Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Dereliction of Duty
Although I had a bit of fun with it yesterday, Obama’s budget is indeed an outrage. The best summation I’ve seen of it so far comes from Yuval Levin who succinctly calls it a “dereliction of duty”:
Of course, this is par for the course for this president. His budget documents have all been studies in the dereliction of duty. And it’s true that this particular act of dereliction has in it more elements of class warfare and punitive and economically damaging targeted tax increases than the past ones. But as we take note of that added layer of misguided political economy, we should not lose sight of the underlying scandal—the president’s complete lack of interest in addressing the mounting fiscal crisis which his policies have so severely exacerbated, and his readiness to allow our government’s finances to collapse around him (or rather around his wretched successor) and to burden our children with an unprecedented and unbearable burden of debt.
Charles Krauthammer also goes yard on it and on Republicans who go too easy on Obama’s irresponsibility. (Unfortunately, the video embedding script is not working, but the video is available at the link.)
And Obama’s dereliction of duty extends beyond budgeting. Just this year so far, Obama has made illegal appointments in violation of the Constitution. He has attacked freedom of religion. He has repeatedly violated his oath of office “to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
This is an impeachable President.
The only reason I do not support impeachment is it is better that an election removes him.
Speaking of which – and I am sorry if this offends – heck, no, I am not – there is no longer any excuse for supporting Obama short of severe brain damage. He is willfully tearing up the Constitution and the fiscal future of this nation. Shame on those who support him as he does so.
Of course, this is par for the course for this president. His budget documents have all been studies in the dereliction of duty. And it’s true that this particular act of dereliction has in it more elements of class warfare and punitive and economically damaging targeted tax increases than the past ones. But as we take note of that added layer of misguided political economy, we should not lose sight of the underlying scandal—the president’s complete lack of interest in addressing the mounting fiscal crisis which his policies have so severely exacerbated, and his readiness to allow our government’s finances to collapse around him (or rather around his wretched successor) and to burden our children with an unprecedented and unbearable burden of debt.
Charles Krauthammer also goes yard on it and on Republicans who go too easy on Obama’s irresponsibility. (Unfortunately, the video embedding script is not working, but the video is available at the link.)
And Obama’s dereliction of duty extends beyond budgeting. Just this year so far, Obama has made illegal appointments in violation of the Constitution. He has attacked freedom of religion. He has repeatedly violated his oath of office “to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
This is an impeachable President.
The only reason I do not support impeachment is it is better that an election removes him.
Speaking of which – and I am sorry if this offends – heck, no, I am not – there is no longer any excuse for supporting Obama short of severe brain damage. He is willfully tearing up the Constitution and the fiscal future of this nation. Shame on those who support him as he does so.
Labels: Constitution, Obama
Monday, February 13, 2012
It’s OBAMA’S Budget!
Obama will release his proposed budget today . . . with a projected deficit of $1.33 trillion. That’s $1,330,000,000,000 for those who are counting. It will take a while to count that, just to let you know.
And it’s HIS proposed budget. He didn’t negotiate with Republicans to get to this point. No law requires him to have yet another trillion dollar deficit. Republicans in Congress did not take a break from doing nothing to force him to propose this budget. Eeeeeevil Bush and his sinister mastermind Cheney did not break into the Oval Office and force Obama to propose this budget. Obama’s fantasies aside, Jesus most emphatically did not tell him to propose this budget. The Bible does not command this budget. The Episcopalian Holy Spirit did not take a break from inspiring inclusion and holy listening to move Obama to propose this budget. The Devil did not make Obama propose this budget. Europeans did not tell Obama he must propose this budget or be recolonized. The evil rich, those “millionaires and billionaires,” did not force Obama to propose this budget. The evil dead did not force Obama to propose this budget. It may be worthy of zombies*, but this is Obama’s budget. Got it?
Obama and Democrats will surely make excuses and pass the blame to Bush/Europe/Congress/evilrich/Republicans/theeconomy/globalwarming. But THIS IS OBAMA’S BUDGET!
Do I have to repeat myself?
*On second thought, I am not aware of any zombies who have been irresponsible Socialist spendthrifts. I apologize to all zombies and their friends who were offended.
And it’s HIS proposed budget. He didn’t negotiate with Republicans to get to this point. No law requires him to have yet another trillion dollar deficit. Republicans in Congress did not take a break from doing nothing to force him to propose this budget. Eeeeeevil Bush and his sinister mastermind Cheney did not break into the Oval Office and force Obama to propose this budget. Obama’s fantasies aside, Jesus most emphatically did not tell him to propose this budget. The Bible does not command this budget. The Episcopalian Holy Spirit did not take a break from inspiring inclusion and holy listening to move Obama to propose this budget. The Devil did not make Obama propose this budget. Europeans did not tell Obama he must propose this budget or be recolonized. The evil rich, those “millionaires and billionaires,” did not force Obama to propose this budget. The evil dead did not force Obama to propose this budget. It may be worthy of zombies*, but this is Obama’s budget. Got it?
Obama and Democrats will surely make excuses and pass the blame to Bush/Europe/Congress/evilrich/Republicans/theeconomy/globalwarming. But THIS IS OBAMA’S BUDGET!
Do I have to repeat myself?
*On second thought, I am not aware of any zombies who have been irresponsible Socialist spendthrifts. I apologize to all zombies and their friends who were offended.
Friday, February 10, 2012
Report: Obama to Compromise on Birth Control Rule (Or sometimes, I’m good.) UPDATED
Last week, I predicted that, to preserve his re-election chances, Obama would try to appease Catholics angry over his Obamacare birth control rule.
Well, it looks like I’m right again.
But I doubt his efforts will succeed. This is likely not the end of this sordid episode.
Nor should it be. He is only doing this to get re-elected. He is not to be trusted with freedom of religion or just about any other Constitutional freedom.
UPDATE:
Obama has now announced the “accommodation” from on high. And it is hard to see just how it changes anything.
But as Charles Krauthammer reminds us, protecting freedom of religion isn’t really what this “accommodation” is about:
. . . the firestorm of protest was becoming a threat to his reelection. Sure, health care, good works, and religion are important. But reelection is divine.
Well, it looks like I’m right again.
But I doubt his efforts will succeed. This is likely not the end of this sordid episode.
Nor should it be. He is only doing this to get re-elected. He is not to be trusted with freedom of religion or just about any other Constitutional freedom.
UPDATE:
Obama has now announced the “accommodation” from on high. And it is hard to see just how it changes anything.
But as Charles Krauthammer reminds us, protecting freedom of religion isn’t really what this “accommodation” is about:
. . . the firestorm of protest was becoming a threat to his reelection. Sure, health care, good works, and religion are important. But reelection is divine.
Labels: freedom, Obama, Obamacare, this blog
“Come on guys.”
Ed Morrissey points out that Obama’s decision-making and conduct concerning his Obamacare church birth control rule is Obamateurish.
But this tops it off. As CBS reporter Norah O’Donnell tweeted, when Obama was asked if he stands by said rule, his answer was “Come on guys.”
A President steamrolls freedom of religion and when asked about it, all he says is “Come on guys”? Come on, Obama.
By the way, my hero Mark Levin sums up this situation very well:
This isn’t about women. It’s not about contraception. This is about a president of the United States who has no respect for the Constitution, no respect for the First Amendment, and also has no respect for people of faith – and I’m not trying to be controversial, but there’s no balancing involved here.
I didn’t know we were having a problem getting contraceptives in this country. I mean they fund Planned Parenthood who hands out this stuff like candy. So there’s really no problem in this country with access. What he’s trying to do is break down that line between church and state in reverse and it’s contemptible!
But this tops it off. As CBS reporter Norah O’Donnell tweeted, when Obama was asked if he stands by said rule, his answer was “Come on guys.”
A President steamrolls freedom of religion and when asked about it, all he says is “Come on guys”? Come on, Obama.
By the way, my hero Mark Levin sums up this situation very well:
This isn’t about women. It’s not about contraception. This is about a president of the United States who has no respect for the Constitution, no respect for the First Amendment, and also has no respect for people of faith – and I’m not trying to be controversial, but there’s no balancing involved here.
I didn’t know we were having a problem getting contraceptives in this country. I mean they fund Planned Parenthood who hands out this stuff like candy. So there’s really no problem in this country with access. What he’s trying to do is break down that line between church and state in reverse and it’s contemptible!
Labels: freedom, Mark Levin, Obama, Obamacare
Thursday, February 09, 2012
Bootlickers and Backbones
The MCJ posts a good summary of how “religious” of a more lefty bent are responding to the Obama regime’s attack on freedom of religion via Obamacare rules. First, there are the usual bootlickers:
"We stand with President Obama and Secretary Sebelius in their decision to reaffirm the importance of contraceptive services as essential preventive care for women under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and to assure access under the law to American women, regardless of religious affiliation. We respect individuals' moral agency to make decisions about their sexuality and reproductive health without governmental interference or legal restrictions. We do not believe that specific religious doctrine belongs in health care reform -- as we value our nation's commitment to church-state separation. We believe that women and men have the right to decide whether or not to apply the principles of their faith to family planning decisions, and to do so they must have access to services. The Administration was correct in requiring institutions that do not have purely sectarian goals to offer comprehensive preventive health care. Our leaders have the responsibility to safeguard individual religious liberty and to help improve the health of women, their children and families. Hospitals and universities across the religious spectrum have an obligation to assure that individuals' conscience and decisions are respected and that their students and employees have access to this basic health care service. We invite other religious leaders to speak out with us for universal coverage of contraception."
The signees follow. They are rather predictable, but note them well. Sooner or later, history will place them with those clerics who collaborated with the French Revolution and with the Nazis in attacking life and freedom. When I call them bootlickers, I mean it.
Catholics for Choice, Jon O'Brien, President
Central Conference of American Rabbis, Rabbi Jonathan Stein, President
Concerned Clergy for Choice, Rabbi Dennis Ross, Director
Disciples Justice Action Network, Rev. Dr. Ken Brooker Langston, Director
Episcopal Divinity School, The Very Reverend Dr. Katherine Hancock Ragsdale, President
Episcopal Women's Caucus, Rev. Dr Elizabeth Kaeton, Convener
Hadassah, Marcie Natan, National President
Jewish Reconstructionist Federation, Robert Barkin, Interim Executive Vice President
Jewish Women International, Lori Weinstein, Executive Director
Methodist Federation for Social Action, Jill Warren, Executive Director
Muslims for Progressive Values, Ani Zonneveld, President
National Council of Jewish Women, Nancy Kaufman, CEO
Planned Parenthood Clergy Advisory Board, Rev. Jane Emma Newall, Chair
Rabbinical Assembly, Rabbi Julie Schonfeld, Executive Vice President
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, Rev. Steve Clapp, Chair
Religious Institute, Rev. Dr. Debra W. Haffner, Executive Director
Society for Humanistic Judaism, M. Bonnie Cousens, Executive Director
The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, Rabbi Steven Wernick, CEO
Union Theological Seminary, Rev. Dr. Serene Jones, President
Unitarian Universalist Association, Rev. Peter Morales, President
United Church of Christ, Rev. Geoffrey Black, General Minister and President
Women's League for Conservative Judaism, Rita L. Wertlieb, President; Sarrae G. Crane, Executive Director
However, there are those who once supported Obama but to their credit now see there should be no further collaboration with this regime as it attacks freedom of religion. 2008 Obama voter and Catholic Michael Winters rightly warns against compromise now that the Obama Administration is making noises about such.
The most troubling part of Axelrod’s comment was the idea that finding a compromise will take time. I read that to mean, let’s paper this thing over until after the election. Does he take us for fools? If there is a second Obama term, something that I suspect seems more in doubt because of this decision, which is why Axelrod is saying anything at all, what leverage will Catholic leaders have after the election? Clearly, we cannot count on this president to do the right thing, nor even to do the thing he promised to do.
Exactly. If Obama would do this before the accountability of an election, what the heck would he do afterward? Any pre-election soothing noises should be taken as just that and only that – and ignored. This regime is not to be trusted with freedom of religion or just about any Constitutional freedom for that matter. Obama has proven that well.
Winters also notes that the courts are likely to give churches a complete exemption from the birth control mandates. So why compromise? And he may be right although I would not depend on it.
Nevertheless, Winters, again a past Obama voter, is in a fighting mood.
Yes, I want a solution to this mess. But, I also want a victory by which I mean I want a really robust conscience exemption. I want any change by the White House not only to work in terms of resolving this issue but to send a clear and unambiguous statement that in this great diverse, pluralistic country of ours, there is room for us Catholics to be Catholic, with all of our quirks, and that the government recognizes that they have no business telling religious organizations what their mission is or how to manage it. I do not want the White House to cry “uncle” for the sake of crying uncle. But, when somebody punches me in the nose, and when someone punches my friends Sr. Carol Keehan and Father John Jenkins and countless others in the nose, I am not going to rush to make nice with them either. There needs to be an apology. And the President needs to go to the pro-choice caucus and explain that their stance imperils the entire Affordable Care Act, both politically and legally, and without that, they would not be discussing extending contraception to anyone.
Make no mistake about it - those who support denying Catholic institutions a more robust exemption have placed their commitment to pro-choice orthodoxy above their commitment to health care reform. Is that progressive? Is that something progressive Catholics, who fought so hard to pass the ACA, want to defend? It is time for so-called progressive Catholics to stop serving as chaplains to the political status quo and recognize a first principle when they see one. It is time for Catholics to insist that a conscience exemption that only applies to religion on Sunday and no help for the poor unless they are also Catholic is no conscience exemption at all. And, if the White House doesn't see it that way, let them pay the political price for it.
That’s backbone. And I can respect that every bit as much as I hold the bootlickers in contempt.
"We stand with President Obama and Secretary Sebelius in their decision to reaffirm the importance of contraceptive services as essential preventive care for women under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and to assure access under the law to American women, regardless of religious affiliation. We respect individuals' moral agency to make decisions about their sexuality and reproductive health without governmental interference or legal restrictions. We do not believe that specific religious doctrine belongs in health care reform -- as we value our nation's commitment to church-state separation. We believe that women and men have the right to decide whether or not to apply the principles of their faith to family planning decisions, and to do so they must have access to services. The Administration was correct in requiring institutions that do not have purely sectarian goals to offer comprehensive preventive health care. Our leaders have the responsibility to safeguard individual religious liberty and to help improve the health of women, their children and families. Hospitals and universities across the religious spectrum have an obligation to assure that individuals' conscience and decisions are respected and that their students and employees have access to this basic health care service. We invite other religious leaders to speak out with us for universal coverage of contraception."
The signees follow. They are rather predictable, but note them well. Sooner or later, history will place them with those clerics who collaborated with the French Revolution and with the Nazis in attacking life and freedom. When I call them bootlickers, I mean it.
Catholics for Choice, Jon O'Brien, President
Central Conference of American Rabbis, Rabbi Jonathan Stein, President
Concerned Clergy for Choice, Rabbi Dennis Ross, Director
Disciples Justice Action Network, Rev. Dr. Ken Brooker Langston, Director
Episcopal Divinity School, The Very Reverend Dr. Katherine Hancock Ragsdale, President
Episcopal Women's Caucus, Rev. Dr Elizabeth Kaeton, Convener
Hadassah, Marcie Natan, National President
Jewish Reconstructionist Federation, Robert Barkin, Interim Executive Vice President
Jewish Women International, Lori Weinstein, Executive Director
Methodist Federation for Social Action, Jill Warren, Executive Director
Muslims for Progressive Values, Ani Zonneveld, President
National Council of Jewish Women, Nancy Kaufman, CEO
Planned Parenthood Clergy Advisory Board, Rev. Jane Emma Newall, Chair
Rabbinical Assembly, Rabbi Julie Schonfeld, Executive Vice President
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, Rev. Steve Clapp, Chair
Religious Institute, Rev. Dr. Debra W. Haffner, Executive Director
Society for Humanistic Judaism, M. Bonnie Cousens, Executive Director
The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, Rabbi Steven Wernick, CEO
Union Theological Seminary, Rev. Dr. Serene Jones, President
Unitarian Universalist Association, Rev. Peter Morales, President
United Church of Christ, Rev. Geoffrey Black, General Minister and President
Women's League for Conservative Judaism, Rita L. Wertlieb, President; Sarrae G. Crane, Executive Director
However, there are those who once supported Obama but to their credit now see there should be no further collaboration with this regime as it attacks freedom of religion. 2008 Obama voter and Catholic Michael Winters rightly warns against compromise now that the Obama Administration is making noises about such.
The most troubling part of Axelrod’s comment was the idea that finding a compromise will take time. I read that to mean, let’s paper this thing over until after the election. Does he take us for fools? If there is a second Obama term, something that I suspect seems more in doubt because of this decision, which is why Axelrod is saying anything at all, what leverage will Catholic leaders have after the election? Clearly, we cannot count on this president to do the right thing, nor even to do the thing he promised to do.
Exactly. If Obama would do this before the accountability of an election, what the heck would he do afterward? Any pre-election soothing noises should be taken as just that and only that – and ignored. This regime is not to be trusted with freedom of religion or just about any Constitutional freedom for that matter. Obama has proven that well.
Winters also notes that the courts are likely to give churches a complete exemption from the birth control mandates. So why compromise? And he may be right although I would not depend on it.
Nevertheless, Winters, again a past Obama voter, is in a fighting mood.
Yes, I want a solution to this mess. But, I also want a victory by which I mean I want a really robust conscience exemption. I want any change by the White House not only to work in terms of resolving this issue but to send a clear and unambiguous statement that in this great diverse, pluralistic country of ours, there is room for us Catholics to be Catholic, with all of our quirks, and that the government recognizes that they have no business telling religious organizations what their mission is or how to manage it. I do not want the White House to cry “uncle” for the sake of crying uncle. But, when somebody punches me in the nose, and when someone punches my friends Sr. Carol Keehan and Father John Jenkins and countless others in the nose, I am not going to rush to make nice with them either. There needs to be an apology. And the President needs to go to the pro-choice caucus and explain that their stance imperils the entire Affordable Care Act, both politically and legally, and without that, they would not be discussing extending contraception to anyone.
Make no mistake about it - those who support denying Catholic institutions a more robust exemption have placed their commitment to pro-choice orthodoxy above their commitment to health care reform. Is that progressive? Is that something progressive Catholics, who fought so hard to pass the ACA, want to defend? It is time for so-called progressive Catholics to stop serving as chaplains to the political status quo and recognize a first principle when they see one. It is time for Catholics to insist that a conscience exemption that only applies to religion on Sunday and no help for the poor unless they are also Catholic is no conscience exemption at all. And, if the White House doesn't see it that way, let them pay the political price for it.
That’s backbone. And I can respect that every bit as much as I hold the bootlickers in contempt.
Labels: freedom, liberals, Obama, Obamacare, politics, Roman Catholics
Wednesday, February 08, 2012
Archbishop Duncan and ACNA take a stand against Obamacare mandate.
I am very glad to see this statement from Archbishop Duncan:
Archbishop Robert Duncan released the following statement in support of the Catholic Church’s fight to maintain freedom of conscience in the midst of the U.S. federal government issuing a preventive care mandate in violation of its teaching.
“The Anglican Church in North America stands by our Catholic brothers and sisters as followers of Christ in a nation whose Constitution guarantees ‘the free exercise’ of religion. As Christians, our faith and doctrine are at the very heart of our service to others in our community. Therefore, it is extremely troubling to see our government mandate services contrary to Catholic Church teaching. I call on all members of the Anglican Church to stand by our Catholic brothers and sisters, and pray for our elected officials to have the courage to stand up for religious freedom and overturn this mandate,” said Archbishop Duncan.
Archbishop Robert Duncan released the following statement in support of the Catholic Church’s fight to maintain freedom of conscience in the midst of the U.S. federal government issuing a preventive care mandate in violation of its teaching.
“The Anglican Church in North America stands by our Catholic brothers and sisters as followers of Christ in a nation whose Constitution guarantees ‘the free exercise’ of religion. As Christians, our faith and doctrine are at the very heart of our service to others in our community. Therefore, it is extremely troubling to see our government mandate services contrary to Catholic Church teaching. I call on all members of the Anglican Church to stand by our Catholic brothers and sisters, and pray for our elected officials to have the courage to stand up for religious freedom and overturn this mandate,” said Archbishop Duncan.
Labels: Anglican Church in North America, Duncan, freedom, Obamacare
Roman Catholic Bishops Have Themselves to Blame
My readers may have noticed my vociferous opposition to the Obama regime’s attack on the Roman Catholic Church and on freedom of religion. But do not think I hold American Catholic bishops and clerics blameless in this. Just the opposite.
For those bishops as a group along with lefty clerics supported the passage of Obamacare. Did they really think that they could support the suppression of freedom inherent in Obamacare without endangering the freedom of their church? If so, they were fools:
Mr. Obama's allies among Catholic liberals are also professing shock — even the Catholic Health Association's Sister Carol Keehan, who lobbied for ObamaCare, and Notre Dame's Father John Jenkins, who invited Mr. Obama to speak on campus in 2009. But if they now claim they were taken for a ride by the secular left, the truth is that they wanted to be deceived in the name of their grander goal of government-enforced equity. The Catholic left was one of ObamaCare's great enablers.
They are not unlike those clerics who collaborated with the French Revolution only later to face the guillotine themselves. Those who collaborate with regimes that attack freedom endanger their own freedom as well.
(There is an excellent article on The French Revolution and clerics by James Hitchcock in the September/October issue of Touchstone. It is not available online at the moment, however.)
By the way, there are now noises from the Obama Administration that they are maybe, kinda, sorta willing to make some accommodation for the Roman Catholic Church. I think that just pre-election posturing. But in any case, I’m right again.
For those bishops as a group along with lefty clerics supported the passage of Obamacare. Did they really think that they could support the suppression of freedom inherent in Obamacare without endangering the freedom of their church? If so, they were fools:
Mr. Obama's allies among Catholic liberals are also professing shock — even the Catholic Health Association's Sister Carol Keehan, who lobbied for ObamaCare, and Notre Dame's Father John Jenkins, who invited Mr. Obama to speak on campus in 2009. But if they now claim they were taken for a ride by the secular left, the truth is that they wanted to be deceived in the name of their grander goal of government-enforced equity. The Catholic left was one of ObamaCare's great enablers.
They are not unlike those clerics who collaborated with the French Revolution only later to face the guillotine themselves. Those who collaborate with regimes that attack freedom endanger their own freedom as well.
(There is an excellent article on The French Revolution and clerics by James Hitchcock in the September/October issue of Touchstone. It is not available online at the moment, however.)
By the way, there are now noises from the Obama Administration that they are maybe, kinda, sorta willing to make some accommodation for the Roman Catholic Church. I think that just pre-election posturing. But in any case, I’m right again.
Labels: freedom, French Revolution, Obama, Obamacare, Roman Catholics
