“It is imperative for the blogosphere to make noise here”

February 9, 2012 | Filed under Obama Regime,Religious Liberty | Posted by

And so Mark Shea is making some… righteously:

ObamaChutzpahIt is imperative for the blogosphere to make noise here, because the MSM is largely in the tank for Obama and is, with malice aforethought, deliberately lying to make it appear that this is merely some dumb bishops with hangups about sex trying to impose their will on defenseless people who just want health care coverage.

The amazing chutzpah of those who say, “Whether I contracept is none of your business” while holding a gun to our heads and demanding we pay for their contraceptives is truly breathtaking, particularly since they are not only robbing us, but forcing us to violate our consciences while they do it. Contraceptives are cheap as dirt and common as water. Let those who want them get them themselves and not gratuitously force those who think them immoral to pay for them. Painting this as “the Church imposing its morals” on them is like accusing the pistol-whipped victim of armed robbery of lack of charity. This is an act of war against Catholic conscience and religious liberty and a naked act of malice from the Obama Administration. There must be no compromise. It must be utterly defeated.

Question is… are you one to fight or are you one to sit on the sidelines?

Answer the freakin’ question.

« « Romney campaign has “Oops!” in Oklahoma.
Breitbart Editor, Dana Loesch Receives Accuracy In Media Award at CPAC » »

Shortlink:

Posted by on February 9, 2012.
Filed under Obama Regime, Religious Liberty.
I blog more regularly at my own place where plain thoughts are delivered roughly. My about page gives you more on who I am.

Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Up to 90% off top rated local fun!

  • Pingback: Brutally Honest

  • jim_m

    I find it terribly revealing about the leftist point of view that you can have freedom of religion as long as it does not interfere with their social engineering agenda and then you will buckle under or go to the gulag. 

    The scary thing is that 39% of Americans believe that this is OK.  39% of Americans are willing to sell someone else’s freedom without considering whose freedom will be next to go away for obama’s fascist utopia.

    • herddog505

      Ditto freedom of speech: you can have it… so long as you aren’t “hateful”.  Ditto the press: you can have it… so long as you aren’t telling “lies”.

      I suppose that there’s nothing new here: people since 1787 have been thinking of newer, better ways to trample the rights of their opponents, real and imagined (Alien and Sedition Act, anyone?).  What really gripes me is how the left can be so f*cking popously self-righteous about it: they CARE, you see!  They are for freedom!  Keep your laws off my body!  Blah-blah-blah.  It’s clear that, for the left, “freedom” means freedom for THEM to do what THEY want… and for everybody else to shut up and go along.

      Bah.

      It remains to be seen how this will play out.  Will nominally religious lefties take off their blinders and see that their faith is suffered only on the thinnest tolerance and that the moment it becomes an obstacle to Making Our Country a More Fair Place, it’ll be out the window?  Or will they decide that their faith and conscience isn’t REALLY all that important, and go along?

      Where’s Martin Niemöller when we need him?

  • Meiji Man

    We need this entire conversation about the Government’s ability to dictate to the Catholic Church to be in Spanish. 

    • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/EU5DQWQTTHTPO4A4ZYSL3AAV2U Adjoran

       ¡Si, es verdad!

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/EU5DQWQTTHTPO4A4ZYSL3AAV2U Adjoran

    This isn’t really about Catholic institutions at all.  As with the bill itself, and Obama’s extralegal regulations and edicts, it is a question of ignoring the Constitution to rule like a dictator. 

    This and the politicization of DOJ, lawbreaking throughout his Administration including FTC, EPA, FCC, and NLRB among others overstepping their statutory authority, and the grants of “waivers” for his pals – and now waivers from NCLB which are NOT authorized by law – show what Obama will do to the Constitution when he still faces reelection.

    How far will he go when he no longer has to care about voters at all?

    Think on it.

    Yet, some will whine that theeeeeeeeeeeir candidate didn’t win the nomination, so they won’t support the nominee, they will take their vote and stay home – or “leave the top line blank” which is also in effect a vote for Obama.

    And most of these cretins are the first to throw the term “RINO” around at others.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_G7YIUZMXOD5JGZZTCYMVA75KFU Shadow

       Well said, this IS about the very foundation of our country and whether we choose freedom or tyranny under a leftist dictator.  I believe Obama will back down on this issue in an effort to save the election.  I hope it is too late and that he has revealed enough of his true agenda this time to convince enough of the government dependent sheep he is not to be trusted. 

    • jim_m

      it is a question of ignoring the Constitution to rule like a dictator. 

      Exactly!  That is what the left wants.  They have demonstrated repeatedly that they have no interest in a participatory democracy.  When they lose they want to overturn the election and rule by force.  Expect exactly that should obama lose in Nov.

    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

      Adjoran, Indeed.

      I hold that Barrack Hussein Obama is in violation of his oath of office.  That oath (Article 2 Section 1 Clause 8) reads:

      I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the
      Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my
      ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United
      States.

      Part of that Constitution is of course the First Amendment which reads:

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
      prohibiting the free exercise thereof      ; or abridging the freedom of
      speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
      assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

      Obama, and under his Executive Authority, the Department of Health and Human Services, is interpreting and extending via regulation a law passed by the Congress in such a way as to dictate to various churches that they must finance and perform functions which are sins in their system of belief.  He is thus dictating to them what they must believe.

      This is a clear and blatant violation of the First Amendment and a clear violation of his oath of office.

      A retreat or accommodation on this issue is insufficient.

      Obama, having foresworn his oath, must be removed from office.

      Since impeachment is, on the basis of the party line vote in the the case of William Jefferson Clinton’s trial before the Senate for perjury (subsequently admitted to by Clinton when he surrendered his law license) a dead issue, it falls on the electorate to perform a duty which the Congress has abandoned.

      The foresworn must not be re-elected.

  • Commander_Chico

    What about people who don’t want to pay for the wars on moral grounds?  Or Amish paying for motor vehicles? Jews and Muslims paying for government ham? Jehovah’s Witnesses paying for blood transfusions? How is this different?

  • JWH

    Again, there is a compromise available … Let the Catholic-affiliated institutions contract with their insurers to provide the birth-control coverage as a supplemental policy that individual employees may purchase via payroll deduction, available at a price in line with the contraceptives coverage offered under standard group health plans.  That way, the Catholic employers don’t have to dirty their hands with birth-control coverage, and non-Catholic employees can purchase affordable contraceptive coverage at their own option.

    Or else the employers could go to and HDHP/HSA model and match employee contributions to the HSAs.  Then, employees can purchase contraceptives (or not) at their own option, using monies from their HSAs.

    Or is there something wrong with this sort of scenario?

  • Hugh_G

    Most of the “noise” from the “blogoshpere” righties could be described as equivalent to a gaseous fart.