Quotes of the day

posted at 8:15 pm on February 5, 2012 by Allahpundit

“The decision to require Catholic hospitals to provide contraceptives and abortifacients they deem immoral in their insurance plans, demonstrates either President Obama’s personal antagonism to religious liberty — or the degree to which he is beholden to the secular left.

Because it makes no political sense

“Obama is too politically savvy to have been caught by surprise by the backlash over this decision, so I suppose we must assume this is his worldview: That government can and must use its coercive power to force everyone — regardless of their personal or religious beliefs — to do what they know is best. Period.”

***

“Domestic Policy Council Director Cecilia Muñoz pushed back against the church’s letter, saying the policy does not force anyone to buy our use contraception.

“‘This new law will save money for millions of Americans,’ Muñoz wrote Wednesday in a White House blog post. ‘But more importantly, it will ensure Americans nationwide get the high-quality care they need to stay healthy. The Obama Administration is committed to both respecting religious beliefs and increasing access to important preventive services.’”

***

“The handling of the issue offers a hint of Obama’s approach to governing and campaigning in 2012: When confronted with a position close to his heart — and dear to the base — Obama is increasingly inclined to side with people who will vote for him even if it means enraging those who might, but probably won’t, vote for him.

“‘Who are we going to really lose over this? Ron Paul voters?’ asked a senior aide to a Senate Democrat, who thinks the administration should have handled the situation more quietly by punting a decision until after Election Day. ‘Maybe it wouldn’t have mattered. … Catholics who don’t believe in condoms aren’t going to vote for Barack Obama anyway. Let’s get real.’”

***

“As a general matter, it made perfect sense to cover contraception. Many see doing so as protecting women’s rights, and expanded contraception coverage will likely reduce the number of abortions. While the Catholic Church formally opposes contraception, this teaching is widely ignored by the faithful. One does not see many Catholic families of six or 10 or twelve that were quite common in the 1950s. Contraception might have something to do with this.

“Speaking as a Catholic, I wish the Church would be more open on the contraception question. But speaking as an American liberal who believes that religious pluralism imposes certain obligations on government, I think the Church’s leaders had a right to ask for broader relief from a contraception mandate that would require it to act against its own teachings. The administration should have done more to balance the competing liberty interests here

“‘The tensions and the suspicions on each side of the religious divide will have to be squarely addressed,’ Obama said back in 2006. ‘And each side will need to accept some ground rules for collaboration.’ I wish the president had tried harder to find such rules here.”

***

“[T]he issue of the government’s effort to curtail the freedom of religious institutions to conduct operations according to their moral principles seems to have galvanized a tenuous alliance between the Catholic left and the Catholic right. Michael Sean Winters, a columnist for the ultra-progressive newspaper the National Catholic Reporter, declared that Obama had “lost my vote” after the rule was issued. He wrote: ‘[T]he president’s decision … essentially told us, as Catholics, that there is no room in this great country of ours for the institutions our church has built over the years.’

“Cardinal Roger Mahony, the former archbishop of Los Angeles, used to be derided by Catholic conservatives for his hobnobbing with pro-abortion-rights Democratic politicians and for his expensive and avant-garde Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels. Yet Mahony has turned out to be one of the most vehement opponents of the new rule. ‘I cannot imagine a more direct and frontal attack on freedom of conscience than this ruling today,’ he wrote on his blog…

“[I]t is refreshing to see that no matter how disaffected from their church’s teachings some Catholics might feel, they believe that its organizations have a right to act in accordance with its principles.”

***

“Both radicalism and maliciousness are at work in Obama’s decision — an edict delivered with a sneer. It is the most transparently anti-Catholic maneuver by the federal government since the Blaine Amendment was proposed in 1875 — a measure designed to diminish public tolerance of Romanism, then regarded as foreign, authoritarian and illiberal. Modern liberalism has progressed to the point of adopting the attitudes and methods of 19th-century Republican nativists…

“Obama’s decision also reflects a certain view of liberalism. Classical liberalism was concerned with the freedom to hold and practice beliefs at odds with a public consensus. Modern liberalism uses the power of the state to impose liberal values on institutions it regards as backward. It is the difference between pluralism and anti-­clericalism.

“The administration’s ultimate motivation is uncertain. Has it adopted a radical secularism out of conviction, or is it cynically appealing to radical secularists? In either case, the war on religion is now formally declared.”

***

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

***

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

***



Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 5

Lucifer

Kini on February 5, 2012 at 8:18 PM

Beelzebub

Kini on February 5, 2012 at 8:18 PM

Demon

Kini on February 5, 2012 at 8:19 PM

Destroyer of life

Kini on February 5, 2012 at 8:20 PM

Lucifer

Kini on February 5, 2012 at 8:18 PM

You do realize that “Lucifer” is ostensibly Satan’s angelic name? It means “bearer of light.”

gryphon202 on February 5, 2012 at 8:20 PM

“The decision to require Catholic hospitals to provide contraceptives and abortifacients they deem immoral in their insurance plans, demonstrates either President Obama’s personal antagonism to religious liberty.

And every other type of liberty.

The Liberty to keep what you’ve earned.

The Liberty to defend yourself from the criminals and the government.

Chip on February 5, 2012 at 8:22 PM

I am hardly religious, but I am extremely offended at this additional Obama step toward destroying liberty and traditional American institutions. I don’t like other Americans’ liberty to be trampled. We will find out in November if Obama will have an additional 4 years in which to step up his attacks and complete his destruction.

GaltBlvnAtty on February 5, 2012 at 8:24 PM

America can only have one god, and Democrats think it should be the one with the biggest ears.

RBMN on February 5, 2012 at 8:24 PM

Sympathy for the Devil?

tom daschle concerned on February 5, 2012 at 8:25 PM

“As a general matter, it made perfect sense to cover contraception. Many see doing so as protecting women’s rights

So where can I find these women’s rights ? Are they codified and documented some place ? I’d like to see the rest of these “women’s ” rights which I have , that other people have to pay for

burrata on February 5, 2012 at 8:26 PM

Hey, with political leaders like Obama, who needs dictators?

SagebrushPuppet on February 5, 2012 at 8:27 PM

Meanwhile, from the ‘Religion of Piece(s)’ of shrapnel:

Pakistan: Three women killed for “loose morals”: “They deserved death. I can’t let my wife talk to other men”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/02/pakistan-three-women-killed-for-loose-morals-they-deserved-death-i-cant-let-my-wife-talk-to-other-me.html

When violence doesn’t “work” to the satisfaction of the one throwing the punches, it tends to escalate. The final result was a triple homicide. “‘Honour’ crime: Three women killed ‘for loose morals’,” by Owais Jaffery and Tariq Ismaeel for the Express Tribune, February 5

Chip on February 5, 2012 at 8:28 PM

Obama knows Romney is going to be his opponent in 2012 — and he knows Romney is a formidable opponent. This is why he is trying to make religion a very prominent theme right now. He’s going to church with the kids and wife. Giving WWJD speeches. And pissing off the Catholic Church. Obama wants religion to play a prominent role in the debates he has with Romney, so he’s willing to piss off a few folks in order to set up his media enablers with a “context” for bringing religion up. And bring it up they will. This is all a very orchestrated strategy to appeal to — and foster — anti-Mormon bigotry. That and Mitt’s wealth is all he’s got.

Rational Thought on February 5, 2012 at 8:28 PM

The Joker is clearly trying to wreck anything good and worthwhile anywhere.

He is viscous, arrogant, thin-skinned, and narcissistic. And those are his good qualities.

SagebrushPuppet on February 5, 2012 at 8:30 PM

“Both radicalism and maliciousness are at work in Obama’s decision — an edict delivered with a sneer.

Pretty much sums up Zero’s entire presidency…

huskerdiva on February 5, 2012 at 8:30 PM

The writing was on the wall about this misbegotten bunch when the DOJ argued before SCOTUS against the ministerial exception (and got smacked down 9-0 BTW)

No surprise here, just a wee bit of light finally being shone on the evil that is this Godforsaken administration.

There is literally nothing these slime can do that would actually surprise me.

hillbillyjim on February 5, 2012 at 8:32 PM

“The decision to require Catholic hospitals to provide contraceptives and abortifacients they deem immoral in their insurance plans, demonstrates either President Obama’s personal antagonism to religious liberty — or the degree to which he is beholden to the secular left.

No , it demonstrates what we conservative Americans had always known about Obama, that he hates Christians and Jews, just like the koran says he should.
Obama sold exemptions to his healthcare law , but he didn’t even put this decision against Catholics up for sale , thats how hateful he is . He chose hate over money

burrata on February 5, 2012 at 8:32 PM

I love this man! Has there ever been a more awesome human being ever?

carbon_footprint on February 5, 2012 at 8:32 PM

No , it demonstrates what we conservative Americans had always known about Obama, that he hates Christians and Jews, just like the koran says he should.
Obama sold exemptions to his healthcare law , but he didn’t even put this decision against Catholics up for sale , thats how hateful he is . He chose hate over money

burrata on February 5, 2012 at 8:32 PM

You make an excellent point. Dare I say “thread winner”?

SagebrushPuppet on February 5, 2012 at 8:35 PM

Alfred E. Neuman meets Damien Thorn.

hillbillyjim on February 5, 2012 at 8:35 PM

Obama knows Romney is going to be his opponent in 2012 — and he knows Romney is a formidable opponent. This is why he is trying to make religion a very prominent theme right now. He’s going to church with the kids and wife. Giving WWJD speeches. And pissing off the Catholic Church. Obama wants religion to play a prominent role in the debates he has with Romney, so he’s willing to piss off a few folks in order to set up his media enablers with a “context” for bringing religion up. And bring it up they will. This is all a very orchestrated strategy to appeal to — and foster — anti-Mormon bigotry. That and Mitt’s wealth is all he’s got.

Rational Thought on February 5, 2012 at 8:28 PM

Excellent analysis, and I am not a Romney supporter.

GaltBlvnAtty on February 5, 2012 at 8:38 PM

demonstrates either President Obama’s personal antagonism to religious liberty

Go no further. Barky has been nothing short of antagonistic towards America, our institutions and everything about us since the day he slimed into office. This has been obvious, though many have tried to deny or ignore it.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on February 5, 2012 at 8:39 PM

You do realize that “Lucifer” is ostensibly Satan’s angelic name? It means “bearer of light.”

gryphon202 on February 5, 2012 at 8:20 PM

You do realize I don’t care….

Obama is Pure Evil.

Kini on February 5, 2012 at 8:40 PM

You do realize I don’t care….

Obama is Pure Evil.

Kini on February 5, 2012 at 8:40 PM

Yeah yeah. I know. But as for names for the devil go, I think Satan is the most appropriate. It means “adversary,” and it somehow fits Obama to a T as well.

gryphon202 on February 5, 2012 at 8:43 PM

The end result of this is that most Catholic employers-hospitals etc-will either drop insurance for their employees..or close all together.
I kind of think(yeah-I said ‘me’ and ‘think’)that this was Zero’s goal from the get go.
Single payer. anyone?

annoyinglittletwerp on February 5, 2012 at 8:43 PM

As a general matter, it made perfect sense to cover contraception. Many see doing so as protecting women’s rights

Birth control is not a right.

It always amazes me how the same people who b*tch about “privacy in the bedroom” are the first ones to demand people — especially and specifically people whose religious/political ideologies they don’t like — foot the bill for their…ahem…activities behind that bedroom door.

Either you have your privacy or you have Catholics (forcibly) footing the bill for your birth control (which is un-Constitutional). You can’t have it both ways.

englishqueen01 on February 5, 2012 at 8:44 PM

Obama is Pure Evil.

Kini on February 5, 2012 at 8:40 PM

I knew I left something off my list. Thanks for the reminder: Obama is pure evil.

Now, let’s talk about his bad qualities …

SagebrushPuppet on February 5, 2012 at 8:45 PM

If you like getting a ham for Christmas, don’t work for B’nai Brith. If you want catered deli meat sandwiches in the breakroom, don’t work for PETA. If you want coffee in the coffeepot, don’t work at the local Mormon temple. And if you want your employee health plan to cover your birth control, don’t work for a Catholic institution.

Your employer is not obligated to go against his or her own deeply-held beliefs for your sake. And yes, given the availability of condoms, and the many, many ways of getting birth control pills for cheap, having birth control on a health plan is an optional thing.

Sekhmet on February 5, 2012 at 8:45 PM

Birth control is not a right.

It always amazes me how the same people who b*tch about “privacy in the bedroom” are the first ones to demand people — especially and specifically people whose religious/political ideologies they don’t like — foot the bill for their…ahem…activities behind that bedroom door.

Either you have your privacy or you have Catholics (forcibly) footing the bill for your birth control (which is un-Constitutional). You can’t have it both ways.

englishqueen01 on February 5, 2012 at 8:44 PM

Hear, hear!

Rational Thought on February 5, 2012 at 8:46 PM

englishqueen01 on February 5, 2012 at 8:44 PM

I support birth control(had my tubal thirteen years before I joined the church so it was a non-issue anyway) and I don’t think BC should be covered by insurance. Abortion is not ‘birth control’-it’s infanticide.
My Calvinist husband agrees…on ALL points.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 5, 2012 at 8:47 PM

Barry bows to Arab shieks and Catholic priests. Facing the former, facing away from the latter.

Like a good little Muslim.

fogw on February 5, 2012 at 8:47 PM

If the Federal Government can tell an insurance company what to insure and how much to charge, then the Federal Government can also tell a hospital what conditions to treat and how to treat them. Once the camel’s nose is under the tent flap, the whole camel soon follows!
Nothing new here at all, folks. We’ve been down this path many times before.

Lew on February 5, 2012 at 8:49 PM

Birth control is not a right.

It always amazes me how the same people who b*tch about “privacy in the bedroom” are the first ones to demand people — especially and specifically people whose religious/political ideologies they don’t like — foot the bill for their…ahem…activities behind that bedroom door.

Either you have your privacy or you have Catholics (forcibly) footing the bill for your birth control (which is un-Constitutional). You can’t have it both ways.

englishqueen01 on February 5, 2012 at 8:44 PM

Bears repeating.

Sekhmet on February 5, 2012 at 8:49 PM

We are living under the leadership of a dictator. How can Obama alone make this decision?

silvernana on February 5, 2012 at 8:50 PM

We are living under the leadership of a dictator. How can Obama alone make this decision?

silvernana on February 5, 2012 at 8:50 PM

He didn’t-but his buddy, Tiller the Killer’s patron did.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 5, 2012 at 8:52 PM

So if I am the one buying insurance for my employees and I want to control the costs,
can I force my empoloyees to get vesectomies/castrations/tubes tied etc ?
Just like some employers do not hire smokers ?

burrata on February 5, 2012 at 8:53 PM

Allah…

… the game is still on!

/

Seven Percent Solution on February 5, 2012 at 8:54 PM

He didn’t-but his buddy, Tiller the Killer’s patron did.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 5, 2012 at 8:52 PM

Who is that, specifically?

silvernana on February 5, 2012 at 8:54 PM

“‘This new law will save money for millions of Americans,’ Muñoz wrote Wednesday in a White House blog post. ‘But more importantly, it will ensure Americans nationwide get the high-quality care they need to stay healthy. The Obama Administration is committed to both respecting religious beliefs and increasing access to important preventive services.’”

Because health care is a right that trumps anything in our Constitutions and so does the office of Emperor of the United States.

Speakup on February 5, 2012 at 8:55 PM

Obama knows Romney is going to be his opponent in 2012 — and he knows Romney is a formidable opponent. This is why he is trying to make religion a very prominent theme right now. He’s going to church with the kids and wife. Giving WWJD speeches. And pissing off the Catholic Church. Obama wants religion to play a prominent role in the debates he has with Romney, so he’s willing to piss off a few folks in order to set up his media enablers with a “context” for bringing religion up. And bring it up they will. This is all a very orchestrated strategy to appeal to — and foster — anti-Mormon bigotry. That and Mitt’s wealth is all he’s got.

Rational Thought on February 5, 2012 at 8:28 PM

Excellent analysis, and I am not a Romney supporter.

GaltBlvnAtty on February 5, 2012 at 8:38 PM

Second the excellent analysis.

PatriotGal2257 on February 5, 2012 at 8:56 PM

Who is that, specifically?

silvernana on February 5, 2012 at 8:54 PM

Till the Killer was the late term abortionist(who was an ELDER IN HIS CHURCH(ELCA) who was gunned down a while back. His patron was then-Kansas gov…Kathleen Sebelius.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 5, 2012 at 8:58 PM

Birth control is not a right.

It always amazes me how the same people who b*tch about “privacy in the bedroom” are the first ones to demand people — especially and specifically people whose religious/political ideologies they don’t like — foot the bill for their…ahem…activities behind that bedroom door.

Either you have your privacy or you have Catholics (forcibly) footing the bill for your birth control (which is un-Constitutional). You can’t have it both ways.

englishqueen01 on February 5, 2012 at 8:44 PM

This. ^^^^

PatriotGal2257 on February 5, 2012 at 8:58 PM

What the hell are we supposed to be “preventing”. Getting pregnant isn’t like catching the flu.

ctmom on February 5, 2012 at 9:00 PM

Who is that, specifically?

silvernana on February 5, 2012 at 8:54 PM

Sebelius, who was governor of Kansas, where third trimester abortionist Tiller practiced with her approval.

Wethal on February 5, 2012 at 9:02 PM

What the hell are we supposed to be “preventing”. Getting pregnant isn’t like catching the flu.

ctmom on February 5, 2012 at 9:00 PM

We are preventing people from thinking and being responsible.

Electrongod on February 5, 2012 at 9:03 PM

And bring it up they will. This is all a very orchestrated strategy to appeal to — and foster — anti-Mormon bigotry. That and Mitt’s wealth is all he’s got.

Rational Thought on February 5, 2012 at 8:28 PM

this is ridiculous, they are both Christians, it’s not like one is and the either is not, so any sort of attacks along the line of ‘my version of Christianism is better than yours’, or ‘mine is the real thing, yours is not’ would be childish and meritless coming from the Obama camp. Besides, do you seriously think that he would expose himself and open himself to attacks on the Reverend Wright and the whole black theology controversy thing, I really doubt it. O’s handlers are smarter than that, I don’t think he’ll touch on religion at all, other than possibly in connection to this whole contraceptives/Catholic bishops backlash…I’m sure something like this can be brought up in debates…O’s not religious, period, and he knows folks know it too, so he won’t go in there, it’s not a territory that he’s comfortable on…

jimver on February 5, 2012 at 9:03 PM

What the hell are we supposed to be “preventing”. Getting pregnant isn’t like catching the flu.

ctmom on February 5, 2012 at 9:00 PM

To lefties, pregnancy is just another disease, and contraception is the flu shot. Abortion is just the antibiotic when the flu turns to pneumonia.

Wethal on February 5, 2012 at 9:05 PM

Birth control is not a right.

Even if it were a right, you don’t have the right to take my money to finance your right.
A “Right” is something we have as a free choice at our disposal, if we find it expedient and we have the wherewithal to do it. The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States says that I have the “Right” to keep and bear arms, but that doesn’t mean that anyone else is obligated to provide me with one if I can’t afford it.
And it ESPECIALLY doesn’t mean that someone who sees guns as immoral can be forced to help provide me one. That is a violation of conscience so blatant and so egregious that it almost screams out for civil disobedience.
“No, God help me. Here I stand, I can do no other!”

Lew on February 5, 2012 at 9:07 PM

But please, all of you Romney-haters, don’t vote in the general. It’s clearly more important to teach the GOP not to nominate RINOs than to get Obama out.

Igor R. on February 5, 2012 at 9:10 PM

Either you have your privacy or you have Catholics (forcibly) footing the bill for your birth control (which is un-Constitutional). You can’t have it both ways.

englishqueen01 on February 5, 2012 at 8:44 PM

Excellent point.

INC on February 5, 2012 at 9:13 PM

So, in summary;

Nose.
Camel.
Tent.

Prol #131ab2612, report to recycling. The panel has spoken.

S. D. on February 5, 2012 at 9:14 PM

But please, all of you Romney-haters, don’t vote in the general. It’s clearly more important to teach the GOP not to nominate RINOs than to get Obama out.

Igor R. on February 5, 2012 at 9:10 PM

like there will be elections in 2012 ?
:(

burrata on February 5, 2012 at 9:14 PM

To lefties, pregnancy is just another disease, and contraception is the flu shot. Abortion is just the antibiotic when the flu turns to pneumonia.

Wethal on February 5, 2012 at 9:05 PM

its comment like this that really put me off as a fiscal conservative. i can only find common ground on less government and fiscal issues. on social issues is like living on a different planet.

nathor on February 5, 2012 at 9:14 PM

its comment like this that really put me off as a fiscal conservative. i can only find common ground on less government and fiscal issues. on social issues is like living on a different planet.

nathor on February 5, 2012 at 9:14 PM

I feel your pain…

jimver on February 5, 2012 at 9:17 PM

annoyinglittletwerp on February 5, 2012 at 8:58 PM

Wethal on February 5, 2012 at 9:02 PM

I haven’t been up to speed on this particular subject. Did Sebelius make this decision herself, is it in Obamacare, is it something brand new?

silvernana on February 5, 2012 at 9:18 PM

“Domestic Policy Council Director Cecilia Muñoz pushed back against the church’s letter, saying the policy does not force anyone to buy our use contraception.

The ABC article on this has been pulled. Probably because it was a really, stupid “push back.”

Vince on February 5, 2012 at 9:20 PM

this is ridiculous, they are both Christians, it’s not like one is and the either is not, so any sort of attacks along the line of ‘my version of Christianism is better than yours’, or ‘mine is the real thing, yours is not’ would be childish and meritless coming from the Obama camp. Besides, do you seriously think that he would expose himself and open himself to attacks on the Reverend Wright and the whole black theology controversy thing, I really doubt it. O’s handlers are smarter than that, I don’t think he’ll touch on religion at all, other than possibly in connection to this whole contraceptives/Catholic bishops backlash…I’m sure something like this can be brought up in debates…O’s not religious, period, and he knows folks know it too, so he won’t go in there, it’s not a territory that he’s comfortable on…

jimver on February 5, 2012 at 9:03 PM

Oh, buddy. Barry’s gettin’ his Christian on. Haven’t you noticed? And he knows that many, many Christians do not view Mormons as fellow Christians. You’re being naive. Obama knows exactly what he’s doing by moving the conversation over to religion. And, no, he does not fear a Rev. Wright backlash because that would require the Obamamedia to tell voters who Rev. Wright was, which they will never do. O’s handlers are indeed smart, as you say, and they know that anti-Mormon bigotry is one of their best tools in this upcoming election, so they’ll be using it. And the media will help them. Remember this thread in October when every one of the networks runs a “Movie of the Week” about polygamy, and when every network prime time news magazine show does an hour-long broadcast about Mormons and polygamy. Remember how unlikely you thought that was going to be.

Rational Thought on February 5, 2012 at 9:20 PM

“While the Catholic Church formally opposes contraception, this teaching is widely ignored by the faithful.”

That’s called being unfaithful.

multiuseless on February 5, 2012 at 9:22 PM

I haven’t been up to speed on this particular subject. Did Sebelius make this decision herself, is it in Obamacare, is it something brand new?

silvernana on February 5, 2012 at 9:18 PM

I think she made this decision on her own (consulting with Obama, of course). There are a great many references in Obamacare to “the Secretary shall determine…”

A lot of statutes are now broadly written with the real details coming in the regulations from the administering agency. (See Dodd-Frank.)

Wethal on February 5, 2012 at 9:22 PM

its comment like this that really put me off as a fiscal conservative. i can only find common ground on less government and fiscal issues. on social issues is like living on a different planet.

nathor on February 5, 2012 at 9:14 PM

Would a sarc tag have helped?

Wethal on February 5, 2012 at 9:25 PM

I think she made this decision on her own (consulting with Obama, of course). There are a great many references in Obamacare to “the Secretary shall determine…”

A lot of statutes are now broadly written with the real details coming in the regulations from the administering agency. (See Dodd-Frank.)

Wethal on February 5, 2012 at 9:22 PM

So, are you saying then that they can declare anything they want and it shall be so? If so, that is scary.

silvernana on February 5, 2012 at 9:26 PM

Duplicitous back-stabbed.

petefrt on February 5, 2012 at 9:26 PM

like there will be elections in 2012 ?
:(

burrata on February 5, 2012 at 9:14 PM

There is no evidence there won’t be.

Igor R. on February 5, 2012 at 9:26 PM

*stabber*

petefrt on February 5, 2012 at 9:27 PM

There is no evidence there won’t be.

Igor R. on February 5, 2012 at 9:26 PM

care to make that …interesting ?

burrata on February 5, 2012 at 9:28 PM

Obama is so dreamy!
He likes things such as mandates, medical insurance paid for by medicare funds, tax payer funded abortions, very high end full spectrum health care insurance as the bottom rung on the insurance ladder.
He is all for gay marriage, but is not willing to come out and say so in public.
He is a total tool of the environmental groups, willing to attack energy producers, shut down energy production domestically and even propose cap and trade and total community based initiatives to stop the production of CO2.
He is totally opaque, such that nothing about his administration is allowed to be made public.
He loves to put progressives on the court benches.
He likes taking over companies to turn them around, like GM and Chrysler.
He totally loves to talk about job creation using fake statistics that completely ignore all the jobs destroyed by his activity.

Romney is so dreamy!

astonerii on February 5, 2012 at 9:29 PM

But please, all of you Romney-haters, don’t vote in the general. It’s clearly more important to teach the GOP not to nominate RINOs than to get Obama out.

Igor R. on February 5, 2012 at 9:10 PM

Oh, don’t you worry. Whether I’m the first or last in line at my polling place to vote for whoever the GOP nominee is, I will most assuredly be there to vote for him — anything to get Obama out of office.

The larger problem of ridding the GOP of RINOs is going to be a long-term process that likely won’t yield results in the next 10 months, but that doesn’t mean there can’t be strategies to do so going forward.

PatriotGal2257 on February 5, 2012 at 9:29 PM

“Speaking as a Catholic, I wish the Church would be more open on the contraception question. But speaking as an American liberal who believes that religious pluralism imposes certain obligations on government, I think the Church’s leaders had a right to ask for broader relief from a contraception mandate that would require it to act against its own teachings. The administration should have done more to balance the competing liberty interests here…

This administration should have gotten a status of forces agreement before withdrawing American troops from Iraq….but they didn’t.

I am the only one who sees the trend? These people in the White House know how to campaign, and little else. Competency is not their forte’.

Dr Evil on February 5, 2012 at 9:31 PM

Oh, don’t you worry. Whether I’m the first or last in line at my polling place to vote for whoever the GOP nominee is, I will most assuredly be there to vote for him — anything to get Obama out of office.

The larger problem of ridding the GOP of RINOs is going to be a long-term process that likely won’t yield results in the next 10 months, but that doesn’t mean there can’t be strategies to do so going forward.

PatriotGal2257 on February 5, 2012 at 9:29 PM

+++

GaltBlvnAtty on February 5, 2012 at 9:33 PM

Health plans would also have to offer female sterilization as yet another “preventive service.

It’s not just contraception.

And some contraceptives, like the IUD, are abortifacients.

Wethal on February 5, 2012 at 9:34 PM

Count me as an atheist that sides with Catholic hospitals. If they don’t want to provide certain services or products they deem immoral that is their prerogative, and if those services are legal and in demand then somebody will probably provide them elsewhere. Using the force of government to compel people to perform services they deem immoral to other people is not only unconstitutional, but immoral. There could be some exceptions on very different issues, for example if they let somebody die in an emergency, but that’s not the case here obviously.

Caligula used to like to make people do things they thought were immoral, too.

FloatingRock on February 5, 2012 at 9:35 PM

As per usual, Romney has a mixed record on this. From pp. 20–21, http://www.scribd.com/doc/78582788/McCain-2008-Oppo-File# My emphasis:

July 2005: Pro-Life

“Yesterday I vetoed a bill that the Legislature forwarded to my desk. Though described by its sponsors as a measure relating to contraception, there is more to it than that. The bill does not involve only the prevention of conception: The drug it authorizes [Plan B emergency contraception] would also terminate life after conception.”
(Mitt Romney, “Why I Vetoed Contraception Bill,” The Boston Globe, 7/26/05)

October 2005: Pro-Abortion

“Governor Mitt Romney has signed a bill that could expand the number of people who get family-planning services, including the morning-after pill, confusing some abortion and contraception foes who had been heartened by his earlier veto of an emergency contraception bill. … The services include the distribution of condoms, abortion counseling, and the distribution of emergency contraception, or morning after pills, by prescription …”
(Stephanie Ebbert, “Romney Signs Bill On Family Planning,” The Boston Globe, 10/15/05)

“The administration did not publicize the waiver request. Yesterday, the governor’s communications director, Eric Fehrnstrom, suggested that the decision was not controversial.”
(Stephanie Ebbert,“Romney Signs Bill On Family Planning,” The Boston Globe, 10/15/05)

December 2005: Pro-life & Pro-Abortion

“Gov. Mitt Romney abruptly ordered his administration to reverse course yesterday and require Catholic hospitals to provide emergency contraception medication to rape victims. In a turnaround that foes derided as politically motivated, Romney directed his Department of Public Health to scrap rules that exempted the Catholic institutions from a new law governing the medicine.
(Kimberly Atkins, “Romney Flip Nixes Hospital Exception On Post-Rape Drug,” Boston Herald, 12/9/05)

But a few days earlier:

“The decision overturns a ruling made public this week by the state Department of Public Health that privately run hospitals could opt out of the requirement if they objected on moral or religious grounds. Romney had initially supported that interpretation…”
(Scott Helman, “Romney Says No Hospitals Are Exempt From Pill Law,”
The Boston Globe, 12/9/05)

* * * * * * * * * *

So what does he really think about this issue and religious liberty? Or more to the point, what would he actually do in office?

INC on February 5, 2012 at 9:36 PM

And, no, he does not fear a Rev. Wright backlash because that would require the Obamamedia to tell voters who Rev. Wright was, which they will never do.

Rational Thought on February 5, 2012 at 9:20 PM

that’s nonsense, he does not need MSM to tell the voters anything…it’s (or it will be) a national campaign, Romney’s campaign can flood the air with ads explaining who reverend Wright was and O’s connections to his church and all, if O’s handlers are that dumb to go in there and make his mormonism an issue…if they do, it means it will be brought in the debates too, so there’s Romney’s best opportunity to bring Barry’s connections with Wright to a large audience…or you are saying now that the media will not air the debates :)…as for this whole mormonism thing, it’s more wishful thinking on the part of Romney haters, so fine, let them revel in framing O’s campaign in their minds..personally not so concerned with it…oh, and for the record, O started showing his face in (some) church during his last campaign too, it’s nothing new…he does that, it’s his little ‘I’m a Christian’ gig for when campaigning kicks off…as for his timing, I think his showing his face in church again these days ha s more to do with the Catholic backlash than anything…Catholics have always been Dem supporters…imagine if…oh, no, I won’t go in there :-)…

jimver on February 5, 2012 at 9:38 PM

jimver on February 5, 2012 at 9:38 PM

So what evidence do you have that Romney would attack obama on Rev Wright?

astonerii on February 5, 2012 at 9:40 PM

So, are you saying then that they can declare anything they want and it shall be so? If so, that is scary.

silvernana on February 5, 2012 at 9:26 PM

She has the power to grant exemptions from Obamacare, and has given over 1000, mostly to unions.

Wethal on February 5, 2012 at 9:42 PM

So, when do the insurance companies get mandated to supply free umbrellas for women? You know how women hate to get their hair wet.

OldEnglish on February 5, 2012 at 9:48 PM

its comment like this that really put me off as a fiscal conservative. i can only find common ground on less government and fiscal issues. on social issues is like living on a different planet.

nathor on February 5, 2012 at 9:14 PM

Rational Thought has an apt analysis. and nathor shows the way. nathor may be a concern troll for all i know…but aside from Romney’s Mormonism, there is always the desire to call out conservatives for wacko, crazy, retrograde ideas.

The alleged social/fiscal divide is always used by the Dims. Basically, the msg is do any self-respecting sane middle class people worried about their financial well-being really want to put your future in the hands of religious zealots…like Mormons and Catholics who don’t want other people to have free contraception.

Leftists always pretend to stand with the forces for emancipation. (emancipation on their terms of course)

Obama knows Romney is going to be his opponent in 2012 — and he knows Romney is a formidable opponent. This is why he is trying to make religion a very prominent theme right now. He’s going to church with the kids and wife. Giving WWJD speeches. And pissing off the Catholic Church. Obama wants religion to play a prominent role in the debates he has with Romney, so he’s willing to piss off a few folks in order to set up his media enablers with a “context” for bringing religion up. And bring it up they will. This is all a very orchestrated strategy to appeal to — and foster — anti-Mormon bigotry. That and Mitt’s wealth is all he’s got.

Rational Thought on February 5, 2012 at 8:28 PM

r keller on February 5, 2012 at 9:48 PM

care to make that …interesting ?

burrata on February 5, 2012 at 9:28 PM

Not a betting man.

Igor R. on February 5, 2012 at 9:49 PM

“The decision to require Catholic hospitals to provide contraceptives and abortifacients they deem immoral in their insurance plans, demonstrates either President Obama’s personal antagonism to religious liberty — or the degree to which he is beholden to the secular left.
No , it demonstrates what we conservative Americans had always known about Obama, that he hates Christians and Jews, just like the koran says he should.
Obama sold exemptions to his healthcare law , but he didn’t even put this decision against Catholics up for sale , thats how hateful he is . He chose hate over money

burrata on February 5, 2012 at 8:32 PM

These are intriguing points because Muslims do not accept the idea of insurance (as a sort of gambling) nor the idea of paying or receiving banking interest (as a system of usury). Have Muslims received a waiver from Obamacare based on their attitude towards insurance?

The concept of contraception appears to be alien to Muslim culture to increase and multiply (even with multiple wives). Why are their religious tenets being considered while those of other faiths are not?

Why should any taxpayers have foisted on them the bill for contraception or abortifacient practices that their consciences object to?

Unfortunately for all of us, those who accept federal aid have to dance to the tune that the federal pipers play.

onlineanalyst on February 5, 2012 at 9:50 PM

Not a betting man.

Igor R. on February 5, 2012 at 9:49 PM

Awwww. Lost big on the Super Bowl, did you?

cynccook on February 5, 2012 at 9:52 PM

“‘This new law will save money for millions of Americans,’ Muñoz wrote Wednesday

What law? If it’s under Obamacare, then that would appear it’s open ended? Just add whatever you want at anytime?

Oh, another note. This “decision” does not effect Catholics only, it effects all Religions. I’m interested in hearing from the Dr. Dobsons, Billy Graham Assoc. and many other large organizations.

bluefox on February 5, 2012 at 9:52 PM

onlineanalyst on February 5, 2012 at 9:50 PM

Muslims have been given a waiver.

astonerii on February 5, 2012 at 9:53 PM

She has the power to grant exemptions from Obamacare, and has given over 1000, mostly to unions.

Wethal on February 5, 2012 at 9:42 PM

What about creating a Catholic union?

OldEnglish on February 5, 2012 at 9:53 PM

WOW, Giants just won it!!

bluefox on February 5, 2012 at 9:53 PM

WOW, Giants just won it!!

bluefox on February 5, 2012 at 9:53 PM

I thought it was the white sox… man I lost big time!

astonerii on February 5, 2012 at 9:54 PM

mormonism thing, it’s more wishful thinking on the part of Romney haters, so fine, let them revel in framing O’s campaign in their minds..personally not so concerned with it…oh, and for the record, O started showing his face in (some) church during his last campaign too, it’s nothing new…he does that, it’s his little ‘I’m a Christian’ gig for when campaigning kicks off…as for his timing, I think his showing his face in church again these days ha s more to do with the Catholic backlash than anything…Catholics have always been Dem supporters…imagine if…oh, no, I won’t go in there :-)…

jimver on February 5, 2012 at 9:38 PM

Am I the only one who continues to be outraged by Stephanopolis’s (sp?) correcting (XX) Obama during a 2008 interview when Obama referred to “my Muslim faith”? I continue to think that Steph gave the election to Obama by leading Obama to correct that “misstatement.”

GaltBlvnAtty on February 5, 2012 at 9:55 PM

I thought it was the white sox… man I lost big time!

astonerii on February 5, 2012 at 9:54 PM

I’d say so, like your mind, LOL

bluefox on February 5, 2012 at 9:56 PM

So what evidence do you have that Romney would attack obama on Rev Wright?

astonerii on February 5, 2012 at 9:40 PM

what evidence do you have that he won’t?

jimver on February 5, 2012 at 9:56 PM

what evidence do you have that he won’t?

jimver on February 5, 2012 at 9:56 PM

Proving a positive is possible. Proving a negative on the other hand… So, if you refuse to provide the proof, you must be admitting that there is no evidence. Remember RObamney is just over his head, but he means well.

astonerii on February 5, 2012 at 9:58 PM

To understand Obama, think of an evil Howdy Doody.

bigmike on February 5, 2012 at 9:59 PM

Muslims have been given a waiver.

astonerii on February 5, 2012 at 9:53 PM

Link? If that is true then [bannable comment]

tom daschle concerned on February 5, 2012 at 10:03 PM

Speaking as a Catholic, I wish the Church would be more open on the contraception question.
– E.J. Dionne

As usual, E.J. Dionne’s problem is that the question of contraception by the Catholic Church is clearly spelled out in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, but being the typical leftist liberal Catholic-in-name-only, he sees the solution as one where the Church should conform to “popular culture” and not the other way around.

PatriotGal2257 on February 5, 2012 at 10:04 PM

To understand Obama, think of an evil Howdy Doody.

bigmike on February 5, 2012 at 9:59 PM

Evil Howdy Doody? Uh, that would be this guy….

cynccook on February 5, 2012 at 10:05 PM

Muslims have been given a waiver.

astonerii on February 5, 2012 at 9:53 PM

Link? If that is true then [bannable comment]

tom daschle concerned on February 5, 2012 at 10:03 PM

http://libertyandpride.com/muslims-exempt-from-obamacare/

I tend to figure it is part of trying to get people to switch religions to muslim. I think Quakers are exempt and a few others…

astonerii on February 5, 2012 at 10:05 PM

onlineanalyst on February 5, 2012 at 9:50 PM

Yes, muslims got exempted from Obama-scare because islam equates insurance with gambling and thus it is haraam
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/03/amish_muslims_to_be_excused_fr.html
Muslims might get their takaful compliance underwritten by AIG
( yeah , that AIG)
http://frontpagemag.com/2011/10/14/muslims-exempt-from-obamacare/
Ofcourse, our media will make sure no such information comes out !!

burrata on February 5, 2012 at 10:09 PM

These are intriguing points because Muslims do not accept the idea of insurance (as a sort of gambling) nor the idea of paying or receiving banking interest (as a system of usury). Have Muslims received a waiver from Obamacare based on their attitude towards insurance?

The concept of contraception appears to be alien to Muslim culture to increase and multiply (even with multiple wives). Why are their religious tenets being considered while those of other faiths are not?

onlineanalyst on February 5, 2012 at 9:50 PM

Why, indeed?

SagebrushPuppet on February 5, 2012 at 10:10 PM

Why are their religious tenets being considered while those of other faiths are not?

onlineanalyst on February 5, 2012 at 9:50 PM

Transparent attack on the Catholic Church.

cynccook on February 5, 2012 at 10:12 PM

Please don’t show evil Obama with the Godly Pope. A terrible slight to devout Catholics. Please, please, please….

chai on February 5, 2012 at 10:13 PM

So how long do these exemptions or waivers last? Are they permanent for favored groups?

onlineanalyst on February 5, 2012 at 10:13 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 5