The Pope Vs. Obama: One Of These Men Is A Liar Without Shame (Dishonest Liberal Pseudo-Journalism Completely Ignores Story)

This would be a funny one, if it wasn’t so tragic and so revealing as to the dishonest character of Barack Obama and the dishonesty of liberal “journalism.”

Barack Obama requested a meeting with popular Pope Francis, hoping to ride the coat tails of the popular pope.

But it turns out the two men were never in the same room, in terms of the accounts of the talk.  One of them was in his own head with demons swirling around screaming at him and couldn’t hear a word the other said.

The über-über -liberal Los Angeles Times says Obama is their messiah-pharaoh-god-king and is incapable of deceit.  So here is their account of the story highlighted on the front page of the main section of the paper:

“Sharing hopes for the poor: At the Vatican, Obama’s first-ever meeting with Pope Francis focused on the marginalized”

The subheadline on the story on page A2 reads, “President and Pope Francis meet at the Vatican,  and mostly avoid the subject of U.S. bishops angry about ObamaCare..”

What is interesting about that subheading is that it is nothing more than the official propaganda of Obama and totally ignores the Pope’s own account of the meeting.  If you read the story carefully, you never get any sense or idea that there were two accounts of what happened.  There is only “Obama’s account” because Obama is everything to liberals and the sole arbiter of reality and morality and decency and deity.  And the Pope is merely a human mouthpiece for a false god.

The Washington Times reports (the actual story:

Only God knows for sure: Obama, pope differ on accounts of ‘social schisms’ talk
By Dave Boyer – The Washington Times
Thursday, March 27, 2014

President Obama’s first meeting with Pope Francis produced a little schism of its own.

The Vatican and White House gave starkly different versions Thursday of Mr. Obama’s meeting with Francis.

The president’s account downplayed the Catholic Church’s concerns about religious freedom in the United States and Obamacare’s mandate to pay for contraception.

The pontiff and the president were cordial in the televised portions of their meeting, but a subtle competition to set the agenda played out after the meeting, which went well beyond its scheduled half-hour.

“We actually didn’t talk a whole lot about social schisms in my conversations with His Holiness,” Mr. Obama said at a press conference in Rome. “In fact, that really was not a topic of conversation.”

Mr. Obama deflected a reporter’s question about the extent of his discussion with the pope on the contraceptive mandate by saying that Francis “actually did not touch in detail” on the subject. The administration has been locked in a lengthy legal and political battle with the U.S. Catholic Church hierarchy over Obamacare and issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage.

The Vatican, however, issued a statement after the meeting saying the president’s discussions with Francis and two other top Vatican officials focused “on questions of particular relevance for the [Catholic] Church in [the United States], such as the exercise of the rights to religious freedom, life and conscientious objection” — issues that have fueled divisions between Mr. Obama and the church.

Although Mr. Obama wanted to highlight his bond with Francis over questions of economic inequality and helping the poor, Obamacare’s mandate for employers to pay for birth control gained more attention.

The president clearly wanted to benefit from the global popularity of the pope. Their meeting was a highlight of Mr. Obama’s foreign trip that ends Friday in Saudi Arabia, but it was at an awkward time for the president.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the Affordable Care Act’s mandate requiring for-profit employers of a certain size to offer insurance benefits that cover birth control and other reproductive health services without a co-pay. Some employers object to the mandate on the grounds that it violates their religious beliefs.

On Barack Obama’s account, the Pope couldn’t care less about the fact that Obama is daily pissing in the eye of Catholicism while trying to gouge OUT the eyes of religious freedom altogether.

So who is the moral leader telling the truth and who is the dishonest Antichrist politician????  Hmmmm.  Boy is that one ever a head scratcher.  Until you realize…

One of these men isn’t running for anything; the other one is a pure politician who is desperately trying to save his political party from being held accountable for their evil in an election that is less than eight months away.

It is also worth considering that Barack Obama, with his incessant lie caught on video at LEAST 37 times.  He is THE most documented liar who ever lived on planet earth, bar none.  Adolf Freaking Hitler was not caught in so many lies as Obama has been caught in.

So if you have any decency, you know which of these men is lying.

The problem is that if you have any decency, you have NOTHING to do with the Democrat Party.

The Democrat Party has murdered well over 55 innocent million human beings.  Democrats are now more than five times more murderous than the Nazis – who “only” murdered 11 million in the Holocaust.

The Democrat Party is the Party of the Wrath of God according to Romans Chapter One.  Their worship of homosexual sodomy is the complete destruction of America, plain and simple.

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.

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 In Truly Deep Doggy-Do Following His Hateful Attack On Religious Freedom As Even LIBERAL Catholics Recognize He Is A Truly Evil Man

a religious tradition and moral value system that has endured for five hundred years be trampled upon at Barack Obama’s whim?  Should the First Amendment be thrown out along with the rest of our Constitution that liberal judges like Ruth Bader Ginsburg believe is completely obsolete?  Should anyone have the freedom of conscience in America?

Should being slammed by the Supreme Court 9-0 for yet another Obama attack against religion stop a truly demon-possessed man from continuing his war on religion and moral values???  This is now the fourth time Barack Obama has fundamentally attacked religion and religious freedom in America.

If you are a Catholic or ANY person of any religious belief whose belief has ever run afoul of the State, Barack Obama is graciously giving you the “freedom” to shut up and comply.

I post this from a “liberal” “Democrat” Catholic who says there is no way he can vote for Obama in good conscience again:

J’ACCUSE! Why Obama is wrong on the HHS conscience regulations
by Michael Sean Winters on Jan. 21, 2012 Distinctly Catholic

President Barack Obama lost my vote yesterday when he declined to expand the exceedingly narrow conscience exemptions proposed by the Department of Health and Human Services. The issue of conscience protections is so foundational, I do not see how I ever could, in good conscience, vote for this man again.

I do not come at this issue as a Catholic special pleader, who wants only to protect my own, although it was a little bracing to realize that the president’s decision yesterday 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 to be Catholic in ways that are important to us. Nor, frankly, do I come at the issue as an anti-contraception zealot: I understand that many people, and good Catholics too, reach different conclusions on the matter although I must say that Humanae Vitae in its entirety reads better, and more presciently, every year.

No, I come at this issue as a liberal and a Democrat and as someone who, until yesterday, generally supported the President, as someone who saw in his vision of America a greater concern for each other, a less mean-spirited culture, someone who could, and did, remind the nation that we are our brothers’ keeper, that liberalism has a long vocation in this country of promoting freedom and protecting the interests of the average person against the combined power of the rich, and that we should learn how to disagree without being disagreeable. I defended the University of Notre Dame for honoring this man, and my heart was warmed when President Obama said at Notre Dame: “we must find a way to reconcile our ever-shrinking world with its ever-growing diversity — diversity of thought, diversity of culture, and diversity of belief. In short, we must find a way to live together as one human family.”

To borrow from Emile Zola: J’Accuse!

I accuse you, Mr. President, of dishonoring your own vision by this shameful decision.

I accuse you, Mr. President, of failing to live out the respect for diversity that you so properly and beautifully proclaimed as a cardinal virtue at Notre Dame. Or, are we to believe that diversity is only to be lauded when it advances the interests of those with whom we agree? That’s not diversity. That’s misuse of a noble principle for ignoble ends.

I accuse you, Mr. President, of betraying philosophic liberalism, which began, lest we forget, as a defense of the rights of conscience. As Catholics, we need to be honest and admit that, three hundred years ago, the defense of conscience was not high on the agenda of Holy Mother Church. But, we Catholics learned to embrace the idea that the coercion of conscience is a violation of human dignity. This is a lesson, Mr. President, that you and too many of your fellow liberals have apparently unlearned.

I accuse you, Mr. President, who argued that your experience as a constitutional scholar commended you for the high office you hold, of ignoring the Constitution. Perhaps you were busy last week, but the Supreme Court, on a 9-0 vote, said that the First Amendment still means something and that it trumps even desirable governmental objectives when the two come into conflict. Did you miss the concurring opinion, joined by your own most recent appointment to the court, Justice Kagan, which stated:

“Throughout our Nation’s history, religious bodies have been the preeminent example of private associations that have ‘act[ed] as critical buffers between the individual and the power of the State.’ Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 619 (1984). In a case like the one now before us—where the goal of the civil law in question, the elimination of discrimination against persons with disabilities, is so worthy—it is easy to forget that the autonomy of religious groups, both here in the United States and abroad, has often served as a shield against oppressive civil laws. To safeguard this crucial autonomy, we have long recognized that the Religion Clauses protect a private sphere within which religious bodies are free to govern themselves in accordance with their own beliefs. The Constitution guarantees religious bodies ‘independence from secular control or manipulation—in short, power to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of church government as well as those of faith and doctrine.’ Kedroff v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church in North America, 344 U.S. 94, 116 (1952).”

Pray, do tell, Mr. President, what part of that paragraph did you consider when making this decision? Or, do you like having your Justice Department having its hat handed to it at the Supreme Court?

I accuse you, Mr. President, as leader of the Democratic Party, the primary vehicle for historic political liberalism in this country, of risking all the many achievements of political liberalism, from environmental protection to Social Security to Medicare and Medicaid, by committing a politically stupid act. Do you really think your friends at Planned Parenthood and NARAL were going to support the candidacy of Mr. Romney or Mr. Gingrich? How does this decision affect the prospects of Democrats winning back the House in districts like Pennsylvania’s Third or Ohio’s First or Virginia’s Fifth districts? How do your chances look today among Catholic swing voters in Scranton and the suburbs of Cincinnati and along the I-4 corridor in Florida? I suppose that there are campaign contributions to consider, but really, sacrificing one’s conscience, or the conscience rights of others, was not worth Wales, was it worth a few extra dollars in your campaign coffers?

I accuse you, Mr. President, of failing to know your history. In 1978, the IRS proposed a rule change affecting the tax exempt status of private Christian schools. The rule would change the way school verified their desegregation policies, putting the burden of proof on the school, not the IRS. By 1978, many of those schools were already desegregated, even though they had first been founded as a means to avoid desegregation of the public schools. But evangelical Christians did not look kindly on the government’s interference in schools they had built themselves and, even though the IRS rescinded the rule change, the original decision was the straw the broke the camel’s back for those who wished to separate themselves from mainstream culture. They formed the Moral Majority, entered that mainstream culture, and helped the Republican Party win the next three presidential elections. You, Mr. President, have struck that same nerve. Catholics built their colleges and universities and hospitals. They did so out of religious conviction and, as often as not, because mainstream institutions did not welcome Catholics. It is one thing to support a policy with which the Catholic Church disagrees but it is quite another to start telling Catholics how to run their own institutions.

I accuse you, Mr. President, of treating shamefully those Catholics who went out on a limb to support you. Do tell, Mr. President, how many bullets have the people at Planned Parenthood taken for you? Sr. Carol Keehan, Father Larry Snyder, Father John Jenkins, these people have scars to show for their willingness to work with you, to support you on your tough political fights. Is this the way you treat people who went to the mat for you?

Zola, of course, wrote his famous essay in response to the Dreyfuss affair. Then, the source of injustice was anti-Semitic bigotry. Today, while I cannot believe that the President himself is an anti-Catholic bigot, he has caved to those who are. In politics, as in life, we are often known by the company we keep. Hmmmm. Sr. Carol Keehan, a woman who has dedicated her life and her ministry to help the ill and the aged or the fundraisers and the lobbyists at NARAL? Is that really a tough call? I have not joined the chorus of those who believe that this administration is “at war” with the Catholic Church. Yet, I must confess, when I first learned the new yesterday, an image came into my head, of Glenn Close and John Malkovich in “Dangerous Liaisons” when Ms. Close looks at Mr. Malkovich and says, “War!” That said, while not wishing to detract one iota from the gravity of this decision, the bishops are well advised not to read more into this than is there. It is a shameful decision to be sure, but it is not the end of the world and war is a thing to be avoided whenever and however possible.

Some Catholics have sought to defend the President, to hope that there might be some silver lining in the decision, to argue that because many Catholics use contraception, or because some states already mandate this kind of coverage, this decision is really no big deal. The fact that there is much to defend in the President’s record does not mean that anyone need defend everything in that record, especially something as indefensible as this decision. And, it is a mistake of analysis to see this as a decision about contraception. The issue here is conscience.

Some commentators, including those in the comment section on my post yesterday, have charged that people like me, Catholics who have been generally supportive of the President, were duped, that we should confess our sins of political apostasy, and go rushing into the arms of a waiting GOP. I respectfully decline the indictment and, even more, the remedy. Nothing that happened yesterday made the contemporary GOP less mean-spirited, or more inclined to support the rights of our immigrant brothers and sisters, or less bellicose in their approach to foreign affairs, or more concerned about the how the government can and should alleviate poverty. It is also worth noting that the night before the decision, Mr. Gingrich said that he would halt the U.S. Justice Department’s suit against the State of Alabama regarding that state’s new anti-immigration law, a law that raises exactly the same kind of issues of religious liberty and the rights of conscience as are raised by the HHS decision. Religious liberty cuts both ways. Nor, is religious liberty the only issue. Voters should still consider how candidates for the presidency are likely to address a host of issues. As for myself, I could not, in good conscience, vote for any of the current Republicans seeking the presidency.

But, yesterday, as soon as I learned of this decision, I knew instantly that I also could not, in good conscience, ever vote for Mr. Obama again. I once had great faith in Mr. Obama’s judgment and leadership. I do not retract a single word I have written supporting him on issues like health care reform, or bringing the troops home from Iraq, or taking aggressive steps to halt the recession and turn the economy around. I will continue to advocate for those policies. But, I can never convince myself that a person capable of making such a dreadful decision is worthy of my respect or my vote.

Even if Obama manages to squirm out of this one, you need to realize that all it will take is an election to enable him to impose his attack on religious values once again.

Catholics represent one out of every four voters in America; they have voted for the winner in every single presidential election going back decades.  And nothing would be more appropriate for Obama to be thrown out of office as an intolerant religious bigot and an enemy of the American Constitution that he has so often trampled upon.

Obama says, “You have the right to believe whatever I tell you is right to believe and you have the right to do whatever I force you to do.”

This is the religious variation of taxes: In regard to religion, Obama believes that the State triumphs over ALL religious institutions and ALL individual moral conscience, and it is right for you to do whatever the State dictates.  In regard to taxes, Obama believes the State owns you and owns everything you earn, and you are allowed to keep only that which the State allows you to keep.

I have been saying it ever since I first heard the vile and incredibly evil revelations from Obama’s “reverend” and “spiritual leader” for over twenty years: Barack Obama is a truly evil man.

This is God damn America.  And it will continue to remain God damn America until this disgrace to decency is thrown out of office.

The beast is coming.  And Barack Hussein Obama has done everything he possibly could do to prepare the way for his master the Antichrist.

Why Aren’t The Ground Zero Mosque ‘Religious Freedom’ Liberals Celebrating The Koran Burning?

Better put your mats down.

Not your Muslim prayer mat, but your roll-on-the ground-laughing-at-liberals mat.

Mocking liberals for their massive hypocrisy can be a dangerous sport; you don’t want to hurt yourself laughing at them by falling on the hard ground.  Take precautions.

We’ve been told by the American left – including Obama – over and over and over again that the Ground Zero mosque issue was a “religious rights” issue.  You may or may not like what the Cordoba Initiative is doing building a mosque as close as possible to Ground Zero, but they have the right to do it, and if you don’t celebrate their “religious freedom,” you’re a bigot.

Conservatives have been saying over and over again that it isn’t and never was about “religious rights” or “religious freedom.”  We’ve said that we recognize that they’ve got the right to build; but that just because you’ve got the right to do something doesn’t mean you should do it.

I wrote this the last time I dealt with this issue:

This isn’t about freedom of religion, and it isn’t about the Constitution.  It’s about right and wrong.

Let me give you an example of what I’m saying.  In this country, I have every right to go into a black establishment and repeatedly shout the N-word at the top of my lungs.  I have the right to go into a black church wearing a white robe and a white pointy hat.  But I shouldn’t do it.  And all rights aside, I’m profoundly wrong if I do do it.

On the Democrats’ morally idiotic defense of the mosque, the fact that the Muslims have a right to build it means therefore ergo sum that they should build it, and that anyone who disagrees is “intolerant” or is violating the Constitutional rights of the Muslims.

But that is every bit as stupid as my walking down the street pointing out every single black person and shouting the N-word, and then telling anyone who criticizes me for doing it that they are enemies of the Constitution.

And, of course, the only reason I’m wearing that white robe and that pointy hat is for “community outreach.”  You see, I want to create a “racial dialogue.”

So how DARE you criticize me.  Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ll put my pointy hood back on and be on my way.  I have some black people to go shout at.

But the left were too fundamentally morally stupid to understand that.  Teaching liberals good ethics is like teaching cockroaches differential equations; they’re just not very good pupils.

An all-too-typical liberal moral moron wrote in the Huffington Post:

“The core American ideal of religious freedom has been put at risk…  These protests, diatribes, and campaigns against Park51 violate the ideals of religious freedom to which our country has long aspired.”

And then he proceeds to lecture us on the First Amendment.

Which is exactly what the Ground Zero mosque protest isn’t about, of course.

I will be looking forward to reading this guy’s column angrily demanding that we all support Pastor Terry Jones’ Koran burning day and lecture the left that if they don’t support it, they are all a bunch of religious bigots and freedom-hating anti-Constitutionalists.  But I’m not holding my breath.

Because I’d pass out.  And probably miss my roll-on-the ground-laughing-at-liberals mat.

Sarah Palin Twittered her view that the Ground Zero mosque should be moved because it represented an “unnecessary provocation” that “stabs hearts,” and that it should be rejected by Muslims “in the interest of healing.”  And the despicable, vile left demonized her for it, and made her “the face of intolerance” for taking a very legitimate moral stand.

Now we’ve got Pastor Terry Jones and his in-your-face Koran burning day.  And what are the left saying but that it is an “unnecessary provocation” that “stabs hearts” and should be rejected by Christians “in the interest of healing.”

Because hypocrisy defines the left; it is what they are to the core of their shriveled souls.

Where’s Obama to endorse the controversial plan to burn Korans? Where is that little weasel now to tell us “that a nation built on religious freedom must allow it”?  I want our moral coward in chief to be consistent for just once in his life.

And where’s the ACLU flocking to Florida and making sure nobody interferes with Pastor Terry Jones and his team of Koran burners?  I mean, my Lord, these people celebrated the rights of Nazis to march through a town filled with Nazi Holocaust death camp survivors.  With that kind of company, can’t they give a Koran-burner just a little love?

This nutjob Pastor Terry Jones has a tiny little congregation of just 50 lunatics.  And yet the way the Obama administration is going after them, you’d think they were the ones who were way ahead of schedule developing the nuclear bomb, rather than Iran.

Attorney General Eric Holder is calling the Koran burning “idiotic and dangerous.”  But this same slimeball was out with the rest of the left celebrating the Muslims’ right to build that Ground Zero mosque which was the VERY DAMN THING that provoked this pastor to start showing that Korans burn at Fahrenheit 451.

Why does the left only care about the feelings and fear the provoking of Muslims?  Maybe if they had a functioning brain cell they’d think twice about that idiocy.

Hillary Clinton and her State Department went even farther, calling American citizens “un-American” for their participation in this exercise of the same religious freedoms and First Amendment rights they were celebrating when Muslims were sticking their thumbs in Americans’ eyes.

General Petraeus found it necessary to tell us that this act could provoke a response against our soldiers.  But where was either he or anyone anywhere on the left worrying that the Muslim Ground Zero mosque could provoke a response by Americans, and that it therefore it shouldn’t be built there?

And just who is more depraved and intolerant: the guy who burns a Koran, or the guy who commits an act or mass acts of murder because someone burned a book?

I don’t doubt that Petraeus is right, that the Koran burning would incite terrorists.  But on the other hand, you kind of have to laugh at this line of reasoning, too.  I can just see Al Qaeda saying, “We only kind of hated Americans when we flew passenger planes into their biggest buildings and murdered 3,000 of them.  But now we REALLY hate them!”

In all actuality, the fact that we’re worried about what Muslims will likely do just goes to demonstrate that the actual intolerant people are the very Muslims that the left has so ardently supported.  And if they’re as violent and evil as the left are now warning us about due to this Koran burning, then maybe we shouldn’t be encouraging these people to come to our country and burn mosques as close as possible to a Muslim act of mass murder just 10 years ago.

For the record, I think this Pastor and his “flock” are profoundly wrong for burning Korans.  Because – unlike the liberals, I am actually consistent.  I think it is wrong for Muslims to build a mosque right next to Ground Zero because it was nothing more than a provocation that resolves nothing, and I think this Koran burning would be a provocation that resolves nothing.

I don’t mind being labeled as “anti-Islam,” because I don’t believe for a second that “Islam is a religion of peace.”  It is, rather, a religion that boasts, “We will win, because we love death more  than you love life.”  But I am most definitely NOT anti-Muslim.  I’ve talked with quite a few Muslims, and generally found them engaging and polite.  If I saw a Muslim being assaulted I would come to his or her aid and help.  And if I saw a Muslim’s property being vandalized I would call the police.

I think Islam is evil, and I believe that we should document its evil teachings and its evil deeds.  But I don’t think that we should just insult Muslims with meaningless symbolic gestures merely for the sake of provoking them.  Which is why I earlier called Terry Jones a “nutjob” and his congregation “lunatics.”

On the other hand, the one thing Terry Jones and his band are accomplishing is demonstrating how vile liberals and most Democrats are.

Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Attorney General Eric Holder, New York Maybor Bloomberg, and many other liberals have endorsed and supported the Ground Zero mosque.  And now they have now provoked at least one man (and probably others) to commit outrageous acts.  Americans overwhelmingly oppose this provocation.

Liberals are hypocrites to argue that the provocative Ground Zero mosque is a legitimate exercise of religious freedom and First Amendment rights, but that the provocative Koran Burning day is not.  And they are moral cowards for cheering the mosque which deliberately provokes Americans, but crying over the provocation of Muslims via the Koran burning.

If you support the Ground Zero mosque, I hope you support the Koran burning with every bit as much zeal.  But personally, I think you’re a moral idiot.

P.S. Speaking of true moral idiocy in the most blatantly morally idiotic sense of the word, Hillary Clinton’s State Department just came out with the following statemen comparing Pastor Terry Jones with the 9/11 terrorists:

“We hope that between now and Saturday, there’ll be a range of voices across America that make clear to this community that this is not the way for us to commemorate 9/11. In fact, it is consistent with the radicals and bigot – with those bigots who attacked us on 9/11.”

Only a liberal could be so profoundly stupid and fundamentally depraved to compare burning some books to murdering 3,000 innocent human beings.

Martha Coakley’s Brazen Violation Of The Civil Rights Act

Newsflash: the Civil Rights Act actually protects some groups that the left despise.

Oh, well.  Civil Rights, Cybil bites.  Who cares about the civil rights of religious people?

Martha Coakley apparently hates Catholics, unless they happen to be pedophile priests, in which case they’re okay.

Democrats can easily screw over any class of people they don’t like (like white men, rich people, non-union workers, religious people, and babies for starters).  Because their view is that government giveth rights, and government can taketh away rights whenever it wants.

The following YouTube clip is shocking audio of Massachusetts Attorney General and U.S. Senate candidate, Martha Coakley, arrogantly informing Catholics (and, by extension, other Christian believers who might wish to exercise their religious rights of conscience), “You can have religious freedom, you probably shouldn’t work in the emergency room.”

Attorney General Coakley, with all due respect to her office, is wrong. Her statement mischaracterizes the law and, if applied, would amount to unlawful religious discrimination. Religious freedom means much more than believers merely being free to voluntarily segregate themselves from certain professions (especially the caring professions which are so often reflective of the very essence of religious faith).

Under Title VII of the U.S. Civil Rights Act, employers are prohibited from discriminating against individuals because of their religion in hiring, firing and other terms and conditions of employment. This means employers cannot treat you any less favorably because of your religious beliefs or practices, nor can they force you to stop participating in religious activities as a condition of your employment. And this means emergency rooms cannot discriminate against practicing Catholics or others who hold religious values.

That’s okay.  Martha Coakely has already vowed to ignore the Constitution and vote for a profoundly unconstitutional ObamaCare boondoggle that forces Americans to purchase insurance whether they want to or not in a blatant expansion of raw government power.  Why should she worry about an insignificant little detail like the Civil Rights Act?

Or maybe she’s going to tell us that she didn’t SEE the violations of the Civil Rights Act and the Constitution, the way she lyingly claimed she didn’t see her goon violating the civil rights of a reporter who tried to ask her a question about her being in bed with health care lobbyists.