David Brock, like Obama, has a little list

And while Brock’s list is more modest than Obama’s (faint praise that), it’s much more specific (a rather low bar) as well.

 

Inside Media Matters: David Brock’s enemies list

By Vince Coglianese | The Daily Caller

An internal Media Matters For America memo obtained by The Daily Caller reveals that the left-wing media watchdog group employs an “opposition research team” to target its political enemies. Included in the list of targets are right-leaning websites, conservative think tanks, prominent financiers and donors, and more than a dozen specific Fox News Channel and News Corporation employees.

“We will conduct extensive public records searches and compile opposition books on individuals,” declares the memo, likely written in late 2009. Investigations, it says, “will focus on the backgrounds, connections, operations and political and financial activities of the individuals.” (RELATED: Media Matters sources, memos reveal erratic behavior, close coordination with White House and news organizations)

One of those singled out for scrutiny in the memo is PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel, a self-described libertarian. Thiel “directly funded, through a small government group, prior racist attack videos by James O’Keefe, the right-wing operative who staged the recent ACORN video sting,” states the memo. “Thiel’s role in funding such attacks has gone completely unremarked and largely uninvestigated.”

“An opposition research team will serve to hold Thiel and others like him accountable.”

 

Click on through to the article for the whole enemies list.  It makes for interesting reading, especially when compared to the individuals and organizations which have lately come in for LSM scrutiny.

It’s reminiscent of Nixon, only with less charm and no foreign policy accomplishments.

Hat Tip: Glenn “Instapundit” Reynolds

"These statistics are bogus"
VIDEO: My CPAC Interview with EU Member Daniel Hannan, Freedom Lover
  • GarandFan

    You’d think they’d set up the re-education camps first.  On another note, do those “investigators” get to wear those spiffy black uniforms?

    • jim_m

       No.  They won’t be setting up reeducation camps.  But with obamacare they may just decide to harvest your organs.  The NIH has an ethicist who believes that it’s ok to murder the disabled to harvest their organs.  http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/10/the-kill-for-organs-pushers/

      In Nazi Germany it started with sterilizing the retarded and disabled and spread to sterilizing those disabled by accidents or in WWI.  From there it spread to euthanasia and then mass murder.  Once you start down he slope who knows where you will end up.  But obama and the left want you to be dieing to find out.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Liberty-AtStake/100002159374121 Liberty At’Stake

    This is one list I’ll happily volunteer for.  Research away, Leftist jackasses.

    d(^_^)bhttp://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/”Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive”

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

    I’m just waiting until someone points out how Cass Sunstein isn’t a traitor to the US Constitution.  Having a government official who wants to instill “non government agents” and spread conspiracy theories should have more people looking at the government with scrutiny no matter if they’re Republican or Democrat.

  • iwogisdead

    Well, I’m not too concerned–the snipers ought to be knocking off Brock any day now.

    • jim_m

       Either he’s a paranoid schizophrenic or the left actually believes that assassination of their enemies is within the bounds of normal consideration.

      • herddog505

        Jebus!  Given their reliance on tu quo que to rationalize everything they do, that’s a frightening thought!

      • Gmacr1

        It does’t hurt that he’s bat shit crazy either.

  • iwogisdead

    Well, I’m not too concerned–the snipers ought to be knocking off Brock any day now.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_425GVKQCLFZMQYYENR7CJBRDVA jb

    So….ending the War in Iraq, killing Osama Bin Laden, and continuing to wipe out Al Qaeda and other terrorists don’t count as foreign policy accomplishments.

    Interesting.

    • UOG

      Hey, wadayaknow, JB is here. Tell me JB, have you figured out side-to-side healing yet? Your last post, while wildly self-assured, was… lacking in comprehension.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_425GVKQCLFZMQYYENR7CJBRDVA jb

         Not sure which post you’re referring to. Point it out and I’ll clear it up for you.

    • EricSteel

      http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20081119_SOFA_FINAL_AGREED_TEXT.pdf

      jb, Obama didn’t end the war in Iraq. That was done when Bush was still in office. Article 24 of the Iraq Status of Forces Agreement says “All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011″. The SOFA, was signed Nov 17, 2008 and took effect Jan 1, 2009. Obama didn’t take office until Jan 20, 2009. Obama had no part in crafting the SOFA.

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

         Unless you count failure as an action, because he and his administration failed to negotiate a new SOFA.

        Thus withdrawal from Iraq can only be claimed as a positive if the administration acknowledges failing to secure a new SOFA.

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

           The fact is they never pursued one for the first couple of years, waited to the last minute, and made a half-hearted attempt.

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

            Still a FAIL.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_425GVKQCLFZMQYYENR7CJBRDVA jb

        Okay, I stand nitpickingly corrected. Obama “merely” pulled the troops out of Iraq – and got nothing but crap for it from most conservatives I’m aware of.

        And this is in addition to killing Bin Laden, continuing to wipe out Al Qaeda elsewhere. Oh, and also removing support from Mubarak and thus paving the way for the Arab Spring; and also supporting rebels against Kaddafi so he finally received justice without a single US soldier’s death.

        Now back to my original question: are you saying those don’t count as foreign policy accomplishments? Because the article writer said Obama had none of them.

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

          A sub-unit of SEAL Team 6 killed bin Laden.  Obama’s “contribution” to that operation was to dither for in excess of twelve hours.

          As for the Arab Spring, I’ll gladly give 0bama full credit for that, as it appears to be heading directly for a Caliphate.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_425GVKQCLFZMQYYENR7CJBRDVA jb

            Nope, sorry. Obama took a risk by okaying this mission, including violating Pakistan’s sovereignty. If the mission had failed and our troops were captured or killed, that would have been it for his presidency. Just like it was for Carter’s, when his mission to retrieve the US hostages failed.

            And you may have forgotten, but during the 2008 primary McCain said that he wouldn’t go into Pakistan to get Bin Laden, and Obama said he would.

            Then Obama was true to his word. So, no matter how much you hate giving Obama credit, that’s an accomplishment.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_425GVKQCLFZMQYYENR7CJBRDVA jb

    Oh, and I’d love to see something backing your notion that Obama is keeping a political enemies list.

    Like he would even need to do that if he was the evil mastermind you think he is – since the GOP is doing a fine ol’ job of self destructing on it’s own.

    • jim_m

      Try this on for size:  http://www.forbes.com/sites/charleskadlec/2011/05/09/obamas-nixonian-enemies-list-on-steroids/

      The fact that obama wants to know the political donations of everyone who does business with the government suggests that he wants to coerce people into making the right kind of donations or to punish those who make the wrong kind, or both.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_425GVKQCLFZMQYYENR7CJBRDVA jb

         So you’re suggesting that wanting to know what corporations might be getting kickbacks and influencing policy, is not only a bad thing – but evidence of an enemies’ list.

        Really? That makes sense to you?

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_W6UJJOM4PP4XLSBG6N4LROVSQE Retired Military

      Gee it must be stephen in disguise.  Stephen goes away and JB pops up magically.  The same way Stephen popped up magically when Bob Armstrong went away.

      • jim_m

         jb showed before Stephen was cut loose.  I don’t give Stephen that much credit for forethought.  So far jb is trying to offer some sort of argument.  That is much more advanced than Stephen.

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

          Who knew Olaf’s Hammer (wielded not by me) sliced like a knife…

      • EricSteel

        When did Stephen get the Hammer?  Personally, I think Stephen=Bob Armstrong=Steve Green=Lee Ward.  A lot of similarities between wild accusations, lack of links, cries of racism, and ad hominem.

  • herddog505

    I must say that the recent posts and comment threads about Barry v. The Catholic Church and Media Matters have been very instructive.

    In the first case, the righties here have stood up for religious freedom and freedom from government coercion generally.  The lefties, on the other hand, have variously rationalized why it’s perfectly OK for the government to tell a church – employers generally, really – what “health care” options they MUST offer.  This includes the usual gratuitous, ugly attacks on the Catholic Church (pedophile priests, historic examples of oppression by the Church, etc.) as well as sneers at Christianity in general.

    In the latter case, the righties have criticized apparent collusion between media and the White House to control the news and silence various critics by coordinating media campaigns against them.  The lefties, in contrast, have waved it away as “no big deal” and “everybody does it” and “FIRST AMENDMENT!” (interesting that the 1A is a sacred, unassailable defense for liberal media, but NOT for the Catholic Church, eh?).

    Fundamentally, the issue here is the power of government.  The left is clearly OK with government having more and more power to influence and command.  The right isn’t.

    Oh, by the way: lefties like to yap with regard to Citizens United that corporations aren’t “people” and hence have no constitutional rights.  Why does this logic not also apply to news corporations and other organizations?

    • jim_m

       The left is OK with it because they currently control the executive.  Were it otherwise they might feel different.  But if the left is going to advocate for the executive to have this kind of power it can only mean that they never intend to give it up.

      • herddog505

        Or they are too damned dumb to realize that the stick they beat their opponents with today may be used against them tomorrow.

        • jim_m

           And not just used against them by the right wing they fear but far more likely to be used against them by the same left wing goons they support today.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay


      In the first case, the righties here have stood up for religious freedom and freedom from government coercion generally.  The lefties, on the other hand, have variously rationalized why it’s perfectly OK for the government to tell a church – employers generally, really – what “health care” options they MUST offer.  This includes the usual gratuitous, ugly attacks on the Catholic Church (pedophile priests, historic examples of oppression by the Church, etc.) as well as sneers at Christianity in general

      It doesn’t do well for your argument to bring up false claims.  They don’t work out well when someone debunks them.  So let’s review exactly what this was:

      1) As the ACLU states:

      all new insurance plans must cover the full range of FDA-approved contraceptive methods, as well as other critical preventive care like screening and counseling for domestic violence, without cost-sharing. This new measure makes effective birth control more affordable for millions of women by eliminating extra out-of-pocket expenses.

      …women’s health remains the primary concern, and women are not subjected to religious dictates that are not their own

      2)  The main problem and issue here is about women having access to all forms of contraceptives.  That goes for abortion of critically ill women or those of rape victims.

      3) The other issue that seems to be the effect of the strawman is how those of a different religious affiliation will be the ones discriminated against. Just because a woman decides to work in a Catholic church does not mean she herself practices the Catholicism.  

      I believe those are the main three reasons why this fight is going on.  It hasn’t been about imposing governmental options, but keeping all of the options open for women to make a choice.

      Oh, by the way: lefties like to yap with regard to Citizens United that corporations aren’t “people” and hence have no constitutional rights.  Why does this logic not also apply to newscorporations and other organizations?

      It’s kind of funny that you state this… Not realizing that Citizens United allows news corporations to lobby the government and withhold stories like this that aren’t in line with the positions of those at the top.  Might want to check that.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_W6UJJOM4PP4XLSBG6N4LROVSQE Retired Military

        Name one woman who was raped or a victim of incest who wanted an abortion under the current system which didnt get one.

        Name one woman who was critically ill and an abortion saved her life.

        Name one woman who didnt have access to contraceptives under the current system.

        Oh wait you cant because there IS NONE.  

        Instead your post should have said access to contraception and abortion AT SOMEONE ELSE’s EXPENSE.

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

          RM, listen to the argument and comprehend.  The main issue here is about having that offer on the table for women.  The entire conflation that you’re doing of the issues from speed reading is ridiculous.

          Also, you might want to look at the numbers for contraceptives:

          “The pill” can cost from $35 – $250 for an initial visit with the cost being $15 – $50 a month or $180 – $600 annually.

          So the first year of contraceptives can cost $850 annually for some women. So if you add in doctor’s visits it can cost $1200 annually for contraceptives. So what you’re essentially saying is that women should not have any access to contraceptives (even though 98% of Catholic women take them) based on religious beliefs and expenses.

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

            No, the argument is “…no law…prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]…”

          • Wild_Willie

            Jay is silly. He quotes how insurance companies have to cover contraceptive and abortive devices but Obama says insurance has to provide them free of charge. Learning disabilities abound by the left. ww

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            Willie, you never back up your argument.  I explain how Obama’s updating his argument.  Which one of us is ridiculous when the other is being obtuse?

      • jim_m

         Citing the ACLU does you no favors.  They have consistently come out against religion at every opportunity.  They were founded by communists and have always been anti-religion.

        If you look at the court cases religious freedom has almost never been championed by the ACLU.  There are numerous other organizations that defend the rights of Americans to express their religious beliefs, but the ACLU is not one of them.

        And it doesn’t matter what the religious faith is of the employee.  The point is that the church believes it is wrong and you are demanding that the church pay to support activity that it believes is sin.  You are demanding that the church pay to promote activity it says should never happen.

        You leftists just don’t get it because you are incapable of understanding anyone else’s point of view.  Heck, I’m not catholic and I don’t have a problem with contraception, but i understand where they come from.  I’m starting to think that this is a serious character flaw in liberals that they cannot understand how other people think.

        • herddog505

          jim_mI’m not catholic and I don’t have a problem with contraception, but i understand where they come from.

          Ditto.

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

          The church believes it’s wrong?  Are you looking at the polls? Are you looking at any news about it?  The position that religious affiliated schools or hospitals (again Example) that have non religious employees that are women are the ones that would be affected.  You gloss over this because the bishops came out against this?  Why should their choice affect their employees so much?  

          You are demanding that the church pay to promote activity it says should never happen.

          That can’t be further from the truth.  No one is saying that the church needs to pay for it.  It’s their job that helps them as I showed in my post to RM above.  What you’re saying is that these women should find new jobs since the religious affiliation is going to hurt their chances at finding access to contraceptives.  No wonder so many women are against this.

          You leftists just don’t get it because you are incapable of understanding anyone else’s point of view.

          Jim, do yourself a favor.  I’m not a damn leftist and I can sit here and discuss and debate when you get on your moral high horse of rhetoric.  Stop trying to pick out names and work on your argument.  You can understand where the Catholic church is coming from, but in seeing the info coming out about this, it hasn’t been about the church picking up the tab.  It’s been about women having a choice in wanting birth control at their choice.  Whatever point of view you want me or anyone else to see this from is not vibing with the data about this and I’ve called that out repeatedly.  Unless you can show some data that counters the fact that even Kay Bailey Hutchison has wanted similar things in the past, I’m going to suggest that you’re full of it.

          • jim_m

            Stop confusing church with the laity.  Not all the laity believes in the doctrine.  But the organizations are run by the church.  They are extensions of the church. 

            You are insane if you really think that this in any way prevents anyone from using contraception.  People have ways of getting birth control if they really want it.  It is absolutely idiotic to suggest that people cannot afford ANY birth control.  Not in this country where the poor have a higher standard of living than in many third world countries.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            What is it with not responding to actual points and bringing up strawmen?

            I have said nothing that says this will prevent people from getting contraception.  I have shown data that it’s expensive to get and quite costly in terms of annual costs.

            Then I’ve put up elsewhere that the costs are paid by the insurance company.  The church is exempted.  They don’t have to do anything.  And in showing similar things that Republicans have sponsored, I’m actually showing that this fight against Obama is absolutely asinine for the GOP. 

            The 2001 mandate that I responded to Rodney with has six Republicans that co-sponsored it:

            Olympia Snowe(ME)
            Susan Collins(ME)
            Lincoln Chafee(RI)
            Gordon Smith(OR)
            John Warner(VA)
            Arlen Specter(PA)

            Hell, Scott Brown voted for something even stronger than Obama’s mandate in his state!

            The entire point here is that this is an issue that is turning into a big deal because Obama is putting in legislation that the GOP supported before.  So you’re trying to make this an issue on religious grounds and it’s not.  It’s a woman’s health issue that the GOP was already in favor of before everyone thought Obama was the anti-Christ for this mandate.

            Let me be clear.  I think Obama is spineless on most issues.  I don’t think he did a good job as president.  But I have to give credit where credit is due, given that his compromise was a pretty good option.  So show me something that says that the church is losing on this issue.  Show me something that the churchgoers disagree, not just the bishops. Show something that states how this deal is a bad one for anyone involved other than “Obama is for it” or “It’s the government, man” when no one cared when the GOP did it.

            Other than that, I just have to think you’re full of it and believe you want to be contrarian.

          • jim_m

             There was a religious exemption in the 2001 bill.  There wasn’t in obamacare.  That is what obama is enforcing now.  There were exactly zero republicans voting for obamacare.

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

             “…no law…prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]…”

      • herddog505

        all new insurance plans must cover the full range of FDA-approved contraceptive methods [emphasis mine - hd505]

        That rather makes MY point, don’t you think?

        What we’re seeing here is the left rationalizing government control by claiming that it’s GOOD for us.  “Why, it will lower costs!  It will be good for poor people!  It’s For The Children!(TM) So, pipe down and obey your masters, who know better than you how to spend your money and how you ought to live your life!”

        JayThe main problem and issue here is about women having access to all forms of contraceptives. [emphasis original - hd505]

        I believe that you misunderstand that definition of the term “access to”.  Nothing stops women – Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, etc. – from buying the pill, a pack of Trojans, or simply keeping their legs closed.  The issue here is about members of a religion being told that they MUST provide funding for something that is – and has been for centuries – against the tenents of their faith.

        This is typical of the left: confusing one man’s right with another man’s obligation.

        However, since you seem to believe this sort of thing, and since I have a right to a firearm under the 2A and various Supreme Court rulings, I really want a M&P 15-22.  The good one with the flash hider and Magpul stock (SKU# 811034), not that California-compliant POS.  Let me know if you want to purchase it yourself and ship it to me, or if you want to simply reimburse me for purchasing it myself.

        It’s my right, after all.

        JayJust because a woman decides to work in a Catholic church does not mean she herself practices the Catholicism.

        Place of employment is a matter of personal decision and people must understand what they are getting into.  Would a Muslim woman mad enough to work at Hooters have a right to get the government to mandate that Hooters get rid of its trademark uniforms?  Would a Southern Baptist woman crazy enough to work at a bar have a right to get the government to madate that her business no longer sell demon rum?

        By the way: as it happens, my Baptist mother worked as the secretary for my Roman Catholic grammar school (you may imagine the problems that caused for me!).

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay


          That rather makes MY point, don’t you think?

          That they have the option to contraceptives?  How the hell does that make your point when you were going on about religious freedom and I’m explaining how this has nothing to do with that?

           Nothing stops women – Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, etc. – from buying the pill, a pack of Trojans, or simply keeping their legs closed.  The issue here is about members of a religion being told that they MUST provide funding for something that is – and has been for centuries – against the tenents of their faith.

          …  Seriously?  It’s as if you haven’t seen any of the data about the women who are fighting this and have sided with Obama on this issue.  The majority of Catholics agree with Obama.  Though the 98% of Catholics has been challenged, there is still a lot to consider in that the statistic seems to be mostly true.  If you really want to make this about Catholicism, I could probably talk about how corrupt the church is but that’s a battle for another day.

          Place of employment is a matter of personal decision and people must understand what they are getting into.
          The rest is an ad hom similar to Santorum trying to say that if you want to marry to the same sex, it’s the same as polygamy.

          No, place of employment is not a matter of personal decision in some places.  I recall that I had a Methodist hospital that was the only one in a 50 mile radius where I was growing up.  By your logic, if a woman wants to get contraceptives as a nurse there and the hospital refuses, that woman is SOL.  That’s the problem here.  All I’m stating is how Obama’s plan wants women to have access to these contraceptives without having to change their faith and find a new job.  It’s almost as if you want women to be discriminated against based on their gender (which is essentially what seems to be occurring here…)

          • herddog505

            JayHow the hell does that make your point when you were going on about religious freedom and I’m explaining how this has nothing to do with that?

            I stated at the start of this thread that, while the right has been standing up for religious liberty and freedom from government coercion generally, the left has been rationalizing why forcing churches (or anybody else) to pay for contraceptives is a Good Thing.

            You replied with a quote from the ACLU, cited explicitly by me, to the effect that insurance companies “MUST” cover contraceptives.

            So, which one of us is defending government coercion here?  Indeed, which one refuses to recognize it for what it is?

            JayIt’s as if you haven’t seen any of the data about the women who are fighting this and have sided with Obama on this issue.  The majority of Catholics agree with Obama.  Though the 98% of Catholics has been challenged, there is still a lot to consider in that the statistic seems to be mostly true.

            Well, zippidity-doo-dah!  Again, your central theme is defending government coercion, in this case by trying to claim that lots and lots of people are, like, TOTALLY for it.  Vox populi, vox dei, eh?

            JayIf you really want to make this about Catholicism, I could probably talk about how corrupt the church is but that’s a battle for another day.

            Oh, I’m sure you can.  As I wrote elsewhere, I never realized until this issue came up just how much liberals hate the Catholic Church.

            [EDIT] And does being an allegedly “corrupt” organization somehow negate the Catholic Church’s rights under the First Amendment to be free from government coercion? [/EDIT]

            Jay[P]lace of employment is not a matter of personal decision in some places.  I recall that I had a Methodist hospital that was the only one in a 50 mile radius where I was growing up.  By your logic, if a woman wants to get contraceptives as a nurse there and the hospital refuses, that woman is SOL.

            Are you suggesting that our hypothetical woman couldn’t go to the local drug store and get a box of condoms on her own???  Or ask her BF to do it???

            As I wrote above, you seem to misunderstand the difference between “right” and “obligation”.

            BTW, do you want to purchase the rifle I have a right to, or reimburse me for it?

            JayIt’s almost as if you want women to be discriminated against based on their gender…

            And it’s almost as if you so hate the Catholic Church and freedom of religion generally that you’ll side with Barry dictating to churches, employers, religious organizations, etc. what health care plans / options they MUST offer.  Where, pray, does the president get this power?  Why are you cool with it?  Does “women’s health” trump the entire Constitution, or just the First Amendment?  What else can Barry dictate to us in the interests of “women’s health”?

            I can only repeat what I wrote at the start of this thread:

            Fundamentally, the issue here is the power of government.  The left is clearly OK with government having more and more power to influence and command.  The right isn’t.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay


            So, which one of us is defending government coercion here?  Indeed, which one refuses to recognize it for what it is?

            It seems you’re intent on this particular strawman.  Allow equal rights under the law instead of gender discrimination.  As I explained to Jim, so shall I explain to you, there’s an issue about allowing access.  You seem intent on saying I’m “defending govn. coercion” and that’s not what I’m saying at all.

             Again, your central theme is defending government coercion, in this case by trying to claim that lots and lots of people are, like, TOTALLY for it.

            Strawman again.  Again, this is about equal access for women to contraceptives and your argument is nothing more than misleading on this topic.

            Are you suggesting that our hypothetical woman couldn’t go to the local drug store and get a box of condoms on her own???  Or ask her BF to do it???
            What I’m suggesting as I explained above, is that it’s quite expensive and gender discrimination.  Instead of making bad judgements, you might want to read how much that birth control is when it’s out of pocket.
            And it’s almost as if you so hate the Catholic Church and freedom of religion generally that you’ll side with Barry dictating to churches, employers, religious organizations, etc. what health care plans / options they MUST offer.  Where, pray, does the president get this power?  Why are you cool with it?  Does “women’s health” trump the entire Constitution, or just the First Amendment?  What else can Barry dictate to us in the interests of “women’s health”?

            That’s downright hilarious since my family does have a large Catholic background.  But keep up the ad hom attacks.  This is entertaining.  Instead of bringing up a valid argument, you’re delving more into hypotheticals instead of data and facts.  Come back to reality please.

            Fundamentally, the issue here is the power of government. The left is clearly OK with government having more and more power to influence and command. The right isn’t.

            Having equal access to something like contraceptives isn’t an invasive government command. It’s a strawman argument that ignores the reality of just wanting to have women have access (note: not giving them) to what they may need. And the best argument you can come up with is that “they should keep their legs close?” How pedantic! And for the love of the gods, stop acting as if I’m talking about religion in my posts! That little trick of acting as if I’m talking about a church is just dumb and annoying on your part. The church is exempted from this. Period. But if you really want to make this about religion, here’s some statistics for you:

            Catholic charities take 67% of their funds from the federal government. So the government is *great* when the Catholic church is taking federal money in other areas, but they can’t provide a damn thing to health care even if they’re exempted? Your argument is full of holes.

            Now this entire government crap that you keep spouting… This is mainly a protection on women in all areas and professions. Then to top this off, the insurance companies are the ones that would be paying for this! Not the religious attackers of Obama, not the government, but the insurance company. And do you know why they stepped up on this compromise? Long story short, it’s better to pay for that health care than to pay for the baby. Congratulations! You just learned that the church is exempted, the government isn’t doing anything overly bad, and the compromise is a win-win for everyone involved!

            Now where is all of the evidence that this is about the government *forcing* the church to do something it wasn’t going to do?

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

            “…no law…prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]…”

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            Stop being an idiot Rodney.  That has nothing to do with it.

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

             Stop being a jack booted commissar, Jay.  The First Amendment IS the ISSUE.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            Women’s rights are the issue here.  And given how the GOP had a similar position in earlier years, it amazes me how they feel the need to attack Obama on an issue they passed in both the House and Senate.

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

             The First Amendment IS the ISSUE.

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

             The First Amendment IS the ISSUE.

          • jim_m

            And you are now claiming that the Church is somehow preventing women from using their own money to obtain birth control. BS!

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            Nope.

          • jim_m

             Yes you are.  Otherwise the church cannot be preventing their access.

          • herddog505

            JayAs I explained to Jim, so shall I explain to you, there’s an issue about allowing access.

            No, it’s an issue about insisting that somebody else pay for it.  Nobody is telling any women that they may not buy all the contraceptives they want.

            I think that you misunderstand the term “allowing access”.

            JayWhat I’m suggesting as I explained above, is that it’s quite expensive and gender discrimination.

            No, it’s an issue about insisting that somebody else pay for it.  As for “gender discrimination”, nobody is telling women that they may not buy all the contraceptives that they want.

            I think that you misunderstand the term “gender discrimination”.

            As for expense, the most popular type of condoms on Amazon costs $15.49 for forty-eight.  Sorry: that’s just not unbearably expensive.

            http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_1_6?url=search-alias%3Dhpc&field-keywords=condoms&sprefix=condom%2Caps%2C160#/ref=sr_st?keywords=condoms&qid=1329219435&rh=n%3A3760901%2Ck%3Acondoms&sort=salesrank

            Further, while I understand that many people (ahem) enjoy sex, it’s not a necessity like food, water or clothing.  I see no reason why the Catholic Church (or anybody else) should pay for people to (ahem) have fun.

            Or should the Catholic Church (or anybody else) also pony up for a bottle of wine, a box of chocolate covered strawberries, a night in a cheap hotel, and a roll of quarters for the vibrating bed?

            JayThe church is exempted from this.

            The bishops seem to disagree.  They, like me and other commenters here, can understand a third-party purchase.

            JaySo the government is *great* when the Catholic church is taking federal money in other areas, but they can’t provide a damn thing to health care even if they’re exempted? Your argument is full of holes.

            Given that I’ve never made that argument, I think I can absolve myself from the accusation.

            And are you suggesting that the Catholic Church REALLY doesn’t “provide a damn thing to health care”?  Really?  They don’t provide health care insurance to their employees?  They don’t run hospitals?

            Or is this another case where a term – health care – doesn’t mean what you think that it means?  Hint: it ISN’T restricted to passing out rubbers.

            But, if it bothers you that Uncle Sugar is giving money to Catholic charities and those damned mackerel snappers are so ungrateful that they won’t spend it as Uncle Sugar (or, more precisely, Barry) demands, then I suggest that you take that up with your member of Congress and have the money cut off.

            This is mainly a protection on women in all areas and professions. [emphasis original - hd505]

            The cry of oppressors all through history: “This is for your GOOD!”

            Hint: when charity is forced, it’s not charity any longer.  It’s theft.

            Or is it cool to commit armed robbery so long as the money is spent to buy condoms for poor women?

            Jaythe insurance companies are the ones that would be paying for this!   [emphasis original - hd505]

            Oh, well, that makes it all OK!  After all, insurance companies have unlimited amounts of money, right?  And it’s well-established in US law that the president can dictate to them what they must and must not provide, no?

            / sarc

            Jayit’s better to pay for that health care than to pay for the baby.

            Then why screw around with forcing the insurance companies to pay for contraception?  Since we can force the church or an insurance company to pay for that in the interests of saving money, why not sterilize women or at least make them get an implant?  Or does your morality, which is fine with dictating to a church or insurance company in order to “save money” balk at dictating to women for the same purpose?

            Jaythe government isn’t doing anything overly bad

            Well, MY mind is at rest knowing that the government hasn’t done anything “overly bad”.

            /sarc

            Let’s recap:

            The government takes the position that it can, by presidential fiat, force an organization to provide a service – a direct payment of money, really – to women in order to buy contraceptives.  This is allegedly done both to save (somebody) money because (allegedly) women who are presently having unprotected sex will NATURALLY buy and use condoms or the pill if they are free, and because – somehow – women have a right to have other people buy contraception for them.

            I object to the government asserting its power to do this, and I find the reasons laughable.

            Who else can Barry order to provide goods or money to women, children or minorities because they have some “right” to it?

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay


            The government takes the position that it can, by presidential fiat, force an organization to provide a service – a direct payment of money, really – to women in order to buy contraceptives.  This is allegedly done both to save (somebody) money because (allegedly) women who are presently having unprotected sex will NATURALLY buy and use condoms or the pill if they are free, and because – somehow – women have a right to have other people buy contraception for them.

            It isn’t just condoms and taking condoms to mean all contraceptives is really a misleading topic here.  Like your $15.49 condom discussion topic, you’re taking a very narrow focus and trying to push it to mean the entire argument.  Yes, condoms cost $20, but some other oral contraceptives can cost up to $200.  This isn’t about having fun.  I can understand  how you seem to want to allow the church to do anything it wants to control its employees, but this is ridiculous.
             Oh wow, suddenly just because I’m exempted means I’m able to make other women’s lives easier by telling them contraceptives exist!

            /sarc

            But also factor in that most of the institutions actually had similar policies in place already.  And still the majority of Catholics agree with Obama.  It’s a woman’s rights issue but you seem interested in polarizing it.  Then, just to show how polarizing this is, it’s affecting Republicans that have offered this type of legislation for years!

            2001 saw six GOP members enact legislation that included a mandate that federal employee health insurance plans cover birth control and contraceptives.  No, it’s not the same issue, but it’s very similar to this one and it passed 334-94.  And let’s not forget that others already have similar laws on their books in their states.  It’s just ridiculous.

            I object to the government asserting its power to do this, and I find the reasons laughable.

            Sure, oppose Obama’s plan if you must.  But don’t look so hypocritical when your position was similar only a few years earlier. When Republicans do something similar, everything’s gravy. When Obama does it, suddenly it’s the end of the world. You might want to research your position just to see how right wing the GOP has gotten.

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

             “…no law…prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]…”

          • jim_m

            So you are saying that not only do people have a right to contraception but they have a right to the contraception method of their choice? 

            What unadulterated BS.

            And BTW the church does not control anyone.  What hypocritical nonsense.  One one hand the left argues that it shouldn’t matter because Catholics use birth control and on the other hand they argue that the Church is controling people.

            Well which is it?  Does the Church control people’s actions or does the Church tell people what they should do and then the people are free to either follow those teachings or do something else?

            Your argument is crap.  You are trying to have it both ways and everyone can see right through it.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay


            And BTW the church does not control anyone.  What hypocritical nonsense.

            Jim, I’m criticizing how you can have a religious affiliated employer that decides not to have access to birth control and contraceptives when you’re not a practicing member of that religion.  That sure seems to fit the bill of the church trying to control what others do.  I’ve not said the church controls anyone.  So quit with the strawman.

            You are trying to have it both ways and everyone can see right through it.

            Nope.  As stated above, you have a distinct ability to try to have a strawman argument instead of actually responding to the points made. But go ahead and try again.  I’m sure instead of trying to polarize and sensationalize the issue, you can instead find some kind of evidence that supports your position.  It shouldn’t be that hard. 

          • herddog505

            JayLike your $15.49 condom discussion topic, you’re taking a very narrow focus and trying to push it to mean the entire argument.  Yes, condoms cost $20, but some other oral contraceptives can cost up to $200.

            This gives the game away.  The lefty yap about this has been that the Catholic Church (or SOMEBODY) MUST be made to pay for contraception for “poor women” because it’s just soooo expensive.  When I demonstrate the condoms – which also help reduce the spread of STD’s, by the way – are pretty cheap, the goalposts are shifted: oh, it’s not just “contraceptives” that must be funded: it’s ORAL contraceptives, which are, like, TOTALLY too expensive for poor women to afford.

            Jaydon’t look so hypocritical when your position was similar only a few years earlier.

            Um, it was?

            I have to agree with jim_m: frankly, your argument is crap.

            This is a matter of government assuming greater control, and you are trying (badly) to rationalize it variously by claiming that it’s for poor women (condoms are cheap; abstinence is free), that the GOP are hypocrites and right-wing monsters who hate women, that Catholics all agree with you, that I only hate Obama, blah-blah-blah.

            Bah.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay


            This gives the game away.

            There’s been no moving of goalposts by me.  That’s been you for the entire argument. I said, quite clearly, that you can’t use just condoms as the basis for all contraceptives in pricing.  I’ve shown the pricing in a response to RM for the average monthly costs for birth control and contraceptives.
             

             I state that a religious affiliated hospital or school gives access for non-religious employees, you’re intent on saying that’s encroachment based on religious grounds.

            I show how insurance companies pick up the tab, and suddenly you can’t wait to criticize Obama.  

            I show how Republicans supported the same position beforehand and suddenly it’s an adhom attack about leftism.  By the way, not leftist, but damn is it sad how you can’t see how this actually hurts the GOP far more than it helps.

            How about getting the facts in here and showing something that supports your position?

            Bah.

            Because you have nothing to defend your argument?  You can’t look at the way most of the Senators and Congresscritters voted and think for yourself in how hypocritical their stance is?  For once, could you actually have some evidence instead of trying (poorly) at making this argument out to be something it’s not?

            Bah indeed.

          • herddog505

            See below due to space constraints.

          • SCSIwuzzy

            A large # of sexually active Catholics may use contraception, but that does not mean they will be OK with the Church being strong armed into providing abortion pills.

            It’s one thing to ignore a rule yourself, it’s another to stand idle an watch as your government tells your Church what to do and what to believe.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay


            A large # of sexually active Catholics may use contraception, but that does not mean they will be OK with the Church being strong armed into providing abortion pills.

            They are NOT being strongarmed.  At all.  How hard is it that people don’t want to understand this concept?  They aren’t doing anything different than before.

            It’s one thing to ignore a rule yourself, it’s another to stand idle an watch as your government tells your Church what to do and what to believe.

            Quit speed reading and look at what’s being put forth as a decent and understandable compromise.  It’s not telling the church to do anything different and the church is already exempted.

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

             “…no law…prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]…”

          • jim_m

            Oh, But Jan Shackowsky (D, obamaville) declares that “None of the American people” follow the dictates of their faith.  So there is no need to protect the free exercise of religion.  Nobody is exercising their faith so we can safely ignore the 1st Amendment.

            That is indeed where the left is coming from today.

          • jim_m

            Seriusly,  Everything I have heard from the left has boiled down to “This is a BS objection because many Catholics use birth control too.  If they aren’t going to follow their beliefs consistantly then we are not obligated to respect or protect them.”

            It’s a basic disrespect for religion and faith that underpins their whole approach to this issue.  It is also a basic misunderstanding of Christian and Catholic beliefs and a complete lack of desire to understand them that drives their unwillingness to compromise.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            Right as I was writing my story, Steven Taylor’s story caught my eye.  You might want to read up.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay
          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

             Since the bill failed to pass and was sponsored by a RINO I’d say “Yes, it has stopped the GOP before.”

            “…no law…prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]…”

          • jim_m

            Catholics are rejecting it as a false compromise.  The left might feel it is acceptable, but seriously, if one side does not find it acceptable then it isn’t much of a compromise is it?

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

            I have seen nothing in the last three years which would indicate that 0bama is capable of compromise.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            You haven’t been paying attention.  He’s all about compromise.

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

             What 0bama calls compromise is better known as coercion.

            The two of you may indeed call it your elbow, but that’s not where your voice is emanating from.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            That ain’t coercion.  Obama has bent over backwards for the GOP for the past 3 years.  Yet they still want more.  Fancy that…  Whiny babies continue to cry even though they get what they want.

          • jim_m

            How much did he compromise on obamacare?  Not one bit.  It was forced through with no input from anyone but the dem writers.  Even the dems in Congress didn’t kow what was in the Bill.

            That last statement of yours just shows how detatched from reality you are.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            What?  He took out the public option and the industry practically wrote the damn thing in the first place when he went to the Heritage Foundation.

            Or are you not clear on how many conservativelobbyists he appeased with this?

          • jim_m

             He took out the public option etc because the dems wouldn’t even vote for those.  No GOP senators voted for  obamacare.  He didn’t need to compromise with the GOP.  He compromised with his own party.  That isn’t bipartisan and it isn’t the kind of compromise we are talking about here.

          • SCSIwuzzy

            Reading comprehension? From you? The guy that got every detail about the protesting kids in LA wrong, multiple times?!?
            I needed a good laugh

  • ackwired

    It is good to report on these things.  But don’t we all know that negative research on political opponents has been business as usual since before any of us were born?

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

       Most of the names on Brock’s list are NOT practicing politicians.

      • jim_m

        Heck a number of the people on Brock’s list are not even public figures.  That is why this is an obvious attempt to silence conservatives by threat and intimidation.  It’s not just go after the on air commentators, but it goes after the people behind the scenes so that they become afraid to allow the conservatives the opportunity to air their opinions.

  • herddog505

    JayYou can’t look at the way most of the Senators and Congresscritters voted and think for yourself in how hypocritical their stance is.

    I’m sorry: the voting records of a pack of GOP wardheelers isn’t likely to influence my opinion.

    The central question is simple:

    Should the government have the authority to order anybody – Catholic Church, insurance companies, whomever – to provide this or that benefit to people?  I say that it should not.  This is a question of government control vs. liberty, and my tendency is to favor the latter.  With regard to the Catholic Church, it is also an issue of separation of church and state; I believe that the First Amendment protect churches from this sort of government coercion.

    Your “argument” is all smoke and mirrors about how “necessary” it is that they do it because – somehow – it’s a Good Thing because some women allegedly can’t afford birth control (or, more exactly, ANY birth control they might want).  In support of this cowpat of an argument, your “evidence” is a lot of arm-waving about how this coverage will be “free” (SOMEBODY has to pay for it), how wicked is the Catholic Church, how much cheaper it would be (for whom?) if these women weren’t having babies, how hypocritical both Catholics and GOP politicians are, and how much I hate women and Obama.

    Bah.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

      Jim – He took out the public option etc because the dems wouldn’t even vote for those.  No GOP senators voted for  obamacare.  He didn’t need to compromise with the GOP.  He compromised with his own party.  That isn’t bipartisan and it isn’t the kind of compromise we are talking about here.

      He weakly fought for the public option and even then there were a ton of times he’d listen to the conservative agenda and run for the hills when a fight came up.  The Payroll tax cuts were one of the first (and recent) exchanges where he’s actually won and the GOP caved in.

      Herddog – I’m sorry: the voting records of a pack of GOP wardheelers isn’t likely to influence my opinion.

      And here we go with the marginalizing and polarizing.  Pointing out how hypocritical and right wing the party has gotten when they’ve voted for the very same mandate before is quite relevant to the conversation.  I just leave it up to you to decide how relevant it truly is.  Hell, as I’ve noted above, Scott Brown has an even stronger mandate in his state which makes it very difficult to take these people seriously.  Sure, if you want to take this to Constitutional grounds, I’d say Obamacare violates the 4th Amendment with regard to client/doctor privilege.  But it’s amazing to see people wanting to shoot Obama when the people that have been voted into office already have these laws on the books.
      Also, as I said before, the Catholic church receives 67% of its funding from government resources.  For most bishops to raise a fuss about this and about their 1st Amendment rights being violated doesn’t fly when they’re taking taxpayer money in the first place.  If you really want a separation of church and state, then stop taking federal money and do it by some other means.  (Note: This is also a partial repudiation of Citizens United, where 501(c)(3) can be argued to be against the Constitution as well, but that’s an entirely different argument to make)

      government control vs. liberty

      Again.  The church isn’t doing anything different or anything that the majority of Catholics aren’t already in support of.  The government, for the most part, is just saying “make this available in the health care choices”.  It’s not limiting options or limiting choices like the abortion debates.  That seems to be a false dichotomy set up to make this a made up war on religion.  I sure as certain favor liberty myself, but making an argument that “women should keep their legs closed” seems quite insensitive to the choices a woman might make in regards to access to birth control.  What’s amazing is how viagra is covered as a medical problem, but suddenly birth control and contraceptives are not.

      Your “argument” is all smoke and mirrors about how “necessary” it is that they do it because – somehow – it’s a Good Thing because some women allegedly can’t afford birth control (or, more exactly, ANY birth control they might want).

      There is a majority of women that have struggled to afford birth control:

      • Seven in 10 Republican women (72 percent) said that birth control should be included as preventive health care, covered without any out-of-pocket costs.
      • 77 percent of Catholic women voters said that birth control should be covered as preventive health care without any out-of-pocket costs. 
      • One in three women voters (34 percent) report having struggled with the cost of prescription birth control at some point. 
      o This figure rises dramatically among specific demographic groups: 
      55 percent of women 18–34 have struggled with the cost of prescription birth control.
      57 percent of young Latina women 18–34 have struggled with the cost of prescription birth control.
      o 54 percent of young African-American women 18–34 have struggled with the cost of prescription birth control. 

        Further, that lack of access leads to unwanted pregnancies and abortions.  That’s something the Catholic church is really concerned about, is it not?

       In support of this cowpat of an argument, your “evidence” is a lot of arm-waving about how this coverage will be “free” (SOMEBODY has to pay for it), how wicked is the Catholic Church, how much cheaper it would be (for whom?) if these women weren’t having babies, how hypocritical both Catholics and GOP politicians are, and how much I hate women and Obama.

      Nope.  As this fight rages on, I’m noticing a lot of breaking ranks in the GOP females from the males, how the Catholic bishops have put themselves in a clueless position of not understanding what their flock wants, and attempts to characterize the debate as a 1st Amendment issue when it’s a women’s health issue.  The hating women seems to come from ignorance about how much birth control and contraceptives cost to some women.  And I would be surprised if more people didn’t try to fight Obama.  I just see it as a losing battle [on this specific issue].

      • jim_m

        Jay:  Get it through your head, prescription birth control is not a constitutional right.  Healthcare is not a right.

        And if you think that obama is acting as some objective, fair-minded, genius, then explain this: http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/15/good-news-obama-backs-exemptions-for-religious-organizations/  His student loan forgiveness program counts for everyone…except if you work for a religious organization.

        To all you ignorant lefties that thought obama was just doing this because he believed in women’s rights:  F off.

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

          No shit Obama isn’t some fair minded genius.  

          I’ve not stated that birth control is a constitutional right nor healthcare.  I’ve responded to all of the issues with actual facts and data while you’ve constantly pulled one moving of the goal posts after another.  I don’t even like his loan forgiveness plan and what really irks me is how that wasn’t a part of the conversation until you decided to bring it up with this post.  Either respond to the points shown or keep silent.  I’ve called out the BS, shown the data and you constantly make an assertion that you can’t back up.

          To YOU, the ignorant Asshole that can’t back us how Republicans had a similar position in earlier years, how the GOP already has a stronger mandate (ie without the exclusion of religious institutions) in some states, nor effectively show how some women can’t afford certain birth control when presented with the facts:  F off.

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

             You’ve been making the case that birth control and healthcare trump an enumerated Constitutional Right.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

             Republicans had a similar position in earlier years, how the GOP already has a stronger mandate (ie without the exclusion of religious institutions) in some states, and some women can’t afford certain birth control which is backed by facts

            There’s the case right there.

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

             Dis-proven in the thread from which you quote yourself.

            The case remains “… no law…prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]…” is an enumerated Right which you advocate abridging.

  • Neo

    The news from the Daily Caller website is surprising: David Brock, the founder of Media Matters, had a personal assistant illegally publicly carry a concealed handgun in the District of Columbia in order “to protect Brock from threats.” Few organizations have declared their opposition to gun ownership or concealed carry laws as strongly as Media Matters.

    The group’s opposition to guns has largely been a “scorched earth” approach, demonizing supporters of gun ownership and concealed handgun laws.

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

      One must wonder if the DC Police are investigating.  In addition, since concealed carry is still illegal in DC, one must wonder why they have not done a stop and pat down on Brock and his party by now, since they have probable cause in the form of these articles which Brock and Media Matters have not denied.

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE