Obvama, in his favorite role as Liar-in-chief, LIED. No this is-yet again--not a matter of opinion. Obama has just PROVEN that he LIED. But he does not caree, because he doesnot think he will be "called out" on it by the GOP ort he American peole. I hope hhe is wrong on that, because the OBAMA LIES are fudnamental to our identity as a natioin with a Consitutinally LIMITED goverfnment (the Federal Government).
I am talking aoubt hs flap over the attempt by Obama to FORCEW religious organizations to provide their emplyees with "coverage" (either directly or through insurance) that GUARANTGEES "free" "contraceptive" (including early ABORTION through th e"morning after pll"). No co-pay.
No. I am sorry. This is NOT a matter mainly of religiouis freedom. That is merely a POLITICAL grab for votres by clueless GOP politicians. This is all about FREEDOM, and the Constitutional limits of the Federal Government. Forget religion, which is merely a red herring here (even if it does bring in votes for politicians to concentrate on that angle--or so thye think). Just where in the Consitution does it give Obama (or Congress, how passed a bill giving UNLIMITED power over the health industry to the executive, as Obama has now made clear--making himself out a LIAR in the process). the POWER to tell privatge employers EXACT
Not convinced? It gets worse. Obama, in 'reonse" to the outcry over his OVERREACHING--making it obvoius that he was asserting the right to fully CONTROL our health care system, has now said that he is "accommodating" religious groups by merely ORDERING the entire health insurance industry to offer free"conraceptive" care (including, as stated, abortion inducing pills) as part of EVERY health insurance olicy issued in this country No wonder Planned Parenthood APPLAUDED this "ordere". It represents a further POLITICAL PAYOOF to Planned Parenthood, which gets a further source of indirect government funding (not even that indiret, as the government provided insurance for "poorer" people will ALL include this "free" coverfag--no co-pay even). In other words, Palnned Parenthood is even being PREFERRED to CANCER DOCTORS. That actually represents accurately tghe priorities of Obama and leftist Democrats. But this is no more about aborttion and Planned Parenthood than it is about religon. This is about POWER, and the breathtaking asseriton by Obama that he has the POWER to ORDER the entire health care industry; the entire health insurance industry; and the all employers to do what Obama WANTS (whether for his reelection or because he believes in thises things--probably both). Obama, in contrast to what he was saying when ObamaCare was passed, is now saying that he has UNLIMITED POWER over the health care system in this nation, with the power to ORDER health insurance companies, health care providers, AND emplyers to do exactly what Obama wants. I you do not see how this is an invasion of FREEDOM--a violation of the very principles upon thishc this country was founded--then there is no hope for you. This should SCARE you. It ALMOST scares me eough to vote for a GOP establishment canddiate like Romney jsut to gett rid of this megalomanic we now have as President (not to mention a sociopathic liar). In case you have any doubt, by the way, I DID jsut call our President UNAMERICAN, and I stand by it. This is the most Un-American approraiton of power I have ever seen.
Death pnaels? Why not? Or, rather, who needs theem. Obama has jsut ASSESRTED the POWER to INSTRUCT insurance companies what to "cover" and what not to "cover"--alng with the POWWER to insruct employers and health care providers. This is UNLIMITED poer that makes a mockery of the claim that we have a "limited" Feeral Government. My 89 year old other, for whom FDR was the hero of her youth and her ideal as a politician, Barack Obama wants to be a DICTATOR. She has held that positon long before this latest atrocity. My mother has been proven RIGHT. Obama ahas the mind and soul of a central planning, un-American DICTATOR--not to mention an economic fascist (see previous article). It is FREEDOM that is at stake her, NOT jsut "religious freedom". My mother is convinced Obama is out to KILL her, because ObamaCare cannot afford to keep here alive. Besides, she seees Obama PREFERRING contraception, and Planned Parenthood, to other ofroms of health care. Who is to say my motehr is wrong? Obama is asseriting the POWER to do exactly what my mother thinks he is trying to do to her. (No, by the wya, I do not encourage my mother to belivve that Obama is NOW out to kll her--although I do believe that Obama, or peole like him, will get there.). If Obama puts in a REGULATION that insurance companies are not allowed to "cover" ANY "invasive" treatement for peole 80 years of age and above, is Obama not asserting the OWER to do exactly that? Sure he is. Sure, you can assert taht Obama would never be this obvious, because he wants the votges. That just means that this dishonest man would have to be DSISHONEST (as he really has been on these particular regulations in isssue). Obama would have to figure out a ay to conceal exactly what he is doing.
Let us go to "freedomof conscience"--or just plain freedom I am an agnostic, as readers of this blog know (raised Presbyterian, and NOT Catholic). Yet, I am as much opposed to abortion (although not contraceptives which are not abortion inducing morning after pills) as ANY Catholic (includng the Pope). No. I do not favor abortion in cases of rape or "incest" (inclusin of which always puzzles me), just as I do not fovor INFANTICIDE in cases of rape and incest. I do faovr abortion to save the life of the mother, or deal with large risk to her physical life, which may be VERY slightly lesss anti-abortion thaan the Pope. What is the pont? No, the point is not to argue abortio in this article. The pont is that I regard abortion as a from of INFANTICIDE. I--as a plaintiffs' tril lawyer for more than 30 years--was an EMPLOYER for most of that time. Explan to me WHY the Federal Government hs the POWER to tell me I MUST provide health coverage for a from of aborton, or even for contraception (despite my having no qualms about pre-sex contraception)? Look at what Obama is dong!!!! He is saying that there MUST be NO DEDUCTIBLE on contraception, and it MUST be covered. Waht if I, as an emplyer, belive that is NOT the coverage I awant? As stated above, Obama has certainly made a MOCKERY of the idea that you can "keep" your present coverage. HE LIED. But it is absolutley insane, and a viiolation of FREEDOM, for a CENTRAL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (essentially ONE MAN) to tell ME, as an emplyerf, exaclty what coverage, deductibles and co-pay I have to have. And Obama is ORDERING the insurance compnies to ONLYU offer policies that HE APPROVES. Again, this is INSANE. It is not even defensible. I would hope that NO supporter of Ron Paul could ever vote for this man (me not exaclty being a supporter of Ron Paul, having endorsed Santorum, but having correclty said that Ron Paul is the ONLY other politican for whom I can votae for President). Again, jsut consider what Obama is claiming. He is claiming that he--his Administration following his orders--can ORDER exactly what is covered, and wht is not covered, by health insurance in this country. If this is not a Federal Government "takeover" of our health insurance system, and really our entire health care system, then the word has no meaning.
Again, consider MY "conscience". As an emplyer, who considers aboriton to be infanticide, why should the Federal Government be able to FORCE me to provide insurance coveratgge for something my conscience finds so abhorrent? For that matter, as stated, if i belive that the best "bang for the buck" health insurance either does not provide contraceptive coverage, or provides a deductible for it, why should the Federal Government have the POWER to overrule my judgment? Again, the Federal Government (unlike states, except as specifically limited by the Cnstitution) is supposed to be a government of LIMITED POWER. This is UNLIMITED POER to control the very essence of yoru lives and consineces. The thing abut sates is that it is EASY to fight battles on a state level to CHANGE things. At worst, you can move to another state. The Federal Government is a CENTGRAL government controlled by ONE MAN (especially when that man deliberately gets Congress to pass a bill that he will say give him UNLIMITED POWE). That potential for destorying freedom is why the Federal Government was supposed to be agovernment of limited powers. If Obama gets away with this (talking aobut ObamaCare, and not his DISHONEST "compromise"), then our system of government (as set up by the Founders) no longer exists. Oh, yes. Obama is FORCING taxpayers to pay for exactly the insurance coerage HE is gong to "guarantee" to pporer peole--no more and no less. Again, that is insane. I KNOW that it is the Medicare system (actually a problem with the Medicare system, especiallly under someone like Obama), but htat does not mean we should ABOLISH FREEDOM for everyone. Even Medicare does not purport to DEMAND that health care providers honor it, or that PRIVATE insurance companies involuntariyly provide OBAMA APPROVED coerage in private health insurance politices. Nope. I stand by what I have said. this is the WORST, most UNAMBERICAN power grab in the history of this country. And it has little to do with "religious" freedom. As stated, why is MY conscience less subject to being outraged than that of Caholics? My knowledge of suppsed "Caholics" like Nancy Pelosi would indicate that MY principles are much stronger than many of theirs. No. This is jsut not about religion. It is, however, about FREEDOM.
I heard that some of those attorneys general who are suing to have the health care bill (ObamaCare) declared unconstitutional are planning another lawusit based on religious freedom. That is a MISTAKE--except as a subset of a larger attack based on FREDOM and limited government. Why is this OBAMA OWR GRAB not at least as unconsitutional as the "individual mandate"--probably more so? I see no reason to lmit a challenge to RELIGION. That would be counterproductive, unless the real "goal' here is to GET CATHOLIC VOTES (which I am afraid is the case) . I hope Santourm sees this. I have few hopes for Romney.
Rush Limbuahg, by the way, GOT IT RIGHT. Yes, I heard--as usual-- a portion of the Limbauhg radio program today. Limbaugh nailed it, as he often does (more than any other prominent conservative out there, despite my farily frequent criticisms of specific Limbaugh positions). Limbaugh said basically wht I say above: that the prolem here is FREEDOM and a POWR GRAB. He is right. I said some things above that Limbaugh did not say, but Limbaugh still pretty much nailed it. I hope Santurm is listening, along with others claiming to be GOP "conservatives'. Again, the idea that hisis all about RELIGION merely lays into the hands of Obama and the evil people of Planned Parenthood. It is not ture. It is a Big Lie. I would hope Cahtolic clergy would realize this, as well, although I have found TUNNEL VISDION to be the problem. Peole get so conerned about their own little empire, that they don't realize that the ONLY way they will ultimately keep THEIR freedom is to make sure that everyone else keeps his or her freedom. If Obama and the Feeral Government succeedin this power grab, the position of the Cahotlic Church will eventually be OVERWHLEMED. You already know that Obama WANTS to do that. And there are many people like Obama. Obama intends ObamaCare to fully cover aobriotn, in the end. Make no mistake about that. No, I don't see how any Catholic can vote for AnY leftist Democrat who faovrs abortion--especially in the FANATIC way that leftist Democrats usually do. But I am not a Caholic. So I will let them speak for themselves. No, I don't see how someone who FAVORS aborin is really a Caholic. A Caholic friend of mine says that, in the Caholic religion, abortion is a MORTAL SIN (presubably putting in danger your immortal soul). Again, however, I leave it to religious peole to explain how they can belive the things they say they believe, and still believe other things (like the leftist position on abortion) . As an agnostic, i don't pretned to be able to really "understand' religious peole--even though I am much more TOLERANT of them than any and all LEFTISTS I am aware of. As a gruly skeptical agnostic, I recognize the possiblity that my SKEPTICISM may be totally WRTONG. That was the position of the Rolman philosoher Lucian, and I donn't see how a ture agnostic (Bill Maher is NOT such a person) can have any oterh positoin.
Yes, I have a habit of digression. But the main pont of this article is virtually inarguable: The assertin of UNLIMITED POWER by Obama represents a threat to liberty such as this nation has never faced to this degree. And it has nothing to do with relgion, except as a lmited subset of the GREATER DESTRUCTIN OF FREEDOM involved here.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checknig (bad eyesight). By the way, this central palnning of what MUST be "free" ("there ain't no such thing as a free lunch") in ObamaCare will necessariy INCREASE YOUR COST FOR HEALTH INSURANCE (another lie of ObamaCare being that cost wil go down).