Frothing Liberals AGAIN Document They Are FASCISTS With Their Rabid Response To The Hobby Lobby Case

It’s always an amazing thing to watch liberals being hypocrites.  Liberalism is ABJECT personal moral hypocrisy; liberals are people who say what is always fascist for thee to do is never fascist for me to do.

Under the warped doctrine of “separation of church and state,” liberals have attacked and successfully purged most vestiges of God and Judeo-Christianity from society.  No Judeo-Christian practice or doctrine or belief can have anything whatsoever to do with culture.  But then you take liberal’s Church of the Ungodly Nazi Bureaucrat, and suddenly on their view the church IS the state and the state IS the church.  So you can’t have a cross representing veterans who gave their lives on public land, but you can sure force the owners of businesses to violate their most deeply held moral beliefs by exploiting the raw, naked force of government.

Liberals are either pathologically stupid people or pathologically evil people – or both, as I believe.  You can surely see this again in the shrill, unhinged rhetoric flying around from the left in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision.

If I had a nickel for every liberal who came out and claimed that somehow the Supreme Court just took away birth control from women, I would be a very rich man.  When the truth of the matter is that birth control is as available today as it was before yesterday.  The only thing that has been taken away is the “right” of liberals to impose THEIR religious beliefs onto the owners of businesses who have different religious beliefs when it comes to abortion.

To wit, Hobby Lobby – long before this court decision – had been providing SIXTEEN different forms of birth control to female employees as part of their generous health care coverage.  The only forms of “birth control” they didn’t want to pay for were abortifacients which do NOT prevent a conception but kill a baby.  And the members of the Church of the Ungodly Nazi Bureaucrat screamed, “Nein!  Nein! Nein!  You WILL cover our religious right to murder babies!!!  Our god (human government) has the divine power to FORCE you to kill babies for us!!!”

You need to understand why liberals get into such an unhinged frenzy.  For them, human government is God and God is human government.  They have no other gods before human government.  And so when they are confronted with a ruling like this one, well, their god let them down and abandoned them.  And they therefore simply have to race around cursing like rabid vermin.

There are so many ways that liberals are abject hypocrites jus on this case that it is beyond unreal.  Let’s look at a few:

First, there’s the fact that to be a liberal is to be not only a fascist but a Nazi.  Take a look at the vicious threats against Hobby Lobby from the left.  I apologize for the language in advance, but you have to consider the unhinged, rabid, VIOLENT, viscious, rabid hate that characterizes liberalism when one of the things that these fascists try to impose on everybody else gets taken away from them:

‘Fu*k you:’ Left-wingers want to ‘burn down’ Hobby Lobby after SCOTUS win
Posted at 10:42 am on June 30, 2014 by Twitchy Staff | View Comments

Fuck you, Hobby Lobby, you narrow-minded, anti-women pieces of shit!!!!!!

—
Sandra McMahan (@SandraMcMahan) June 30, 2014

Let it all out. Exhale.

I will not take my dollars or my lesser-than uterus to Oklahoma-based company #HobbyLobby ever again. FUCK YOU GUYS.—
ak huxley (@abbykate) June 30, 2014

Fuck SCOTUS. Fuck Hobby Lobby. Fuck religion. Fuck America.—
(@Ginge) June 30, 2014

Stay classy. And peaceful:

Fuck you Hobby Lobby, I hope all your stores burn to the ground. Fuck you, fuck you, FUCK YOU!!!!!!!—
Star Dust (@AtheistBrandi) June 30, 2014

RT @ttensquared burn the hobby lobby down i say.—
sergio ramos eterno. (@callejonshair) June 30, 2014

Hobby Lobby. Time to burn that shit down.—
Jeezly-Crow™ (@Obfusticate) June 30, 2014

#HobbyLobby are scum of the earth. Burn every single one down, build a homeless shelter there instead.—
Costa Koutsoutis (@costa_kout) June 30, 2014

For the record, my copy and paste didn’t grab all of the hate.  But you ought to get the idea.

The first one above gives you the noxious, rotten flavor that is liberalism: “F- you, you narrow-minded, anti-women pieces of feces!!!!!!”  Because this person is CLEARLY “tolerant” and open to disagreeing points of view, isn’t she?  And as for the “anti-women” thing, I looked at the images of the gathering outside the Supreme Court taken by the reliably leftist Los Angeles Times and there were far more women cheering the decision than men.  And so what Sandra McMahan is really saying is that “feminists” are so rabid and so toxic that they – like Hitler – are willing to STRIP AWAY the femaleness of pro-life women the way that the Führer rhetorically stripped away the humanity of Jews.  You simply have to think exactly like these people.  Period.

Liberals have pissed away the image of God in what used to be their “human natures.”  They fully qualify for the words of Proverbs 12:1

Whoso loveth instruction loveth knowledge: but he that hateth reproof is brutish.

The word “brutish” – most often translated as “stupid” – refers to stupid, brutish animals who lack the capacity that humans have for moral reasoning and receiving wisdom.  It’s what Romans chapter one teaches, “God gave them over” to their stupid, brutish natures.

That is why liberals are so often so pathologically stupid and dishonest, such as the liberals exemplify when they claim that “Scalia law is like shariah law.”  These people are literally that stupid and that evil, that there is no difference to them between asking a woman to pay for her own abortion-inducing drugs and stoning a woman to death.  They are stupid, brutish animals who can’t distinguish the difference.

So, yeah, to be a liberal is to be a violent, vicious, fascist thug.  When John Roberts basically betrayed conservatives and re-wrote the damn ObamaCare law to make what was explicitly ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL fly, did conservatives threaten to burn down the world?  Nope.  When the Supreme Court voted for the wrath of God as per Romans chapter one and ruled to abandon DOMA, did conservatives threaten to burn down gay bars?  Nope.  Because we’re not fascists like liberals are.

Here’s another example of pure, unadulterated hypocrisy.  Meet Harry Reid, hypocrite:

“It’s time that five men on the Supreme Court stop deciding what happens to women.”

I mean, Harry Reid is FINE with five men deciding what happens to women.  As long as the five men think exactly like HE does.

EVERY SINGLE ONE of Harry Reid’s top staffers are MEN.  Which is a characteristic ENDEMIC to the left.  But what can I say?  When you’re a Nazi, you demand that Jews be treated one way and that you as a Nazi be treated a different way.  So the same rules you want to apply to “the other” should NEVER apply to you.

Liberals hate truth.  Jesus said, “Everyone who is on the side of truth listens to Me.”  And they held their ears and began screaming f-words and shouting to burn Jesus down, to crucify Him.  Jesus told us that liberals would hate us and He pointed out, “They hated Me first.”  And that’s why they hate Jesus for describing marriage as the union between one man and one woman.  It’s why they despise the Word of God when it teaches that God forms the unborn child in the womb.  When the Virgin Mary was pregnant with the baby Jesus, they howl in rage that she didn’t abort Him and murder Him in the womb.  And when the unborn John the Baptist kicked in the womb when he neared the unborn Jesus in Mary’s womb, they wish that instead of the unborn John kicking in excitement both woman had instead headed to the nearest “clinic” to get rid of the parasites invading their bodies.

Liberals HATE the truth with a passion.  The “truth” is a rhetorical game for them to exploit with propaganda, the way they have exploited their bogus “war on women.”

 

 

What’s REALLY At Stake In The ‘Religious Liberty vs. ObamaCare’ Fiasco

When I go to the grocery store, there is frequently someone outside asking me for spare change.  When I go to a fast food restaurant, there is more than occasionally someone outside asking me for spare change (although, it’s happened quite a few times that I’ve had people INSIDE these places asking me for spare change, too).  When I get gas, there is often someone outside asking me for spare change.

Here is my response to them:

“Let me ask you a question: why should I give you anything?”

That’s a head scratcher for most of the people I deal with, I mean, beyond the pure “entitlement” mindset of, “Because you OWE me for being so wonderful.”

“Because I’m a human being,” I often hear.

“What does that mean to me?”  I demand.  “According to the theory of evolution, human beings are nothing more than a random-chance accident and you are nothing more than a slightly smarter version of a monkey.  According to Darwinism, the stronger ought to survive and the weaker ought to have the decency to perish and get the hell out of the stronger’s way.  When the lion or the wolf kills the weakest members of a herd, environmentalists point out that they’re actually doing the herd a service by winnowing out the genetically inferior members who would otherwise undermine the herd.  Frankly, according to Darwinsim, I ought to be taking what little you DO have instead of weakening my own prospects to help an inferior.

So again, why should I give you anything?”

Well, as it so happens, there is only ONE correct answer.  And here it is:

“Because I’m a human being created in the image of God, and because God loves human beings as demonstrated in His sending His Son to seek and to save me even when I’m lost.  And because Jesus cares for the poor, you should care for the poor and help me.”

And with that lesson – along with my pointing out that I am NOT giving a damn thing to you because I’m a good person, but ONLY because I’m following the example of my Savior and Lord, Jesus – I buy them food (I don’t give money to self-destructive people who will only use it to further destroy themselves with drugs and alcohol and cigarettes).

So here’s the question: is there any connection between “morality” and “religion,” or is “morality” whatever the hell Obama or the government says it is?

In my own personal case, and very definitely in the case of orthodox/genuine Christian theology, morality has EVERYTHING to do with religion.

Let me get in the face of atheists here who would interrupt me and say that they’re atheists and they’re “moral.”  Bullcrap.  And here’s why: if you are an atheist and a situation arises and a lie or doing something wrong would benefit you and you don’t think you would get caught, why wouldn’t you do what would benefit you?  And your answer as an atheist MUST be entirely subjective and completely arbitrary.  Lying, for example, is “unchristian.”  But how would lying by “unatheist?”  What IS “atheist morality” such that if you do X you are a bad atheist???  And of course there is nothing, because atheism and morality have nothing whatsoever to do with one another.  Whereas as a Christian, as a religious person, as someone who believes in God, I would tell the truth or do the moral thing in a given situation even to my own immediate harm because I BELIEVE THAT GOD REWARDS GOOD AND PUNISHES EVIL AT JUDGMENT DAY.  WHICH ATHEISTS DON’T BELIEVE.

Morality and religion are intimately connected.

Any other view on that is morally depraved.

The founding fathers had a word for the latter (non-Christian) view that Obama is taking: treason.

George Washington said, ““Of all the habits and dispositions which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.  In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars.  And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion…reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

So yeah, the view that morality comes from anywhere OTHER than religion is TREASON.  Barack Obama and the Democrat Party are traitors to America according to the father of our country and our greatest American hero.

John Adams pointed out that the Constitution was written ONLY for people who believed in God and received their morality from Him: “We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Samuel Adams put it this way: “Religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness.”

Patrick Henry had this to say: “The great pillars of all government and of social life [are] virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor…and this alone, that renders us invincible.”

You need to understand that when it comes to ObamaCare, “morality” is quite simply whatever the hell Obama says it is.  “Morality” is a game of “Simon Says,” and Obama has appointed himself as “Simon.”

Barack Obama promised to “fundamentally transform America.”  And he’s largely done it.

If morality can be completely and fundamentally severed from religion, then what IS morality?  It is nothing more than whatever Obama or whoever is in charge of the government says it is.  And nothing more.  That ought to terrify you, if you aren’t a complete moral idiot.

Here’s another question: Can the government grant Hobby Lobby a waiver when it comes to forcing them to provide the four forms of “birth control” (read “abortifacients”) given that Hobby Lobby provides coverage for the sixteen forms of birth control that DON’T actually kill fertilized eggs (babies)???

Given that Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  The purpose of the LAW was to prevent any laws that substantially burdened a person’s free exercise of religion., doesn’t it seem like Obama and Democrats ought to do anything possible to prevent forcing people to perform abortions or fund abortions against their religiously-informed consciences?

Consider all the other damn waivers Obama has issued in hopes of keeping his Democrats in power in the Senate.  There is clearly another way around this because Obama has found another way at least 25 times when it came to protecting his Democrats from the consequences of their evil socialist health care takeover law.

As an example:

Could the administration extend the deadline to buy ObamaCare beyond March 31st?  Absolutely NOT, they assured us:

Coincidentally, Schrader filed his bill the same day Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius testified on Capitol Hill that, “there is no delay beyond March 31st.” Of course, that wasn’t the first, or last, time she made that claim. And, as our colleagues over at Wonkblog explain, the administration is adamant that it’s not so much an extension as an accommodation.

Heritage provides a montage of such assurances as well as some well-deserved mockery:

No, it cannot happen. It will not happen. The Obama administration absolutely, positively will NOT extend the deadline to sign up for Obamacare.

This isn’t even a laugh line anymore. It’s just an eye roller. And how silly these guys look now:

“We have no plans to extend the open enrollment period. In fact, we don’t actually have the statutory authority to extend the open enrollment period in 2014.” — Health and Human Services (HHS) official Julie Bataille, March 11

“Once that 2014 open enrollment period has been set, they are set permanently.” – HHS official Michael Hash, March 11

“March 31st is the deadline for enrollment. You’ve heard us make that clear.” – Press Secretary Jay Carney, March 21

“There is no delay beyond March 31.” – HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, March 12

There was no delay…until there was. The Washington Post reported last night that March 31 is not, in fact, the final word. To get more time, you tell the government that you haven’t been able to sign up yet:

Under the new rules, people will be able to qualify for an extension by checking a blue box on HealthCare.gov to indicate that they tried to enroll before the deadline. This method will rely on an honor system; the government will not try to determine whether the person is telling the truth.

My favorite there is Obama mouthpiece Jay Carney, who says, “March 31st is the deadline for enrollment.  You’ve heard us make that clear.”

Until he made it clear that Obama had tooted his ObamaHorn and imperiously re-issued “morality” to say that what would be wrong was now right and what is right is no longer wrong.

Kind of like what he did with homosexual marriage.  Yes, Obama said that marriage was the union between one man and one woman.  But he hadn’t said, “Obama Sez.”  And so when he said the exact opposite, well, THAT was “morality.”

So it turns out the answer mimicked Obama’s campaign slogan: “Absolutely NOT” turned into “Yes, we can!”

And they could have protected Hobby Lobby from violating their consciences, too.  They simply chose not to do so.  Kind of like homosexuals had the right to marry whatever adult of the opposite sex who would have them and they chose not to exercise their right.  Which is another way of saying that marriage between one man and one woman doesn’t violate anybody’s “rights.”  It merely rightly defines what marriage IS.

So ObamaCare didn’t HAVE to substantially burden Christians who wanted to exercise their basic rights to form a corporation.  Obama merely wanted to violate Christians’ rights because that’s the kind of demonic man he is.

There is no question whatsoever that Barack Obama is violating the Constitution and violating the law.  He is imposing a substantial burden on religious freedom when there are very clearly ways to have avoided this fascist mess.

My point in the above is to simply demonstrate that Obama didn’t have to force Hobby Lobby to violate its conscience, either as individuals or as a corporation.  There was another way, because as Obama has now proven over and over and over again, there has been another way around EVERY ASPECT of this idiotic failed law.  And so there was a way around this too.

Here’s another thing: nobody knows what the Supreme Court is going to do on this one.  It’s basically like, “Let’s spin the wheel of chance to find out what the Constitution means today!”

Laws no longer mean what they say in this country.  Which is another way of saying they no longer mean ANYTHING.

America is no longer a nation of laws.  Obama abrogates the law as he sees fit and simply issues unconstitutional waivers and unconstitutional extensions.  It is a nation under a Fuehrer, rather than under God as we mouth in our Pledge of Allegiance.

And that’s important because that’s what Hitler did: he had his minions pledge allegiance directly to HIM.  That’s what we all might as well be doing now, under Obama and his God damn America.

This is a morally sick nation that is at this point experiencing the curse of the wrath of God according to Romans chapter one, thanks to our antichrist president.

Democrats are liars without shame, without honor, without virtue, without integrity of any kind whatsoever.  They are falsely claiming that Hobby Lobby is somehow denying women birth control when in fact they provide SIXTEEN different forms of birth control on the health insurance that they offer.  This isn’t about health care OR birth control; it is about abortion and Obama wanting to demonically force Christians to violate their faith and their conscience and fund the murder of ANOTHER 55 million innocent human beings.

What does the Bible say about abortion and where babies come from?

“For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb.  I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Your works, And my soul knows it very well.  My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth; Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Your book were all written The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them.” — Psalm 139:13-16

I stand for human LIFE.  Which is another way of saying that I stand AGAINST this demon-possessed president and his demon-possessed Democrat Party and their genocide that is already more than nine times as murderous as Hitler’s.

And I stand for America as “One nation under God” as opposed to “One nation WITHOUT God” as godless Democrats are now demanding.

This also isn’t even about corporations.  Obama and his wicked, godless Democrat left have been persecuting small business owners (i.e., “individual Christian believers”) for refusing to participate in homosexual “marriage”.  They are being forced to either photograph queer “weddings” or participate in aforementioned “weddings” by making the wedding cakes against their consciences.

So, again, Democrats are demon-possessed LIARS for saying this is about a corporation not being a “person” and therefore not able to have religion.  Because it is a FACT that Democrats don’t want ANY PERSON to be able to practice his or her religion unless it is a “religion” of demons.

In fact, this isn’t even about “health care” at ALL.  What did liberal “Justice” Sonia Sotomayor and “Justice” Elena Kagan say?  These Injustices told Hobby Lobby that they could just drop ALL their employees from their generous health care plans and just pay the damn fine:

“Those employers could choose not to give health insurance and pay not that high a penalty – not that high a tax,” Sotomayor said.

Clement said Hobby Lobby would pay more than $500 million per year in penalties, but Kagan disagreed.

“No, I don’t think that that’s the same thing, Mr. Clement,” Kagan said. “There’s one penalty that is if the employer continues to provide health insurance without this part of the coverage, but Hobby Lobby would choose not to provide health insurance at all.

So how can this be about “health care” when these liberal judges are literally telling Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties NOT to provide health care, but to just dump their poor bastard employees into the sewer of ObamaCare???

The crazy thing is, as Christians, Hobby Lobby would ALSO have to violate their consciences to refuse to provide their employees health care.

Liberals are evil, pure and simple.  This isn’t about “health care.”  This is about liberals trying “to control the people.”

This is about Obama and his government having a messiah complex, pure and simple.

We’re about to lose what little is left of America.  It’s all up to the throw of the dice in the Supreme Court where a bunch of unelected judges get to sit and dictate what “religion” is and what “morality” is.

This is what “God damn America” looks like.

Question: Why Is ‘War On Terror’ Talk Banned By Obama Even As He Keeps Demagoguing The Bogus ‘War On Women’???

Dennis Miller raised that question last night on the O’Reilly Factor, and it’s a damn good one.

Obama banned the term “war on terror”:

Obama administration says goodbye to ‘war on terror’
US defence department seems to confirm use of the bureaucratic phrase ‘overseas contingency operations’
Oliver Burkeman in Washington
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 25 March 2009 13.40 EDT

The war on terror, George Bush once declared, “will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated”. But Barack Obama‘s administration, it appears, has ended it rather more discreetly – via email.

A message sent recently to senior Pentagon staff explains that “this administration prefers to avoid using the term Long War or Global War On Terror (Gwot) … please pass this on to your speechwriters”. Instead, they have been asked to use a bureaucratic phrase that could hardly be further from the fiery rhetoric of the months immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The global war on terror is dead; long live “overseas contingency operations”.

Rumours of the imminent demise of the war on terror had been circulating for some time, and some key officials have been mentioning “overseas contingency operations” for weeks. The US defence department email, obtained by the Washington Post, seems to confirm the shift, although the Office of Management and Budget, which reviews the public testimony of administration personnel in advance, denied reports that it had ordered an across-the-board change in language.

[..]

Since taking office, Obama has taken several concrete steps to shift direction, ordering the closure of Guantanamo Bay and the CIA’s secret prisons, and moving to end harsh interrogation practices.

“Declaring war on a method of violence was like declaring war on amphibious warfare,” said Jeffrey Record, a strategy expert at the US military’s Air War College in Alabama.

“Also, it suggested that there was a military solution, and that we were at war with all practitioners of terrorism, whether they threatened American interests or not. ‘War’ is very much overused here in the United States – on crime, drugs, poverty. Everything has to be a war. We would have been much smarter to approach terrorism as the Europeans do, as a criminal activity.”

Let’s be clear: the primary motivation of abandoning the term “war on terror” was appalling political correctness.  Obama doesn’t want to alienate; he wants to be “inclusive.”

Obama is so inclusive to terrorists, in fact, that he refused to label the murderous rampage by Major Nidal Hassan a “terrorist attack.”  It doesn’t matter if he was heard screaming “Allahu Aqbar!” as he opened fire or that he had business cards that described himself as a “soldier of Allah” or that he had had numerous email chats with a known al Qaeda terrorist recruiter.  It was just an act of “workplace violence,” that’s all folks.  Nothing to see here.

Except when it comes to Republicans, of course.  Obama doesn’t want to insult terrorists, but he is fine with demonizing basically half of the American people.  So whether “war” is “overused” or not, Obama is quite happy to use the term to pour liquid hate on Republicans and then try to set that hate on fire.

“The war on women” is a lie from the devil and from the Democrat Party – unless they’re using it to talk about themselves.  See also here.  And here.  And here.  And here.  And here.  And here.  And here.  And here.  And here.

Interestingly, Obama defines “women” as SINGLE women.  Married women – who are voting for Mitt Romney by a margin of 55-40% – clearly do not count as “women” in Obama’s and the Democrat Party’s universe.  It’s kind of like the black Republicans who have somehow forfeited their “blackness” and therefore merit the hateful label “Uncle Toms” or “Aunt Jemimas.”

Nor are women who actually don’t hate their babies and want to keep them, given that most of the demon-possessed lies from the left revolve around abortion.

Just why is it called PLANNED PARENTHOOD given that its central “service” involves a profound LACK of PLANNING and an abject AVOIDANCE of PARENTHOOD?

In order to count as a “woman,” you’ve got to be single, you’ve got to hate babies, you’ve got to be a needy, whiny, clingy, bitter girl who hates men but loves Obama and his big government as surrogate husband (as long as you don’t actually have a “husband,” mind you).  You’ve got to think birth control costs $3,000.  You’ve got to think that society owes you that $3,000 birth control for free.  Especially if you choose to go to a Catholic university.  Because you’ve got to think literally that EVERYBODY OWES YOU that free $3,000 birth control.  You’ve got to demand “the right to choose” an abortion right up to when your baby is literally being born so you can use your “right to choose” partial birth abortion.  Also for free, of course.  And that You’ve got to think that all Republicans – NONE of whom have ever had mothers, wives or daughters, btw – want to put women in chains right next to black people.  Basically you’ve got to be a complete idiot to count as a “woman” as far as Democrats are concerned.  Otherwise, kindly refrain from considering yourself a “woman.”

Just remember the rule: it’s hateful to use the term “war on terror.”  But it’s just as hateful not to use the term “war on women.”  Because that’s just how evil and idiotic and hypocritical Democrats (of either gender) truly are.

Somebody Had To Pay For All That ‘Free’ Stuff Obama Stuck Into ObamaCare; Turns Out It’s Companies And Their Workers

Sandra Fluke.  Remember her?  She’ll be a prime-time speaker at the Democratic National Convention.  Just to remind you about her, she was the liberal activist who got into Georgetown Law School – a Catholic institution – just so she could sue them.  As a Georgetown law school graduate, if she’s just AVERAGE, she’ll earn $165,000 a year her very first year out of school.  But she expects you to pay for her birth control, the cost of which she lied about (falsely claiming what cost $9 a month would cost $3,000 – unless you consider condoms which she could have got for free).

The Democrat Party is the party of elitists, liars and entitlements.  So why not have lying elitist future 1 percenter Sandra Fluke come to the Democrat Convention to talk about more entitlements?

Obama and the Democrat Party love to pretend they’re Santa Clause and give away lots of “free” stuff.  By “free stuff” I mean they like to force private companies to give things away that actually cost them a lot of money.

And pathologically stupid people, a.k.a. Democrats, just LOVE the free stuff.  Because they don’t have to pay for it and frankly since they don’t have to pay for it they really don’t care who DOES pay for it.

Now, increasingly, of course, Democrats are freeloading slackers who don’t have jobs.  The Democrat Party today is the Party of the Occupy Movement.  But it turns out that the money to pay for all of this “free stuff” that Obama has given away to try to get reelected is coming right out of businesses that do most of the hiring in this country.  And more to the point, it is coming out of employees who work at those companies.

Just remember, dishonest Democrats and their Liar-in-Chief swore up and down that their ObamaCare would bring costs DOWN.  They lied, because at their cockroach cores they are lying liars:

Rising insurance costs crimping companies’ plans
By Jonathan D. Epstein
Updated: August 26, 2012, 6:52 PM

Western New York’s three big health insurers are again seeking to jack up rates by significant amounts in some cases – and some employers are taking desperate measures as a result.

BlueCross BlueShield of Western New York is asking for double-digit hikes for most plans, while Independent Health Association and Univera Healthcare are seeking increases of mostly less than 10 percent.

The price hikes, detailed in the carriers’ filings with the state Department of Financial Services, mark another year in which premiums are rising much faster than the rate of inflation or household income.

That adds to the burden on households and businesses already straining from past increases. And it shows that, at least so far, the efforts by insurers, employers and medical providers to control the spiraling costs are having limited effect.

“The train wreck continues. It’s unfortunate, but it seems that whatever products the carriers develop, whatever wellness programs they put together, it just doesn’t seem like they can get a lot of answers that people are looking for,” said Gregory D. Leifer, director of life and employee benefits at brokerage firm Scott Danahy Naylon.

“It’s pretty much the same old story from year to year,” said Howard N. Silverstein, CEO of Choice Employee Benefits Group LLC in Williamsville. “The community-based products just are obviously a burden to many of the employers.”

That’s forcing many to make tough decisions, such as dropping or reducing coverage, or shifting entirely to newer plans with high deductibles and cost-sharing that puts much more of the burden on employees. Traditional HMOs or similar plans, with low co-pays, are becoming dinosaurs.

Some companies are slowing or delaying hiring to control health care costs.

“If they’re really looking to reduce their expenses, they’re going into these plans where there’s unfortunately more of an out-of-pocket cost to the employee or consumer,” said Nick Siradas, account manager for small groups at Lawley Insurance.

The new rates are not final yet. Under state law, the insurers’ rate requests are still subject to review by the state, which can approve them, reduce them or reject them. Last year, the state trimmed many rate hike requests across the state, though not so much for Western New York’s three carriers.

Consumers and business owners are writing to regulators to protest what they see as unreasonable hikes, and demand the state block them:

“I know of no one that is receiving these kinds of rate increases in their pay,” wrote one consumer. “I strongly encourage [you] to not consider any rate increase at this time.”

“This is ridiculous and is creating such a hardship not only on me but my employees and my payroll,” another wrote. “New York State cannot allow this … This is unconscionable.”

Meanwhile, carriers, businesses and consumers await the promised benefits of the Obama administration’s Affordable Care Act.  While some provisions have taken effect – such as expanded benefits for dependents until age 26 – they are more likely to drive up health care costs, not lower them, because they expand coverage.

The health insurance exchanges are supposed to help with expenses by bringing an estimated 32 million uninsured Americans into the system, so costs can be spread over a larger base with more competition.

But those provisions don’t kick in until 2014, and the details remain vague. So businesses are guessing about the impact, and many are skeptical the exchanges will yield desired results.

“They’re really not optimistic,” Silverstein said. “They’re in fear of these exchanges.”

“A lot of my clients are taking a wait-and-see attitude,” Siradas said. “Until the exchanges are in place, we won’t know what they’re going to do.”

Ron Alsheimer learned the rates for his company’s BlueCross BlueShield plans could go up 12 percent, after a similar hike this year. The premium for family coverage for Traditional Blue is now $3,700 a month.

Already, that’s crimped any plans for growing his company, Buffalo-based commercial real estate developer Plaza Group, which has 11 employees. Between health and workers compensation insurance, the costs of adding staff are prohibitive. “I wouldn’t consider hiring anybody else now, anybody who would need health insurance. It just isn’t worth it,” he said.

He turned to Buffalo-based HR Benefit Advisors to find a less expensive provider for the half-dozen employees that get coverage. “I’ve had enough. It’s just lunacy,” he said. “I want him to look into something that’s going to put a cap on this nonsense.”

[…]

Absolutely everything this wicked president promised has been a total lie.

We’ve ALL paid for Obama’s “free stuff.”  The median household income under Obama has been so godawful that Obama has actually cost the average family nearly DOUBLE than the “Great Recession” did.  During the recession, which officially lasted from June 2007 to June 2009, household incomes fell by 2.6%.  But since then, under Obama’s “recovery,” household incomes have plummeted 4.8%.

We need a president who will quit making bogus promises and start delivering results.  And history has proven that that president is definitely NOT Barack Obama.

It’s Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day. It’s Also Obama Religious Persecution Day.

It’s Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day!

Has it ever occurred to anybody to ask themselves “Why Aren’t Gay Activists Harassing Chick-fil-A, Protest Against Homophobic Muslim Mosques?”

For that matter, who don’t gay activists harass black people as haters?

Oh, I’m sorry.  It’s because liberals are abject moral hypocrites who demagogue hate merely to attack convenient targets without really standing for anything?  Never mind.  That would explain why Obama’s former demagogue-of-staff Rahm Emanuel demonized Chick-Fil-A because they don’t represent “Chicago values” and then simultaneously celebrated Loius Farrakhan and his homo-hating Nation of Islam, then.

It’s also Obama Religious Persecution Day!

Religious Persecution Begins, Targets College Students

The Cardinal Newman Society, a national organization to help renew and strengthen Catholic identity in Catholic higher education, issued the following statement:

August 1, 2012, marks the formal beginning of the persecution of Catholic colleges and universities that wish to remain faithful to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

As of today, the Obama administration is forcing Catholic colleges to help students and employees obtain no-cost sterilizations, abortion-causing drugs and contraceptives, and also “counseling” promoting these practices.

And who are the first victims of the Obama administration’s new Sexual Revolution? Catholic colleges and the parents of Catholic college students!

One year ago, when the Obama administration shocked the nation with “interim final” regulations for its HHS mandate, it publicly admitted that it had rushed the rules to ensure that college students get “contraceptive services” in the 2012-2013 school year. Many student insurance plans renew in August.

In other words, the Obama administration’s desire to support students’ sexual activity without even one year’s delay is precisely why:

1) they rushed to publish a poorly constructed religious exemption, and

2) they refused to accept comments on the interim regulations until after they were issued.

Many news publications have deceptively reported that the HHS mandate is delayed another year for religious institutions, without explaining that many religious colleges and employers cannot meet the Obama administration’s arbitrary criteria for the delay.

Catholic colleges that covered “contraceptive services” as of February 10, 2012, are ineligible for the delay. But infidelity is not the only reason why Catholic colleges may be affected:

· They may have complied with state laws which violate religious freedom.

· They may have been unaware of provisions included in their health plans by insurance companies or by college personnel in prior years.

· They may operate in areas without affordable coverage that excludes contraception.

Moreover, the past infidelity of a Catholic college is no excuse for the federal government to violate that college’s First Amendment right to uphold Catholic teachings.

And further, the Obama administration is violating the rights of Catholic parents who send students to Catholic colleges, reasonably expecting their religious beliefs to be upheld. There is no religious freedom when the federal government prevents Catholic families from freely choosing authentic Catholic education.

The fact of the matter is that this is an incredibly blatant example of persecuting religious beliefs and attacking religious freedom.

 Cardinal Donald Wuerl, archbishop of Washington, had this to say in an interview with Chris Wallace:

WUERL: This lawsuit isn’t about contraception. It is about religious freedom. Embedded in the mandate is a radically new definition of what institutes a religious community, what constitutes religious ministry — brand new and never fortified in the federal level. That’s what we are arguing about.
 
The lawsuit said we have every right to serve in this community as we have served for decades and decades. The new definition says you are not really religious if you serve people other than your own and if you hire people other than your own. That wipes out all of the things that we have been doing, all the things that we contribute to the common good — our schools, our health care services, our Catholic charity and even parish soup kitchens and pantries. All that’s wiped out.
 
WALLACE: Let me pick up on that, because the White House says — the famous accommodation by President Obama, that they changed the mandates so that the insurance companies that you are dealing with, to provide health insurance coverage to your employees have to provide the birth control for free and that the charities and the schools and the hospitals, don’t have to do anything.
 
WUERL: This is one of the reasons why we say the accommodation didn’t change anything, because so many of our institutions, certainly the archdiocese, is self insured. We are the insurer.

Obama is trying for force religious groups and charities out of business so he can impose his fascist socialist government to fill the vacuum of suffering he created by putting them into an impossible moral predicament: either abandon the theology that you have held for 1,500 years or abandon your charitable work and leave millions of people high and dry.  But it is the theology that drives that charity work in the first place.  Which makes it like yanking the floor out from under yourself and then trying to stand on thin air.

Liberals have been exploiting the poor for generations and have done NOTHING to help them beyond making them dependent and making them vote Democrat so they can keep staying dependent.

So on the one hand liberals are demonizing businesses like Chick-Fil-A and literally trying to use the raw power of government to punish them for exercising their free speech rights.  And they do so on the “moral grounds” that they ought to be able to punish “anti-gay views.”  And on the other hand the same damn liberals are trying to impose godawful unconstitutional restrictions that directly punish religious groups.  And the fact that their views are anti-religious views, anti-Christian views and anti-biblical views doesn’t mean a damn thing in a world gone PC-crazy.

Obama Slams Rush Limbaugh For Calling Sandra Fluke A ‘Slut.’ It’s Strange That He Forgot To Denounce David Letterman For Calling Sarah Palin A ‘Slut.’

My first comment by way of referencing the below story is that Rush Limbaugh did NOT call Sandra Fluke a “slut” for “her views on contraception.”  He called her a slut because, according to her own testimony, she and all the women she was speaking for were having sex three times a day every single day, according to her “$3,000” example.  And whether you like it or not, if Sandra Fluke was getting mounted three times a day every single day by myriad boys, she most definitely qualifies for the technical descriptive term “slut.”

Another article correctly reports the Sandra Fluke testimony as, “Sex-crazed co-eds going broke buying birth control.”  That is simply factually accurate reporting of Sandra Fluke’s testimony.

Limbaugh also points out that if Sandra Fluke wants us to pay her for having all of this sex, she fully qualifies for the label “prostitute” as well.  And, probably crassly, he says that if America is supposed to pay for Sandra Fluke to have sex three times a day every single day, the least she could do is set up a video camera in her dorm room so we can watch as a return on our investment.

You can argue that Rush Limbaugh was actually respecting Sandra Fluke.  Based on her testimony and the numbers she provided, she is either an abject slut or a pathological liar.  And he assumed that she wasn’t a pathological liar.

Well, anyway, Barack Obama, the community-agitator-in-chief, decided to invoke the full weight of the presidency of the United States in this crisis.  Because if he’s spending his time on this issue, he can keep procrastinating dealing with the only slightly less important crisis of Iran on the verge of nuclear weapons and the whole Armageddon thing:

Rush Limbaugh condemned by Barack Obama for ‘slut’ remarks
Georgetown student Sandra Fluke was called a ‘slut’ and a ‘prostitute’ by Limbaugh because of her views on contraception
Ryan Devereaux
guardian.co.uk, Friday 2 March 2012 15.46 EST

President Barack Obama has offered his support to a US law student called a “slut” on Wednesday by rightwing talkshow host Rush Limbaugh because of her views on contraception.

According to White House spokesman Jay Carney, the president called Georgetown University student Sandra Fluke on Friday and expressed his disappointment that she was the target of Limbaugh’s personal attacks. Obama reportedly thanked Fluke for supporting his administration’s policy of requiring health insurance coverage of contraceptives for women.

The call came moments before Fluke was set to appear on the TV news network MSNBC. Speaking to host Andrea Mitchell about the president’s call, Fluke said: “What was really personal for me was [that] he said to tell my parents that they should be proud.”

Limbaugh called Fluke a “slut” and a “prostitute” on Wednesday after she expressed her support for the administration’s policy in an informal testimony on Capitol Hill.

Then, on Thursday, on his nationally syndicated radio show, he added: “So, Miss Fluke, if we are going to … pay for you to have sex, we want something for it. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.”

Limbaugh’s outburst has already prompted some advertisers to pull their support for his controversial show. Following heavy pressure from the Democrats, House speaker John Boehner described Limbaugh’s comments as “inappropriate”. Boehner argued, however, that the Democrats were using the incident as an opportunity to raise money.

On Friday, Boehner’s spokesman, Michael Steel, echoed the concerns, saying: “The speaker obviously believes the use of those words was inappropriate, as is trying to raise money off the situation.”

At last month’s hearing, Fluke pointed out that her fellow Georgetown students pay as much as $1,000 a year for contraceptives that are not covered by student health plans.

On his show on Wednesday, Limbaugh equated the payment to prostitution.

“What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute,” he said.

“She wants to be paid to have sex … She’s having so much sex she can’t afford contraception,” Limbaugh added.

Georgetown – itself a Jesuit school – has, along with a number of other Catholic institutions, denounced the Obama administration’s contraception policy as an infringement on their religious rights.

Rather than apologize, Limbaugh has stood by his inflammatory rhetoric. On his Thursday show, he referred to a controversial joke made by Rick Santorum’s wealthy backer, Foster Friess, suggesting women should hold aspirin tablets between their knees in order to remain abstinent.

“I will buy all of the women at Georgetown University as much aspirin to put between their knees as they want,” Limbaugh said.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is gathering signatures for an online petition calling on Republican leaders to “denounce Rush Limbaugh’s cruel tirade against women”.

Fluke responded to Limbaugh in a written statement, saying: “No woman deserves to be disrespected in this manner. This language is an attack on all women, and has been used throughout history to silence our voices.”

Obama’s choices about who he calls and who he doesn’t is actually rather fascinating: he never bothered to pick up the phone and call the parents of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry who was murdered as a result of Obama’s Fast And Furious gun scandal, for instance.

If that isn’t outrageous enough, allow me to also point out that the same Obama who is outraged by Rush Limbaugh’s calling Sandra Fluke a “slut” just accepted $1 million from Bill Maher AFTER Maher called Sarah Palin a “cunt.”

Barack Obama’s outrage is purely hypocritical and purely ideological. That is simply a documented fact.

Well, something seems to be worth remembering about all of these self-righteous liberals as we contemplate the horror of Rush Limbaugh calling a woman who spends $1,000 a year on her out-of-control sexual addiction; it wasn’t all that terribly long ago that David Letterman called Sarah Palin a slut.  And somehow that outraged telephone call from Barack Obama never came:

David Letterman Calls Sarah Palin A Slut
Jan 10, 2009
Posted by Tory Aardvark

The Liberal media purveyors of Political Correctness and moral judges of what is it acceptable to say, and what is not acceptable say. This normally translates in to say anything you want about a right wing person, but, and this is a very big but, say anything against a Liberal Left person and you are immediately guilty of a range adjectives ending in “ist”.

As with any left wing agenda, be it AGW, Political Correctness, immigration et al, there is always rank and blatant hypocrisy from those that seek to convince us they know better.

The left has long championed the cause of women to be treated as equals and not pieces of meat, yet the very first to indulge in sexually demeaning and degrading slurs on female politicians are the very same left, that claim to champion their cause.

David Letterman sinks to a new low, even for an East Coast liberal broadcaster when he suggests that “Sarah Palin should update her slutty air stewardess look“

And the point of making such a remark politically, or for any other reason is?

In Aardvarks experience “slut” is a term used by the micro dicked to deal with rejection #justsaying

I hope Sarah Palin isn’t waiting by the phone for the president to call, thinking it’s the least he could do to NOT show what a hypocrite ideologue divider he is.  Because Obama is very much all of those things, and there won’t be a call coming.

Oh, and by the way, Sarah Palin’s FOURTEEN YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER might be hanging around by the phone waiting for that Obama phone call, too: David Letterman accused her of slutting around and getting knocked up by baseball player A-Rod.

I don’t know.  It is still theoretically possible that the left will have a self-righteous outraged hissy fit about something they didn’t already do first to a conservative.  Highly unlikely, I know.  But you have to admit it is theoretically possible by the sheer statistical probabilities involving random chance that it could happen.

Sandra Fluke is an abject liar.  She is claiming that women are spending $3,000 on birth control: WOMEN CAN BUY GENERIC BIRTH CONTROL AT WAL-MART FOR $9 A MONTH.  That’s $324 over three years – kind of a long way from $3,000.

Oh, and I understand she could get birth control at Sam’s for $5.

Oh, and for what it’s worth, she could get condoms for FREE.

Which is to say that $3,000 birth control is just another demonic lie from the demonic left.  Liberals like Sandra Fluke and Nancy Pelosi who brought this liar in to falsely testify have no honesty or integrity and they simply lie like the hell they are going to to manipulate stupid people.

Further, since Sandra Fluke is trying to force universities – and in particular THE PRIVATE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY THAT SHE CHOSE TO GO TO – to provide birth control, let’s point out the fact that Georgetown law school costs $23,432.50 PER SEMESTER.  NOT COUNTING TEXTBOOKS, fwiw.  Forty seven thousand dollars a year is no problem for this “slut,” but that $108 she has to spend on birth control for her own private business is just busting her tiny little balls.

Rather than demonize and attack the Catholic Church and her universities, why doesn’t Sandra Fluke go after the REAL crisis facing university students: THE OUT OF CONTROL TUITION INFLATION which is even WORSE at public colleges and universities that are completely dominated by the left???

Bottom line: if Sandra Fluke wants to slut around and live in a universe of outright lies, the very least she can do is go to one of the many leftist public colleges that love that garbage.

What’s most fascinating is how often liberals lie out of every orifice in their bodies and conservatives still end up being the ones who have to apologize.

Updated March 4, 2012

Kirsten Powers wrote a piece from the liberal side denouncing the left for its abject hypocrisy available here.

There’s also these facts about Sandra Fluke and her “testimony”:

Fluke, who was portrayed as a 23 year-old co-ed, is actually 30 years old and by her own admission chose to attend Georgetown precisely so she could battle their insurance policy since it does not cover contraceptives. What a handy witness she turned out to be last week on behalf of Obama’s contraception mandate. So important was she to Obama’s theater show that he personally called her to apologize for things Rush Limbaugh said on his program concerning her testimony.

Fluke testified that she and her classmates have to spend $3,000 during their time at Georgetown on contraception, and it’s simply an unbearable financial burden for them. If they paid top-dollar for birth control pills, that would be about $600 a year; $1,800 for three years. A box of condoms ranges from about $4.00 to $15.00. That’s maybe another $100 a year, but still nowhere close to $3,000.

Updated March 5. 2012

Myth: Obama Birth Control Mandate Will Bring Down Costs. FACT: Obama FORBID Consideration Of Cost Control In That Mandate

You’ve smelled this particular emanation of bovine feces before; remember when Obama and all the Democrats were assuring us that ObamaCare would bring down the cost of health care???

And now we’re learning – you know, after Nancy Pelosi said we have to pass ObamaCare “so you can find out what is in it” – that ObamaCare will actually TRIPLE the damn cost of health care.

So now the left and the Democrats and Obama and the mainstream media are assuring us that trampling on the First Amendment, on religious freedom, on personal conscience and on the rights of people NOT to have Antichrist governing every aspect of our increasingly miserable lives will give us a cost savings.  They’re telling us that health insurance companies will save all kinds of money if Obama forces the Catholic Church to violate its theology that Catholics had held for one thousand-five hundred years and provide birth control, abortion-inducing drugs and sterilization.  And that they will then pass all that savings on to you.

Well, that sounds good, but it’s a lie just like pretty much every other thing that the left says.

Here’s the FACTS:

Obama: Mandate Saves Money; Mandate Authors: HHS Forbid Determining If It Saves Money
By Terence P. Jeffrey
February 16, 2012

CNSNews.com) – There would be no consideration of cost effectiveness.
 
That was the explicit condition that the Department of Health and Human Services imposed on the panel of health-care experts it commissioned to develop the “preventive services” mandate that will require virtually all health-insurance plans in the United States to cover sterilizations and contraceptives—including those that cause abortions.
 
The fact that HHS prohibited the panel from considering the cost effectiveness of the mandate it developed sharply contrasts with President Obama’s declaration at the White House last Friday that his administration had adopted the panel’s recommendations precisely because they will “make the overall cost of health care lower.”

One economist who served on the panel, meanwhile, suggested in a dissenting opinion that the panel’s recommendations in fact might not be cost effective and that the panel’s process for arriving at its recommendations “tended to result in a mix of objective and subjective determinations filtered through a lens of advocacy.”
 
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) that Obama signed in 2010 included a provision that all new health care plans would be required to cover “preventive services” without charging any fees or co-pay to the insured. The law allowed the secretary of health and human services to determine which “preventive services” would be mandated for women.
 
HHS commissioned and funded a committee of scientists, operating under the auspices of the Institute of Medicine (a part of the National Academies of Sciences), to recommend which “preventive services” for women should be included, cost free, in all insurance plans.
 
The panel—The Committee on Preventive Services for Women–had only 6 months to do its work and met only 5 times. On July 19, 2011, it issued a report with its recommendations. These included the following: “The committee recommends for consideration as a preventive service for women: the full range of Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for women with reproductive capacity.”
 
Less than two weeks later, on Aug. 1 of last year, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius issued the panel’s contraception-sterilization recommendation as a new federal regulation—set to take effect on Aug. 1 of this year.
 
In its report, the committee had noted the short time in which it had to work and repeatedly reiterated HHS’s order that it could not consider cost effectiveness in determining its recommendations.
 
“The committee met five times within six months,” the report said.
 
“The cost-effectiveness of screening or services could not be a factor for the committee to consider in its analysis leading to its recommendations,” the report said.
 
“However, it should be noted that the committee did not have adequate time or resources to conduct its own meta-analyses or comprehensive systematic review of each preventive service,” the committee warned.
 
“Finally,” the committee said, “cost-effectiveness was explicitly excluded as a factor that the committee could use in developing recommendations, and so the committee process could not evaluate preventive services on that basis.”
 
“Furthermore,” the committee said, “for consistency in approach with the other three guidelines used by the ACA and given the time limitations for this study, the committee was restricted from considering cost-effectiveness in its process for identifying gaps in current recommendations.”
 
One of the 16 members of the panel—Prof. Anthony Lo Sasso an economist at the University of Illinois at Chicago’s School of Public Health–issued a dissenting report. He criticized the panel’s process for lack a rigorous analytical method and for filtering things “through a lens of advocacy.” He also suggested there was good reason to believe the panel’s recommendations might not be cost effective.
 
“Readers of the Report should be clear on the facts that the recommendations were made without high quality, systematic evidence of the preventive nature of the services considered,” Lo Sasso wrote. “Put differently, evidence that use of the services in question leads to lower rates of disability or disease and increased rates of well-being is generally absent.
 
“The view of this dissent,” wrote Lo Sasso, “is that the committee process for evaluation of the evidence lacked transparency and was largely subject to the preferences of the committee’s composition. Troublingly, the process tended to result in a mix of objective and subjective determinations filtered through the lends of advocacy. An abiding principle in the evaluation of the evidence and the recommendations put forth as a consequence should be transparency and strict objectivity, but the committee failed to demonstrate these principles in the Report.”
 
Lo Sasso also raised a question about the potential cost effectiveness of offering some preventive services for free because it would create a “benign moral hazard”—leading more people to utilize the free service.
 
“Whether coverage of preventive service leads to a reduction in healthcare expenditure depends on the fraction of enrollees using the service before the service becomes covered and the magnitude of the response among enrollees who experience the reduction in out-of-pocket price,” wrote Lo Sasso. “Knowing how elastic patient demand is to preventive services is a critical element to a coverage decision even if one already has good estimates of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. This is self-evidently a useful parameter to know for any preventive service because it highlights the impact that first-dollar coverage of the service will have, perhaps in relation to other forms of outreach.”
 
Because the committee was not given the time to do a serious analysis of the real impact of the recommended “preventive services,” Lo Sasso recommended that Secretary Sebelius not mandate the services “until such time as the evidence can be objectively and systematically evaluated.”
 
Despite the fact that this scientifically panel charged with coming up with the recommended preventive services had been expressly forbidden from looking at their cost effectiveness, President Obama declared that his administration had moved forward with the recommendations precisely because of their cost effectiveness.
 
“As part of the health care reform law that I signed last year, all insurance plans are required to cover preventive care at no cost,” Obama said last Friday at the White House. “That means free check-ups, free mammograms, immunizations and other basic services. We fought for this because it saves lives and it saves money–for families, for businesses, for government, for everybody. That’s because it’s a lot cheaper to prevent an illness than to treat one.

“We also accepted a recommendation from the experts at the Institute of Medicine that when it comes to women, preventive care should include coverage of contraceptive services such as birth control,” said Obama. “In addition to family planning, doctors often prescribe contraception as a way to reduce the risks of ovarian and other cancers, and treat a variety of different ailments. And we know that the overall cost of health care is lower when women have access to contraceptive services.”

So we have a tyrant who states something as a FACT that he EXPLICITLY demanded not be tested to see if it was true.  Which ought to tell you that his “fact” is in fact probably false.

We have become a nation of despicable people who believe lies.  That’s the bottom line.  People who believe lies and reject the truth are little better than the people who tell the lies in the first place.

We’re seeing “the big lie” over and over and over again from this administration.  And what is most frightening is how Obama lies “in the name of science.”

On the economic front, Obama is telling one lie after another – and using a methane-foggy haze of cooked “statistics” to sell them to an amoral people.

Obama has his thugs at taxpayer-funded Media Matters trying to personally destroy anyone who gets in the way of their messiah:

A little after 1 p.m. on Sept. 29, 2009, Karl Frisch emailed a memo to his bosses, Media Matters for America founder David Brock and president Eric Burns. In the first few lines, Frisch explained why Media Matters should launch a “Fox Fund” whose mission would be to attack the Fox News Channel.

“Simply put,” Frisch wrote, “the progressive movement is in need of an enemy. George W. Bush is gone. We really don’t have John McCain to kick around any more. Filling the lack of leadership on the right, Fox News has emerged as the central enemy and antagonist of the Obama administration, our Congressional majorities and the progressive movement as a whole.”

“We must take Fox News head-on in a well funded, presidential-style campaign to discredit and embarrass the network, making it illegitimate in the eyes of news consumers.”

What Frisch proceeded to suggest, however, went well beyond what legitimate presidential campaigns attempt. “We should hire private investigators to look into the personal lives of Fox News anchors, hosts, reporters, prominent contributors, senior network and corporate staff,” he wrote.

After that, Frisch argued, should come the legal assault: “We should look into contracting with a major law firm to study any available legal actions that can be taken against Fox News, from a class action law suit to defamation claims for those wronged by the network. I imagine this would be difficult but the right law firm is bound to find some legal ground for us to take action against the network.”

Frisch went on to call for “an elaborate shareholder campaign” against News Corporation, the parent company of Fox News: “This can take many forms, from a front group of shareholders, to passing resolutions at shareholder meetings or massive demonstrations are [sic] shareholder meetings.”

We also find that this taxpayer-funded leftwing hit organization met routinely to coordinate with top-level White House officials such as Valerie Jarrett.  And that their propaganda was routinely picked up by major media sources such as MSNBC, the Washington Post, etc.  And if that isn’t enough, Obama has developed his own Ministry of Propaganda euphemistically called the “Truth Team” to do Obama’s billion-dollar-funded campaign bidding.

Obama is playing the most naked brand of divisive politics to pit – in purely socialist terms – one group against another while he has continually made false promises to poor people who frankly ought to know better by now.  He is promising people whatever it will take to ensure his re-election.

Obama demonically pitted women against Catholics in order to win the women’s vote by sacrificing the Catholics and forcing them to pay for “services” they have found morally reprehensible for one-and-a-half millennia.  That’s how he rolls.

I think back to some haunting words:

…..Any opposition to Hitler is ruthlessly eradicated. Tens of thousands are imprisoned. Journalist Stephan Laurent dared to criticize The Fuehrer…..

“I am writing this from cell 24. Outside a new Germany is being created. Many millions are rejoicing. Hitler is promising everyone precisely what they want. I think when they wake to their sobering senses, they will find they have been led by the nose and duped by lies.”

America will discover one day – especially if it re-elects this despot – that they voted for a truly evil man who did nothing but hurt them while constantly promising he would heal them.

Notre Dame Faculty Responds To Obama: ‘This Is a Grave Violation of Religious Freedom and Cannot Stand’

Let us simply call this what it is: it is a new front in a culture war for purely political reasons that Obama started on religion, religious freedom and the right to individual conscience.  It is the imposition of excessive and burdensome regulation from a government that has already repeatedly demonstrated that it is way out of control:

Notre Dame Faculty to Obama: ‘This Is a Grave Violation of Religious Freedom and Cannot Stand’
By Terence P. Jeffrey
February 12, 2012

(CNSNews.com) – Twenty-five Notre Dame faculty members–led by the university’s top ethics expert, and including some of the school’s most eminent scholars–have signed a statement declaring that President Barack Obama’s latest version of his administration’s mandate that all health insurance plans in the United States must cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives, including those that cause abortions, is “a grave violation of religious freedom and cannot stand.”

The statement—put out on the letterhead of the University of Notre Dame Law School–is also signed by leading scholars from other major American colleges and universities, including Princeton, Harvard, Stanford, Georgetown, Brigham Young, Yeshiva and Wheaton College.

Prof. Carter Snead, a professor of law at Notre Dame, was one of the lead organizers of the statement, which was published on his official law school letterhead. Notre Dame’s top ethics expert, Snead serves as director of the university’s Center for Ethics and Culture, a position to which he was appointed by Father John Jenkins, the president of Notre Dame.

In 2009, Father Jenkins awarded President Barack Obama an honorary Notre Dame law degree.

Some of the other distinguished Notre Dame faculty who signed the statement condemning Obama’s mandate are Prof. Patrick Griffin, chairman of Notre Dame’s History Department; Prof. Richard Garnett, an associate dean; John Cavadini, director of Notre Dame’s Institute for Church Life; Christian Smith, director of Notre Dame’s Center for the Study of Religion and Society; Prof. Paolo Carozza, director of Notre Dame’s Center for Civil and Human Rights; Prof. Philip Bess, Notre Dame’s Director of Graduate Studies; and Father Wilson Miscamble, a professor of history.

Other leading organizers of the letter included Prof. Robert George of Princeton and Prof. Mary Ann Glendon of Harvard Law School.

When Obama received his honorary degree at Notre Dame’s May 17, 2009, commencement, he vowed to respect the conscience rights of those who believe abortion is wrong.

“Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded not only in sound science, but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women,” said Obama. “Those are things we can do.”

Many Catholic bishops and lay leaders had criticized Notre Dame’s decision to grant Obama an honorary degree–pointing to his long-standing position in favor of legalized abortion on demand, which included going so far as to oppose a law in the Illinois state senate that would have simply said that a baby born alive in that state was entitled to the same rights under the U.S. Constitution as any other born “person.”

In their statement released late Friday, the 25 Notre Dame faculty members and the many other prominent scholars from other institutions who joined them said that Obama’s sterilization-contraception-abortifacient mandate–even with Obama’s proposed adjustments on Friday–remains an “assault on religious liberty and rights of conscience.”

“The administration will now require that all insurance plans cover (‘cost free’) these same products and services,” said the scholars. “Once a religiously-affiliated (or believing individual) employer purchases insurance (as it must, by law), the insurance company will then contact the insured employees to advise them that the terms of the policy include coverage for these objectionable things.

“This so-called ‘accommodation’ changes nothing of moral substance and fails to remove the assault on religious liberty and the rights of conscience which gave rise to the controversy,” they said. “It is certainly no compromise. The reason for the original bipartisan uproar was the administration’s insistence that religious employers, be they institutions or individuals, provide insurance that covered services they regard as gravely immoral and unjust. Under the new rule, the government still coerces religious institutions and individuals to purchase insurance policies that include the very same services.”

The statement also said that Obama’s latest iteration of the regulation is “an insult to the intelligence of Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Jews and Muslims” and “cannot stand.”

“The simple fact is that the Obama administration is compelling religious people and institutions who are employers to purchase a health insurance contract that provides abortion-inducing drugs, contraception, and sterilization,” the scholars said. “This is a grave violation of religious freedom and cannot stand. It is an insult to the intelligence of Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other people of faith and conscience to imagine that they will accept an assault on their religious liberty if only it is covered up by a cheap accounting trick.”

When you’ve got Harvard, Princeton and Standford agreeing with Catholic Notre Dame, it is rather glaringly obvious that Obama is just WRONG.

Let me provide a couple of illustrations as to “what an insult to the intelligence” of all concerned this truly is:

1) the Catholic League – very obviously a Catholic organization – is one such organization that will be required to purchase insurance coverage to provide “free” birth control, abortifacients and sterilizations.  Obama says the Catholic League won’t have to pay anything for this; rather the insurance company that represents them will.  But what insurance company is that?  It turns out that the health insurer of the Catholic League is Christian Brothers.  But guess what?  That is ALSO a Catholic organization.  So Catholics are STILL being forced to violate their consciences as Obama tramples all over their religious freedom.  But it won’t just be Christian Brothers who pays for this “:care”; Christian Brothers and the Catholic League share costs such that each pay a percentage of the burden.  So the Catholic League will STILL be compelled to pay for treatment it morally objects to on religious grounds that the Catholic Church has held for one thousand five hundred years.

Many religious – and particularly many CATHOLIC – organizations are self-insured.  So Obama is still demanding that the Catholic Church must pay for “care” it has never had to pay for before.  It’s just a bait-and-switch tactic for fools who love nothing more than having “their intelligence insulted” to make it appear that the Church isn’t under attack when in fact it clearly IS under attack.

2) Take the garden variety situation in which a Catholic organization is not self-insured or insured through another Catholic organization.  In this case, Obama is STILL a liar.  He claims:

“Religious organizations won’t have to pay for these services and no religious institution will have to provide these services directly.”

But they still have to pay for them INDIRECTLY.  And how is that anything other than a completely meaningless and arbitrary distinction???

Unless Obama is volunteering to take over the premiums of all the religious organization that he is imposing his new policy on, THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY FOR THIS REQUIREMENT.

Unlimited and unrestricted access to Birth control, abortifacients and sterilizations isn’t free just because Obama declares it by fiat.  Somebody still has to pay for it.  And it is beyond “magical thinking” to believe that the insurance companies won’t increase their premiums to reflect this new level of “care.”

This “accommodation” simply reveals that Obama is a truly dishonest weasel.

One last thing.  If you look at the way the mainstream media propaganda continually depicts this story, it is all about “preventative health care for women.”  This whole boondoggle is being imposed and packaged under the guise of “preventative health care.”  Well, it’s one thing to require an insurer to provide “preventative care” for issues such as the deadly disease of diabetes.  But when you use the same language to describe a human baby as you do a deadly disease, you have crossed the line into being genuinely morally sick.  That is NOT mainstream thinking; that is the thinking of the far radical feminist left that is being deceitfully repackaged into something that masquerades as mainstream thinking.

The other thing that is just beyond nauseating is that the left and their mainstream media allies continually depict this issue as a “birth control” issue as if this is the first time in the entire history of the republic that woman have ever had “access to birth control.”  That is obviously a red herring; rather, this is the first time ever that Catholics have been put in a position in which they had to sacrifice their religious beliefs and violate their consciences to provide something that has obviously been “widely available” for decades if not centuries in America.  It is a false facade, pure and simple.

I am not a Catholic.  I do not believe that providing birth control is evil (although I most certainly DO oppose abortion-inducing drugs as evil).  But the Catholic Church has consistently maintained their belief regarding birth control for 1,500 years.  It is simply stunning that a theology which has endured for a millennium and a half cannot survive the wickedness of one Barack Obama term of office.

How Barack Obama Made Me A Catholic

[Note: I began to write this the evening of February 9 but did not finish it.  By February 10 Obama had issued an incredibly deceitful “accommodation.”  I write about that here.]

When Ronald Reagan was shot and very nearly killed, he joked with the surgeons who saved his life, “I hope your all Republicans.”  And one surgeon responded, “Mr. President, today we’re ALL Republicans.”

Well, today I’m a Catholic.

Ordinarily I’m not.  I believe the Catholics have flaws in numerous aspects of their theology – with their theology on contraception being one of those flaws.

That said, I’ll fight to the death for the Catholics right to be wrong, and to hold on to beliefs which they have held for five hundred years.

Catholics believe it is a sin to use birth control.  It is one of their deeply held religious beliefs (did I mention they’ve held that for five hundred years?).  And Barack Obama wants to say to Catholics, “You do not have any religious freedom that I cannot trample upon; you WILL violate your religious beliefs or I will come after you.  Anything that disagrees with secular liberals and our ideology will simply not be tolerated.”

Why should I care if I’m not a Catholic?  Let’s ask Martin Niemöller:

“In Germany, they first came for the communists and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a communist,” said the Rev. Martin Niemöller. “Then they came for the Jews and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics. I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak up.”

The Rev. Niemöller spent time in one of the concentration camps.

Now they’re coming for the Catholics in America.  And all of a sudden I am one fired-up Catholic.  I am a Crusader ready to take the cross to defeat the worst infidel who has ever inhabited the White House.

Obama is going after the Catholics.  He’s already gone after any pro-life Christian who sought to use the conscientious objector clause to avoid being FORCED to perform abortions against his or her most deeply held religious beliefs.

A New York Post article from a couple of weeks ago begins:

Friday’s ruling by the Department of Health and Human Services proved yet again that ObamaCare’s critics are right. It’s a breathtaking attack not only on the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom, but also on the separation of church and state.
 
Kathleen Sebelius, the nominally Catholic HHS chief, bluntly informed religious medical institutions that offer services to the general public that she will indeed compel them to offer free birth control, sterilization and “morning after” pills as part of their employees’ health-care plans. They have exactly one year to get with the program or suffer the consequences.

That’s all their vehement objections to her August “guidelines” got them: “This additional year will allow these organizations more time and flexibility to adapt to this new rule,” read a department statement defending HHS’ insistence on what it euphemistically calls “preventive services.”

In other words, they have a year to figure out how to violate their religious beliefs and contravene church teaching. And if they choose to cancel their health-care plans rather than submit, they’ll incur a hefty annual fine under the tender mercies of ObamaCare.
 
Added bonus: This contemptuous slap at Catholicism and for mainstream Christianity in general comes wrapped in the guise of “compassion.”
 
Never mind that the administration just got its head handed to it by the Supreme Court over religious freedom. In a slam-dunk 9-0 vote, the justices this month slapped down Team Obama’s claim that it, not religious institutions, has the right to decide who qualifies for the “ministerial exception” to employment-discrimination laws.

Liberal and conservative justices alike rejected the Justice Department’s ludicrous argument that religious teachers are no different than, say, soda jerks.

And yet it’s right there in the first words of the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” had Attorney General Eric Holder’s ideologues bothered to look.
 
Now Sebelius follows up with more of the same. Conservatives have been howling for years about the left’s war on traditional faith, and now here it is in all its naked, unabashed glory.

Barack Obama is like a political Jason Voorhees who just keeps attacking decent people and religious values.  Knock him down and think you’ve taken him out of the fight and he will suddenly get right back up and start waging his evil war on religious and individual freedom all over again.

Liberals are trying to depict this as being all about “women’s health.”  As if taking all the hormones in birth control pills and losing the ability to have a period and increasing the likelihood of developing cancer are somehow “healthy.”

This isn’t about “women’s health.”  Unless the hateful liberal feminist notion that “pregnancy” is identical to a “disease” that must be cured at all costs is swallowed.

And just exactly WHOSE definition of “women’s health” are we talking about here, anyway?  Certainly not the Catholic Church’s.  And at this point I should state for the factual record that the Catholic Church was concerned about women’s health for about 1,500 years before American feminists were giving a damn about it.  To this day, 90 percent of the homeless shelters and facilities for the poor that we have in this country are religious in nature – and the Catholic Church runs a significant percentage of those facilities.  Why doesn’t their definition count one iota???

Other than the rabid intolerance of the left???

Again, this has nothing to do with “women’s health,” unless only radical liberal feminists abortionists are the only ones who get to “define” what “women’s health” means.

Jehmu Greene took that radical liberal feminist abortion ideology to entirely new levels of warped Thursday night on the Sean Hannity program when she actually lectured Andrea Tantaros that “If it wasnt for Birth Control, you wouldnt be sitting in that chair.”  As if somehow the only reason Andrea’s mother was able to conceive her was because she was taking something that was supposed to prevent Andrea from being conceived. 

Now, some might interpret Jehmu Greene’s “If it wasn’t for birth control you wouldn’t be here” remark to mean that if Andrea had gotten pregnant and had a baby that she couldn’t work.  But that is every bit as stupid as the above interpretation; most of the women who work at Fox News are MOTHERS.  Which is to say that, if anything, Andrea would be even MORE likely to be working for Fox News if she were a mother rather than less.

You’ve usurped enough of our freedoms Obama, you tyrant.  I stand for religious freedom; therefore I stand against you.

Let me provide an analogy of what the left is doing here.

Since only the left is able to define “women’s health,” let’s assume that the right acts with as much intolerance.

Numerous studies have indicated that religion makes people healthier.  So right wing conservatives will have the same justifications to ram religion down the nation’s throat that left wing liberals have used to ram secular humanism down the nation’s throat.  To wit, since religion is a “health issue,” Americans will be required to attend weekly religious services or pay a substantial fine (some Catholic institutions would be hit with fines in excess of $10 million, so that’s a good number to start with).

Of course, people can’t make their own choices regarding which religions or denominations they can attend.  Apart from the choice to kill babies, liberals despise choice.  Rather, the ObamaCare model shall be rigorously followed: Americans can choose from a list of approved Christian denominations provided by the Republican administration.

Oh, liberals are talking about the 1st Amendment and religious liberty?  Not to worry; Obama already crapped all over that.  Like liberals and abortion, that 1st Amendment baby is already dead.

Furthermore, did you know that there is inadequate access to Bibles?  And again, this is a health care issue, so the Republican government can regulate it.

Liberals shall henceforth be required to provide funding for Bibles so that every single American can have “access” to one.

What’s that?  Liberals say that Americans already have access to Bibles?  Well, of course they do – unless we think the same way liberals are thinking about birth control.  Of COURSE every American has easy access to birth control now.  GO TO A DRUG STORE OR A GROCERY STORE OR A WAL MART, ETC. ETC. ETC. THAT DOESN’T HAVE BIRTH CONTROL!!!!  But that clearly isn’t the issue; rather, the issue is about forcing people on the other side to pay for something they don’t want to subsidize.  And by that exact same standard liberals need to be forced to pay for Bibles so that everyone on the planet can have one in their hands.

See you in church.  Or I’ll see your check for $10 million.

That is what would happen if the right were anywhere even close as rabidly intolerant of individual freedom and constitutional guarantees as is the left.

Decent Americans who believe in their freedom as guaranteed by their Constitution are going to join devout Catholics and fight this evil.

Obama Announces Pseudo Birth Control Waiver On Top Of 1200 OTHER ObamaCare Waivers

One paragraph tells you how crazy this “accomodation” by Obama in forcing religious organizations to provide contraceptive and abortion-producing services even if their religious beliefs forbid such services:

The change would allow religious organizations to refuse to cover contraceptive care. It would also require insurers to offer a plan that does not include contraceptive care in their contracts with nonprofit religious groups. But the insurers would be required to make contraception available free of charge to women anyway.

So if you move the burden back one organizational level everything is okay?

Imagine if you are a manager at an organization such as the Catholic League.  According to Obama’s “accomodation” you are exempted – at least until after Obama gets re-elected when he’ll come after you with a vengeance for making him look bad.  But even though your health insurance provider is an organization that was created by the Catholic Church, it will NOT be exempted, so all of the Catholic employees at that insurer will still be required to violate their consciences or lose their jobs.  But meanwhile you over at the ostensibly exempted Catholic League will be required to tell all employees that they can get birth control and abortion-inducing services because they work for you.

Here’s another example: Holy Cross Hospital would still be required under ObamaCare to provide free access to birth control, abortion and sterilization which it believes is all morally evil.  They don’t have to do it “directly” by Obama’s “accomodation”; rather, they have to pay an insurance company to do provide those “mortal sins” for them.  Now, on Obama’s magical thinking, the insurance company is providing birth control, abortion and sterilazation for “free.”  But that is quite literally insane; of COURSE it won’t be for free.  The insurance company is going to increase Holy Cross’ premiums.  Which is to say that Holy Cross is still going to be forced to pay to provide “services” that they view as genuinely evil.

Here’s a description of the continuing moral dilemma that is the Obama presidency:

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a non-profit law firm that recently filed three lawsuits on behalf of Catholic institutions against the new contraception rules, has come out against the the administration’s compromise.

“This is a false ‘compromise’ designed to protect the Presiden’s re-election chances, not to protect the right of conscience,” Hannah Smith, an attorney for the group, said in a statement. “Hundreds, if not thousands, of religious institutions are still left out in the cold and will be forced to violate their religious convictions.”

The statement continued: “According to a White House statement, some religious employers will no longer be required to provide insurance coverage for contraception … However, at least three problems remain. First, hundreds if not thousands of religious organizations self insure, meaning that they will still be forced to pay for these services in violation of their religious beliefs. Second, it is unclear which religious organizations are permitted to claim the new exemption, and whether it will extend to for-profit organizations, individuals, or non-denominational organizations. Third, money is fungible, and many religious organizations may still object to being forced to pay money to an insurance company which will turn around and provide contraception to its employees for free.”

Obama, ever the perennial political weasel, said this:

I understand some folks in Washington want to treat this as another political wedge issue. But it shouldn’t be. I certainly never saw it that way,” Obama said. “This is an issue where people of good will on both sides of the debate have been sorting through some very complicated questions.”

See?  Obama is giving his far-left base exactly what they want while he further divides the country with still another wedge issue.  But there’s absolutely nothing political about that.

This facade is an outgrowth of what überliberal Newsweek editor Evan Thomas said about Obama’s style of governance:

“I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God.”

And of course is God really political partisan???  Of course not.  Your god Obama would never do anything that might even hint at merely mortal politics.

The New York Times expressed this facade thus:

WASHINGTON — At the core of Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is a promise that he can transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars and build a new governing majority.

To achieve the change the country wants, he says, “we need a leader who can finally move beyond the divisive politics of Washington and bring Democrats, independents and Republicans together to get things done.”

The bare-naked truth is that Obama has been cynically running for re-election since the day he got elected.  This low-brow Chicago thug politician has amassed a $1 BILLION political warchest to acheive that end.  And simply consider the “core promise” of the Obama campaign that he would “transcend” Republican-Democrat politics, that he would “end the partisan and ideological wars,” that he would “move beyond the divisive politics of Washington,” that he would “bring Democrats, independents and Republicans together.”  And think about what Obama is doing right now.

And realize that this incredibly cynical liar is the most evil man who has ever held the office of the presidency of the United States.

We have never seen a more blatantly cynical political whore than Barack Obama.  And the formerly most liberal Senator in the United States is rightly THE most divisive president we have ever had.

ObamaCare is blatantly godawful and profoundly unconstitutional.  The Obama administration has already handed out more than 1,200 waivers to say, “You won’t have to do what Obama is going to force every other American to do.”