-
McCain-Feingold Gave Us the IRS Scandal
May 21, 2013 | 97 comments
-
It’s.The.Law
May 20, 2013 | 20 comments
-
The Taxman Cometh (for Tea Partiers)
May 13, 2013 | 150 comments
-
Farrell’s Fallacies
May 9, 2013 | 25 comments
-
Turning on Obama
May 7, 2013 | 228 comments
Special Report
Access This
In the end, Obama’s mandates come down to someone getting something for free at taxpayer expense.
The Obama administration’s refusal to grant religiously affiliated institutions a waiver from Obamacare provisions requiring that they provide employees with health insurance covering contraception, the “morning after” pill, and sterilization procedures is an unconstitutional assault on one of this nation’s most precious liberties.
But the debate over freedom of religion masks another critically important implication of the final rule approved by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen `Sebelius.
That issue is found in the language used by defenders of the indefensible rule. From White House Press Secretary Jay Carney: “We are committed… to ensuring that women have access to contraception without paying any extra costs, no matter where they work.” Politico quotes a Democratic operative who says that it is extreme to “limit access to birth control because you work at a diocese-run nursing home.” And Senator Barbara (“Don’t call me Ma’am”) Boxer trying, as usual, to sound threatening: “We support the right of women in this country to have access to birth control through their insurance policies, and anybody who stands in the way is going to have to deal with us and our friends.”
Three separate far-left voices, one word repeated three times: “Access”
These radical social engineers don’t actually mean “access,” which, according to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, means “freedom or ability to obtain or make use of something.” After all, nobody believes that birth control pills, which Planned Parenthood says are available for “about $15-$50 each month,” would somehow be out of reach of many American women if not for a government insurance mandate. At least two types of birth control pills are available at Target pharmacies for $9 for a 28-day supply. Now that’s access.
No, they don’t mean access to birth control. They mean free birth control, as in paid for by taxpayers other than the person whose sex life requires such protection.
This is not about access at all. It’s about the left-wing trying to ingrain government so deeply in support of birth control and related reproductive health issues that conservatives, or simply those who oppose the state’s involvement in such personal parts of our lives, will never be able to extricate these drugs and services from the tendrils of federal funding. If you thought the outcry against the Komen Foundation for thinking about cutting out grants to Planned Parenthood was severe, imagine what you’d hear about “women-hating” Republicans if Congress ever tries to allow citizens and employers the option to choose health insurance policies that don’t cover (or require a co-pay to cover) birth control, once people have come to see those pills as free.
Heaven forbid, if you’ll pardon the pun, Americans from having such freedom. After all, we’re clearly too stupid and too busy clinging to our bibles and guns to make a rational decision about something which the average woman has access to for $200 a year.
The left’s trying to impose their morality on the nation through the force of government is as antithetical to our nation’s Founding Principles as anything a libertarian or liberal would oppose in conservative Republican’s social policy prescriptions. Those who find Republicans’ social issues positions unpalatable, who cry “theocracy!” at a politician’s mention of faith, must awaken to the fact that the Obama administration’s actions regarding mandatory birth control coverage differs only in degree, but not of kind, from exactly the sort of sectarian tyranny that led to this nation’s creation.
This goes far beyond abortion, birth control, or Americans’ sex lives. Put aside for a moment that we’re talking about a religiously-tinged issue here, and focus on the left’s use of the word “access.”
Progressives have always been masters at redefining words. Due to them a “progressive” tax code means one that punishes success and throttles economic growth. For them, “justice” means stealing from someone who earned something and giving it to someone who didn’t. Thanks to them “balance” means ever-expanding government, “extreme” means having religious convictions, “diversity” means everyone except heterosexual Caucasians, and “voter suppression” means having to show a photo ID at the ballot.
When “access” is redefined to mean “paid for by taxpayers,” when something that is not provided at no cost is redefined as inaccessible, we have reached a dangerous tipping point in our century-long march toward being an “Entitlement Society” in which people expect government to provide everything for everyone for free. Or at least everyone outside the “one percent” or whatever group the government at the time decides to bleed in order to buy the votes of the demanding, entitled majority.
This is not just a financial issue. It’s not just that “free” birth control or “free” anything else actually costs somebody something. It’s not just that calling it “free” will inevitably lead to higher health insurance costs or larger government budget deficits.
It is also a fundamental moral issue for our nation, a nation that more than any in the history of the human race was founded on a principle of self-reliance by all those capable of it.
It may be “just” birth control pills or “just” $10 or $20 a month. It may even be that most health insurance policies already cover birth control, and that many states require such. That is all irrelevant. The Obama/Sebelius rule, by redefining “access” to mean “paid for by others,” is — in addition to being an unconstitutional assault on religious liberty and federal intrusion into our personal lives — a cannon aimed at the very soul of our nation.
Mr. Kaminsky is a pro-choice Jewish libertarian.
About the Author
Ross Kaminsky is a self-employed trader and investor and is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute. He is the host of The Ross Kaminsky Show on Denver’s NewsRadio 850 KOA at 11 AM on most Sundays. You can reach Ross by e-mail at rossputin(at)rossputin(dot)com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (99) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Ross Kaminsky
More Articles From Special Report
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/02/10/access-this
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 2.10.12 @ 6:22AM
It will all be free soon and there will be no access as individuals flee the health care sector.
One feature of Obamacare that is not found in Romneycare is that health insurers are required to pay 80% of premiums on direct medical care and efforts to improve quality care. The 80% rule applies to individual plans and small group plans.
Insurers who control large groups must spend 85% of premiums on the same features.
Prior to Obamacare the limit was set at 65% by many states because if insurers spent more than that level, they would go bankrupt.
That's precisely what's going to happen and soon 5.5 million Americans who currently work in the health insurance industry will be out of work.
The first reports related to this aspect are due June 1, 2012 and will be filed with the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Companies who didn't spend to the levels required under the law will be required to rebate the differences to policyholders.
It won't take long before this feature financially devastates private health insurers and puts them out of business.
From the beginning, Obamacare has been about alleged freebies. We will soon learn, there is no free ride.
"The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
Margaret Thatcher
benny havens| 2.10.12 @ 6:46AM
This is what the left has always been about. Take money from the people who work and give it to the people who sit on their fat asses. Its called “Social Justice”.
beebop2| 2.10.12 @ 5:45PM
Well we are at the tipping point. I discovered that hidden $2.00 charge on my cell phone bill that gives a cell phone and monthly charge to the "poor" -- read democrat voter. Isn't this what the founders called taxation without representation? How many other "charges" infiltrate my life without my knowledge? I feel like I have been used and abused as I budget my income to cover my personal needs -- but GOD forbid the folks using EBT do without their diet Coke -- as I watch the value of the home I paid for ERODE because those who are incapable of sacrifice walk away from houses stripped (by them) of absolutely anything of value and watch as the price of what I need to survive -- gas, utilities, food, etc -- sky rocket because the marxist in the WH wants to bleed me dry and then bleach my bones.
I remember that the missus mentioned in 2008 made some vague reference to the propisition that "this is the only time" he could run? Why is that Michelle? Is he sick? (he wouldn't release his medical records) Is he the human (?) sacrifice for the George Soros faction of the world that wants to enslave every one of us?
I have never been more in fear of my government than now. Mexico is looking like a great alternative because at least they SHOOT you instead of killing you with a thousand cuts.
Timothy L. Pennell| 2.11.12 @ 8:25AM
Nice.
You get it.
Colin | 2.11.12 @ 10:08AM
In the meantime, Beaver Boehner and his buddy Wally McConnell continue protesting on our behalf, while foot stomping: "Boy, that sure does that make us reeeally mad!"
Question: Where's Marshal Dillon when you need him? I guess the answer for trembling town citizens; hunkered down behind locked doors and windows is ... it looks like he left the building with Elvis.
Epilogue:
But be of positive outlook and keep the good cheer. Ron Paul is on his way to save our town, and restore peace and honor to Mayberry, RFD. At least that's what the daily trolls say.
Aren't modern pharmaceuticals wonderful?
Good luck!
Alan Brooks| 2.12.12 @ 12:03AM
"The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
The Iron Lady gets PLENTY from the UK state.
You think we don't know that sort of thing?
James Solbakken | 2.12.12 @ 5:02PM
""The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."The Iron Lady gets PLENTY from the UK state. You think we don't know that sort of thing?"
You are revealing how stupid you are when you miss the point in such a spectacular manner. Just because MT gets massive poundage from the UK doesn't mean that socialists aren't going to run out of other people's money, dummy. If anything it means they will run out that much sooner. What a total maroon!!!
Conserdude| 2.10.12 @ 6:37AM
I hope more Americans awake to this despicable overreach and oust this smug secularist wannabe tyrant from the White House this November. God help us.
Timothy L. Pennell| 2.10.12 @ 9:38AM
I find it Fascinating that DEAD BABIES are the Top Priority for the Democrat Party, and they want it to be Free to any Whore who wants it, and to HELL with GOD, and with JESUS CHRIST.
It's no more difficult than that.
Any Vote for any Democrat, is a Vote for EVIL.
The line has been drawn in the sand, by this Spawn of an Atheist/Communist and a Muslim/Marxist. Each component of their makeup, is an affront to GOD.
He's either an Incubus or a Succubus. What he is NOT, is Christian. A faith that he DESECRATES each day, with every action he takes, and with every LIE that he utters. Sometimes, I wonder if he's even Human.
As Stewart Gilligan Griffin would say: "I smell DEATH on him".
"And I saw the BEAST, rise from the Sea. And he was given a MOUTH to speak Haughty and Blasphemous words. And he was allowed to exercise authority for forty two months." Revelation 13-5.
It sounds less "Crazy" by the day, doesn't it?
The Big E| 2.10.12 @ 10:10AM
"I find it Fascinating that DEAD BABIES are the Top Priority for the Democrat Party"
Comment of the day award, Tim.
Another question, why is it that the President and his allies are so careful about accommodating the religious beliefs and practices of Jihadists in Guantanamo Bay but is so disdainful of, even hostile to, the religious beliefs and practices of American Christians?
I suspect that over the last few days, there have been a lot of Catholics who have had to contemplate the prospect of having to choose between their liberty and their faith. At what point would they personally be willing to face prison or worse because of their faith?
It is a question I recommend all Christians ask themselves, for it is one which we may be forced to answer sooner than we think.
Timothy L. Pennell| 2.10.12 @ 10:47AM
Let me tell ya. If mine gets the Comment Of The Day Award? Then: "Another question, why is it that the President and his allies are so careful about accommodating the religious beliefs and practices of Jihadists in Guantanamo Bay, but is so disdainful of, even hostile to, the religious beliefs and practices of American Christians?" gets an Honourable Mention, at least.
I think that if you remember who, and what he is, you can answer your own question.
He is a MUSLIM, by Birth. He Step Father was Muslim, as well. He was raised in Muslim Schools and Mosques, in Indonesia, where he knelt on his Prayer Rug, facing Mecca, and prayed to a God of Murder, 5 times a day.
He looks at Christians as INDFIDELS.
That's what Muslims do.
TW in SC| 2.11.12 @ 11:16AM
TJP, I have noted this as well and in other blogs have made mention of it.
Specifically, what if this whole issue was to place a similar mandate about abortion and birth control over the muslims in the US?
For one thing, muslims overwhelmingly reject insurance of any kind as it violates their religious beliefs.
Secondly, birth control is strictly forbidden
http://www.answering-islam.org.....t/azl.html
Third, abortion is also strictly forbidden. In fact, the persecution involved is monumentally severe compared to any perceived persecution by Catholics.
http://www.spuc.org.uk/about/m.....n/prohibit
So, the conversation has not yet curved around to this point but I keep asking how people think Obama would deal with the muslims given the exact same context.
I insist that he would 1)Steer very clear of it and 2)Assert that he must respect the muslim "religion" as far as the Constitution allows.
Thus is his transcendent hypocrisy. He applies double standards in everything and seems to not care that people notice. Or, even worse, he is just flatly unaware of them himself, applying his diktats at will to suit the situation as he sees it, as would a political despot, with no consideration for true fairness, which ironically is his favorite term for redistribution of wealth.
When dissected this way, his command-authority lawmaking is not only unconstitutional, using powers he categorically does NOT have, but that he also couldn't give a damn. It may be that he's doing things like this because, as the typical political tenderfoot that he is, he doubts the possibility of his own re-election and is panicking and trying to ram through more laws and rules before he's kicked out of office. One can only speculate as to the motivation but for me, it's sufficient that he's a very angry, petulant and bent individual who desires nothing more than more opportunity to destroy the nation that he (wrongly) thinks is the last remaining empire.
At the end of the day, he will lose. No matter how much ground he thinks he's gained.
TW in SC| 2.11.12 @ 11:17AM
Sorry, TLP, not TJP in the opening... my mistake, sir.
Timothy L. Pennell| 2.11.12 @ 11:45AM
Suffice to say, what you imagine, will never happen.
Hamas' DELIVERER, will never ask his fellow Muslims to go against their beliefs.
NEVER!
He who BOWED before the "Keeper of the Muslim Holey Sites of Mecca and Medina, DID NOT BOW beofre the Head of THE HOLY SEA.
That's all you need to know.
POST American| 2.10.12 @ 7:18AM
Speaking of FREE at US taxpayer expense,
when are you going to download that FIRST
article on the Globalist handover of the
ENTIRE economy ---to the RED Chinese?
BLAST FROM THE PAST
"The Federal Reserve has pumped
so many BILLIONS into [--NAZI--]
Germany that they dare NOT name
the total."
Rep. Charles McFadden
1935
(the height of their engineered
'Great Depression)
-------And this after installing GENOCIDAL
Bolshevism in St Petersburg ----and, later,
empowering STALIN in Moscow
----AND!
-a decade or so before betraying China
and half of little Korea into the
'warm EUGENICS' of MAO TSE TUNG.
AND BACK HERE
As we consider the American prison population
which, at this moment, is the largest in the
world, sitting at the ominous figure of
6 MILLION ---er---is anyone else beginning to
sense a pattern?
FURTHER
---------- we just learn US taxpayer money
is being put into setting some 30,000
surveillance drones in our skies over the next decade
---as pensions and even currency
are plundered and collapsing
--------while foreigners (---from guess where?)
are training MPs to man and secure FEMA
camps across America, at a sprawling facility in Missouri
---------------and weeks after Pelosi calls for TOTAL
monitoring and surveillance of 'every aspect'
of our lives during her recent visit to
GENOCIDE's world capital -----RED China
------------------------and as sitting Justice
Ginzburg dumps on the US Constitution in
the capstone's 'fave' spot on earth
---E--jipped
------------------------------------Might there be
-some- kind of link? ---somewhere?
THINK HARD
THINK FAST
THINK DEEP
The ACE card for those still capable of
sustained thought is ---as it was ---as it
ever will be -----the indispensible term
---------------------TREASON-------------------
"Everything OLD --is NEW-remberg AGAIN"
Seems that tune just never gets stale!
Mike Hawk| 2.10.12 @ 9:26AM
Yep, the moon was full this week. Guess PA had a delayed reaction. Probably due to the cold.
ontheright| 2.10.12 @ 11:50AM
To paraphrase Edmund Burke - "...those who don't know history are destined to repeat it...". This doesn't sound one bit like lunacy to me...on the contrary, it is more sane than what's going on in our own country today. More people should start waking up, before it's too late. It's in the pages of history for those who are not too lazy and are capable of reading and understanding - coming to a FEMA camp near you!
beebop2| 2.10.12 @ 5:49PM
I think you have to concede that if the comment didn't look so tin foil hat more people would read it. I pass over everything he posts. This isn't poetry after all .... and I will not suffer fools.
Clint| 2.10.12 @ 7:19AM
Dr.Ron Paul,
“I am deeply troubled by the flippancy with which President Obama recently discussed regulations that are alarming and troublesome for many Americans,”
“Not all Americans are comfortable with the Obama administration’s decision to mandate coverage of birth control and morning-after pills, and the considerations of these people, many of them Christian conservatives, are worthy of careful consideration — not mockery.”
“Many, like me, view this rigid regulatory overstep from which there is inadequate opportunity to self-exempt as payback to Planned Parenthood and big pharmaceutical companies for their support of Obamacare,” Paul said. “Many others oppose it out of strict moral conviction, and their voices should be heard at least to the extent that an authentic opportunity to exempt be provided.”
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To Maine.
Mac Jehoff| 2.10.12 @ 8:16AM
Romney for Pres, Paul for veep, has a nice ring to it. Dr. Ron would keep President Romney in line regarding women's "reproductive rights".
beebop2| 2.10.12 @ 5:50PM
Yeah ... because Ron Paul would be DEAD before the eight years of Romny expired!
Clint| 2.10.12 @ 8:15PM
" LAKE JACKSON, Texas– Congressman and 2012 Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul issued the following statement regarding the Obama Administration’s announcement that religious organizations must pay for contraception and sterilization under the national health care law:
“Forcing private religious institutions to pay for contraception and sterilization as part of their health care plans is a direct assault on the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty. On my first day as President, I will reverse this policy. Repealing the unconstitutional monstrosity known as ObamaCare is a major part of my Plan to Restore America.
“I am the only GOP presidential candidate who has consistently opposed the federal promotion, funding, and mandating of contraception and abortion. Unlike Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, I never voted to provide taxpayer funding to Planned Parenthood. And unlike Mitt Romney, whose Massachusetts health care plan contained a contraceptive mandate similar to the one contained in ObamaCare, I have never supported any government health care mandates."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is In Maine.
Von Mises Jr.| 2.10.12 @ 7:37AM
Excellent article Ross. You make two very important points.
Socialist have been bastardizing our language for a century. Hayek wrote about this in "The Fatal Conceit" under "Our Poisoned Language," and again in "Socialism and War" where he states that "Freedom and liberalism have become terms that are used to describe the exact opposite of their historic meaning." (p 189)
Pascal in "Port Royal Logic" wrote in the mid-17th century that the first two rules of logic are :
- terms must have a clear definition that is unequivolcal and unambiguous
- a term must be used consistently throughout any syllogism, or deductive/inductive argument
So, as Hayek points out: in the days of Mises and his early days, "liberalism" meant individual freedoms, free markets and minimal government. Today's so-called "liberals" are actually socialist that have usurped the classic name of the opposition who want the opposite: collective compliance to the "General Will," planned economy and statism.
The second great point made is that this is not about birth control. It is about total control. In the name of "social security," FDR created a Ponzi scheme that has funded government for 3/4 of a century. The money is gone, there are implicit promises but the SCOTUS has ruled that you have no explicit right to your contributions. Medicare and Medicaid were set up in the "Great Society." Now the government decides if your mother gets the operation. It is a financial scam and eugenics all tied up in one devious and tyrannical bow.
So take the free birth control and you sign away just a little more of your financial future and liberty!
The Bishop| 2.10.12 @ 8:45AM
The speed of our national descent into government tyranny is dizzying. Progressive/Liberal policies are the persistent termite colony that has steadily eroded our foundations until we're almost beyond repair. If the fix is not SIGNIFICANTLY begun in this election cycle, the only alternative is what our forebears undertook in 1776.
JimW9| 2.10.12 @ 9:11AM
You shot right to the heart of the matter.
Underlying the disingenuousness of word choice is a fundamental lack of integrity that is at the root of problem of the left. If stated in honest, straight-forward language socialism is overwhelmingly rejected, with most seeing it for what it is - coercive, corrupting and inefficient.
Its purveyors must therefore turn to dishonest language to mask this fact. The problem for our society is that the media is dominated by the left and the casual political voter absorbs this bias unknowingly and uncritically, continuing to breathe life into a failed philosophy.
The only time those promoting maximum freedom gain an advantage is when the outcomes of the left grind down the economy as in 1980 and 2010 (although 1994 was a wave election against government overreach).
Part of the problem of the right is the general perception that the right represents greed and the left represents compassion. (Also consider the prevalent view that the Nazis were the far right when in fact they were the far left.)
Until conservatives can articulate convincing private-economy based solutions to healthcare, retirement, aid to the poor and disadvantaged, this misperception will likely continue.
Ross Kaminsky | 2.10.12 @ 9:54AM
The Hill is reporting that “The White House will announce a retreat from its controversial rule requiring religious organizations like charities and hospitals to include contraception in their healthcare plans.”
They had little choice given how damaging this had become to them politically.
More to come…
Ross Kaminsky | 2.10.12 @ 10:08AM
If the report is true, let's listen for screams of Barbara Boxer and friends talking about "restricting access", when nothing of the sort is happening.
beebop2| 2.10.12 @ 5:57PM
BHO: "I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby,"
How many times do you think Barack heard that from Stanley? Hundreds? Thousands? Perhaps they still haunt his sleep. That the person he thought would nurture him thought he was a "punishment" instead must preclude any sense of nurturing and humanity. And? Both parents deserted him, dumping him on the door steps of two radical whites in Hawaii. Charming. Years from now we will hear how damaged he is and and how devoid of any love or compassion he was. It would be easy to see him as Zhivago when in fact he is Rasputin.
Timothy L. Pennell| 2.11.12 @ 8:40AM
Look at him. Look at everything about his life, from his Birth, to his Coronation. From the Atheist/Communist Whore, that bore him, to the African Muslim/Marxist DRUNK, who sired him.
His Communist Grandparents put him in the tender care of a Radical Black Communist, who handed him off to a Black Marxist, White Hating/Jew Hating/America Hating "Pastor", who handed him off to two Marxist Domestic Terrorists, after Marrying him to a Woman who HATES this Country, and was caught on Microphone uttering these words, out of her FILTHY Mouth, to HIM, during a 911 Ceremony - "All this for a Flag?"
THE BOYS FROM BRAZIL.
The Big E| 2.10.12 @ 10:15AM
But even if the report is true - and it probably is - does anyone really doubt that if Obama is re-elected and Obamacare goes into full effect, that the rule in question will not only be revived, but will joined by a similar rule regarding abortion?
Barack Obama has declared war on Christianity and people of faith. He may be beating a tactical retreat right now, but if so, it is only to regain strength for the next attack..
Von Mises Jr.| 2.10.12 @ 4:14PM
Ross and Big E, It's a head fake. If during prohibition, the feds said you could not possess alchohol, and then moderated and allowed you to possess booze, but outlaw its distilling; are you any better off?
They told the Church that they did not have to pass out contraceptives or directly pay for abortions; but all insurance plans will be mandated to include the same. So it matter of semantics. They will pay insurance premiums that will pay for contraception and abortion. Great win?
Jill Johnson| 2.10.12 @ 10:19AM
Not only are they taking my money to pay for someone else, they are asking me to fund a practice (extra-marital sex) that I find immoral. So you say married women need it too? Fine. Let the husband shoulder half the burden, and now you are down to $100 a year. Still too much? Then don't have sex. Yes, I said it. Sex is not a right that you should expect me to pay for!
Anthony| 2.10.12 @ 10:29AM
No don't call her ma'am, call her bitch.
This elderly pintsized barbie doll is one nasty and vicious piece of work, as Sec. Rice found out the hard way.
You have it ass backwards Babs; anybody who messes with the real America, is going to have to deal with us, and frankly, I look forward to the day you and the rest of the nasty left get what's coming, and it's coming soon.
As I said yesterday, Obozo has backed- off from a direct confrontation with the Church. Instead, he and his goons will operate in the shadows, as Chicago pols do.
But these vermin will not back off, this is not over as far as they are concerned. Nor is it with us!!!
Bring it on Babs.
Nick| 2.10.12 @ 11:06AM
Anthony,
Barbie doll?
I always thought of Babs as more of a troll doll!
Anthony| 2.10.12 @ 12:44PM
Point well taken Nick. I was in a generous mood.
I suspect her hair really is blue, just like Pelosi's face really looks like Prune Face, of Batman fame.
Nick| 2.10.12 @ 1:35PM
Plus, nasty, old Babs Boxer is short enough to fit under all of those bridges!
Both Babs, Boxer and Mikulski, could have been members of the Lollipop Guild. Pelosi is the Wicked Witch of the West.
Mike Hawk| 2.10.12 @ 2:26PM
Mark Levin simply referred to her as 'the dwarf Senator from CA'. That's the best moniker.
WHR| 2.10.12 @ 11:53AM
This is a valid point as far as it goes. The larger issue that concerns the left is that if consumers can edit the left's list of "required services" they must accept (thereby reducing their premiums) there will be less wealth transferred to their patrons. Why would a woman with a double mastectomy continue electing breast exams?
Ron| 2.10.12 @ 1:08PM
Oh, no Dr. Paul is "deeply troubled"...Not outraged, not angry, not passionate about this latest outrage by NerObama and his minions, but "deeply troubled."
What pray tell, is going to get people worked up?
Now, NerObama has "flip-flopped" and changed his mind (more likely as not) to preserve his religious left base.
Merry Crystal| 2.10.12 @ 1:22PM
Amen
Pat| 2.10.12 @ 3:11PM
Despite a penchant for stating the obvious, Ross Kaminsky zeroes in on what many Conservative writers often ignore – specifically, it’s always about the money – the rest is merely emotional background noise. To energize their readers, many political pundits believe stirring up righteous indignation is the sole and only goal of their labors. And while it’s satisfying to swell up like a toad with resentment over the Obama administration’s most recent taxpayer swindle, the drawback is that once the swelling subsides most of us are left less wealthy while a few well-connected Democrats are touring their local Mercedes dealership with a brand new “S” class luxury sedan on their shopping list.
For some, mere money is crass, mundane and nothing to get worked up about – while those sacred intangibles such as liberty, freedom and the Constitution are the only issues worth a person’s time and energy. But the pursuit of money, not principles, is what drives our elected employees. And we could effectively raise the public’s ire if only those Washington “middlemen”, deal makers and corrupt graft recipients could be identified – and, further, if we could learn the specifics of how our tax dollars depart the Treasury only to wind up in someone’s bank account, never to be heard from again.
Kaminsky has the right motive but no one in Washington will step forward with details on how these legislative swindles are carried out. For decades now, our elected employees have rigged the government system so our free and open society is anything but well-informed when it comes to knowledge of how Washington deals are made, the dollar amount of the facilitator’s commission and which of our elected employees stand to personally benefit from the latest Robin Hood inspired legislation.
Ross Kaminsky | 2.10.12 @ 7:34PM
Despite a penchant for starting comments with insults, Pat makes a relevant point...
Paula Douglas| 2.10.12 @ 3:22PM
"The left's trying to impose their morality on the nation through the force of government is as antithetical to our nation's Founding Principles as anything a libertarian or liberal would oppose in conservative Republican's social policy prescriptions." That's half right. To be completely accurate it would read, "Trying to impose one's morality..." It's evil to force any man, religious or not, to act against his convictions by having to subsidize those to whom he is morally opposed. The flip side of that coin for the religious right is what makes them as hypocritical as the secular left: they see no problem imposing their ideas of morality on people, by, for example, making abortion illegal all together. Suddenly that privacy and self-determination that they so treasure is public business, and our rights are to be decided by popular vote. It's true that Catholics should not be forced to pay for contraception they morally oppose, but the principle that makes that true makes it true for everyone. The fact that the Catholic church was one of the loudest proponents of ObamaCare just makes the irony of their newly-discovered objections to it that much more charming. I agree that the government has no right to force them to pay for abortions. When will the church agree that the government has no right to prevent me from getting one?
Ross Kaminsky | 2.10.12 @ 7:36PM
Paula,
I did not think I implied that it was only wrong for the left to try to impose morality. What I said was that it's just as wrong for the left to do it as for the right to do it. I am, after all, libertarian, and frequently take heat from commenters on these pages for my opposition to the right imposing morality on us.
Just thought it was time to point out that the left is no different, and Obama gave me a perfect vehicle for that discussion.
Paula Douglas| 2.12.12 @ 11:19AM
Well, no, I don't think you implied that it's just the left that is trying to impose its morality. And I absolutely appreciated your point that the left infamously corrupts the language with anti-concepts like "access," a word which once implied freedom to act, but has been twisted to mean that men may no longer act until their neighbors' wishes have been fulfilled. My comment was aimed more at the replies your column had received to that point, many of which seemed to miss completely the overarching principle that we must leave people free to act according to the dictates of their conscience, period. The same people who have been extremely and quite rightly vocal in their defense of the church have not generally been consistent in noticing that what gives the church the right to be free from coercion gives us all that right: they're often all for Medicare and Medicaid (no different from ObamaCare in making us pay for our neighbors' health care), for example, or for government schools, and so on, and few dare advocate the abolishment of all such examples of force. Similarly, I know any number of abortion defenders who don't understand that, either, and who will not be told that the same thing that gives me the right to an abortion gives me the right to my wallet and my guns. My original comments were intended to refocus attention on the principle that the initiation of force has no place in moral human relationships. Too many people all along the political spectrum are missing that.
When I quoted that line from your article I should not have said that you were half right, because you were fully correct. I should have quoted the line and then just said that I wanted to emphasize the universality of its application.
Christopher C| 2.10.12 @ 11:39PM
Dear Paula
So, the state should have no right to prevent you from having an abortion.
Does the state have the right from trying to prevent you from killing other children, or prosecuting you, if you do?
One of any state's few real legitimate functions is to enforce the law, particularly laws that protect the rights of the individual. So, I do not have a right to go round killing people just because that would be more convenient for me. Neither do you.
Paula Douglas| 2.12.12 @ 11:56AM
Christopher,
That is correct: the state has no rights. Only individuals have rights. The state certainly has no right to tell me that I must not act on my judgement. It cannot tell me that if I become pregnant I must remain so, in contravention to everything I know about my goals, my values, my finances, my health, my life. Nor can it, as so many have correctly argued lately, tell a group of people organized into a religion that they must act in contravention to their judgement of what is right, since they are violating no one's rights by refusing to buy them condoms.
"Does the state have the right from trying to prevent me from killing other children?" Again, the government has no rights that are not delegated to it by the people; and I reject the premise of your question which implies that a baby/fetus/unborn child/protoplasm--call it what you like--has any rights while it is still inside me, that it is the moral and legal equivalent of any individual who has already been born. The state in fact may not go about imprisoning or restricting people on the basis of what they *might* do. Can you project the unlimited possibilities for evil if the government was vested with the power of restraining people "just in case"? We all have the potential to do a lot of unpleasant, unfortunate, illegal, and even vile things. Every time I get in my car I have the potential to violate any number of laws and even kill someone. If that's your standard of the government's scope, then we'll all be spending a lot of time doing nothing at all, lest we exercise some potential. As for the prosecuting part of your question, yes, the government has been vested with the power of enforcing objective law. So if my actions meet the moral and legal definition of first or second degree homicide, then the state may prosecute me. But it is not, and morally cannot be, in the business of pre-emptive strikes.
Your point, however, is to raise an unborn baby to personhood, to the legal equivalent of a grown woman. To do this successfully you must eliminate the woman's personhood. The question is either/or. Either the fetus has rights, or the woman does. Either a fully adult, walking, talking woman gets to decide the course of her life, or her life is forfeit to what someone else decides the fetus needs--because the fetus certainly isn't making those decisions. That means that someone other than the woman involved is doing so and has thereby relegated her to the status of brood animal, with no right to object that *her* judgement tells her *not* have this baby.
Do you want to talk about potential? That the fetus/baby/protoplasm/unborn child is a potential human being? As opposed to what, a potential cat? Who said it wasn't? But it's no more a human being with rights than a seed is a plant or a piece of rebar a building. If you're sure that the potential person has all the rights of an actual one, then possibly you won't mind babysitting it while I go to the mall. No? You can't? Yes, well, that's because it's still inside me. Perhaps in a few months, when it's older and using a diaper.
Do you think that it's a matter of convenience, whether a woman becomes or remains pregnant? Many, many people subscribe to that patronizing view. It is revealing, though: it reveals contempt for the mind of another; it reveals an inability to project the weight a woman might give to that decision, to the torment it might cause her; it reveals an utter lack of empathy; and it reveals an inability to understand that whether she takes the decision seriously or lightly, as a matter of convenience or life-and-death necessity, it is her business, and her business alone. Not yours. Not mine.
There has been a lot of talk about freedom of conscience from all over the political spectrum since the ObamaCare rule came to light. Very few are willing to extend that freedom of conscience to anyone but themselves.
skip| 2.13.12 @ 6:00PM
conscience:
the sense or consciousness of the moral goodness or blameworthiness of one's own conduct or intentions or character together with a feeling of obligation to do right or be good
The woman's arbitrary awareness of her own arbitrary standard of what is arbitrarily acceptable, and arbitrary awareness of her own arbitrary standard of what she is arbitrarily responsible for, when arbitrarily determining how she arbitrarily acts, and arbitrarily determining the arbitrary purpose of her arbitrary acts, and arbitrarily determining the arbitrary integrity and the arbitrary honesty of her arbitrary acts, together with her arbitrary emotional perceptions of what she arbitrarily determines to be her arbitrary requirement as to what is arbitrarily just and as to what is arbitrarily beneficial, arbitrarily allowing her the arbitrary freedom to arbitrarily kill another, another nonarbitrarily half conceived by her and nonarbitrarily half conceived by a man, from among all nonarbitrary men self-evidently truthfully created equal nonarbitrarily, and denying the self-evidently true nonarbitrary unalienable rights endowed by their self-evidently true Creator, self-evidently truthfully including nonarbitrary life, according to her arbitrary conscience, an arbitrary conscience she arbitrarily is not willing to extend to her own nonarbitrary offspring, an arbitrary conscience that is not adequate to and not sufficient to nonarbitrarily guide her to nonarbitrarily prevent a nonarbitrary pregnancy to nonarbitrarily begin with.
That conscience?
Paula Douglas| 2.14.12 @ 11:47PM
Skip,
No.
skip| 2.19.12 @ 8:21PM
To clarify, 'No', not 'conscience' as defined, that is that conscious sense a woman has of her moral goodness and her blameworthiness and her feelings of her obligation to do right and to be good that she used to intentionally kill her own flesh and blood, the 'conscience' that is this same conscious sense she has of her moral goodness and her blameworthiness and her feelings as to her obligation to do right and to be good that she did not use to intentionally avoid pregnancy to begin with, the 'conscience' that is this same conscious sense she has of her moral goodness and her blameworthiness and her feelings as to her obligation to do right and to be good that she did not use to put up for adoption the unborn baby after she became pregnant to begin with, the 'conscience' that is that conscious sense she has of her moral goodness and her blameworthiness and her feelings as to her obligation to do right and to be good that defies the self-evident truth all are created equal and endowed with the unalienable right to life in America, the 'conscience' that is that conscious sense she has of her moral goodness and her blameworthiness and her feelings as to her obligation to do right and to be good that women have used to kill 4,805 on average of their own flesh and blood in America from the time of the post expounding on this 'conscience' to the post seeking clarification of this 'conscience', the 'conscience' that is that conscious sense she has of her moral goodness and her blameworthiness and her feelings as to her obligation to do right and to be good that women have used to kill an additional 4,760 on average of their own flesh and blood in America from the time of the post seeking clarification of this 'conscience' to the post in response to the clarification that was sought on this 'conscience', the 'conscience' that is that conscious sense she has of her moral goodness and her blameworthiness and her feelings as to her obligation to do right and to do good that women have used to kill an additional 18,700 on average of their own flesh and blood in America from the posted response to the clarification sought on the 'conscience' to the time of this post seeking confirmation of the clarification of the 'conscience', the 'conscience' that women have used to kill 54,751,415 on average of their own flesh and blood in America the last 469 months to date, the 'conscience' that is that conscious sense a woman has of her moral goodness and her blameworthiness and her feelings of her obligation to do right and to be good that she uses to kill her own flesh and blood but not avoid the pregnancy of her own flesh and blood to begin with, 'No', not that conscience?
cowgirl| 2.10.12 @ 5:56PM
From White House Press Secretary Jay Carney: "We are committed… to ensuring that women have access to contraception without paying any extra costs, no matter where they work." Politico quotes a Democratic operative who says that it is extreme to "limit access to birth control because you work at a diocese-run nursing home." And Senator Barbara ("Don't call me Ma'am") Boxer trying, as usual, to sound threatening: "We support the right of women in this country to have access to birth control through their insurance policies, and anybody who stands in the way is going to have to deal with us and our friends."
Planned ParentHood, which is financed heavily by taxpayers, distributeds free contraceptives, condoms and abortions like Costco provides free food samples.
Teddy| 2.10.12 @ 6:02PM
Test
Merry Crystal| 2.10.12 @ 6:58PM
amen
Merry Crystal| 2.10.12 @ 6:58PM
Of the infinite varieties of Manichean splits, when it comes to economics, my favorite one is makers verses takers.
Harking back to Benjamin Franklin’s query about whether “the people” would be able to keep the republic the founders bequeathed, sadly, it’s starting to become starkly obvious that the answer is NO. It could be way past time for the dwindling number of MAKERS to step out of the stream of denial, and accept reality---and, fight back!
Look, tarry JUST A BIT in memories of American politics, DC-wise especially, for the past 20 years---practically a complete generation! Bill Clinton, the “compassionate conservative” W, and the capper, Barack Obama. Notice a TREND?
The people have ALREADY spoken, the fat assed and fat headed TAKERS---they are in control, so the promised land of government tyranny is just getting started. At last (say the leftists!)---we got to our “mature” phase.
Remember---it’s ALWAYS about the children. And for fifty years, it’s a certainty that staying in Bob Dylan’s “Forever Young” state has been the goal---which has been achieved, in obese terms, physically and psychically.
The new name for the USA should be “Takers are us.”
After all, as Limbaugh wittily put it years ago, the credo of leftists has always been---
We’ve got what it takes, to take what you’ve got.
Take THAT, America, ‘er, “Takers are us”!
Richard Baker| 2.10.12 @ 7:54PM
And just WHERE does the Kenyan get the right/authority to mandate anything without Congressional legislation? Remember, he sees the Constitution as a body of negative rights. All Hail the Dictator.
POST American| 2.10.12 @ 11:16PM
---The ILLEGAL est. of the PRIVATE FED
---The engineered WWI
-----The Bolshevik coup of 1917
------The empowering of Stalin
--------The kickoff of German EUGENICS
----------The engineered 'Great Depression'
------------The empowering of Hitler
---------------The IBM equipping of Auchwitz et al
----------------WWII trading with the enemy
-------------------The betrayal of China
----------------------The betrayal of Korea
--------------------------The handover to MAO
-------TREASON AGAINST THE REPUBLIC-------
---------------------FINAL EUGENICS------------------
There is NO DENYING the record.
"When your time comes
-------WHAT WILL YOU DO?"
-----------------------------------? ? ? ? ?
martin j smith| 2.11.12 @ 7:44AM
Obama simply moved the pile of dirt from one end to the other. Now the " Insurance Companies are on the hook" No real change at all. Pure BS. And BTW this issue is not at all ( that is the Abortion matter ) not a high priority. But:
What is a big deal is not about abortion or contraeption but government control. Apply this issue to many others and you get the picture that a dictatorial president of the USA can command we do this or that. That is the real point. So I get really distressed when I see people believing that this Joseph Stalin Obama will actually Change his course or compromise in any way. That is foolish thinking. Ross I am not sure you get Obama at all.
Finally of our nominees: Romney --given this issue and its connection to Obama and Romney Care is deadly. Can you spell Deadly ? for any opposition to Obama. This emphasizes even more just how inappropriate the choice of Romney is as our leader against Obama. Don't you thunk Ross ?
Fredx| 2.11.12 @ 9:02AM
I'm with you except for this line:
"The left's trying to impose their morality on the nation through the force of government..."
The left has no morality. It is anti-moral, a moral vacuum. If everything is decent and moral, then nothing is decent or moral. They do not HAVE morality; they IMPOSE morality. Good for thee but not for me. Liberals are bereft of morality, but they make up for it with Evil.
Resist We Much! | 2.11.12 @ 11:06AM
"We support the right of women in this country to have access to birth control through their insurance policies, and anybody who stands in the way is going to have to deal with us and our friends."
No one is denying anyone access. What she wants is to have someone else pay for womyn's reproductive "health" care and she wants to elevate that to a right. Well, it isn't.
There is NO right to healthcare. If the Supreme Court can hold, as it did, that you do not have a right to Medicare, a programme into which you are forced to pay your entire working life in exchange for healthcare when you are old, then there is no "right" by extension to healthcare.
Besides, as the Court has repeatedly held, a constitutional right to something does not carry an accompanying right with it that requires the government or someone else to provide it. My right to redress the government for grievances by marching on Washington does not come with concomitant rights of government-provided travel and hotel accommodations. My right to bear arms does not mandate that an employer provide me with a gun and ammunition.
Sometimes, I really wish this witch's broom would have an accident.
Dajake| 2.11.12 @ 12:28PM
Defending the Indefensible
Driven by the Declaration's inexorable logic that "that all men are created equal," pressure rose for the defenders of the slave system to explain their continued participation in the peculiar institution. John C. Calhoun, in 1838, noted that the defense of slavery had changed:
"This agitation [from abolitionists] has produced one happy effect; it has compelled us . . . to look into the nature and character of this great institution, and to correct many false impressions . . . Many . . . once believed that [slavery] was a moral and political evil; that folly and delusion are gone; we now see it in its true light . . . as the most safe and stable basis for free institutions in the world [emphasis ours].
Calhoun espoused the labor theory of value - the backbone of Marxist economic thinking - and in this he was joined by George Fitzhugh, Virginia's leading proslavery intellectual and proponent of socialism. Fitzhugh exposed slavery as the non-market, anti-capitalist construct that it was by arguing that not only should all blacks be slaves, but so should most whites. "We are all cannibals." Fitzhugh intoned, "Cannibals all!" Slaves Without Masters, the subtitle of his book Cannibals All! (1854), offered a shockingly accurate expose of the realities of socialism - or slavery, for to Fitzhugh they were one and the same.
from: A Patriots History of the United States
Oldefarte| 2.11.12 @ 1:20PM
That this morality/religious issue over mandating birth control through Catholic institutions was no doubt intentional when initiated from the NOW radical feminists when this administration. To them this is the second wave attack re-igniting the whole abortion war all over again. It is really asinine and stupid for government to be involved in any way, shape or form over what should be a private/religious concern of individual citizens. Obama and his Gestapo NOW storm troopers within the white house have obviously used their Rules for Radicals to bring forth this issue and correspondingly take the much more important of our backrupt economy and excessive governmental defecit/debt off of the table of discussion. These radical socialists are once again outsmarting and outflanking conservatives and Republicans with this Rahm Emmanuel maneuver. Who cares about our realistic 15% unemployment, flatlined economic growth, soon-to-be $4/gallon of gasoline from the supply-control of OPEC, etc; when they have now successfully gotten everyone yelling and screaming about the government forcing Catholic medical institutions to begin dispensing condoms? Obama and Democrats 1, Republicans and conservatives 0 [a carbon copy of 11/3/08]!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Purp| 2.11.12 @ 2:40PM
It's simple - if you choose any form of birth control, it's your choice. If you don't, you don't have to use birth control. Why should the government decide who should and shouldn't have access to birth control capacities? Keep the government out of it by offering it to all and let the person choose, not by cost, but by choice.
Oldefarte| 2.11.12 @ 4:52PM
First, Obama's WELFARECARE should be repealed period, therefore eliminating this argument/discussion concerning the Catholic Church currently. Second, the government, as the only provider of benefits to indigents unable to pay for their own needs in life, has to begin providing any/all forms of birth control to these same indigents for population and governmental welfare expense control purposes. Additionally the government should begin an education campaign of the availability and benefits of said birth control methods directed at these indigents who account for the entirety of governmental welfare costs-expense. It's not rocket science that children born to indigents are thereafter abused, nedlected, uneducated, and end up in their later years criminally involved in criminal activities and thereafter inhabiting [again at governmental-taxpayer expense] the prisons throughout this country. People have to be instructed and forced as much as possible under law that if the produce children through their lackadaisical sexual activities that futuristically requires the government [and therefore taxpayers] to fund the cost of raising said children via governmental welfare benefits etc, then these people must be punished in some manner for their selfish and society detrimental activities [one way would be to apply tax surcharges for children, instead of the current policy of tax exemptions; which would possibly discourage people from having children they cannot afford to raise and to educate properly]. The government must provide birth control and mandate it useage for this indigent population if we are ever to obtain control of the government's budgetary defecits/debt!!!!!!!!!!
John Navratil| 2.11.12 @ 6:56PM
Purp,
Is it OK if I choose an Aston-Martin?
Purp| 2.12.12 @ 1:03PM
I'm sure your free to do so. But if made in the U.S., the automaker must abide by U.S. Labor Laws, period.
John Navratil| 2.12.12 @ 1:26PM
I don't mind if Aston-Martin abides by U.S. Labor Laws or not. I'll leave that up to you. I just want you to pay for the car.
skip| 2.12.12 @ 1:15AM
Stupledupe pimplepus, stupledupe pimplepus, stupledupe pimplepus:
Keep the government out of it by not offering it to any, and let any person choose (by not legislating on it in any way, shape or form), as long as any person choosing pays for it themself.
Purp| 2.12.12 @ 1:04PM
By that logic, oh brilliant one, you have discriminated against a whole class of people that cannot afford birth control. You are wrong and it is unconstitutional.
skip| 2.12.12 @ 1:36PM
By your statement, you have revealed:
your bigotry against a whole class of people who think and act intelligently and honestly based on reason and experience devoid of emotional prattle;
your bigotry against those who live according to both the Constitution and the Bible;
your bigotry against those who believe in the equality under the law of all men;
and your bigotry against those who are not immoral stupid lying prattling liberal idiots like yourself.
skip| 2.12.12 @ 6:41PM
By the way, you arguing that it is unconstitutional to not provide at no cost to others contraceptives, reminds me that you argued a week or so ago about how it is unconstitutional to require a photo ID to vote, but never answered a question put to you:
"Between your 10:40AM "Introduction to Cross-Cultural Feasibility in Transgender Reassignment" class and your 12:50PM "Intermediate Gender Neutral Techniques in Sexual Stimulation and Ethics" class, can you get lunch in the cafeteria without your student photo ID card?"
skip| 2.12.12 @ 8:53PM
By the way, oh blatant hypocrite one, oh born liar one, oh born cheater one; true or false, the quotations below are from an article online dated February 11, 2012:
"Speaking of liberals, every time you hear one of them wail against photo IDs for voters, you know what they are really grousing about is that it would make it harder to cheat at election time."
" . . . the other day, the liberals in the Illinois legislature . . . passed a state law requiring that anyone who wanted to buy drain cleaner or any other caustic substance provide a photo ID."
" . . . even in Chicago, it requires a monumental dose of cynicism to suggest that maintaining eternal vigilance over the sanctity of the hardware store trumps that of the voting booth."
"On the face of it, it's such blatant hypocrisy that only born liars and cheaters like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, would even pay it lip service."
Mike Hawk| 2.12.12 @ 8:52AM
Have you neutered yourself yet, Purp. If not do us a faver and get it done.
Purp| 2.12.12 @ 1:04PM
Mike "Hawk" says is all. bomb, bomb Iran, huh?
Mike Hawk| 2.12.12 @ 6:31PM
It's your idea. OK
Timely Renewed | 2.11.12 @ 3:55PM
This "accommodation" is a farce, since the insurance companies will just pass along the cost of the "free" contraceptive coverage to the Catholic institutions buried in the normal rate increases generated by everything else in Obamacare. The fundamental underlying problem goes beyond this particular provision of Obamacare. The real issue is the 70 year old Supreme Court decisions which vastly expanded the original scope of the Constitution's interstate commerce clause. We will not be able to stop and roll back Obamacare or the numerous other ever-increasing expansions of the federal leviathan until we have restored the original meaning of the interstate commerce clause. Given how entrenched those old decisions are, we can only accomplish this by amending the Constitution to reverse these Supreme Court misinterpretations of the Constitution's original meaning and structure. See http://www.timelyrenewed.com.
Cow Rie| 2.11.12 @ 9:09PM
C'mon people. Obama is providing access to more birth control ONLY to reduce his record number of people on food stamps. I mean he is a long term deep thinker.....
Purp| 2.12.12 @ 1:05PM
Since you don't like abortion, you should LOVE contraception - avoids abortion topic all together.
Kingofthenet| 2.12.12 @ 4:12PM
They LOVE to be inconsistent.
KingsofthePurpleidiots| 2.12.12 @ 9:02PM
If you don't like anyone murdering innocent defenseless Americans than you have to provide the would-be murderers with contraceptives out of our own pocket.
POST American| 2.11.12 @ 10:23PM
-----------------------FINAL WORD---------------------
Unaccountable, psychopathic, inter-generational
Globalist USURY
Stealth subversion of the culture and
conspiracy AGAINST the Republic
Handover and sellout of the ENTIRE American
economy into the clutches of the Globalist
created, US taxpayer underwritten
RED Chine 'mere--ICK---ALL'
Pre-emptive criminalization of the American people
A Global, full-spectrum police and surveillance
state
Weaponization of food, water, meds and air
Calls worldwide, from the in place minnions,
for a "world government --RUN-- by a PRIVATE
world bank"
Debt serfdom for you ,
your children, your grandchildren,
your great grandchildren ad infinitum
BUT ----don't worry ----you' re posterity's
to be sterilized or otherwise eliminated
It's called:
-------------------FINAL EUGENICS-------------------
SO NOW
"-----WHAT WILL YOU DO?"
martin j smith| 2.12.12 @ 8:26AM
By design or not Obama has brought the Sociali issue of abortion and contraception into the election. Now my guess is that this is entirely an offering to his base and perhaps a kind of needling of his religious"enemies" as well. I agree with Rush, Obama likes annoying his enemies. But
There are unintended consequences for Obama and for the Establ;ishment Republicans as well(mof course this means Romney ) for it gives Social Conservatives a big opening for a big issue in the 2012 campaign but also combining it with
Obama Care makes it even more lethal for Obama and beyond that the Constitutional Issues of Free Speech and Freedom of religion among other things.. A well crafted campaign could benefit from Obama's unintended gift and the good part is this--its too late for him to take it back. The Cat is out of the bag.
Now the question which candidate currently running will run with these issues ? Time will tell.
Romney is in an extremely awkward position for his own baggage thee matters. A lot depends on what Newt does. Ron Paul is the head of the mental set of which we see some prime examples here on AmSpec. . So either it will be an interesting duel between Romney and Santorum or there may be a brokered convention with some one completely different--No Bush need apply or any other RINO-but someone who can be acceptable to all--Paul Ryan or whoever. Time will tell enjoy the ride.
alabama yankee| 2.12.12 @ 12:55PM
A correction: It's Senate-whore Boxer, not Senator Boxer. Or maybe she would prefer "Ma'am" after all.
Kingofthenet| 2.12.12 @ 3:40PM
Richard M. Doerflinger, an official of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Biships, was asked whether that meant that a Catholic owner of a sporting-goods store who believed that use of birth-control pills is immoral should be able to offer health insurance excluding that coverage. He said it did."
This is crazy. Now we have every PRIVATE employer deciding what they consider immoral medical treatment and being able to exclude that from their insurance policy. This is way beyond birth control and Catholics. The continued over reach of conservatives never ends. Health Care is a public issue and should be treated as such with appropriate carve outs for religious issues. They are now trying to make it a corporate issue with each company deciding what they will cover and claiming moral objections to others they will not cover. In five-ten years we will have a one payer system because of positions like this
James Solbakken | 2.12.12 @ 5:14PM
"Now we have every PRIVATE employer deciding what they consider immoral medical treatment and being able to exclude that from their insurance policy. "
What you mean "now," dummy? YOU liberal scumfreaks are the ones trying to change things. I liked it the old way, where everybody ate their OWN BREAD with quietness, and minded THEIR OWN BUSINESS!!! which is the will of God, whom you hate, obviously.
Kingofthenet| 2.12.12 @ 6:28PM
I don't hate the Non-Existent
Kenfromanit| 2.13.12 @ 3:37PM
Got it.
You don't hate any liberal with integrity.
Thanks for the wisdom.
shipley130| 2.12.12 @ 3:45PM
The federal government is trying to impose its immoral attitudes on us. The feds are the Ouroboros, in a perpetual cycle of eating their own butts. We have to kill that snake.
Kingofthenet| 2.12.12 @ 3:52PM
So the bishops are now dictating U.S. public health insurance policy for all "religious and secular for-profit employers." Where does this insanity end? Apparently if an employee of a sporting-goods store has a Christian Science employer he may not get any health insurance at all. If the owner is a Seventh-Day Adventist an employee may not be covered for blood transfusions. If the owner is a Scientologist, there may be no coverage for mental illnesses. Does this make any sense whatsoever?
I understand the Dark Ages were a fun time for the Roman Catholic Church with heretic torture and burning, selling of Indulgences, Children's Crusade, Papal States, etc.,. But those days are over. The rest of us don't want to go back to those days. The Roman Catholic Church must understand it is no longer calling the shots. President Obama is right on this one and we all need to support him.
Marc Jeric| 2.12.12 @ 4:20PM
Another far-left cretin here! Not so - komrad: we do not want to be forced to pay for those "free services" when the insurance companies jack up their prices to cover the costs of those "free services" with no co-pay. This affair imposed on us by Mullah Obama has nothing to do with religiona - it's the system of government control well known to this former refugee from a communist hell.
James Solbakken | 2.12.12 @ 5:19PM
"So the bishops are now dictating U.S. public health insurance policy..." Hey, I saw the same BS in the comments of several other websites...what a stinking steaming pile of fetid drecky BS!!! If people are so stupid they fall for a lie like that, well, there really isn't any hope for mankind to pull itself out of the mental and moral tailspin it is in since the triumph of communist ideas. Sorry dude, but it is the government who is dictating here, not the bishops. It is Obama and the government who are telling me I must pay whether I want it or not, not the bishops. If you weren't a lying sack of fetid drecky excrement you would see that.
Kingofthenet| 2.12.12 @ 6:27PM
Whatever coverage or treatment you want, i don't want in MY plan and don't want to pay for it, see how crazy that is?
Marc Jeric| 2.12.12 @ 4:14PM
Mullah Obama really is cinvinced that we are nation of cretins. "Free access" means paid by others; laws of the country means Obama's executive orders; "social justice" means communist regime; why not "free access" for everything? About 50% of the population pay no income tax - why do they have the right to vote? Remember what de Tocqueville said 170 years ago - that this noble experiment in democracy will die one day when those who have no property or pay no taxes are given the right to vote - they will a) vote the goodies for themselves, and b) bring about a dictatorship.
Kingofthenet| 2.12.12 @ 6:30PM
Ok the Bishops want to go all political, fine by me drop the plan for the birth control...the second AFTER we drop the Churches Tax-Exempt status.
SGT Baker (native Coloradoan)| 2.13.12 @ 4:18AM
Again, please do :) I would welcome the freedom it would bring the churches, right now they dont act politically because of their "Tax-exempt" status they are afraid of losing. Remove that, and maybe finally pastors would start speaking out again.
Jmulcahy| 2.13.12 @ 10:02PM
Yup, that's a winning campaign slogan. The Dims should adopt that for 2012.
Mike| 2.13.12 @ 1:21AM
Simple method of abortion.
Place complaining pregnant female on gurney. Apply 9mm injection to left temple both complaining liberal female and embroyo dispatched.
Next!
POST American| 2.13.12 @ 2:29AM
---------------------FINAL WORD-----------------------
"The WHOLE human eugenics program
is a continuation of NAZI research--"
-John Rappaport
(latest interview Coast to Coast)
'---Everything OLD --is NEW-Remberg AGAIN---'
------------------------------------------TOLD YA!
"Evolutionary progress calls for the
ELIIMATION of 'less competent' culture."
-Richard Lynn
EUGENIST
University of ULSTER
-----AND NOW ----we ourselves are deemed
'useless eaters' and 'UN---SSSS-US----Stain---Abel' ------is the word.
--------------------------------HAD ENOUGH?
-------------HUAC/ NEWREMBERG asap------------
Dennis| 2.13.12 @ 4:21AM
Note that these insane, rabid pro- abortion (at our expense) supporters seem only worried about free birth control (most teen age girls in my town can get it free at a local health department w/o parents ok). Where is their concern over free flu shots? Free blood tests? Free allergy medication, or a host of other good medications? It's all because they worship at the feet of abortion...
J Robert Giles | 2.13.12 @ 4:17PM
We're perilously close to the edge of the cliff. Jerk the wheel back to the right before we Sheen ourselves! Please read & share the following article. Silence is tyranny.
http://jrobertgiles.blogspot.c.....wheel.html