“This entire political fire storm is a set-up by the Administration”

As a blogger who has folllowed Elizabeth Scalia for years now, I perk up when she declares some piece a must read.

Consider myself perked up after reading this Forbes column by Charles Kadlec, who states unequivocally that he is not a Catholic nor does he affirm the Church’s position on contraception:

Power-grabThe story line that President Obama miscalculated in picking this fight with the Catholic Church vastly underestimates the man’s political skill and ambition. His initial approval of the ruling requiring the Church pay for abortion drugs and sterilization was but the first step in a calculated strategy to further his goal of transforming America.

President Obama chose to pick this fight with the Catholic Church by choosing to release the regulations first, and then, as he explained in last Friday’s statement to the press, spend “the next year (before the new regulations take effect) to find an equitable solution that would protect religious liberty and insure that every woman has access to the care that she needs.” The alternative would have been to find the “equitable solution” before announcing the regulations. In other words, this entire political fire storm is a set-up by the Administration.

The original HHS ruling put the Catholic Church into the position of choosing one of these two options:

Option A: The Church complies with the law and violates its own teachings and principles of faith. Such a choice would strip the Church of its legitimacy and make it a de facto vassal of the state. In this case, the ability of the Church to challenge the government’s political power is vastly reduced, if not completely destroyed. Faith, charity and civil society are marginalized. Government wins.

Option B: The Church as a matter of conscience refuses to obey the law, and stops offering health insurance to its employees. In this case, the Church gets crushed by hundreds of millions of dollars in fines. As a consequence, its ability to fulfill its religious mission by funding hospitals, schools and charities is sharply reduced if not destroyed. As the Church is forced to withdraw from its active role in civil society, those who believe in government will rush to fill the void. Faith, charity and civil society are marginalized. Government wins.

The risk to President Obama was the Church would create “Option C” and engage in a broad political battle to force the full repeal of the ruling or, if that fails, the defeat of President Obama in the November election followed by the repeal of ObamaCare. Under Option C, government’s power is reduced. Faith, charity and civil society win.

There’s more, and I agree with Ms. Scalia.  It’s a must read.

The question now can arguably be boiled down to this. 

Will hatred for the Catholic Church and what she allegedly stands for (and I say allegedly because so much of what fuels opposition to the Church is ignorant hogwash) get in the way of this country’s defense of liberty?

Will Obama successfully couch this as a women’s rights issue when in reality it’s freedom’s right to be recognized and affirmed?

It’s time to choose sides.  We are literally at a crossroads.  More people are recognizing this as each day passes but not enough to quash what it is Obama and his minions are attempting.

What side are you on?  Will you believe the lies or will you affirm the truth? Or putting it more bluntly, is your ability to recognize truth still existent?

I hope so.  For all our sakes and the sake of the future of this country.

How Hath Obama Failed? Let Us Count the Ways
Representative Democracy vs Bureaucracy
  • Pingback: Brutally Honest()

  • Walter_Cronanty

    “Traditional Catholics”, at least in the northeast, Democrat tradition, will have to seek allies that they’ve spurned in the past, and in some respects spurn now.  They’ve long supported liberal Ds.  As Paul Rahe wrote:

    they raise no objection at all to the fact that Catholic employers and
    corporations, large and small, owned wholly or partially by Roman
    Catholics will be required to do the same. The freedom of the church as
    an institution to distance itself from that which its doctrines decry as
    morally wrong is considered sacrosanct. The liberty of its members –
    not to mention the liberty belonging to the adherents of other Christian
    sects, to Jews, Muslims, and non-believers – to do the same they are perfectly willing to sacrifice.”
    “In the 1930s, the majority of the  bishops, priests, and nuns sold their souls to the devil, and they did so with the best of intentions. In their concern for the suffering of those out of work and destitute, they wholeheartedly embraced the New Deal… the leaders of the American
    Catholic Church fell prey to a conceit that had long before ensnared a
    great many mainstream Protestants in the United States – the notion that
    public provision is somehow akin to charity – and so they fostered
    state paternalism and undermined what they professed to teach: that
    charity is an individual responsibility and that it is appropriate that
    the laity join together under the leadership of the Church to
    alleviate the suffering of the poor. In its place, they helped establish
    the Machiavellian principle that underpins modern liberalism – the
    notion that it is our Christian duty to confiscate other people’s money
    and redistribute it.”
    http://ricochet.com/main-feed/… Edit Reply

  • jim_m

    There is a good argument that he did this to A) distract from the economy and B) whip up his base by raising the specter of abortion rights etc.

    What the imbecile in chief did not reckon on was that this would be seen as an attack on religious liberty in general and not just on the Catholic Church with its antiquated views on sexuality etc.  He has succeeded in whipping up a great deal of energy in his opponent’s base.  What he is getting is Option D, where a broad coalition of conservative interests band together (not just the Option C where the Catholic Church opposes him) to oppose his regulations, drawing on support from otherwise moderate Cathoilics and eroding dem support in key constituencies such as Hispanic Americans.

    • MichaelLaprarie

      A lot of people are saying that the Dems need a social issue around which they can whip up mass hysteria … er, rally some kind of support so they can win the election.  Abortion is a non-starter; polls show our nation is deeply and evenly divided.  So they came up with the idea to scare the poor and ignorant into believing that Republicans want to ban contraception. 

      Remember, the Dems are targeting rich guilty white liberals and poor minorities as their core voters this year.  The elitists who run the Democratic party are probably excited about scaring Blacks and Hispanics with tales of gun and Bible-toting hillbillies coming to take away their health care (because of course everyone knows “birth control” = “women’s health”) so this seems to be an issue tailor-made for a political scare campaign.

  • ackwired

    It didn’t look to me like Obama picked this fight.  It looked like he got blindsided by the Catholic Bishops.  I’m sure he would like to find a way to make lemonade out of it.

    As for the “It’s time to pick sides”, “It’s us against them”, “You’re either with us or against us” excitement, the supreme court is going to decide whether the mandate stands or not.  Hopefully, they will not be influenced by the hysteria on either side.

    • jim_m

      If he was blindsided it does not speak well of his ability to understand people, their desires and motivations.  Nor does sit seem that he can examine and understand the likely consequences for his actions.  Two things that are kind of important in a President.

    • GarandFan

       Just how did the Bishops “blindside” Barry?  HE told them that they’d be exempt.  Then Her Majesty of Health Care issues a “ruling” that they will not be exempt.

      • ackwired

        Did you notice there was a little confusion between the church itself and the businesses operated by the church?

        • Joel Martin

          The Church doesn’t operate businesses; it operates non-profit institutions. Not the same thing.

          • ackwired

            Fair enough.  There is a distinction.  There is a difference in the way they handle their retained earnings and they are allowed to collect tax-free donations.  But they operate much the same as businesses, compete with for-profit businesses, and interact with the public in the same manner as for-profit businesses.  Their for-profit competitors are probably not pleased that they want to be exempted from the regulations that they have to follow.  I don’t think that it is clear cut that there is no difference between the church and their not-for-profit institutions.

    • Jwb10001

      don’t you imagine the bishops might feel a bit blind sided as well?

      • ackwired

        Possibly.  You know…you don’t have to assume that there was some kind of conspiracy just because he didn’t see it coming.

    •  Your dishonesty is rivaled only by your stupidity.

      • ackwired

        And you are one mean spirited SOB.  Have you ever contributed anything positive?

    • herddog505

      HOODLUM – “Man, what’s the world coming too???  I go up to this guy and, as polite as you please, say, “Gimme your wallet.”  What does he do?  He starts hitting me and screaming for the cops!  I was totally blindsided!”

      • ackwired

        Actually, I think you are getting closer.  I don’t think Obama ever imagined that a group of managers who routinely moved child rapists from one school to another so they would not get caught woudl complain about him asking them to be hypocritical about businesses that they own buying health insurance that covers contraception.  Obviously, he was wrong, and I think he might pay a big price for it.

        • Joel Martin

           Unfortunately, I think that was a factor. Obama believes (and appallingly seems to be right) that the American people are gullible enough to believe that the Church having screwed up in one area decades ago means she’s necessarily wrong on an unrelated matter today. If the media can keep shouting “perverts” at the Church, then Americans will be inclined to look no deeper at the issue.

  • Hank_M

    This had to be deliberate.
    What else is Obama going to brag about?

    The left keeps using the same play book because it has historically been a winner for them.
    They use the race card- discrimination whenever they can, and if need be, abortion is their ace up their sleeve. Stephanopolous tested this in an earlier debate which shows that they’ve been thinking about it for a while.

    I really wish the repub candidates would leave this alone, because once we’re bankrupt, nothing else will matter.

    Think the Greeks are upset about contraceptives right now?

    • jim_m

      I agree.  Not only this but when you combine it with Barry’s Tuition bailout where you can get the government to help you with your loans as long as you don’t work for a religious affiliated institution, and you get a good picture that he wants to remove religious organizations from the fabric of society.

      This all is congruent with the leftist ideal of people being allowed to claim a faith but not being allowed to express that faith in any way that is meaningful in the public arena.  They want religion to be private and behind closed doors and never witnessed in public.

  • As I’ve said from the start, it is a HUGE mistake to allow this to be a Catholic or religious institution issue.  The Bishops are willing to throw the rest of us under the bus if Obama will only “compromise” with them – and he will, gaining all the political benefit from it, and support from the Bishops for it and then, if reelected, will reverse himself again and put the harsher rule back in.

    It’s 100% certain.

    It’s a bad rule, a power grab, and cannot be “improved” or “amended” – it MUST be repealed AND Obama defeated.

    Don’t be fooled.

    • jim_m

      That’s why I suggest option D which is what seems to be happening, that many more people are involved and already people are talking about the private individual who holds these beliefs and will they be forced to pay for contraception and abortion for their employees and not just allowing the church to create a carve out for itself.

      But I have also heard this concern from Catholic Bishops so I think we may get a broader stand on the issue from them than you think.  This issue goes to their core theology and I think that they will stand and defend it fully.  I think there may be a dawning realization that if they accept a carve out that they are only temporarily postponing this rather than defeating it.

      •  As a Catholic, I wish I shared your optimism.  Some of the statements from the Bishops have been encouraging, but then the rush to embrace compromise when Obama did his fake change to the mandate indicated to me that even though they weren’t fooled by his head feint, they are ready to be suckered into something that gives the carve-out to a broader range of “religious groups” but keeps the mandate in place for the rest of us.

        The Bishops don’t want to go to the mattresses – they are more afraid of losing than willing to fight for right.  They know the Pope isn’t kidding – he will shut down the Catholic hospitals before they cover this stuff.

        Given the choice, from my observations, the American Bishops are mainly predisposed to CYA – and the Devil take the rest.

        • herddog505

          Adjoran[T]he rush to embrace compromise when Obama did his fake change to the mandate indicated to me that even though they weren’t fooled by his head feint, they are ready to be suckered…

          Score another for the left’s ability to shape the language and national debate.  Have we not FOR YEARS been beaten over the head with how wonderful, desirable, mature a thing “compromise” is?

  • LiberalNightmare

    I posted this in an earlier thread, but I think it fits better here – sorry of you read it twice.

    The funniest part of all of this is that in fact Obama and his flying
    monkeys couldn’t give a crap less about whether or not the church pays
    for contraception. Lets face it, at this point contraception is easier
    to get than water. It does everything but come in the mail.

    The way they figure it, if they actually pull it off and force the church to pay, then win.

    they don’t pull it off, then the useful morons get to argue about sex
    scandals and abortion instead of being forced to defend Obama’s policies
    of high un-employment, high fuel costs and cronyism. So, win.

    the end, the Obamunists will simply buy the Catholics off at the last
    minute if it looks like they wont go away, Chico and the rest of the
    poop flinging monkeys will high five each other into the night, because
    they’re too stupid to realize that in the process of screwing over the
    catholics, they weakened their own 1st amendment rights.

    Gotta love liberalism.

  • Joel Martin

    I don’t think it’s such a blunder on the Obastard’s part. The Catholic Church operates 625 hospitals and God knows how many other healthcare facilities. If the administration can cripple them with enough fines, it may pave the way toward confiscating them altogether.

  • I believe the church should take a stand once and for all.  A good start would be to excommunicate Pelosi, Kerry, Biden and other politician (democrat or republican ) who votes for or stands for abortion.

  • Vagabond661

    He is a community organizer first, commander-in-chief second.

  • Olsoljer

    What a wonderful opportunity for the GOP to grab a big handful of the Hispanic vote!!
    Santorum could take this issue to the Hispanic community in Spanish/English televised campaign messages and jump double digits in the polls.  Arizona would be a good place to start.

  • Brian_R_Allen

    Bring back Mister-Tea!