By pandering to groups who profit from abortion-on-demand, President Obama has even managed to alienate Americans who once supported his 2010 law. One Senate Democrat called the recent mandate “un-American.” Another former House Democrat mentioned the ruling as a reason she regretted voting for Obamacare. The President should reverse the ruling and respect religious freedoms enshrined in our First Amendment.

Beyond this egregious mandate, Obamacare endangers human life in several ways, including the President’s new Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius insisted this panel may not “ration” seniors’ medical care, before admitting this word remains undefined in the law. She has not announced any plan to define the term in regulations. By slashing payments below costs, IPAB will delay or block seniors’ access to life-saving treatments.

It’s time to repeal the 2010 health law, once and for all, and replace it with solutions that lower costs while protecting the lives of all Americans, and respecting First Amendment freedoms.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congressman Charles Boustany is a retired heart surgeon. He was elected to Congress in 2004 and serves as Oversight Subcommittee chairman on the House Ways and Means Committee.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congressman Phil Gingrey, M.D. (GA-11) is co-chair of the GOP Doctors Caucus, a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and a pro-life OB/GYN with over 25 years of experience.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

wow 2 repub congressmen oppose  who would have thought

[Soul Crusher]

USCCB President: 'Harder and Harder' to Accept Obama's Word
Catholic Culture ^ | 2/14/12



The president of the US bishops’ conference has said that it is “getting harder and harder” to believe that President Obama has a genuine commitment to religious liberty.

Archbishop Timothy Dolan on New York, who is in Rome this week to receive a cardinal’s red hat..........


(Excerpt) Read more at catholicculture.org ...




________________________ __


LOL!!!!   And he thinks its only this issue?   Who believes thugbama on anything? 

[blacken700]

  let's keep the fake outrage going,maybe nobody will notice the loser canidate we are running

[Soul Crusher]

let's keep the fake outrage going,maybe nobody will notice the loser canidate we are running

Look who the fucking demos are running!   

Obama is the biggest train wreck ever! 

[blacken700]

Look who the fucking demos are running!   

Obama is the biggest train wreck ever! 

and he's leading both your losers by 6 points,this sould have been a slam dunk for the repubs,they can't even do that right

[Soul Crusher]

and he's leading both your losers by 6 points,this sould have been a slam dunk for the repubs,they can't even do that right

Carter lef reagan too at this point by double digits as did dukakis.  .

[blacken700]

so which one of these canidates is reagan 

[Soul Crusher]

Horrible… Team Obama Misrepresents Catholic Charities’ Position on White House Website
Gateway Pundit ^ | 2/15/12 | Jim Hoft
Posted on February 15, 2012 11:15:12 PM EST by Nachum

On Sunday the Obama Administration posted a list of organizations who they claimed supported their anti-religious HHS mandate. The list posted on the White House website included a quote from Catholic Charities.

But it wasn’t true.

Catholic Charities did not endorse the Obama administration’s latest HHS policy requiring free contraceptive coverage for all employees. FOX News reported:

A leading Catholic charity group wants the public to know it has not endorsed the Obama administration’s latest policy requiring free contraceptive coverage for employees, despite “mischaracterizations in the media.”

Catholic Charities USA has occasionally been cited as a supporter of the new policy, after the administration announced last week it would no longer require religious organizations to directly offer contraceptive coverage to workers. That’s almost certainly because the White House listed the group on an official blog that cited “praise from a wide range of individuals and organizations” for the policy change.

Along with statements from Planned Parenthood and other supporters was a brief statement from Catholic Charities. The group said at the time that it “welcomes the administration’s attempt to meet the concerns of the religious community” and looks forward to reviewing the final language…

(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...

[Soul Crusher]

Meet the ObamaCare Mandate Committee

Think the contraception decision was bad? Wait until bureaucrats start telling your insurer which cancer screenings to cover.

By SCOTT GOTTLIEB

WWW.WSJ.COM




Offended by President Obama's decision to force health insurers to pay for contraception and surgical sterilization? It gets worse: In the future, thanks to ObamaCare, the government will issue such health edicts on a routine basis—and largely insulated from public view. This goes beyond contraception to cancer screenings, the use of common drugs like aspirin, and much more.

Under ObamaCare, a single committee—the United States Preventative Services Task Force—is empowered to evaluate preventive health services and decide which will be covered by health-insurance plans.

The task force already rates services with letter grades of "A" through "D" (or "I," if it has "insufficient evidence" to make a rating). But under ObamaCare, services rated "A" or "B"—such as colon cancer screening for adults aged 50-75—must be covered by health plans in full, without any co-pays. Many services that get "Cs" and "Ds"—such as screening for ovarian or testicular cancer—could get nixed from coverage entirely.

That's because mandating coverage for all the "A" and "B" services will be very costly. In 2000, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the marginal cost of similar state insurance mandates was 5%-10% of total claims. Other estimates put the cost of mandates as high as 20% of premiums.

Health plans will inevitably choose to drop coverage for many services that don't get a passing grade from the task force and therefore aren't mandated. Insurance companies will need to conserve their premium money, which the government regulates, in order to spend it subsidizing those services that the task force requires them to cover in full.

Enlarge Image

CloseDavid Klein
 .Americans first became familiar with the task force in November 2009, when it made the controversial decision to recommend that women ages 40-49 shouldn't get routine mammograms. More recently, it rebuffed routine prostate-cancer screening and the use of tests that detect the viruses that can cause cervical cancer.

The task force relishes setting a very high bar. Like the Food and Drug Administration in approving new drugs, it usually requires a randomized, prospective trial to "prove" that a diagnostic test or other intervention improves clinical outcomes and therefore deserves a high grade of "A" or "B."

This means its advice is often out of sync with conventional medical practice. For example, it recommended against wider screening for HIV long after such screening was accepted practice. As a result, many of its verdicts are widely ignored by practicing doctors.

The task force is a part-time board of volunteer advisers that works slowly and is often late to incorporate new science into its recommendations. Only in 2009 did it finally recommend aspirin for the prevention of stroke and heart attack among those at risk—decades after this practice was demonstrated to save lives and had become part of standard medical practice.

The task force is also the only federal health agency to have the explicit legal authority to consider cost as one criterion in recommending whether patients should use a medical test or treatment.

Over time, the task force will surely recommend against many services that patients now take for granted, while mandating full insurance coverage for things that they'd be just as happy paying for. Among the interventions that it plans to consider in 2012 are screening for hepatitis C in adults, for osteoporosis in men and for depression in children; counseling for obesity in adults and for alcohol use in adolescents; and daily aspirin for heart-attack and stroke prevention in people over 80.

The task force's problems are compounded by the fact that it is deliberately exempted from the rules that govern other government advisory boards and regulatory agencies. Thus it has no obligation to hold its meetings in public, announce decisions in draft form or even consider public comments. Consumers have no way to directly appeal its decisions. And health providers or product developers affected by its decisions can't sue it for recourse.

To begin addressing these problems, Congress should make the task force subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which would at least require it to hold its deliberations in public. Congress could also make it a full-fledged part of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, which already convenes its meetings. That would make the task force subject to the Administrative Procedures Act and all the rules that bind other regulatory bodies, including the legal requirement to consider public comments and provide avenues for appeal.

Better still, Congress could let private health plans—and their members—decide on their own how preventive tests and treatments should be covered. If not, Americans will soon be surprised by all the important tests and treatments that become more costly, and all the less relevant stuff that's suddenly free.

It's all a reminder that President Obama's decision on contraception isn't a one-off political intervention but the initial exploit of an elaborate new system.

Dr. Gottlieb, a physician and resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, has served as deputy commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration and senior policy adviser to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. He consults with and invests in health-care companies.

[blacken700]

hahahahahha i'm on getbig grasping at straws 

[Soul Crusher]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-overreach--obamacare-vs-the-constitution/2012/02/16/gIQAmupcIR_story.html


Great op Ed. 

[Soul Crusher]

CNN Poll: Americans Oppose Obama’s Contraception Mandate By 50% To 44% Margin…
Weasel Zippers ^ | 2/16/2012 | Weasel Zippers



Hasn’t the MSM been telling us Obama’s mandate was hugely popular?


Washington (CNN) – Half of all Americans say they oppose the Obama administration’s new policy concerning employer-provided health insurance plans and their coverage of contraceptive services for female employees including those at religiously affiliated institutions, according to a new national survey.
The push by the White House has been sharply criticized by Catholic Church officials, and many political pundits have said that the controversy could hurt President Barack Obama’s re-election chances with Catholic voters. But a CNN/ORC International poll released Thursday also indicates that the vast majority of Catholic Americans say they don’t always follow church teachings on such issues as abortion and birth control, and few Americans Catholics believe artificial means of birth control are wrong.

According to the survey, 50% of the public disapproves of the Obama administration policy, with 44% saying they approve of the plan.

Read more

[Soul Crusher]

Surprise! Planned Parenthood CEO Top Advisor on Contraception Mandate
Townhall.com ^ | February 19, 2012 | Katie Pavlich
Posted on February 19, 2012 2:57:33 PM EST by Kaslin

Guess who was a key player in pushing through the birth control mandate in ObamaCare? Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards. According to reports, not only did Obama listen to Richards, but took her word over the suggestions his top advisers, including Vice President Joe Biden, then Chief of Staff Bill Daley and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. According th ABC's Jake Tapper, there was an internal debate about the contraception mandate at the White House. 

The debate within the White House on this issue was, sources say, heated, and President Obama was legitimately torn. Panetta wasn’t alone in his concerns. For months, Vice President Joe Biden and then-White House chief of staff Bill Daley argued internally against the rule, sources tell ABC News. Biden and Daley didn’t think the rule was right on either the policy or the politics, sources said. Joshua Dubois, head of the Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, also expressed concern.

The policy was wrong, the two Catholic men, Biden and Daley, argued, saying that the Obama administration couldn’t force religious charities to pay for something they think is a sin.

But Biden and Daley faced a strong group making the case for the rule within the administration – including Catholics such as senior adviser David Plouffe and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, senior White House advisers Valerie Jarrett and Pete Rouse, and then-domestic policy council director Melody Barnes. Others outside the White House also pushed hard for the rule, including former White House communications director Anita Dunn, Senators Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. and Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., and Planned Parenthood Federation of America president Cecile Richards. (Some of the details of this internal division were first reported yesterday by Bloomberg’s Mike Dorning and Margaret Talev.)

LifeNews makes this point:

Note that liberal feminists and the abortion lobby carried more sway with Obama than his higher ranking male advisers. Recall Barnes is a former Planned Parenthood Action Fund and EMILY’s List board member and also a former lobbyist for the Center for Reproductive Rights. We all know how tied into the abortion industry Sebelius is. Obama has surrounded himself with radical pro-abortion feminists.

Comforting to know the President of the United States is taking his advice from people who believe in Planned Parenthood, an organization founded to "Stop the Multiplication of the Unfit."

[Soul Crusher]

EMAIL FRIEND | PRINT ARTICLE | 6 COMMENTS |   SHARE
February 19, 2012
Our Father, Who Art in Washington
By Ebben Raves
 
 
Images can be powerful.  We have all seen films of the Nuremburg rallies.  The torchlight processions, the banners, the chanting crowds: all purposely staged to elevate one man to a status as something more than human, a benevolent leader who promised fairness and payback against the evil enemies of the people.  All things were possible through him.  The trains would run on time, the capitalists and bankers would pay for taking advantage of the people.  Social justice would finally be achieved if only the people would pledge themselves to him.
Juxtapose those images with a 2008 party rally in a Denver stadium.  The Greek columns, the giant television screens, the laser light show: all dedicated to elevate a man who promised the wars would end, the earth would heal, and the oceans would halt their rise.  Peace and justice at last.  He was the one we were waiting for.  Goebbels would have been proud. 
Il Duce's portrait was ubiquitous in 1930's Italy.  The stolid face with the up thrust chin, looking down over the nose became symbolic of Mussolini's fascism.  "All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."   "State intervention in economic production arises only when private initiative is lacking or insufficient, or when the political interests of the State are involved. This intervention may take the form of control, assistance or direct management."  Does any of this look or sound familiar?
Some images are meant to be powerful.  From the works of master painters, to stained glass, to the inexpensive, gilded frame picture in many homes, Christ is frequently depicted with a halo.  From background lighting, to a campaign symbol, to the presidential seal, a certain public servant is also frequently depicted with the appearance of a halo.  Can we guess what image the latter's halo is meant to convey?
Words can be powerful, too, either spoken or written on paper.  "Endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"  Some words are even carved in stone.   "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."  What were the Jesuits at Georgetown thinking? 
Fascists, communists and other dictators discredited, if not outlawed, religion.  The state was the ultimate authority, moral or otherwise.  The state in many cases was personified by an individual from whom all things flowed.  What did Christians do to keep them from power?  The same as today, not enough.  From the "feel good, rock and roll, light show" mega churches to the original Bride of Christ, only token, unorganized resistance has come forth.  In fact, past devout Christians were better organized and more numerous than today and were still unsuccessful. 
What happened to the Christians that faced lions for their faith?  Real lions, not the talking cartoon characters.  Were they co-opted by promises of government social welfare?  Or were they cowed by the threat of the loss of their 501(c)3 status?  Judging from the watered down socialism coming from today's pulpit, either is possible.  Protest church funded abortion via the Affordable Health Care Act?  Contact your congressman.  Lobby for the government to provide forced charity?  Sure.  Deny Communion, let alone excommunicate those who promulgate mortal sin?  Nah, too controversial.  Pathetic.  Don't think this administration doesn't know it, either.  They think this a fight they can win. 
Government is a necessary evil, but an evil nonetheless.  The mistake that Christians, or any other religion for that matter, make when they accept and encourage government social justice is that all modern government is eventually at the point of a gun.  Look at other formerly Christian countries.  Preach what is in the Bible, go to jail for hate speech.  Resist hard enough, meet the point of a gun.  Remember, we're no longer a Christian country.  The state said so.  Oh, something else to think about.  Refuse to pay taxes of which part go to the government charity programs that your church lobbied for and approved of?  Meet the same end.  That blood is on somebody's hands.

"But the Constitution protects our freedom of religion!"  Really?  We haven't seen the Constitution jump up out of its glass case and do anything.  It's just a piece of paper.  Its only power comes from citizens acting on its behalf.  Don't think the administration doesn't know this, either. 

Many have argued that the left is fighting for freedom from religion.  No, there will always be religion.  Fundamental change was promised; change from God given rights to state granted rights are being delivered.  When the state eliminates God, the state becomes god.  And the state is a jealous god, especially when it takes guidance from a book dedicated to Lucifer.
Email Friend | Print Article | 6 Comments |   Share

[Soul Crusher]

Give the Obama administration their due, they sure are great deceivers. In an effort to escape the firestorm engulfing them because of the ObamaCare mandate that forces churches to violate their theology, the president announced a “compromise” on February 10. The details of this compromise demonstrate that President Obama simply cannot be believed.

Naturally, the Washington Post, either as compliant dupes or dishonest confederates, ran with the front page headline: “ Obama shifts course on birth control rule to calm Catholic leaders’ outrage .” The headline contained a falsehood, the “shift,” as well as the administration’s messaging to Catholics, calm.

N.C. Aizenman, Peter Wallsten, and Karen Tumulty, authors of the Post story, claimed the White House “alter[ed] a new birth control rule.” It characterized the announcement as a “new policy.” Most deceptive of all, the Post said the announcement “amends a rule announced in August.”

Lies, all.

First, nothing was changed from the original rule. The Department of Health and Human Services, Friday night, hours after Obama’s big “compromise,” issued the final regulation in exact form as the regulation first issued in August 2011 “without changes.” Church-affiliated entities, such as Catholic hospitals, were still not exempted in the issued final regulation.

Next, the final rule issued the evening of the “compromise” provided absolutely no relief from the sterilization mandate. Remember, this fight is not just about contraception, though the White House seeks to steer the debate in that direction. ObamaCare also mandates that Catholic institutions provide sterilization services and abortifacient drugs, something squarely at odds with Catholic theology. The Washington Post and White House usually omit the pair when discussing the issue.

Worst of all, the “compromise” was not a formal rule or promulgated regulation issued to correct the original rules. No law or rule changed. Instead, it was an empty promise, like the thirty pieces of silver given to former Representative Bart Stupak to obtain his vote for ObamaCare. HHS merely mentioned an “intent to develop” future regulations that would apply the rule differently. These safe harbors wouldn’t even be available until 2013. The compromise was theoretical, delayed, and meaningless. Phony is another word that fits.

Even under the phony compromise, if an employee of a religious institution wants contraception or sterilization coverage, the religious employer is still forced to pay for it as part of the employer’s insurance plan. Church-affiliated money will still be forced to flow in directions contrary to church teaching.

Simply, Obama’s compromise is what many suspected — a phony, politically expedient diversion that relies on the stupidity of the American people or the active collaboration of the media. As I have written before, the administration simply doesn’t understand what it is up against. They don’t seem to understand the resolve of their opponents on this issue.

The original ObamaCare mandate was a frontal assault on constitutionally protected religious liberty. The White House “compromise” has piled deception onto the already rancid history of ObamaCare.

With this administration, nothing is surprising anymore.

[Soul Crusher]

Obama's War on Religious Liberty
Townhall.com ^ | February 20, 2012 | Phyllis Schlafly




Welcome to the real ObamaCare, whereby a handful of leftists in Washington, D.C., impose the views of their big-money donors on more than 300 million Americans. If the Obama mandate for contraception remains intact, then liberals will next demand that Americans pay for other objectionable items that are not really medical care.

We can expect future mandates, under the guise of "health care," to include sex-change operations, late-term abortions, embryonic stem-cell use and a variety of other procedures that many Americans do not support and certainly do not want to be compelled to foot the bill for. Obama's directive for abortifacient drugs opens a slippery slope that would erode the moral authority of religious institutions in America.

Obama and the liberals have overplayed their hand. By baring their teeth, these lackeys for the Left have awakened Democratic voters to the real contempt that liberals hold for religious values.

All 181 U.S. Catholic bishops oppose Obama's mandate, and Rasmussen polling estimates that 65 percent of Catholic Americans also oppose it. There are about 75 million American Catholics, most of whom have traditionally been Democratic voters but wouldn't hesitate to cross party lines to defend their church leaders.

It will be fascinating to see how many Democratic politicians up for re-election this November side with Obama and against religious organizations. Liberals are just fine with throwing some Democratic incumbents overboard to advance far-left goals, just as the enactment of ObamaCare in 2010 cost many Democrats their congressional seats.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius's congressional testimony made clear that the Obama administration is dug in permanently to enforce the regulation that religiously affiliated institutions must offer their employees health insurance that includes abortion drugs, sterilization and contraceptives. Of course, insurance companies price their products to make a profit, so clearly the cost will be concealed and distributed so many will pay for services that violate their religious beliefs.

Dick Morris exposed how George Stephanopoulos outed the Obama strategy behind this outrageous action. Knowing that abortion is no longer a winning issue for Democrats, Obama wanted to shift the debate to contraception.

However, his ploy has failed. He really shifted the debate to religious liberty and to how the Obama administration is planning to force Americans to pay for procedures that their religion teaches them is morally wrong.

The religious liberty issue is definitely not confined to Catholic hospitals, schools, colleges and charities. It opens up the whole attack on religion and on Christianity that is now going on in the Obama administration, the courts and even the military.

The U.S. Army Chief of Chaplains sent an email to senior chaplains telling them that Archbishop Timothy Broglio's letter criticizing the Obama insurance rule was not to be read from the pulpit. There is no evidence that Obama personally issued this order, but the Army Chief of Chaplains must have thought he was taking a politically correct action.

Has anti-religious bigotry become so pervasive that chaplains believe they must censor their sermons to conform to Obama's prejudices?

Just recently, the Obama administration forced the Air Force's Capabilities Office to strike the Latin word for "God" from its logo. Since schools seldom teach Latin any more, I wonder how many realized what this meant.

At the Veterans Affairs Department, Obama's agents banned Military Honor Details from reciting the significance of each fold of the American Flag during the burial services of our heroic men and women who gave their lives for our country. Obama says the ceremony promoted religion and therefore, the recitations had to stop.

Obama gave a speech at Georgetown University, a Catholic college. But he ordered his staff to cover up a crucifix with a giant black tarp because he didn't want anybody to see a religious symbol while he was talking.

Obama has joined in the war against religion being waged by the American Civil Liberties Union and the atheists in the courts. We've all heard about the lawsuits attempting to delete "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, remove Ten Commandments monuments and crosses from every public place.

Less well known, but important in the big picture, are the judges' decisions to ban the Westmoreland Middle School football coach in Tennessee from bowing his head during student-led prayer before a game and the decision to ban grace before supper at Virginia Military Institute.

The plan is even more far-reaching. It confirms that the ObamaCare law can impose any regulation the bureaucrats choose, such as death panels.

The firestorm over this most recent regulation is one more proof that social issues and fiscal issues are inescapably intertwined. Social-issue policy decisions determine fiscal ones.

The Heritage Foundation has just released its 2012 Index of Dependence on Government. It shows the shocking fact that 1 in 5 Americans is dependent on government, meaning reliance on government handouts for housing, health care, food stamps, college tuition and retirement assistance.

[Soul Crusher]

 

[blacken700]

the fake outrage continues here's a great idea, find a decent canidate

[LurkerNoMore]

Look at this bullshit still continuing. 

It has been over a week of getting his head bashed in on this thread and it stills runs on and on.

[blacken700]

Look at this bullshit still continuing. 

It has been over a week of getting his head bashed in on this thread and it stills runs on and on.

  man, you've had some good 1 liners today

[Soul Crusher]

man, you've had some good 1 liners today

Yawn - its still in the news and Thugbama is going to lose votes over this.