Judicial Pushback to Obama Begins

Tuesday, April 3, AD 2012

26 Responses to Judicial Pushback to Obama Begins

  • They said Obama was a constitutional scholar, but were mute on whether he was a good, smart, or honest one.

  • It seems a shame that the Federal Jury Tampering Statute does not apply. I wonder how closely the DOJ, FBI….. or their proxies are monitoring blogdom? Darkness approaches. I miss my youth in the 50’s and 60’s.

  • I note that the 5th Circuit includes Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. Don’t mess with Texas (or their judges) indeed!

  • Exactly what Obama deserves. And one day the Supreme Justice will give him exactly that – “Depart from me, ye worker of iniquity; I never knew you.”

  • The arrogance and condescending attitude of this man is breathtaking. I am continually amazed by his alleged approval ratings. I have no data to back this up, but I believe, and hope and pray, there is a large anti Obama sentiment in the country that does not necessarily show up in polls. Perhaps reminiscent of Nixon’s “silent majority”.

  • May the lawyers here forgive me if this is a dumb question, but is it possible the DOJ simply ignores the order? I wouldn’t put it past such a bunch of scofflaws because I don’t see how the DOJ (and of course, by extension, the adminstration) can avoid looking like complete fools when they answer this.

    When I heard Obama attack SCOTUS, my first thought was “This isn’t exactly sending Justice Kennedy roses and chocolates, is it?” And now, whatever the reply is, or isn’t, it’s going to dig the hole the administration is in a bit deeper.

  • “but is it possible the DOJ simply ignores the order?”

    No. They will simply reassert that Marbury v. Madison is rock solid law and that the DOJ does not dispute it.

  • I’d love it if the Supreme Court were to issue the Obama Administration a contempt citation.

    It’s what would happen to any of us if were were arguing a case before a court, and before a final decision was issued, went before the media and vented our spleens that, unless the judge ruled in our favor, the result would be an “unprecedented” miscarriage of justice.

  • ….would this be a variation on the saying about not picking fights with those who buy ink by the barrel?

  • Jerry, I’m amazed by the polls too, as well as by the oft-repeated assertion that Obama is “likable.” I didn’t vote for Clinton, and didn’t like him, but I understood why many Americans did. I chalked it up to the soft spot many Americans have always had for charming flim-flam men and snake oil peddlers. (The robust ’90’s economy didn’t hurt him either.)

    But Obama? Thin-skinned, petty, egotistical, vindictive and humorless (Clinton is also an egotist, but had the ability to poke fun at himself. Obama doesn’t.) I know people want badly to like their president, but I haven’t seen one so unlikable since Nixon. (Carter has become a bitter and mean man, but he wasn’t perceived as such when he was president. No, people thought he was a nice, but incompetent man in way over his head.)

  • here’s a question- coming from my ignorance of judges and law and lawyers–

    Is not the Obama ‘s DOJ ignoring the marriage law the same as striking it ?

  • in effect I mean

  • OK, I think the fellow who wrote this comment on the WSJ website nailed it:

    “I have always wondered how Mr. Obama could have been a Constitutional Professor when he seemed so ignorant of the Constitution. then it hit me. He did indeed teach about the Constitution, of the USSR. Not to worry. It is just a small mistake.”

  • Obama’s ineptitude is only exceeded by MSM enablers’ corruption.

  • Tonight I hear him warning of Social Darwinism from the GOP … ?
    Fearful for us all, I guess. Or something. The isms are coming faster from the microphones.

  • Donna,

    We shall see. This upcoming election is going to say an awful lot about who we are as a country in the year 2012. Catholics in the pews need to give serious thought to what this election means to their kids and their future. As Cardinal Dolan says, “prepare for tough times”.

  • The frightening thing to me, Jerry, is how the media carries water for him. They no longer even pretend to be objective. With the exception of a few outlets ( namely, Fox and the WSJ), the media is operating as a wing of the Democrat Party. Then there’s the fact that so many Americans are willing to trade freedom and faith in God for a desire to be coddled by a massive nanny state. Yes, I fear Cardinal Dolan is correct.

  • One last thing: there is some speculation, by Mickey Kaus, Ace and others, that an informal SCOTUS vote taken last Friday did not go in Obama’s favor and someone, possibly a Kagan clerk, leaked the news to the WH. Kaus thinks this is why the President lashed out at the Court. Why would he do it if he thought the outcome was still in doubt? Why risk angering Kennedy? Kaus theorized that Obama knows the Court will strike down his signature “accomplishment” and made a preemptive strike. He wants to create the meme that the Court is activist and partisan. The media will, of course, run with the WH line and will work to trash the reputation of the SCOTUS before the decision is announced.

    That sounds plausible enough to me, given the low character of the people in the Adminstration and their water carriers in the media, but on the other hand, I’m not sure how much credibility to give to Internet speculation and gossip. I would love to think Obama’s anger stems from the fact that he knows he’s lost this one. But does that sound plausible to an attorney or is it basically idle Internet chatter and wishful thinking?

  • Meh. I wish I could retract that last comment of mine. Anxious insomiacs (i.e. me) should stay away from computers; otherwise they are prone to misread. Forget Kaus; the useless spectulating was done by Ace and Co. – and me. We’ll get our answer in June.

  • but is it possible the DOJ simply ignores the order?

    the order to submit the letter – no, as Donald says, they will just file their letter and move on.

    Or are you thinking about a final order that strikes down Obamacare or a portion of it?

    That is a bit different. Was it Andrew Johnson who basically told the SCOTUS to shove it (“they have issued their order, let them enforce it”)? It would be a little more difficult to ignore an order striking down something as opposed to forcing someone to do something (e.g, an order requiring desegregation – the executive could simply not desegregate). How could they ignore an order striking down Obamacare? They would have to go to the courts to get an order to enforce it, but if it’s struck down, no lower court should enforce it. It would cost the litigants money, it would be seen as a complete usurpation of power by the Executive, and I could see lower courts entering sanctions against the Executive for continuing to bring such cases. even if they ignored it and simply levied fines, people would have redress through the court system, and it would raise such a stink I don’t see how the administration would survive – likely get impeached and removed, if not voted out sooner (political suicide).

    Short of imposing martial rule by the executive and simply imprisoning us all and forcibly taking our money without due process, I don’t see how they would have much choice but to follow it.

  • Andrew Jackson cmatt, who had little love for John Marshal, to say the least, supposedly said: “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!” He actually didn’t say that. Here is some background:


    I can’t imagine the Obama administration openly defying a ruling of the Supreme Court, but, then again, this president seems to specialize in doing things that I never thought I would see a president doing.

  • I can’t imagine the Obama administration openly defying a ruling of the Supreme Court, but, then again, this president seems to specialize in doing things that I never thought I would see a president doing.

    Since implementing ObamaCare would not consist of a discrete set of acts (much less a set of omissions), I cannot imagine they could ignore the Court. Every aspect of its implementation would thenceforth get tangled in litigation.

  • Well, we got our answer about the response.

    Basically, “the justice department fully agrees you have a right to not have your leg p***ed on, and that the President’s statement clearly shows it was raining.” (To steal from an old saying.)

Obama Bullies Supreme Court

Monday, April 2, AD 2012

28 Responses to Obama Bullies Supreme Court

  • So when the court acts against the wishes of the majority but for the administration Obama loves the court but when it goes against him they are “unelected” officials thwarting the will of the people. Same spin, different day in DC.

  • “I can’t recall a president before attempting to threaten the Court to get a result that he wanted in a particular case”

    What about FDR’s plan to “pack” the Court with additional justices in order to get favorable rulings on his New Deal programs (aka the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937)? That may not have been tied to any particular program, but the intent was the same, as far as I can tell.

  • Speaking of activism …
    a professional at racial activism where there had been peace
    and since when is the Constitution a guide? Sounds influential in activism way?
    The thing I don’t get about this statement is the ‘WH reluctance to appear to lobby before arguments’ – appear word spells insincere. The decision planned for June will be made amid spin and whirl of blatant, screaming activism, all appearances aside.
    Speaking of activism is insulting and transparent.
    How about that conference in Las Vegas for 300 people at $800,000 – no group discounts available, economic benefits for the US were? But, that’s probably just a low budget trip in comparison to other work conferences in the interest of the fiscal health of the US. These conference should be held on military bases where there are accommodations.
    There’s a report of some nasty radio talk host defiling a woman in politics with a foul diatribe – but she’s an R so feminists and their president won’t bother to take their activism stand for such an outrage of hate crime from the media. Appearance of sincerity about definitions of law and activism from the main role models of the world.
    Well, I’m going to turn down the heat and shut off the 60W light now to save energy.

  • Elaine is right. This is in the Dems’ playbook and has been for a long time.
    And or the record, properly understood “judicial restraint” refers to the federal judiciary refraining itself from interfering with states exercising their constitutional police powers, not refraining Congress from exercising powers not granted to it under the Constitution. A cynic might say that Obama is well aware of this distinction but is flirting with the truth. I am not that cynical. I don’t think Obama has a clue.

  • Elaine and Mike it might amuse you to know that when I wrote this my wife said that someone would bring up FDR’s court packing scheme. I retired at my customary 10:00 PM. When my wife came upstairs to join me she informed me that you both had raised the court packing scheme!

    I put that in a different category from what Obama is attempting to do here. The Constitution does not mandate the size of the Supreme Court. In order to get a favorable Court FDR proposed a Rube Goldberg piece of legislation to increase the size of the Court. In doing so he sustained his first serious domestic defeat in Congress. As bad as FDR’s plan was, bad enough to cause Democrats in Congress to rise up in revolt, it was an attempt to legislatively deal with the situation. Here, Obama is attempting to bully the Court about a particular case that it has under consideration. Any lawyer should know that is manifestly improper. Although as Mike said, I think Obama does not have a clue.

  • No comment other than good post. I just want to follow the other comments.

  • How is Obamacare a “passed law” if the law remains to be written by Sebelius? The individual mandate is slavery to an unelected. Obama is a slave master.

  • It does not bother me when an elected official insults and threatens the appellate judiciary. They have earned it.

    Reading commentary by lawyer liberals on this subject gives rise to a certain amount of amusement at someone else’s (well-earned) irritation.

    One thing that disconcerts: the phrase “[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes” seems to apply only to transactions where merchandise is shipped accross frontiers, services are contracted for by parties in different jurisdictions, or funds are transferred between one jurisdiction and another. Profs. Fried and Laycock inform us that this phrase applies to any household economic decision which has the potential for a transfer of goods or services or funds between jurisdictions and that the contrary view is unserious. The layman I think can be forgiven for suspecting that ‘constitutional law’ is a verbose scam rather like psychoanalysis.

    Republican lawyers of the stripe of Profs. Fried and Laycock saying that it is an unserious idea

  • I totally agree, Don. Obama is doing more than just playing politics in advance of a potential adverse ruling. He knows that certain Justices coughAnthonyKennedycough can be influenced by exterior pressures. Now, it strikes me that even Kennedy isn’t buying what Obama’s lawyers were selling, but it is not unreasonable to think that Obama is politicking the judiciary. After all, the votes taken on Friday are not set in stone.

  • How unlikely is it that “someone” is leaking the votes to the president? The justices should be sequestered on this bill and all their cell phones taken away.

  • I got a feeling one of Bam’s buddies on the court, likely either Kagan or Sotomayor, leaked it to the White House that the Supremes will side with the administration, 5-4. Bam clearly has no respect for the three separate but equal branches of the federal government and this is simply a power play to show that he, as the nation’s Supreme Leader, can have his way. Intimidation usually works in the public arena, especially when the stenographers in the media take down every word he says as gospel and transmits them to the stupid masses unleavened with any sort of objective analysis.

    Yale law professor Stephen L. Carter in his latest column on Bloomberg says the differences are not constitutional but ideological and concludes:

    “No matter which way the court rules, the question of how best to provide health insurance will wind up back in the laps of our elected representatives. Politics at its best comprises reasoned arguments by reasonable people. When the justices toss this battle back to the politicians, let’s all hope for less shouting and more thinking.”

  • elm, if there is a leak I would suspect clerks or secretaries. In any court, in my experience, it is difficult to keep anything secret if you know who to talk to on the support staff.

  • “It does not bother me when an elected official insults and threatens the appellate judiciary. They have earned it. ”

    Few people in Saint Blogs have spoken out more against judicial usurpations than I have Art. However, having a president threaten the judiciary is unseemly, dangerous and an indication that the head of state is completely unsuited for the great office he holds.

  • I don’t think Obama has a clue.

    And the subject he taught during his twelve years as a lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School was….

  • You readily discren when Obama is lying. His lips are moving.

  • Wasn’t the purpose of an appointment for life to remove the Supremes from the influence of the politicians who would try to influence them. If that no longer applies then maybe it is time to amend the Constitution to set a term of office for elected Supremes.

  • Instapundit:

    “Obama must be expecting to lose. Because if he wins, this kind of threat will simply allow people on the right to argue that the Supreme Court’s decision was the result of intimidation, and deserves no deference by a new Supreme Court. And how will Obama’s feminist supporters feel, given that those all-important abortion and birth-control decisions also came from an “unelected” Supreme Court?

    “And if I were a Republican member of Congress I’d immediately introduce a proposed Constitutional amendment to elect all future Supreme Court justices in a national vote, with no input from the President. Just for fun . . . .”

  • You realize, folks, that happily there is one Court which Barack Hussein Obama cannot bully:

    “11* Then I saw a great white throne and him who sat upon it; from his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Also another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, by what they had done. 13 And the sea gave up the dead in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead in them, and all were judged by what they had done. 14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire; 15* and if any one’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.” Revelation 20:11-15

  • “years as a lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School was….”

    Thinking back to my law school days Art, that could be taken as prima facie evidence that he knows nothing about Con Law!

  • “We shall go before a higher tribunal – a tribunal where a Judge of infinite goodness, as well as infinite justice, will preside, and where many of the judgments of this world will be reversed.” Thomas Meagher (late B/Gen, Army of the Potomac), statement in court upon his death sentence for leading the fight to free his native land.

    Happily, the sentence was commuted to transportation to Tasmania. The rest is history.

  • God heals. Everyone knows that. Well maybe Ruth Bader Ginsburg does not. Like the atheist who denies the existence of God and then ceases to exist, Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotomayer and perhaps Kennedy may refuse to believe that God heals and cause the voters to believe that they are buying healing through Obamacare. Obamacare is a premium to pay for insurance to pay for a doctor to try to cure. Obamacare has some people believing that they can go and contract HIV/ aids, go to the doctor, the doctor will give them a pill and HIV/aids will be cured. A whole generation believe that the doctor can make any disease go away for the price of an office visit, if Obamacare pays for the office visit.
    Recently a new book entitled: 4 myths of the Book of Revelation, has appeared, trying to make the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse: Death, War, Famine and Plague disappear. The writer ought to have entitled it: Obamacare, and forced every citizen to purchase it.
    The little shop of horrors at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue keeps demanding “Pay me, Seymour, pay me”, “I am the great oz”, while God heals. God heals, so, who ya’ gonna call? Holy Ghost Busters. Oberammergau right here in the good ole USA., a little Medugorje, definitely some Lourdes, the Sacrament of Healing.
    Paul Primavera: What you wrote is beautiful. One Hail Mary in Latin.

  • Av? Mar?a, gr?ti? pl?na,
    Dominus t?cum.
    Benedicta t? in mulieribus,
    et benedictus fr?ctus ventris tu?, I?sus.
    S?ncta Mar?a, M?ter De?,
    ?r? pr? n?b?s pecc?t?ribus,
    nunc et in h?r? mortis nostrae.

  • “No matter which way the court rules, the question of how best to provide health insurance will wind up back in the laps of our elected representatives. Politics at its best comprises reasoned arguments by reasonable people. When the justices toss this battle back to the politicians, let’s all hope for less shouting and more thinking.” How strange these men want reasoned thinking while denying the rational and immortal soul of the human being. They want less shouting while citizens are being herded into pens and corrals for slaughter. and people should think what they are told to think. If Obamacare says you got no rights, you got no rights(Obama, the rational). Just hurry up and pass it so we can learn what is in it. (Pelosi, the immortal). Tonight your life will be demanded of you.

  • I’m reading Obama’s comments differently. I think that it’s damage control.

    The average moderate, or swing voter, doesn’t care about ideology. They care about results. They don’t want an incompetent president. If the health care bill fails, what can Obama point to as an accomplishment? A lot of people think that he was wasting his time on health care when he should have been trying to improve the economy. (I think that’s wrong in several different respects, but I’m talking about the moderate voter here.) If he spent four years and only got a partial economic recovery, no health care deal, resolution to one war that was practically over with alreadly and no resolution to the other war that looked like it should have been over with, I just don’t see him claiming the right to lead for four more years.

    He’s already shown that he wants to run against Washington (which should tell you how little this campaign is going to be based on facts). If the health care bill gets slapped down, then he’s got to spin it as the Court overstepping their bounds, with him as the heroic reformer.

    This is where politics can drive you crazy. There are people who don’t want to see the health care reform bill become law, but they’d support the President if it does, and turn away from him if it doesn’t. It was a 100% Democratic creation, but the Democrats are going to blame the Court’s rejection of the bill on Republicans. The President played almost no role in “crafting” the legislation, but he gets all the credit, and is going to get a lot of the blame if it fails. And the whole thing could have sailed through the Supreme Court if Congress had remembered to put a separability clause in it, but they never expected to have to send the Senate version to the House. So the political impact of the Court’s decision can’t really be viewed in terms of actions and consequences in a logical way.

    So I don’t think this is intimidation. It’s the President bracing himself for the humiliation that will follow an unfavorable Court decision.

  • Pingback: Judicial Pushback to Obama | The American Catholic
  • Pinky: All those things. Obama is poised to seize every piece of private property through Rural Councils, from everyone who refuses to abide by Obamacare. Hilliarycare was to imprison doctors for two years in Federal prison if they refused to abide by Hillarycare. Obama circumvented this by going for the real property of the non-compliant. Obamacare coupled with other of Obama’s Exeutive Orders will fill the coffers of his government just as the gold and wealth filled Hitlers coffers. (The bank in Switzerland is still trying to count all the Jewish gold Hilter shipped to it) What boggles my mind is that after AFTER the National Defense Authorization Act was passed by Congress, Obama himself, removed the part that protected American Citizens, making all persons liable to detention, indefinitely, without chagerres. (Just like in Mexico where they throw you in jail and forget about you. In mexico they really do not care. But obamacare has a plot for criminally accomplishing what his wants to do) Obama will get is way by hook or crook, by threatening, by intimidating, by swindling, by bait and switch. You can take that to the bank. Obama does not need voters. When push comes to shove, it is already too late.

  • Pingback: The Left Suddenly Uncomfortable with the Concept of Judicial Review « The Cranky Conservative
  • Pingback: The Left Suddenly Uncomfortable with Concept of Judicial Review | The American Catholic

Third and Final Day of Oral Argument on ObamaCare

Wednesday, March 28, AD 2012



Day 3 of oral argument on ObamaCare.  Go here to read the transcript.  Go here to listen to an audio recording of the oral argument.   Go here for audio highlights of the oral argument.

A very long day in the Supreme Court today with the severability argument this morning, and the expansion of medicaid under ObamaCare in the afternoon.

Continue reading...

3 Responses to Third and Final Day of Oral Argument on ObamaCare

  • Obama’s gonna have a fit if it’s struck down.

    And if it’s upheld, then he will be embolden as never before.

    Either way, his reaction won’t be good for us.

  • Don

    I suppose Justice Thomas is the only one who might take the sensible postion that it is unconstitional becasue it is dependent on WickedWickard, and that was wrongly decided.

    :- )

  • If I had to choose, I would rather him have a fit, one giant hissy fit. 🙂

    I just heard day 2 and 3 and read the transcripts. Judging based on presentation and arguments, I think the petitioners, FL, et. al., have a good case and were well represented by Mr. Paul Clement. He answered directly and confidently.

    Verrilli had a better day 3 than 2, but he still comes off at times as ill prepared and nervous. He has a lot of breaks in speech and is often needing the leftists on the bench to bail him out. (Often is measured as a quantity exceeding the number of times Clement needed an assist.) His arguments on day 2 came out very often as verbal spaghetti.

    The impression is it looks good for the Constitution, but these justices may surprise. It will be an interesting opinion. I hope it goes well and is released on my birthday, which is near the end of June. What a present it would be.

Hollow Victories

Wednesday, March 28, AD 2012

There is some excitement that oral arguments are going well for opponents of Obamacare.  Though oral arguments are not perfectly indicative of how the Supreme Court will vote in the end, there is some cause for guarded optimism.  That being said, even if the Court completely strikes down Obamacare, it will be something of a hollow victory.

Don’t get me wrong.  There is no other correct course of action for the Court to take than to strike down the individual mandate and thus effectively kill Obamacare.  It is one of those remarkable monstrosities that happens to be both bad policy and unconstitutional.  The problem is that something this monumental is essentially being decided on the whims of a single Justice.  How did we reach the point where our basic liberties come down to what Anthony Kennedy may have had for breakfast one day?

I don’t mean to be flip, but it feels like we’ve taken a very wrong turn somewhere along the line. 

Continue reading...

15 Responses to Hollow Victories

  • For those that support Romney, this election is about nothing other than putting an –R in the White House.

    Winning isn’t an end in itself. It is a means to an end. That’s precisely the point of the Supreme Court example.

    Reality is not always a pleasant thing to contemplate. But part of being conservative, I think, is a willingness to face up to reality even when it’s not pleasant. One may not like the prospect of having to choose between Romney and Obama in November, but that’s reality. Calvin Coolidge isn’t going to be on the ballot.

  • “How did we reach the point where our basic liberties come down to what Anthony Kennedy may have had for breakfast one day?”

    The weeping you hear is from the Founding Fathers in the next world.

  • Winning isn’t an end in itself. It is a means to an end. That’s precisely the point of the Supreme Court example.

    Thus demonstrating why you, and so many other Romney supporters, continue to miss the point.

  • “Calvin Coolidge isn’t going to be on the ballot.”

    Yeah, but the Mormon Richard Nixon probably will be. I’ll vote for him in preference to Obama, but other than Romney not being Obama, I’ll be hanged if I can think of anything else Romney has in his favor from a conservative point of view.

  • The Supremes don’t necessarily have the “last say.” If struck down, in part or in its entirety, Obamacare could still come back in another form as devised by Obama and a complaisant Congress. Also, given that hundreds of entities have been granted exemptions to the law, that language could be broadened to include certain individuals or small businesses, thus debunking the false notion that “everyone” must buy health care or face a stiff penalty. In short, the lawyers and politicians will find a way toward a “compromise” that will defuse the issue before November.

  • 3 points:

    (1) “… happens to be both bad policy and unconstitutional …”
    But you repeat yourself. If it’s unconstitutional, it is by definition, bad policy. 🙂

    (2) Whatever the faults of Anthony Kennedy (and you know my opinion on the man, and I am, to put it mildly, not a fan), he has throughout his career on the Court been fairly solid on 10th Amendment issues. Not that his swing-vote squishiness doesn’t give me some pause, but I’m not as worried about how he will vote on this issue as I will be when the Court is inevitably called upon to define same-sex “marriage” as a so-called “fundamental right”. I’m actually slightly more concerned how Roberts and Alito will vote.

    (3) And THIS is the REAL implication for the upcoming election. At this juncture, the judicial nomination argument is one of the key talking points Romney’s supporters are using to try to sway those like me who are going to be voting 3rd party this fall. Let’s suppose that it’s Roberts and/or Alito (in addition to or instead of Kennedy) that joins the 4 liberals to uphold ObamaCare. Suddenly, the “But we HAVE to vote for Romney to get conservative Justices” argument becomes moot. If either or both of the two most recent Supreme Court Justices that were appointed by a conservative GOP president with approval by big GOP majorities in the Senate can’t be counted on to vote against the constitutionality of ObamaCare, then the GOP will, and SHOULD, lose the judicial nomination argument in its favor for all eternity.

  • “then the GOP will, and SHOULD, lose the judicial nomination argument in its favor for all eternity.”

    Why Jay? Roberts and Alito from all intents appeared to be solid conservative nominees, and thus far they have voted that way. If they go rogue now we should hand over to the Democrats the Supreme Court for all eternity? That does not make any sense to me.

  • You make some very necessary points Mr. Zummo. I would simply add that the election of Barrack Obama is a reflection of us, our society, our governance, and our fondness for dependence (as opposed to liberty). The greater concern is whether we have reached the tip point. While many argue politics, to his credit Obama has advanced the statist agenda across the board.

  • Come on, “blackmail”? I haven’t heard anything like that. I mean, by those standards, someone could say that your raising doubt about Romney’s SCOTUS nominees is an attempt to blackmail Romney supporters into voting for Santorum. But that’d be nonsense, because you’re not blackmailing anyone; you’re trying to present your preferred candidate in the best possible light, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Remember the time-honored truth that the Paulbots never seem to recall, that antagonism is rarely persuasive.

  • Pinky,

    I have the strike-through there and I thought that indicated that I used the word for humorous, exaggerated effect.

  • Yeah, I know, I’m just getting a bad taste in my mouth from all this. The article and some comments tended to lump all Romney supporters together as the enemy, a voting bloc composed entirely of RINO’s.

    Years back, volunteering for a campaign, I remember being told to never alienate anyone, because even if the voter wasn’t supporting your candidate, he could be on the fence about a half-dozen other races further down the ticket. It ticks me off to see assumptions of bad faith being made by supporters of all four candidates against supporters of their opponents. And to top it off, there’s near-complete agreement about the issues. Most Republican primary voters only disagree about which candidate would best promote a pro-life, low-tax, internationally secure agenda. They weight issues differently, and make different calculations about effectiveness, experience, and electability, but they agree on 90+% of the platform.

    Every party goes through this in the primaries, and by November I hope that heated words spoken in March will be forgotten. I’m just worried.

  • Don, the point I’m making is that if the GOP-nominated Justices can’t be counted on to strike down a monstrosity like ObamaCare, then the argument that we just HAVE to vote for Republicans because of the Supreme Court will no longer prove sufficient to justify voting for just any Republican, especially one like Mitt Romney.

    I mean, seriously. If even a majority of GOP nominees can’t be counted on when it comes to the REALLY BIG issues like abortion and ObamaCare, then there’s really not much left to justify conservative voters continuing to do what we’ve been doing.

  • I understand your argument Jay, but it still does not make any sense to me. We are going to have a Supreme Court and its rulings are going to have a vast impact on our lives. I see no reason to hand it over to the Democrats forever. Overall I have found the Republican justices appointed since Reagan far more congenial to my views than those appointed by the Democrats, to say the least. A Souter and a Kennedy are arguments for better screening of appointees, not an argument for having someone like Obama in the White House forever to keep making appointees like Breyer and Ginsburg until the rulings are always 9-0 in favor of treating the Constitution like toilet paper.

  • Don, I concede that a the GOP nominees are, on the whole, better than Democrat nominated judges. That’s not debateable. But, for the better part of 3 decades now, Supreme Court Justices have been trotted out as one of the, if not THE, main reasons to vote for the Republican nominee, regardless of whether that Republican nominee was one that was otherwise suitable.

    ALL I’m saying is that, yes, a Mitt Romney is likely, on the margins, to nominate better judges than Barack Obama. BUT if those judges are unlikely to do things like overrule Roe or strike down ObamaCare, then the argument holds MUCH LESS weight, and becomes not as strong an argument for voting for Mitt Romney.

    So, in the situation in which we find ourselves – a likely nominee for President that is wholly unacceptable to me, the argument that we just HAVE to vote for him because he will nominate judges who will … do what? Overturn Roe? Strike down ObamaCare? Again, it is a lot less compelling argument on behalf of the GOP nominee when the judges nominated, while better than what we might expect from the Dems, can’t be counted on when it comes to the BIG issues that are most important to me.

    Now, once again, my argument is only pertinent if there is a defection from, say, Roberts and/or Alito to uphold Obamacare; but if none of the GOP-nominated Justices (apart from the squish Kennedy) votes to uphold ObamaCare, then the issue of judges will actually strengthen Romney’s hand: “See, if we had more Justices like Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito, we could stop even MORE of this kind of big-government nonsense.”

  • I disagree with Paul’s assessment of the Commerce Clause. Words matter, and the words used to assign to Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce can easily be understood to be very broad in their application. Just because the Framers did not envision (or presumably favor) such broad application, does not mean they didn’t create the architecture that allowed for it (even if they didn’t mean to!). It is not ridiculous to maintain that Congress has the power to regulate the health care component of our national economy by creating a mandatory insurance system, which is not to say that I think that is the better argument — actually I don’t.

    I do favor a mandated insurance system, but only at the state level. It is necessary to prevent the free rider system we have today, where thousands of people choose to go without insurance knowing that the government (i.e, the taxpayers) will pay for their necessary care. That said, such a mandated system should cover only truly necessary care that is sufficiently expensive to warrant risk sharing (i.e., insurance). Optional care and routine care that is not so expensive that it cannot be budgeted should not be covered by mandated insurance.

    Insurance has its place in health care, but its current role is not rational. It is a by-product of a tax system that encourages employers to compete for employees by providing unnecessarily rich coverage, which leads to serious inefficiencies. The user is two steps (employer and provider) removed from the payor. Accordingly, most people use health care services more aggressively because they do not bear the lion’s share of the cost of such services in any perceptible way. If we removed the tax favored status of health insurance, it would de-couple from employment thereby allowing a more robust and mature market to develop for individuals (just like property, casualty, and life insurance); families would then purchase insurance that rationally meets their needs, which in most cases would be affordable high deductible policies that cover any necessary catastrophic care.

    A federal (not state) insurance mandate may well be unconstitional, but it is not necessarily bad policy if (i) designed to prevent free riders and (i) limited in coverage appropriate to insurance. Obamacare is not remotely so limited. It goes in exactly the wrong direction by expanding the role of insurance rather than tailoring that role to its purpose.

Day 2 of Oral Argument on ObamaCare: Train Wreck For the Administration

Tuesday, March 27, AD 2012

19 Responses to Day 2 of Oral Argument on ObamaCare: Train Wreck For the Administration

  • I’m stretching back to law school days so I may not have it right but I recall that Scalia wasn’t all that fond of striking down sections of a bill, that he favored an all-or-nothing approach. If this is right, how does it affect your read?

  • It sounds hopeful, if CNN’s words are true. I value Donald’s analysis much more than CNN’s. I value and appreciate the analysis because I don’t have the legal mind to interpret or the time to quickly read the entire transcript. So in advance, thank you!

  • Justice Kennedy left a ‘tell’ when he commented, as opposed to questioned, how the mandate fundamentally changed the relationship between the individual and government. Pray, pray, and pray some more!! Our Lady of Victory…….

  • I have read some of the transcript…. questions.

    1. What is Justice Sotomayor doing in this case? She should have recused herself.

    2. And what is with her using Occupy speak? “Only 1% of the people can afford to self-insure.” Why not just say a minority can self-insure. Don’t need the whole 99% vs. 1% warfare business.

  • FWIW I have serious reservations about the constitutionality of the mandate, but it has some attractiveness as a policy matter. (Just as not all bad laws are unconstitutional, not all good laws are constitutional.) Since American society has already decided that necessary health care should be available to everyone, including those who are uninsured, and that government will reimburse providers for such care (and good luck reversing that social assumption!) there is a pretty compelling case in favor of a mandate to avoid irresponsible free riders. I would make two observations though. First, I would prefer that the mandate be required by states rather than the feds, for reasons grounded in both constitutional law as well as practical prudence. Second, the mandated insurance should be limited to truly life-threatening or very serious conditions the cost for which would be regarded by most families as catastrophic. The government should not mandate that my neighbor insure my wife’s physical ability to play tennis, let alone require my mother to pay for her neighbor’s birth control.

    Private companies can certainly offer more expensive policies with richer coverage, but only on a voluntary basis.

    In sum, we need to de-couple insurance from employment, eliminate its tax-favored treatment, allow interstate competition, and limit its mandated application to only serious medical matters appropriate for the risk-sharing/shifting nature of insurance. Obama care fails in almost all important respects.

  • I’ve been trying to drive home that point to my kids, Kyle.

    Giving specific numbers, if you don’t know them to be true, is a lie, and a transparent one at that. Words like most, many , some, etc. are proper descripters and an argument is all the stronger for not having to eat your words when they are found to be false.

    If my seven year old gets it, why do we adults blunder into that minefield again and again?

  • Mike, you raise good points. I particularly like the idea of treating insurers like the national companies that they are rather than maintaining the fiction that they are state entities. The present system has all of the negatives and none of the positives of state enforcement.

    Had Congress approached this intelligently, I’ll bet there was a lot of agreement to be had. Congress could have crafted small bills establishing a national insurance board, licensing, and liability through the federal courts. Instead, they wrote an omnibus bill that is likely unconstitutional and, if constitutional, unworkable.

    No time to read it indeed!

  • Even if Constitutional, how would you enforce the mandate? Presumably, those who cannot afford the coverage, would not be able to afford the fines (or else they would just get the coverage).

  • Mike Petric “irresponsible free riders”?
    Cmatt: Excellent post. Why is there a penalty inscribed into Obamacare? If one cannot afford to buy an expensive car, must he pay a penalty for not buying the car? Will the government seize your property through a lien after you’ve passed away if you cannot afford to buy the car and must pay a penalty?

  • Mike Petric: “Second, the mandated insurance should be limited to truly life-threatening or very serious conditions the cost for which would be regarded by most families as catastrophic.” Mike you have just reiterated the abortion mantra. Why should your mother be mandated to pay for your neighbor’s abortion?

  • Mary,
    People who prefer not to buy health insurance but expect others to pay rare indeed irresponsible free riders.
    I have no idea what to make of your second post. I apologize but simply do not understand you.

  • As much of an unconstitutional piece of crap this law is and how badly the administration is arguing their case, I don’t count my chickens until they hatch with SCOTUS.

  • Mike Petric: I think I was agreeing with you.

  • Thank you for the transcripts. 76 pgs. and 111 pgs. plus the word counts/refs.
    It’s interesting and totally refreshing for me, a simple reader, to hear actual objective thought expressed from the Supreme Court Chief Justice and other Justices. The Federal Government branch that is realistic and working.

    The degree to which crippling, partisan politics in the other two branches has risen, (or fallen?), is beyond consideration. The rhetoric is irresponsible and propaganda laden, aimed at stirring elitism and racism or hatefulness in this formerly workable melting pot. These people are ignoring their budgets, the economy of this country, and the unthinkable national debt because they can and they have something or someone to ‘blame’ due to ‘next’ elections. Seems the only thing that matters to the actual president are his campaign funding party events and power broking world travels. Is accountablity so minimal that it’s only found in election results?

    Anyway, thank you. It’s good that the relationship between federal government and citizens is worth considering by this Branch. Healthcare of all things! Why did the proponents decide to be exempt from their healthcare mandate – very phony … ?

  • Mary, I can see that now — I just was not sure — sorry.

  • Rand Paul filed an amicus brief asking the court to overrule Wickard v. Filburn while they’re at it. I’m not a lawyer, but it sure looked good to me. 🙂


  • I’m with Greg. Too many conservatives read of or saw Toobin’s “train wreck” description and are celebrating prematurely. I was sure Obamacare would not pass until the moment it did, so I’ve learned my lesson. The fat lady hasn’t sung yet – or rather, we don’t know yet what whims and fancies may seize the mind of the most powerful man in the country – maybe one of the most powerful Americans ever. Who knows what side of the bed, left or right, Kennedy will get up on the day the vote takes place? Remembering Kelo, I remain a pessimist.

  • Mike Petric: I, too am sorry. I do not express myself as well as I would like.

  • “Rand Paul filed an amicus brief asking the court to overrule Wickard v. Filburn while they’re at it. I’m not a lawyer, but it sure looked good to me.”

    RL, it WOULD be good for the Court to overrule Wickard v. Filburn. For you non-lawyers, let’s just say that Wickard ranks behind ONLY Roe v. Wade and the Dred Scott case as THE worst Supreme Court decision of all time. And it is easily the worst Supreme Court case regarding economic activity and the regulatory power of the federal government over individual liberty.

    Alas, its continuing validity makes the ObamaCare casee a mor difficult decision for the Court than it otherwise should be. Therefore, it it high time for the Court to once and for all overrule that abomination of an opinion.

Transcript of First Day of ObamaCare Oral Argument

Monday, March 26, AD 2012



I would caution everyone from reading too much into the questions asked by the Justices on the first of three days of oral argument, but it was an interesting day of oral argument.  Go here to read the transcript.  Go here to listen to an audio recording of the oral argument.  My thoughts on the first day I will post this evening.

Continue reading...

2012: An Elijah on Mount Carmel Year

Monday, March 12, AD 2012

And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? If the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word.

First Kings 18:21


When the Supreme Court begins oral argument on ObamaCare on March 26, the White House is unveiling a new secret weapon:  Prayer.

On Wednesday, White House officials summoned dozens of leaders of nonprofit organizations that strongly back the health law to help them coordinate plans for a prayer vigil, press conferences and other events outside the court when justices hear arguments for three days beginning March 26.   

The acolytes of the South Side Messiah have long known that their strongest adversaries are among Christians who take their faith seriously.  That is why they are promoting a de facto schism in the Catholic Church, and why they have attempted to promote Sandra Fluke, that summary of all that is wrong with Jesuit run Georgetown,  as the White House sponsored symbol of an alternate magisterium for American Catholics.   Religion in this country is to be transformed into a useful auxiliary for the President, spearheaded by astroturf pro-Obama “religious” groups like the George Soros funded Catholics United and the interdenominational Faith in Public Life, and dissenters will be silenced through mockery by the mainstream media which is overwhelmingly on the side of Obama, and propaganda campaigns led by the Obama administration and its allies to undermine leaders of any denomination who do not toe the line.

Continue reading...

13 Responses to 2012: An Elijah on Mount Carmel Year

  • The analogy with the 450 prophets of Baal is most appropriate. BTW, their fate did not end well.

  • Also this:

    Numbers 16
    Korah, Dathan and Abiram
    1 Korah son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, and certain Reubenites—Dathan and Abiram, sons of Eliab, and On son of Peleth—became insolent[a] 2 and rose up against Moses. With them were 250 Israelite men, well-known community leaders who had been appointed members of the council. 3 They came as a group to oppose Moses and Aaron and said to them, “You have gone too far! The whole community is holy, every one of them, and the LORD is with them. Why then do you set yourselves above the LORD’s assembly?”
    4 When Moses heard this, he fell facedown. 5 Then he said to Korah and all his followers: “In the morning the LORD will show who belongs to him and who is holy, and he will have that person come near him. The man he chooses he will cause to come near him. 6 You, Korah, and all your followers are to do this: Take censers 7 and tomorrow put burning coals and incense in them before the LORD. The man the LORD chooses will be the one who is holy. You Levites have gone too far!”

    8 Moses also said to Korah, “Now listen, you Levites! 9 Isn’t it enough for you that the God of Israel has separated you from the rest of the Israelite community and brought you near himself to do the work at the LORD’s tabernacle and to stand before the community and minister to them? 10 He has brought you and all your fellow Levites near himself, but now you are trying to get the priesthood too. 11 It is against the LORD that you and all your followers have banded together. Who is Aaron that you should grumble against him?”

    12 Then Moses summoned Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab. But they said, “We will not come! 13 Isn’t it enough that you have brought us up out of a land flowing with milk and honey to kill us in the wilderness? And now you also want to lord it over us! 14 Moreover, you haven’t brought us into a land flowing with milk and honey or given us an inheritance of fields and vineyards. Do you want to treat these men like slaves[b]? No, we will not come!”

    15 Then Moses became very angry and said to the LORD, “Do not accept their offering. I have not taken so much as a donkey from them, nor have I wronged any of them.”

    16 Moses said to Korah, “You and all your followers are to appear before the LORD tomorrow—you and they and Aaron. 17 Each man is to take his censer and put incense in it—250 censers in all—and present it before the LORD. You and Aaron are to present your censers also.” 18 So each of them took his censer, put burning coals and incense in it, and stood with Moses and Aaron at the entrance to the tent of meeting. 19 When Korah had gathered all his followers in opposition to them at the entrance to the tent of meeting, the glory of the LORD appeared to the entire assembly. 20 The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, 21 “Separate yourselves from this assembly so I can put an end to them at once.”

    22 But Moses and Aaron fell facedown and cried out, “O God, the God who gives breath to all living things, will you be angry with the entire assembly when only one man sins?”

    23 Then the LORD said to Moses, 24 “Say to the assembly, ‘Move away from the tents of Korah, Dathan and Abiram.’”

    25 Moses got up and went to Dathan and Abiram, and the elders of Israel followed him. 26 He warned the assembly, “Move back from the tents of these wicked men! Do not touch anything belonging to them, or you will be swept away because of all their sins.” 27 So they moved away from the tents of Korah, Dathan and Abiram. Dathan and Abiram had come out and were standing with their wives, children and little ones at the entrances to their tents.

    28 Then Moses said, “This is how you will know that the LORD has sent me to do all these things and that it was not my idea: 29 If these men die a natural death and suffer the fate of all mankind, then the LORD has not sent me. 30 But if the LORD brings about something totally new, and the earth opens its mouth and swallows them, with everything that belongs to them, and they go down alive into the realm of the dead, then you will know that these men have treated the LORD with contempt.”

    31 As soon as he finished saying all this, the ground under them split apart 32 and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them and their households, and all those associated with Korah, together with their possessions. 33 They went down alive into the realm of the dead, with everything they owned; the earth closed over them, and they perished and were gone from the community. 34 At their cries, all the Israelites around them fled, shouting, “The earth is going to swallow us too!”

    35 And fire came out from the LORD and consumed the 250 men who were offering the incense.

    36 The LORD said to Moses, 37 “Tell Eleazar son of Aaron, the priest, to remove the censers from the charred remains and scatter the coals some distance away, for the censers are holy— 38 the censers of the men who sinned at the cost of their lives. Hammer the censers into sheets to overlay the altar, for they were presented before the LORD and have become holy. Let them be a sign to the Israelites.”

    39 So Eleazar the priest collected the bronze censers brought by those who had been burned to death, and he had them hammered out to overlay the altar, 40 as the LORD directed him through Moses. This was to remind the Israelites that no one except a descendant of Aaron should come to burn incense before the LORD, or he would become like Korah and his followers.

  • Pingback: MONDAY EXTRA: U.S. POLITICS EXTRA | ThePulp.it
  • AS for me and mine, I will serve God.

  • Yes, the devil can pray also to mislead people…truly the evil one is prowling very hard.

  • Pingback: Bishops? We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Bishops! | The American Catholic
  • So the new secret weapon of the White House is prayer! Oh, the absolute irony of it!!!!

  • “So the new secret weapon of the White House is prayer! Oh, the absolute irony of it!!!!”

    But its okay because it is under the guidance of our god-Pharoah. Perhaps he will send Jannes and Jambres to help.

  • Pingback: An American Issue | The American Catholic
  • Fluke : “All that’s wrong with Jesuit run Georgetown” ?????
    How can that be given that she’s running a campaign against Georgetown’s faith-based refusal to fund her contraceptive appetite? She’s an example of how Georgetown is challenged as it tows the line, not the opposite.

  • Not at all Tim. The administration and faculty of Georgetown quickly rallied around Sandra Fluke:


  • Pingback: The Church in America: Low Grade Civil War | The American Catholic
  • Excellent: I see I’m not alone in thinking of Elijah lately. John the Baptist is another prophet who comes to mind—as the priests who worshipped Baal (and those that rebelled against Moses) are analogous to modern-day libertine Catholics, so the Pharisees and Sadducees are to the heretical “theologians” who thrive in American schools, even ones that are nominally Catholic.

An Administration at War With Our First Freedom

Thursday, March 1, AD 2012

“Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm.”

James Madison, Federalist 10

The video above is from the Heritage Foundation and incisively sets forth how ObamaCare is at war with religious liberty.  The Founding Fathers made it clear that they viewed freedom of religion as being at the core of the framework of what they were seeking to accomplish:


“We have abundant reason to rejoice that in this Land the light of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition, and that every person may here worship God according to the dictates of his own heart.  In this enlightened Age and in this Land of equal liberty it is our boast, that a man’s religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining and holding the highest Offices that are known in the United States.”

George Washington




“That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.”

Patrick Henry






The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society.

James Madison




“Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure (and) which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.”

Charles Carroll of Carollton



Pope Benedict recognizes the threat to religious freedom that exists in our country:

In the light of these considerations, it is imperative that the entire Catholic community in the United States come to realize the grave threats to the Church’s public moral witness presented by a radical secularism which finds increasing expression in the political and cultural spheres. The seriousness of these threats needs to be clearly appreciated at every level of ecclesial life. Of particular concern are certain attempts being made to limit that most cherished of American freedoms, the freedom of religion. Many of you have pointed out that concerted efforts have been made to deny the right of conscientious objection on the part of Catholic individuals and institutions with regard to cooperation in intrinsically evil practices. Others have spoken to me of a worrying tendency to reduce religious freedom to mere freedom of worship without guarantees of respect for freedom of conscience.

Here once more we see the need for an engaged, articulate and well-formed Catholic laity endowed with a strong critical sense vis-à-vis the dominant culture and with the courage to counter a reductive secularism which would delegitimize the Church’s participation in public debate about the issues which are determining the future of American society. The preparation of committed lay leaders and the presentation of a convincing articulation of the Christian vision of man and society remain a primary task of the Church in your country; as essential components of the new evangelization, these concerns must shape the vision and goals of catechetical programs at every level.

Continue reading...

32 Responses to An Administration at War With Our First Freedom

  • “One of my ancestors died at Bunker Hill to establish this Republic and I intend not to see what he fought for ended in my lifetime.”

    “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is its natural manure.”

    I pray that this does not mean the inevitability of civil war, but the liberals are not going to give up without a fight.

  • I do not think that it will come to that Paul, but it is important that we all speak out now and act to defeat an Administration that is at war with traditional American notions of liberty.

  • I pray that this does not mean the inevitability of civil war, but the liberals are not going to give up without a fight.

    Hugh Thomas’ histories of the Spanish civil war include accounts of Spanish political life immediately prior (1931-36) and the mentality of the bourgeois republican parties depicted therein (and manifested in the figure of Manuel Azana) is disconcertingly familiar.

  • I pray that Donald’s optimism proves true and Art’s analogy false. (No offense intended, Art.)

  • It seems Pharaoh is intent on denying Americans unalienable rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

    Seems as if the “general welfare” and “commerce” clauses, and social justice are being used as alibis for tyranny.

  • Pingback: Religious Liberty: Obamacare’s First Casualty « Circle or Line under Most Beautiful Absolute
  • “Seems as if the “general welfare” and “commerce” clauses, and social justice are being used as alibis for tyranny.” Yep – for about the last 75 years. See “FDR’s New Deal.”

    “Social Justice” is a straw man, propped up by Progressives to underscore their collectivist philosophy. Christianity, and by default the Church, can be concerned only with Individual Justice. Salvation is not offered to “Society.” It is offered to each man, woman and child as individual creations in and of God’s image. Anything that lumps people together into a faceless blob is dehumanizing and derogatory; in and of themselves two qualities that are inherently unjust.

    This is why the government is inherently unjust. It does not see individuals. It Socializes everything, and now it has come this far.

    I fear Paul may have the most prescient point of view. This election will tell the tale.

  • The Senate vote to kill the Blunt Amendment today 51-48. This amendment would have killed the HHS Mandate. Three Democrats voted against tabling the Blunt Amendment: Manchin, Casey and Nelson. One Republican, the worthless pro-abort Olympia Snow who just announced her long overdue retirement, voted in favor of tabling the amendment.

    Here is how each of the Senators voted:

    kaka (D-HI), Yea
    Alexander (R-TN), Nay
    Ayotte (R-NH), Nay
    Barrasso (R-WY), Nay
    Baucus (D-MT), Yea
    Begich (D-AK), Yea
    Bennet (D-CO), Yea
    Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
    Blumenthal (D-CT), Yea
    Blunt (R-MO), Nay
    Boozman (R-AR), Nay
    Boxer (D-CA), Yea
    Brown (D-OH), Yea
    Brown (R-MA), Nay
    Burr (R-NC), Nay
    Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
    Cardin (D-MD), Yea
    Carper (D-DE), Yea
    Casey (D-PA), Nay
    Chambliss (R-GA), Nay
    Coats (R-IN), Nay
    Coburn (R-OK), Nay
    Cochran (R-MS), Nay
    Collins (R-ME), Nay
    Conrad (D-ND), Yea
    Coons (D-DE), Yea
    Corker (R-TN), Nay
    Cornyn (R-TX), Nay
    Crapo (R-ID), Nay
    DeMint (R-SC), Nay
    Durbin (D-IL), Yea
    Enzi (R-WY), Nay
    Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
    Franken (D-MN), Yea

    Gillibrand (D-NY), Yea
    Graham (R-SC), Nay
    Grassley (R-IA), Nay
    Hagan (D-NC), Yea
    Harkin (D-IA), Yea
    Hatch (R-UT), Nay
    Heller (R-NV), Nay
    Hoeven (R-ND), Nay
    Hutchison (R-TX), Nay
    Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
    Inouye (D-HI), Yea
    Isakson (R-GA), Nay
    Johanns (R-NE), Nay
    Johnson (D-SD), Yea
    Johnson (R-WI), Nay
    Kerry (D-MA), Yea
    Kirk (R-IL), Not Voting
    Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
    Kohl (D-WI), Yea
    Kyl (R-AZ), Nay
    Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
    Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
    Leahy (D-VT), Yea
    Lee (R-UT), Nay
    Levin (D-MI), Yea
    Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
    Lugar (R-IN), Nay
    Manchin (D-WV), Nay
    McCain (R-AZ), Nay
    McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
    McConnell (R-KY), Nay
    Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
    Merkley (D-OR), Yea
    Mikulski (D-MD), Yea

    Moran (R-KS), Nay
    Murkowski (R-AK), Nay
    Murray (D-WA), Yea
    Nelson (D-FL), Yea
    Nelson (D-NE), Nay
    Paul (R-KY), Nay
    Portman (R-OH), Nay
    Pryor (D-AR), Yea
    Reed (D-RI), Yea
    Reid (D-NV), Yea
    Risch (R-ID), Nay
    Roberts (R-KS), Nay
    Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
    Rubio (R-FL), Nay
    Sanders (I-VT), Yea
    Schumer (D-NY), Yea
    Sessions (R-AL), Nay
    Shaheen (D-NH), Yea
    Shelby (R-AL), Nay
    Snowe (R-ME), Yea
    Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
    Tester (D-MT), Yea
    Thune (R-SD), Nay
    Toomey (R-PA), Nay
    Udall (D-CO), Yea
    Udall (D-NM), Yea
    Vitter (R-LA), Nay
    Warner (D-VA), Yea
    Webb (D-VA), Yea
    Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
    Wicker (R-MS), Nay
    Wyden (D-OR), Yea

  • The fact that Casey voted against it is really no surprise. I know some had high hopes for him but it was never to be.

    Knowing how liberal northeast Catholics from Pa tend to be it was probably more popular for him to vote against the Amendment.

    Regarding this whole situation, I for one really wish the Church leadership would take this opportunity not just to rail about general notions of “religious” liberty, but stand firm and bold and explain why contraception is immoral. This is the opportunity given to them to proclaim the Truth!

    Instead it’s been left to Santorum to discuss contraception in a medium not best suited for this fight. He has earned my immense respect, for he is essentially the lone voice talking about the evil of contraception and being clobbered for it.
    Our Catholic leadership has been given a perfect opportunity and it is being squandered. I keep hearing “it’s not about contraception, it’s not about contraception”, but it’s about “religious liberty”.

    Well, for our President and his minions it’s about contraception…

    It’s like

  • Actually Chris a no vote was in support of the Blunt Amendment, so Casey the Lesser voted in favor of religious freedom. I have no doubt that Reid allowed this vote to get to the floor without a filibuster only because he knew that he had the votes to kill it. The Republicans should bring this back to the floor every week and make the Democrats vote over and over again against religious liberty.

  • If I’m a D, I vote with D’s – virtue and life don’t belong in the Party mindset.

  • thank for this list! the three states of most interest to me.. Iowa- the 2 senators cancelled each other, as usual; South Dakota, the 2 senators cancelled each other, but Nebraska was totally pro -life.

    My concern is that Non Resident Nebraskan Bob Kerrey is running for Nelson’s seat. I believe he is swooping down from his high perch in the East, to forward his ideology– not to represent the good people of Nebraska.

  • I do wonder whether Obama’s father in fact came from Kenya.

    Judging by the way he’s acting, he came from Zimbabwe – and that despotice president Mugabe is Obama’s role model and hero.

    It really staggers me that so many Americans think that all this is okay. They are so blinded that they cannot see an assault on their freedom???

    And this, of course, is the thin end of the wedge – surrender once, and you’re going….going…..GONE.

  • Actually Chris a no vote was in support of the Blunt Amendment, so Casey the Lesser voted in favor of religious freedom.

    My fault, very suprised he voted that way. Would like to give him the benefit of the doubt on no ulterior motives via Reid, but I think you have it right……

  • Even more striking: it appears that more Catholic Senators (13) voted AGAINST the amendment than for it (11)!


    The breakdown as enumerated in the above story:

    Catholics who voted for Freedom (i.e. to NOT table the amendment) include Kelly Ayotte (R-New Hampshire), Pat Toomey (R-Pennsylvania), Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia), Bob Casey, Jr. (D-Pennsylvania), Jim Risch (R-Idaho), Marco Rubio (R-Florida), David Vitter (R-Louisiana), Susan Collins (R-Maine),John Hoeven (R-North Dakota), Mike Johanns (R-Nebraska),Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)

    Catholics voting to table the amendment (thereby voting AGAINST the Church in this case) were: Mark Begich (D-Alaska), Maria Cantwell (D-Washington), Richard Durbin (D-Illinois), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-New York), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), John Kerry (D-Massachusetts), Mary Landrieu (D-Louisiana), Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri), Bob Menendez (D-New Jersey), Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland), Patty Murray (D-Washington), and Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island).

    The latter list, of course, reads like a roundup of the usual suspects when it comes to Catholic Democrats voting pro-abortion and all that. What does it say when Baptists (including Sen. Blunt himself) and Methodists were more “Catholic” than the Catholics were on this issue?

  • I wonder how many of these Catholic Senators sent their kids to Catholic schools. Schools that are now in jeopardy of closing.

  • The latter list of Catholic Senators voting against the amendment includes 4 who are up for re-election this year: Cantwell, Gillibrand, McCaskill, and Menendez. Just FYI for residents of the affected states… don’t forget the Senate race on your ballot!

  • I have one word for the USCCB: “excommunication.”

    Those people are liberals not Christians. One cannot serve both masters. They have chosen the secular over the eternal.

    Salvation and doing the heavy lifting for the despicable party of envy, hate and murder are mutually exclusive.

    They deploy social justice as the alibi for every mortal sin in the Book.

  • T. Shaw, it would be good for the sake of the confused faithful and uninformed youth to have some word from that authority on how to think through the onslaught of the liberal legislation. By November, if there is no concise word to counter their rhetoric, we will be shamed before God. Right now, on EWTN, there is a special program with its CEO on Women of Grace live discussing the situation of spinning contraception.

  • It seems to me that no one is mandating that the Catholic CHURCH, or Catholic individuals to do anything against their belief system. It is businesses administered by Catholics, that are being required to follow the law. Businesses who accept government funding are required to follow the laws. Businesses run by Catholics, are considered Tax- exempt due to a ruling in 1959 about church-related businesses, on a par with 501(C) 3 non-profits. Catholic Hospitals and churches pay NO taxes (corporate welfare), build their buildings with the help of government-funded bonds; and Catholic Hospitals accept government patient funding in the way of government insurances- Medicaid and Medicare. I suggest if the Catholic Bishops do not want to follow the rules of laws by the government, that they stop taking government benefits and become totally private unto themselves. Sell private insurance to people who do not want contraception, or any other objectionable treatment, and only want to be treated in Catholic Hospitals.This might be an appropriate time to look again at those tax exemptions, anyway.

  • “It seems to me that no one is mandating that the Catholic CHURCH, or Catholic individuals to do anything against their belief system. It is businesses administered by Catholics, that are being required to follow the law.”

    Rubbish. Businesses are made up of individuals. My law firm is me.

    “Businesses who accept government funding are required to follow the laws.”
    No, the HHS Mandate is not limited to businesses who accept government funding. In any case you cannot strip individuals of their constitutional rights simply because Uncle Sam decides to purchase services from them.

    “Catholic Hospitals and churches pay NO taxes (corporate welfare),”

    Catholic hospitals and churches and schools provide far more in charitable services than the taxes that could be squeezed from them. Calling this welfare merely indicates you do not have any idea what you are talking about.

    “I suggest if the Catholic Bishops do not want to follow the rules of laws by the government, that they stop taking government benefits and become totally private unto themselves.”

    Hilarious. Catholic schools receive no assistance from the government, and the impact of all those students suddenly going to public schools would be immense. The free care provided by Catholic hospitals to the poor is an immense saving to the taxpayers in this country each year.

  • Something Donald wrote caused me to start thinking. I had always believed that Catholic institutions shouldn’t accept money from the Government because it makes them beholden to Government. But really, isn’t the onus on the buyer, not the seller, hence the warning, “Buyer beware”? Let me explain.

    If Government gives money to Catholic institutions because of the educational or charitable work that they do, then Government is in effect the buyer. If Government doesn’t like what it is buying, then it needs to stop buying. It has no right to force the seller to give a different product or the same product in a different way. So regardless that Government might have given Catholic institutions money, it did so ostensibly for the educational or charitable work that those institutions provide which Government demonstrably cannot provide.

    Now the only exception to this thumb rule or principle is when we are dealing with things like nuclear energy (US NRC), or aircraft structures and engines (FAA), or medical instrumentation and controls equipment (FDA). For example, in my industry, the Government gets to tell my company what our nuclear products will do when installed, how they will operate, and how they are made, inspected and tested. It does this by regulation promulgated from the US NRC (i.e., 10 CR 50), and because of the overriding need to ensure public health and safety, no one here would want that process to be any different [ unless you would prefer to glow in the dark while sterile 😉 ]. None of that, however, applies to any Catholic institution.

    If Government buys a charitable product, then Government needs to shut up on how that product is provided. Stupid godless liberalism, however, says differently.

  • I forgot to add something in my analogy above. Issuing regulation to protect the public and the environment from radiological releases does not equate to issuing regulation to provide free contraception so that men and women may immorally titillate their genitals without fear of unintended pregnancy.

    In the first case, regulations are issued to ensure the safe use of radioactives (and hence the safe generation of electricity) without threatening human life or the environment.

    In the second case, regulations are issued so that perverts can wallow sexual filth on the public dime without either responsibility or accountability.

    People can die from excessive radiation exposure, but there have been ZERO such cases in 50+ years of commercial US nuclear power in large measure because of intelligent regulation.

    However and paradoxically, the regulations that promote contraception use will result in MORE instances of venereal disease and MORE deaths among the members of the public.

    No one will ever die from sexual abstinence. Yet Obama’s Government wants to shove the hedonist life style of sexual perversion down especially the Catholic Church’s throat. He’s going to find that that throat is a part of the Body of Christ before whose Head he will one day find himself standing – and wanting (God forbid!).

  • No!

    It is not about the First Amendment.

    It is not about birth control.

    It’s about distracting your attention and energies from 100,000 failures the regime has accomplished.

  • If Government gives money to Catholic institutions because of the educational or charitable work that they do, then Government is in effect the buyer. If Government doesn’t like what it is buying, then it needs to stop buying. It has no right to force the seller to give a different product or the same product in a different way. So regardless that Government might have given Catholic institutions money, it did so ostensibly for the educational or charitable work that those institutions provide which Government demonstrably cannot provide.
    All taxes remain the property of the taxpayer even while being administered by the adminstration. For the administration to return some of the taxes to the tax payer is absolutely legal. Government in and of itself can own nothing, because we the tax paying citizens own the government. Eveything belongs to each and every citizen in joint and common tenancy.

  • Originally posted as a response to THE WHITE HOUSE HOPES FOR A SCHISM. This post belongs here as it is about religious freedom, which comes from God our Creator, not from the state. Can the state create your immortal soul? Your conscience? Your intellect? your free will? The duty of the state is to protect and defend, virginity, innocence and the citizens’ civil rights. How does Obamacare protect virginity, innocence or civil rights?
    Sovereign immunity is that shield from the state’s penetrating into one’s immortal soul and taking God-given freedom from a person, sucking the marrow from his constitutional bones. The Catholic Church has been compliant with rules and regulations to help the state, such as incorporating as a non-profit or as a religious institution. This is in good will. The Church does not need to do this. The state cannot, in reality, give the Church a tax-exemption, because the state cannot tax the Church. Therefore, an exemption implies that the state may tax the Church, but is being a nice guy about generosity. Well, generosity is a virtue, a God-given virtue and the practice of religion by the state in rendering the virtue of charity through the God-given virtue of generosity to the Church. And God is left laughing.
    Sovereign immunity, like diplomatic immunity, defines the realm of the Catholic Church as being autonomous in its existence through the Catholic Church’s institution by Jesus Christ, of the Catholic Church’s creation by God, of which the state has had and may have no part.
    In redefining freedom, the state has dissolved the very foundations of its existence as constituted by the sovereign persons who have constituted the state. In violating the will of the people, the state has failed to be the state. In violating the will of God for His Catholic Church and for the people of God, the state has incited the wrath of God.
    Back to the future in the catacombs.
    As President, Bill Clinton wrote an executive order making all free lands and waters the privilege of the president. As President, Obama wrote executive order 13575 Rural Councils, making all private land the object of eminent domain, to be taken at will from all persons, but not FOR all persons, as eminent domain requires. The LOST treaty, not ratified by Congress (only Congress ratifies treaties) signed by Hillary Clinton, secretary of State with the United Nations, an atheistic entity without sovereign authority or immunity since only God gives sovereignty through the immortal soul of man, privatizes all the oceans and seas and the mineral rights under the seas to the United Nations. American citizens will now have to pay to sail the seas. The reason this is of utmost importance, is that now, when Obama nationalizes the Catholic Church and her property, there is nowhere to say Mass. Once upon a time, in Ireland, Mass was said in a goat drawn cart hauled onto the land exposed by the receding tide. This riprarian land was no man’s land. The exiled Catholic Church Mass was free to be said on this land which belonged to God. Obama has usurped what belongs to God and redefined God’s property as his own. There is nowhere for the Catholic Mass to be said, once Obama nationalizes all church property, except the catacombs, once again.

  • wow- very interesting Mary– if what you said is correct, the LOST treaty mentioned is one among the many precipitous actions of the last three years that have escaped much real scrutiny! There seems to be more we don’t know than what we do know about why we so need a new administration.
    How can such (almost subterranean) issues all be made a part of the the national discussion? Who can capture the microphone now so ably held by the counter-Christian culture movers and shakers?

  • This thread is getting far removed from the topic of the post. Stay on topic please.

  • Excuse me please.

  • Obamacare is a blank check. What Congress representing its constitutents signs a blank check? What citizen in his right mind signs a blank check to a government entity? Is informed consent to any contract still valid? Is informed consent to a “mandate” still a necessary part of that mandate? If Obama can demand a blank check from citizens and tell them that it is in their best interest to provide him with a blank check, isn’t giving Obama what he demands like signing a blank contract, leaving it to the seller to supply you with his choice of products not described or offered for sale?

George Will: This Is What Liberalism Looks Like

Tuesday, February 14, AD 2012

George Will on ABC’s This Week last Sunday made three points in regard to the HHS Mandate “compromise” that are undeniably true:



Three points.

As Paul Ryan said to you, this is an accounting gimmick that they’ve done that in no way ends the complicity of Catholic institutions and individuals in delivering services they consider morally abhorrent.
Second. You asked the question, ‘How did this come about?’ George, this is what liberalism looks like. This is what the progressive state does. It tries to break all the institutions of civil society, all the institutions that mediate between the individual and the state. They have to break them to the saddle of the state.
Third. The Catholic Bishops, it serves them right. They’re the ones who were really hot for Obamacare, with a few exceptions. But they were all in favor of this. And this is what it looks like when the government decides it’s going to make your healthcare choices for you.

Continue reading...

11 Responses to George Will: This Is What Liberalism Looks Like

  • I hope the Bishops have learned a lesson now about the dangers of the Church getting into bed with the Welfare State, but I doubt it….What the Obama administration has done in regard to contraceptives and abortifacients was as predictable as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west.

    C’mon, Donald. Thomas E. Dewey did not institute this policy. Edmund Muskie did not institute this policy. Jimmy Carter did not institute this policy. It is a decision local to the current cohorts of soi-disant social reformers. We have had federally financed medical care for 46 years and had a network of municipal and veterans’ hospitals for decades prior to that. The sort of arrogance incorporated into the Administrations latest crime is not a structural feature of common provision of medical services.

  • C’mon Art. Modern liberalism, since the 1990’s, as feminists and gay rights advocates became increasingly influential, has had a hostility to Christianity in general, and Catholicism in particular, that was not overtly present in earlier manifestations of that creed. What the Obama administration did was not only predictable, but inevitable. Increase the power of the State, and the Church is always at peril that individuals who bear the Church undying animosity will eventually control that power.

  • Yes. I’m glad Will called the bishops on their support for “universal health care.” I suppose I should admire their lack of guile, but honestly. Why would anyone think that any state which sets itself up as the sole proprietor of your healthcare would do otherwise? The land of nice, Canada, prohibits people from paying for their own healthcare. Why would the U.S. do differently, if given the chance? I sincerely hope the bishops have learned that freedom is best preserved in smaller, more local institutions.

  • What the Obama administration did was not only predictable, but inevitable.

    No, it was not. It was a clear policy choice and a bad one.

    Modern liberalism, since the 1990?s, as feminists and gay rights advocates became increasingly influential, has had a hostility to Christianity in general, and Catholicism in particular, that was not overtly present in earlier manifestations of that creed.

    True, but that is a cultural factor, not a structural one.

  • A mythic committee set out to improve on the race horse. They invented a camel.

    You can’t have a committee deciding on objective truth. What you get are loose interpretations and inconsistent applications.

    The USBBC (conference/committee) set out to improve health care. The salvation of souls is so yesterday. They invented Obamacare and abortion/birth control mandates.

    That is why we have the Pope.

    If in 2008 the majority of US bishops (supposed to be our shepherds) had preached the Pope’s “Four Non-negotiables”, they might not be in their current embarrassing fix.

    Will is right. When the shepherds gave the state the corporal works of mercy, they ceded their moral authority in that area.

    They subordinated the salvation of souls to peace, justice, and aiding and abetting cynical political posturing.

  • “No, it was not. It was a clear policy choice and a bad one. ”

    And a policy choice that was inevitable Art given those who were going to make it. Obama didn’t put Sebelius in charge of HHS by accident.

  • Like I said before, until the bishops take responsibility for their part in bringing this about all their cassock ruffling over teh HHS mandate is not going to have the crtedibility it needs to have.

  • The principle of Subsidiarity is too easily abandonned.
    That’s what western societies have been doing for the past 100 years or so – of course secularists will grasp the opportunity to impose more and more control over the people.

    Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.

  • The Bishops forgot this:
    “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take everything you have.”
    Thomas Jefferson

    Here’s another article on this very subject:


  • Let’s talk about the root of the problem: “Faithful Citizenship” from the USCCB which
    listed multiple issues worthy of consideration.

    It did say that a person could not vote for a pro-abort IF they were doing so to promote
    abortion. It should have said a Catholic could NOT vote for a pro-abort/choice candidate
    period – St. Louis Bishop Robert Hermann told Catholics to vote pro-life and after the
    2008 election wrote that if one made the mistake of voting for a pro-abort they should go to Confession. “FAITHFUL CITIZENSHIP” needs to withdrawn yesterday. Bishops should tell priests and laity to vote pro-life in the Primaries. Their silence is deafening!

Obama’s Latest Fig Leaf is Not Acceptable

Friday, February 10, AD 2012

Update III:  The USCCB Pro-Life Director Richard Doerflinger and Congressman Chris Smith of New Jersey agree with me that this “accommodation” or “compromise” is unacceptable.  Sadly Sr. Keehan of the the Catholic Health Associate found this “satisfactory”.  It looks like Obama will be happy that Sr. Keehan is on board.  Of course, Planned Parenthood and Sr. Keehan agree.

Update II:  Rumor confirmed.  Insurance, that Religious Institutions pay into, will provide contraception, ie, it is still a violation of the First Amendment.

Update I: Rumor is that “Hawaii” compromise will be offered, but the bishops have already rejected this.  So basically it’s a poor attempt at stalling and not really offering a solution.

The buzz this morning is that Obama is “caving in” to the pressure and will announce a “compromise” today at 12:15pm Eastern.

The news reports are saying that Religious Organizations won’t have to offer birth control, only the insurance companies that these Religious Organizations provide will offer birth control.

Yeah, that’s the compromise.

If these reports are true, this is dead on arrival.  Changing the meaning of the words won’t do it.

Continue reading...

34 Responses to Obama’s Latest Fig Leaf is Not Acceptable

  • It’s George Orwell’s 1984, except the date should be 2012.

  • …only the insurance companies that these Religious Organizations provide will offer birth control…

    And who pays premiums into the insurance pool? The Religious Organizations and in most cases, their employees. This is no compromise; it’s word-smithing.

  • Exactly Big Tex.

    I wish I were more eloquent and prescient as you were, but I wanted to get this out and digested before Obama did another Pravda Announcement.

  • Next, he’ll offer 30 pieces of silver, the price of a man.

    I’m insulted.

    He must think we are as stupid as he.

  • Pingback: . . .Breaking: Obama Compromise is No Compromise. . . | ThePulp.it
  • Politics at its worst. This administration is not caving in on anything. They are mandating and telling the insurance companies what product to sell and at what price to sell. Unconstitutional.

  • He’s on the run.

    Don’t accept the first.

    Counter with: “Resign tyrant.”

  • Let’s pretend that birth control is a health issue (hahahah, sorry — I’ll stop laughing now). Since when is the President qualified to ORDER medical treatments? Did he go to medical school or something?

  • Lord have mercy. Has Sr. Keehan have no shame? No conscience? Her bishop should have a friendly chat with her, remind her that part of the reason the Church and the entire country is in this mess is in part her doing, and then politely ask her to keep her mouth shut.

  • Unfortunately it may be that Sr. Keehan has no problem with contraception, sterilization etc.

  • She also has no problem in wearing anything but a habit.

  • HHS was The Institute of Medical Services idea. BO and KS said so.
    The change in payment was recommended by some Insurance Business Institute.
    One, quick little mention of ‘religious liberty’ being intact, so there you guys who are complaining so much.

    Contraception was the whole focus of what HHS means to USA, no mention of the laundry list of other ‘care’.

    Contraception is good for preventing women’s health problems. What about all the studies of causes for women’s cancer? Women, not girls, what happened to the 11 year olds that were going to be ‘cared’ for? Not PC for a noonday speech for Catholic listeners. Ugh. More questions than answers from he who was paid by a Catholic org. to do work.

    Contraception is the lowest common denominator of appeal for those who would trash Church teaching before letting go of complacency.

    No apology for using the word Mandate in olden times like yesterday. Now, it’s all about being the bearer of ‘good’ compromise for all concerned, especially those who want contraception. Politics, pandering to voters, and shutting up the Church.

  • I think Sr. Keehan has no idea how insurance works.

  • from he who was paid by a Catholic org. to do work.
    He said so.

  • Too busy today to do anything right now except to note that this is no compromise and anyone who thinks it is is either a fool or a knave. Obama truly does have nothing but contempt for those outside of his ideological bubble.

  • Who is this Senior Keehan?

  • Obama went out of his way to say that he supports freedom of religion, pointing out that one of his stints as a community organizer in Chicago was funded by a Catholic group.

    Gag me with a spoon. I wonder which Catholic group funded his community organizing. I wonder further if those funds made their way through the CSA.


  • There can be no compromise with evil.

    I would hold out for his resignation. That’s me.

  • Another great takedown of this duplicitous “compromise” over at Vox Nova.

  • Haha Paul. I’ll comment on that later. I’ll let others read the takedown first.

  • “Sister” Keehan is a traitor. If she approves of this, then it is not to be trusted. The road of compromise is never ending! Don’t take it. Time for Catholics willing to suffer persecution to stand up and be counted. If Obama wins this, it’s all over for Faith and freedom. Wake up America!
    Immaculate Conception pray for us.

  • I’ll update my post with that link, Paul. Good catch.

  • If the bishops will not or cannot make (Sr.) Keehan behave then hopefully the vatican will discipline her and her order. She is a disgrace to American nuns who are pro-life. In effect, she is giving comfort to the enemy and she needs to be stopped!!!

  • I clicked on the link thinking someone at Vox Nova had actually written something critical of Pharaoh Obama’s “compromise.” It seems most there are content to retreat into philosophical condemnations of American Democracy and other acts of mental onanism.

    I suspect MM is waiting for the Dem talking points.

  • Phillip:

    Kudos. I am afflicted with violent nausea by ravings of lunatics that believe in a vast array of dumb and illogical rubbish.

    Apparently, that pack of catholic Commies (adherents of the gospel of Mao) believe the destruction of the evil, unjust private sector justifies both the damnation of souls and the denial of basic human rights, i.e., religious liberty.

    Seems, they have bought into the tyrant’s alibi: the “welfare of humanity justifies enslaving humanity.”

    You are too kind and genteel. I would have waxed sort of alliterative: “acts of mental masturbation.”

  • The vn are not compromising with evil. They are evil.

  • There aren’t enough exorcists — are there?

  • I was going to rebuke T Shaw for going a bit too far, but he’s really not far afield. To rationalize this decision in such a way is just astounding. There really is no road low enough for these folks at VN. That said, I have to agree with Tony on one thing.

    Think of Romney attacking Obama when he did the same thing in Massachusetts!

    Well, at least that one was non-demented sentence in the rant.

  • How did Sr. Keenan get quoted? I understood this article was about what Catholics thought?
    Dan Malone

  • May God Change Sr. Keehan’s heart. We all should pray she converts and repents. She is truly a lost soul directing others to HELL.

  • The Catholic Church will never obey this mandate, not if all the powers of Hell were to shove it down our throats. I know that moral doctrine may seem a strange and ancient thing to your administration Mr President, but understand that as Catholics, we are required to disobey unjust law. Commanded. It is our duty. Do you understand the gravity of the ultimatum you’ve made? You have placed the faithful Catholic in a position in which he must choose between obeying your mandate and obeying God. To comply with the HHS mandate will be considered a sin. Regardless of how you view your actions, do not so easily ignore how the Church views your actions — as attacking her flock. Force the mandate on faithful institutions, and faithful institutions will shut down their services. Force it on our hospitals, our universities, our schools, and our convents and we will bear the consequences of looking you, Sibelius and all the rest in the eyes and saying “No.” As it turns out, the Church doesn’t give a damn what you think — She never has cared for the powers of the world — and will resist you with all Her might. To be briefer still, and to say what those bound by politics cannot: Bring it.

  • Me and my wife have been trying to have a child for over a year and we are seeing a fertility doctor who is putting my wife on birth control for one month to regulate her cycle (i.e., as part of a plan aimed at treatments during the following month). I don’t think this is a sin and I don’t see any problem with the Catholic Church providing those contraceptives if I worked for them. I don’t see the catch-22 Nancy describes because it seems the sin only occurs when contraceptives are used to prevent a pregnancy. Although contraceptives can be used in a sinful way, so can other health-related drugs, medical devices, or equipment. The most obvious examples are the use of many prescription drugs to commit suicide or to be abused. In the case of these other drugs, the Church doesn’t eliminate the drugs from their health plan but instead provides them and expects Catholics to follow its teachings and not use the drugs in the commission of a sin. Why are contraceptives different? They have a number of non-sinful uses, including use by non-Catholic employees or to regulate menstruation (i.e., in someone who is not having sex). I don’t see why providing these drugs would be any more a sin than providing Oxycontin or morphine. Would it be a sin for the Church to provide baseball bats because they could be used to commit a murder?

45 Responses to The New Progressive Martyrdom

  • That is unfair.

    Catholics for Obama are not as evil as Judas.

    They are about 2% less vicious.

  • “They are about 2% less vicious.”

    And paid a whole lot more than 30 pieces of silver!

  • I got it the first time, but the second cartoon is great! Some “catholics” just don’t want to get it……all those babies gone from their chance at life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…..and the chance to have loving moms and dads and to learn about the future. The only thing that passes as hope is that the millions of babies not born are angels in heaven now.

  • St Augustine wrote in the City of God.

    “What is reprehensible is that, while leading good lives themselves and abhorring those of wicked men, some fearing to offend shut their eyes to evil deeds instead of condemning them and pointing out their malice. . . . still, there is more self-seeking here than becomes men who are mere sojourners in this world and who profess hope of a home in heaven.”

  • Obama got 54% of the Catholic vote. While I’m a majority of them were of the National Catholic Distorter (I mean Reporter) stripe, a significant degree of them were pro-life orthodox Catholics. Catholics like most people vote their perceived economic interests more than any other factor.

    In my mind, this is an indication of a woeful ignorance of the principle of subsidiarity, the bedrock principle of Catholic social teaching. Consequently, Catholics, by and large, have absolutely no clue as to how economic issues affect the culture and life issues and vicea versa. When was the last time anyone has ever heard the bishops even mention the principle of subsidiarity, much less give a coherent explanation of it in the context of our present circumstances? While Obamacare was being shoved down our throats, the only U.S. bishop, at least to my knowledge, that even raised the question about how a takeover of one sixth of our economy can be squared with the principle of subsidiarity was Bp. Lori of Bridgeport, CT. In fact, if it wasn’t for the abortion funding provision they would have been completely on board with Obamacare.

    No, our bishops are usually too busy taking sides on issues they have no business taking sides on like capital punishment, immigration (it was the same Abp. Dolan who praised Cdl Mahony’s equating AZ’s SB 1070 with Communist and Nazi tactics while issuing an irresponsible and I think calumnious attack of his own) etc.

    Until the bishops actually spending time teaching the faith as opposed to using their good offices pursuing their ideological agenda under thin guise of social justice, their pleas on stuff like this will lack the credibility it needs.

  • What Greg Mockeridge said…

    Also, what exactly did 0bama Catholics get for voting for him? In other words, what represents the 30 pieces of silver? I hope it was something more than a warm, fuzzy feeling.

  • I take great exception to these characterizations of Catholics who voted for Obama.

    I know many who did and, while I strongly disagree with their choice, these attacks are entirely unwarranted and unjust.

    Many believed that abortion was at a stalemate – they bought, hook, line, and sinker, the story spun by the Left that the Executive Branch was powerless to affect the abortion question. Foolish? More than a little. This is, though, the result of not teaching civics over the last fifty years – of failing to educate Americans as to how their government works.

    Lambs led to a slaughter – not partners in evil.

    There is no good and just cause to alienate our brothers and sisters with such talk and recrimination. Indeed, it isn’t even smart! Do you really want to drive them back into that fold just as they are waking up?

    Folks… Charity is called for, not meanness and a deadly dose of “told ya so.”

  • Lambs being led to slaughter…….sounds like the jews in nazi germany!!!!!! It is about time Catholics..American or Catholics from every country..wake up. We are only in this world for a short time…and will be in eternity forever…We can have a lot of fun while we are here….God has been good to us, but there are a few rules we have to follow. Those who think they can constantly turn against those rules will have to answer one day..I am not judging or condemning anyone. You cannot convince me that adult American Catholics do not know what abortion is…and the far reaching results for the economy and future of our country…not to mention what the results will be for us in the next world

  • Pingback: WEDNESDAY U.S. POLITICS EXTRA | ThePulp.it
  • “Wake up!” is an excellent message to send. The first cartoon captures my feelings well.

    “You are traitors and knowing conspirators with evil” is precisely the wrong message to send to our fellow Catholics; uncatechised men and women who grew up in a culture which treats religion as a window-dressing, people who want to be good and to do right but are confused by the myriad of demands and mixed messages.

    My grandfather used to say that it isn’t fair to judge men by what they do. Even our best plans fall far short of what we hoped for. By that measure, we are all utter failures. You can only judge by what a man meant to do: either good or evil.

  • “Lambs led to a slaughter – not partners in evil.” Thank you, G-Veg. My beloved American Catholics, stop tearing one another apart and rally around your Bishops. Even the “coward” Peter who denied Jesus three times, still rose to the occasion of the Mission his Master gave him of leading His Infant Church. We need to remember that this One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is under the protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit. She is both Divine and Human. Divine because She is Holy, Human because Her Leaders are human – just as we all are, with all human frailties. Therefore, whenever She has been under persecution and emerged victorious, God’s Power was confirmed and Her Holiness re-affirmed.

  • Obama got 54% of the Catholic vote. While I’m a majority of them were of the National Catholic Distorter (I mean Reporter) stripe, a significant degree of them were pro-life orthodox Catholics.

    I will wager that about 70% of them were derived from the pool of Catholics of the modal type: those not at Mass. They would not know the National Catholic Reporter from the local pennysaver.

  • G-Veg & [email protected],

    Your points are duly noted.

    For the time being the post will remain up.

  • Mr. Edwards,

    I am not asking that any posts or comments be removed.

    My taking exception reflects my views. I do not speak for any other and do not ask that anyone be silent on my account.

  • Sorry, but I don’t regret any of it. Because . . .

    It wasn’t abortion.

    It still is abortion;

    Plus contraception; gay privileges; divorce; universal promiscuity; public school destructions of children’s consciences while prohibiting parental intervention; etc.

    They are going to vote for that way again.

    Worst: They buy into the class envy, hope and change thing. The evil, unjust private sector is being destroyed. So, with what will the ominpotent, omniscient state replace it?

    Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods.

    Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself – even if he earned more than you.

  • I’m reminded of that scene in The Omen in which the girl leaps from the building happily shouting, “Damien, It’s all for you!”

  • Mr. Edwards, my plea was that we do not look back at the mistake the American Catholics made by voting for Obama. No one – then – knew exactly what his Agenda was. So all those who voted for him, did so in good faith. But now that he has shown his hand, we should all join together and fight the Evil. From my beloved Kenya, Obama’s father homeland, we are on our knees praying for your Country and our Holy Mother Church to win this War because God has been pushed too far. The Eucharistic Apostles of the Divine Mercy daily pray for your country at 3.00 O’clock – The Hour of Great Mercy. We are all in this War together.

  • Mary:

    Actually we did know much of what his agenda really was. There was much written about his past regarding his influences, what his beliefs were and who he associated with (e.g. Jeremiah Wright who had close ties with people like Louis Farrakan) domestic terrorist William Ayers, etc.

    This, among other things told he was someone no honest intelligence person had any business supporting him, much less a conscientious Catholic.

  • I meant to say “inteligent person”.

  • Greg, were you aware that he had disdain for Organized Religion? Because I want to believe that if the faithful American Catholics knew this – and the Catholic Church being “The Church”- they would probably have thought twice about voting for him. Unless The Faith in your beloved Country has ceased to be of any importance or influence in people’s lives. Which would be really sad.

  • People in this country have had it too good for too long and seem to support anyone they think will keep things static. They are so secularized that what is in it for them is more important than what is right. I keep hearing about how 85-98% of Catholic women use contraception….If that is so, does it negate the natural law?
    So, yes the Faith has ceased to be of importance in many people’s lives. It is hard to live in half million dollars houses and drive luxury cars if there is a chance of a new child arriving and putting a dent in the financial tone enjoyed by mom and dad and their one or two children! All the Catholic young people in the public schools rather than in parochial schools attests to this also. The tuition for parish schools cuts too deeply into parents’
    comfortable lifestyles. Imagine what another child would do !
    I am not judging anyone//but am pointing out how secular this country is…and how life after death is often put on the back burner while life here is filled with one’s own selfish desires.

  • Nope!

    In 2008 it was all Justice and peace!!!

    It was all human dignity, faux charity, “have-you-no-decency” wailing and gnashing of teeth, which was, of course, truly nothing but partisan bu!!$hit.

    And in 2012, a majority of the same moral vermin tacitly support drone assassinations and keeping the Gitmo tortuary operational.

    It’s peculiar, how just as in 2008, the death penalty, the evil tax cuts for the evil rich, and water boarding still trump abortion, contraception, gay privileges, the moral destruction of American youth, tyranny, etc.

  • G-Veg & [email protected],

    Thanks for clarifying your points.

    You guys can call me “Tito” by the way. 🙂

    Maybe we need to distinguish between Catholics that supported Obama and now regret it and those that will still vote for Obama.

  • One should be skeptical of easy answers to complex questions. The American tapestry is woven with more types and colors of thread than we pretend.

    My view is that there are two major education defects that affect American Catholic decision-making: we are not catechized and we don’t know anything about civics.

    In Peter Berger’s “The Sacred Canopy,” he posits that Man needs the concept of “god” because it provides answers to those questions that plague the human mind. I think this is essentially correct. The catechism – any system of moral and religious teaching really – provides Man with answers, answers that we desperately need in order to remain sane.

    Catechism gives Catholics ready answers. Most Catholics who are catechized are willing to accept those ready answers without much question, primarily because they are too busy living to inquire all that much into the areas of human consciousness beyond their daily needs. Catholics without catechesis NEED answers and, so, search for plausibility. There being no definite truth in their minds, it is no wonder that they reject faith-based reasoning in favor of seemingly scientific answers through the popular culture.

    It is the backdrop of uncatechized Catholics against which the present drama is being played out. We may go to church and partake in the sacraments but the underlying philosophy and the richness of Catholic scholarship is lost to most of us. Without it, we seek to meld popular culture into the surface level Catholicism that is practiced by our Protestant brothers and sisters – a religion that is largely impotent in the public sphere and only relevant in its ability to organize our private lives.

    Statements like “I would never have an abortion but who am I to tell others what to do” reflect this reality.

    In a similar way, the lack of civics education in America forces Americans to judge policy by its effect on partisan interests rather than its fit in the broader framework of our political life. Not knowing what the Constitution says or the development of Western law and culture, we ask “does this fit my worldview.” What does not is bad and what does is good, without respect to whether the policy is lawful or even intelligible.

    Our willingness to accept omnibus bills that are admitted to have been unread before signed off on seems to demonstrate this truth.

    These observations represent, admittedly, just a small portion of the causes of our decline as a people and as a religious group within the larger culture. They have to be considered though when seeking to justly chastise and problem solve.

    Our fellow Catholics don’t have to be stupid, ignorant, evil, or hypocritical for the agenda we see to take root. They need only be wrong.

    Their culpability is limited to their knowledge – or so says Jesus for, “to he whom much is given, much is expected.” It will surely go worse for a certain law professor and ambassador than for the college kid, steeped in the Marxist and hedonistic culture of an American university.

    When we assume ill will in a Man’s choosing to sin or to support a political or social cause that is at odds with Church teaching, we do a great disservice to them and the Church. Our duty is to illuminate, not destroy the vestiges of faithful understanding that remain.

  • Mary:

    Like I said, when you consider his associations and the fact that he opposed the Child Born Alive Act and organized religion is the strongest advocate against abortion, this HHS mandate really isn’t a stretch. No decent person, much less a faithful Catholic had any business voting for him.

  • I would no more want to sit down and chat with one of Hitler’s henchmen than with a doctor that makes his living off of abortions. I would nor more support one of Hitler’s henchmen than support a supporter of partial birth abortion. This is evil plain and simple as I am sure Hitler and his henchmen had some good qualities about them yet the evil shadows that.

  • MissKitty,

    It is true that, at some point, the enormity of crimes makes plain the disorder of the soul.

    What is of issue though is not whether one should sit down with a mass murderer but a fellow Catholic… Confused but Catholic.

    Let us assume that every Catholic on this blog knows at least one practicing Catholic who is using artificial birth control. Beyond a doubt, the Church’s position on artificial birth control is well known. What, then, should be our response to such a one?

    It is a lot more complex an issue than your response betrays. Talking to Catholics who voted for Candidate Obama is not at all like sitting down with Josef Mengele.

  • As a Catholic I am both offended and embarrassed by these cartoons. This is not loving and it certainly doesn’t reflect anything our Lord would do. Christ himself taught the separation of Church and State. We don’t live in a Catholic country ruled by the Papacy. We live in a nation which guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

    I believe in life at conception. I tolerate choice in this country because it’s not my place to impose my beliefs on the atheist down the street. Share the good news and if someone doesn’t want to listen, turn around kick the dust off your sandals and walk away. Don’t any of you read scripture?

    It’s far more loving and productive to put our energy into preventing unwanted pregnancies rather than spending millions of dollars over decades trying to force females to give birth to children they don’t want and would probably keep rather than place for adoption. A little education and support go a long way.

    Teaching abstinence is a joke. It doesn’t work, it only leads to teen pregnancy. If you love your children, teach your sons to respect women and to keep their pants zipped. Teach your daughters to respect themselves and to grow up knowing they don’t need a boyfriend in order to feel valuable as a young woman. And please, pull your heads out realize that your children are more than likely going to have sex before they get married, so teach them about birth control and disease prevention.

    Do you really believe that God would prefer more unwanted and poorly taken care of babies populating the planet?

  • Faithful,

    Your comment is pure rubbish.

    Once you dissent from the teachings of Jesus, your life becomes a lie.

  • Tito,

    Thank you for sharing your Christian love and wisdom. Please provide the verse or verses in which Christ taught that abortion is a worse sin than divorce, adultery, rape, war, destroying the earth, cheating, lying, and persecuting others.

  • How will abortion prevent divorce, adultery, rape, war, destroying the earth, cheating, lying, and persecuting others?

    Abortion is murder. As such it encourages all those other things. Indeed, a nation that murders its unborn automatically creates the environment for divorce (I don’t want your baby), adultery (a woman is just a sex object), rape (I don’t care about woman or babies), war (I will war against the unborn), destroying the earth (I will kill the unborn so that there are no stewards of God’s green earth), cheating (I don’t have to have a baby, so I can cheat on my wife whenever I please), lying (it’s just a blob of flesh and I am the god who controls its destiny) and persecuting others (let’s start with dismemberment of the unborn during abortion).

  • “Faithful’s” objections are very similar to what a neo-Nazi feminist group has been circulating on Facebook. They call themselves Strong and Intelligent Women Choosing Equality and Freedom Instead of Religion, and they have a placard question the pro-life movement’s stance on war, capital punishment, environmentalism, etc. I analyze and debunk their points here:


    Nope, I am not politically correct, so forewarned is forearmed.

  • Post Script – “Faithful”, I used plenty of Bible verses to backup the points in my essay, since that is a specific request of yours.

  • Faithful:

    Faithful to what? Molech.

    Major weakness of liberals: they are convinced everyone is stupid.

  • Faithful: old saying “If you’re in a hole, stop digging.”

    Cease and desist: You have provided ample evidence of your moral bankruptcy.

    PS: Caesar did not decree any of those sins to be licit; nor did he tax people to pay for the sins. In fact, he did not force the Judeans to worship idols or eat sacrificed meats as the Hellenists attempted.


  • Ergi, Obama is worse than Caligula.

  • Faithful:
    The main reference for you to start on is the Fifth Commandment of God.
    Thou shall not Kill.
    Why don’t you look through the Bible, which is God’s Word, for many warnings of woe to those who harm children, and also disregard the Sixth Commandment. The Gospels have specific teachings about results of keeping children from Jesus.

  • I am overwhelmed by your hatred. I have already stated that I am pro-life, ergo, I believe in life at conception, therefore I also believe that abortion is taking a life. I believe it’s a violation of my rights when my tax dollars fund abortion. I’m not embarrassed to share this with people. I’ve argued this with the most militant of feminists.

    As an American, I still believe that choice should remain legal and privately funded. There have always been, and will always be, people who practice unsafe sex outside of marriage. There will always be unwanted pregnancies. There will always be females seeking abortions whether I like it or not. I don’t think that any female should have to die because she made bad choices. It’s hideous that anyone ever find themselves in that position.

    I have read and studied the Bible plenty, regardless of what you choose to believe. I was taught by Jesuits. Paul, I didn’t ask how eliminating abortion could prevent other sins. I asked where Jesus ranked all of those sins. It’s those other sins, lust, envy and adultery that lead to abortion. The Church now tolerates divorce. Does that make the Church morally bankrupt?

    Thank you for confirming my decision to treat people with love and kindness rather than hatred and insult. I came to this site to learn. The only lesson I walk away with is how not to treat people with whom I disagree.

  • I was taught by Jesuits.

    That explains much.

  • “There will always be females seeking abortions whether I like it or not.”

    Just as there will always be murders whether you like it or not. That is not an argument for legalizing murder, just as the fact that there will always be abortions is no reason to legalize them.

    “The only lesson I walk away with is how not to treat people with whom I disagree.”

    Apparently your way is to go off in a huff when you run into people who disagree with you.

  • That was huffy to you? Goodness. I disagree with you on this particular subject. I’m guessing if I met any of you on the street we’d more than likely agree on quite a bit and have an enjoyable conversation, perhaps a lively debate. I’m not the one attacking and belittling others. I disagree with hateful attacks and arguments. I don’t think we progress when we satirize. I don’t see value in celebrating disrespect and I’m not a fan of sarcasm. I’m not clear how that makes me huffy.

    Donald, you make a valid point in countering my argument. There will always be murder and no, that’s no reason to legalize it. The difference is that people can’t agree on when life begins. I believe life begins at conception. Plenty of other Americans do not. Our laws don’t help, either.

    I don’t expect you to agree with my position and welcome respectful disagreement. Once again, I don’t understand Christians battling with hate. It doesn’t make sense to me.

  • Faithful, please do not walk away. If you are a truly “Faithful Catholic”, we need to stick together and fight for God. As Donald points out, we cannot accept abortion because it will continue to happen anyway. Abortion is Murder Most Foul. Why? Because one kills an innocent defenceless human person is their first home, where they should be safest. It is Murder Most Foul because a mother – after gratifying herself – decides to murder the result of her irresponsibility.

    And Please, Faithful, the Catholic Church HAS NEVER ACCEPTED DIVORCE, NEVER. Just get yourself a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and read for yourself. You say you have read the Holy Bible exhaustively. Well, the Catholic Church has two more Pillars upon which She stands. The Tradition and the Magisterium. Any Catholic who wants to be a true Catholic takes the trouble to be fully familiar with these two Pillars as well. A faithful Catholic knows we do not pick and chose what to believe and accept and what to brush away and ignore. You are either a Catholic or you are something else. “I believe in all the Truths which the Catholic Church teaches because You have revealed them, You Who can neither deceive nor be deceived, Amen”. Does that Prayer ring a bell in your mind, Faithful??? I hope so.

    Reading the responses from you all on this Website, I want to place my Faith on the fact that, since your Government has demonstrated its evil designs against the Catholic Church, the Holy Spirit will stir and invigorate your consciousness and you all rise up and defend Mother Church. You should all join with your Bishops, support them and fight for God Whom your Government is determined to chuck out of the window and install Satan on the Throne. You should not accept Laws which are contrary not only to Divine Law but also against the Natural Law. To you, Tito, thank you for getting my point. We are with you, American Catholics, in this War.

    Again to you, Faithful, this Statement is regrettable : “The difference is that people can’t agree on when life begins. I believe life begins at conception. Plenty of other Americans do not. Our laws don’t help, either.” Any reasonable person KNOWS life BEGINS AT CONCEPTION. Whether majority of Americans believe otherwise, does not change the Truth. If someone wants to remain in error, even when the Truth is hitting them right between the eyes, that shall not affect the Truth. My prayer is that now that the Catholic Church is under the most vicious persecution in your country, all people of goodwill will rise up and protect the Anchor that holds your country – and indeed mankind – together as I am reading it is enshrined in your Constitution.

  • “The difference is that people can’t agree on when life begins. I believe life begins at conception. Plenty of other Americans do not. Our laws don’t help, either.”

    Laws almost always help the victims of gross injustice, and the grossest injustice being meted out in this country today is to the unborn who have no legal protection accorded to their right to life. As for people disagreeing about this you are of course correct, just as 150 years ago white Americans were fiercely divided about whether blacks should be free. Division of opinion is no reason not to remedy injustice and protect the victims of it.

  • The essence of the evil which is murder/abortion is that the murderer/abortionist usurps God’s Will in determining who dies and when.

ObamaCare and That Silly Constitution

Friday, October 21, AD 2011

Thus far the 6th Judicial Circuit has ruled that ObamaCare is constitutional and the Eleventh Judicial Ciruit has ruled that ObamaCare is unconstitutional.  The issue is headed to the US Supreme Court, with the ruling probably being handed down next year in the midst of what promises to be one of the bitterest Presidential contests in our nation’s history.  How was a measure of such dubious constitutionality passed by Congress?  Former Representative Phil Hare (D. Ill.) explains:

Continue reading...

19 Responses to ObamaCare and That Silly Constitution

  • I think ObamaCare is unconstitutional but to deflate some of the partisan rhetoric:

    1. An individual mandate may be unconstitutional but single-payer Medicare-style universal health care is not. Neither is an employer mandate. The Constitution isn’t as limiting of federal power as many opponents of ObamaCare make it out to be.

    2. Most Republicans supported an individual mandate in the 90’s and didn’t think it unconstitutional. Perry, Romney, Newt, and Huntsman supported it. To Santorum’s credit, he opposed the mandate even back then. As did Ron Paul, and presumably Gary Johnson. I doubt Bachmann has any record of a position from back then. Cain opposed Clinton’s employer mandate but I don’t think he took any position on an individual mandate.

    3. So raising taxes is bad, in part, because more tax revenue makes government bigger. But lowering taxes increases tax revenue which makes government bigger. Am I getting that right?

  • Raising tax rates almost always has a negative impact on the economy, just as slashing rates almost always has a positive impact on the economy. As the Obama debacle illustrates, you can have a government growing by leaps and bounds with a poor economy. Best to slash rates, grow the economy, and elect people who understand that growing the government is bad for the economy and almost everyone else, except for those who get a paycheck from Leviathan.

  • Yes, Leviathan from federal to state to municipal and the social ‘welfare’ beneficiaries.
    I have hope for the objectivity of the U. S. Supreme Court because they have read the U.S. Constitution and have sworn to uphold it, unlike the sworn in politicians whose party politics replace their objectivity, common sense, reason, and dangerously shorten attention spans.

  • RR

    Ref your #3

    The amount of money a tax raises is determined by the rate times how often the taxable event occurs.

    Revenue received = tax rate x taxable events
    It makes no difference what the tax rate zero taxable events produces zero revenue.

    If a one thousand Whatits are sold a year at 1 one dollar each , and people will only spend one thousand dollars on whatits, and we decide to impose a tax of 10 cents per whatist we do not receive $100 dollars in taxes we receive about $91.00 in revenue. A second hike of 10 cents will produce an addition 83.30 in additional revenue. Eventually additional increments of increase will result in a actual decrease in income as the number of whatsits being taxed are so few.

    Of course in the there are complications like tax evasion, changing behavior to avoid the tax. etc which speed up the process. The citizens may buy untaxed black market whatits or they buy a substitute or just stop using whatits.

    Don’s point, and I think he is correct, that we are past the equlibrium point – most of our tax rates are at the point where an i8ncrease will produce declining revenue – they suppress to much taxable economic activity. Lowering the tax rates will produce more taxable economic activity thus raising revenues.

    Of course lowering enough would pass the equilibrium point in the other direction and revenues would start to go down, which brings up whole different set of issues.

    Basically Obamacare will make the government bigger with no hope of producing the revenues to pay for it.

    Hank’s Eclectic Meanderings

  • Don’s point, and I think he is correct, that we are past the equlibrium point – most of our tax rates are at the point where an i8ncrease will produce declining revenue

    Marginal tax rates were not at that point 30 years ago and they are lower today.

  • About 30 years Presidnt Reagan lowered the Income tax rates. For the next several years income tax revenues increase far larger than anybody expected.

    This is what one would expect if the tax rate was set above equilibrium. (SInce Congress increased the budget even more the deficit went up, but that is a different number.)

    Listen to the news, the ways governemntal bodies are trying to figure out new ways to get revenue is symptomatic of a situation where they no a simple increase of existing taxes will not produce the increased funds necessary.

    I could be wrong, but when the politicians with good budget experts working for them act like the existing structure is past equilibrium, it probably is.

    Hank’s Eclectic Meanderings

  • Hank, literally every economist disagrees with you. But that wasn’t even my point. If we accept the word of some Republicans that we are on the wrong side of the Laffer Curve, lowering tax rates will increase the size of government and raising taxes will shrink government. That isn’t to say that they should support higher taxes but they cannot simultaneous preach that we’re on the wrong side of the Laffer Curve and that lowering taxes will shrink government.

  • Long before Dr Laffer became famous and popularized the concept, of which the oldest surviving descriptions date from the 1400’s, I took the courses on government budgeting and finance. One fo the prof’s wore his left leaning ideas on his sleeve the other the his righ leaning ideas. But on this they both taught the same thing.

    Dr. Laffer applied the the theory to income tastes and produced results that gored a lot of sacred cows.

    Of course the equilibrium point varies with tax and over time but our political leaders, not wanting to cut spending, are acting like they know, public statements aside, that they know they cannot produce significant revenue from the existing tax structure and are looking for new sources.

    Hank’s Eclectic Meanderings

  • There just are not enough bullets.

  • “Hank, literally every economist disagrees with you.”

    The more important point is there are no credible economists who disagree with him.

    “That isn’t to say that they should support higher taxes but they cannot simultaneous preach that we’re on the wrong side of the Laffer Curve and that lowering taxes will shrink government.”

    While there is a correlation between the size of the fed gov and its gross revenues they are not one in the same. Equivocating on this issue will cause all kinds of errors in logic as conveniently demonstrated by the post.

  • The more important point is there are no credible economists who disagree with him.

    Disagree with him on what point? Dr. Laffer contended that the marginal tax rates at which revenue collections would be maximized was lower than was generally assumed, ergo reductions in marginal rates would lead to higher revenue collections. He was wrong with regard to the marginal rates in effect in 1980 and he would be wrong if he advanced a similar thesis with today’s much lower marginal rates.

    About 30 years Presidnt Reagan lowered the Income tax rates. For the next several years income tax revenues increase far larger than anybody expected.

    For the record, the ratio of nominal federal revenue collections (from personal taxes) to nominal personal income was as follows:

    1973 9.87%
    1974 10.35%
    1975 9.04%
    1976 9.57%
    1977 9.94%
    1978 10.28%
    1979 10.91%
    1980 10.86%
    1981 11.25%
    1982 10.66%
    1983 9.69%
    1984 9.22%
    1985 9.61%
    1986 9.47%
    1987 10.00%
    1988 9.52%
    1989 9.91%
    1990 9.70%
    1991 11.66%
    1992 11.42%
    1993 11.61%
    1994 11.75%
    1995 12.00%
    1996 12.62%
    1997 13.23%
    1998 13.64%
    1999 14.00%

    Revenue collections as a share of personal income declined each year Mr. Reagan’s preferred legislation was being implemented and the pro-cyclical aspect of revenue collections was noticeably weaker during the period running from 1985-90 than was the case during the analogous periods the business cycles preceding and succeeding. Please note that revenue collections as a share of personal income did not decline after the tax increases enacted in 1990 and 1993.

  • Laffer was right that the Laffer Curve exists. I’m not aware of any economist, on the left or the right, who thinks we’re currently on the wrong side of the curve.

  • Art Decco

    The question is about actual cash recieved, not the ratio of nominal federal revenue collections (from personal taxes) to nominal personal income. If you haave it it would be intersting to see.

  • “Revenue collections as a share of personal income declined”


    Of what significance is this ratio when total federal revenues increased?

  • “I’m not aware of any economist…who thinks we’re currently on the wrong side of the curve”

    That’s because there is no report which asks and documents the results of asking economists their perception of where federal income falls on the Laffer Curve.

    Of course their are plenty who think taxes should increase/decrease but that still doesn’t address the question.

  • 1. The Federal Reserve was successful during the period running from 1979 to 1982 in re-stabilizing prices. However, we still had considerable inflation. The GDP deflator increased at a rate of 5.2% per annum during the period running from 1980 to 1985. It increased at a rate of 2.1% per annum in the last five years. In times of high inflation (or, indeed, any inflation) you expect nominal values to increase on a year-to-year basis, so nominal tax revenues are not instructive.

    2. You could make use of real tax revenues as an indicator. However, tax rates are not the only factors which affect the value of real revenues. The economy fell into two recessions over the period running from March of 1980 to November of 1982. You ordinarily expect expect real revenues to decline in times of declining production. Income taxes tend to be procyclical, with peaks and valleys in revenue collection exceeding those in production or personal income, so you would actually expect smaller shares of personal income to be captured in taxes during recessions. The decline is more marked during the 1981-82 recession than during previous and subsequent recessions and the recovery in revenue capture also more muted.

    3. Here is the index of real federal revenues collected from personal income taxes. The base year is 1973:

    1973 100.00
    1974 101.83
    1975 90.44
    1976 99.77
    1977 106.42
    1978 115.29
    1979 121.03
    1980 120.96
    1981 126.77
    1982 113.22
    1983 110.87
    1984 115.55
    1985 121.38
    1986 123.65
    1987 136.45
    1988 137.40
    1989 121.03
    1990 144.57
    1991 256.56
    1992 263.32
    1993 273.88
    1994 290.18
    1995 302.41
    1996 321.19
    1997 342.23
    1998 363.28
    1999 381.43

    Some portion of the decline in real revenue observed in 1980 and 1983 can be attributed to the reduction in income tax rates and some portion to the recession. It is your contention that all of it and then some is attributable to the recession, because tax rates were so high that we were beyond that for maximal revenue collection. I think the descriptive statistics on revenue capture are inconsistent with that thesis.

    I cannot help but notice that there is no observed decline in real revenues during the period running from 1990 to 1994 (quite the contrary), in spite of two tax increases. I think that suggests we were not on ‘the wrong side of the Laffer curve’ then. (And we are not now).


    Your implicit thesis is that a legislated tax increase (say, through excision of special deductions, exemptions, and credits) will place the federal revenue stream on a lower trajectory due to its effects on economic activity and thus exacerbate the deficit. The foregoing strongly suggests it will not (in part because federal income taxes are not the only factor influencing the level of economic activity).

  • That’s because there is no report which asks and documents the results of asking economists their perception of where federal income falls on the Laffer Curve.

    I believe it was Ezra Klein who polled economists of his acquaintance on just this issue. There were a variety of answers offered. (I think Bradford deLong’s was an ultimate marginal rate of 70%). I am not sure there was one who suggested that an ultimate federal rate of 33% was superoptimal.

  • I should note that year-to-year improvements in real personal income and real domestic product during the period running from 1980 to 1990 were about the same as those from 1990 to 2000 (and metrics during both periods somewhat higher than they were during the period running from 1973 to 1980). Permanent tax reductions may be helpful, but that is not the only factor which influences economic dynamism.

  • While far short of a study/report this article does ask that very question as Art pointed out:


    For further discussion of the issue:



President Obama Mocks U.S. Catholic Bishops: “Darn Tooting!”

Wednesday, October 5, AD 2011

President Obama mocked Catholic bishops at a St. Louis fundraiser last night as he was touting the new Health & Human Services regulations that would require Catholic institutions to go against the teachings of Jesus.

“Darn right!” an audience member at the fundraiser shouted as Obama described the regulation.

“Darn tooting!” Obama said back.

The contempt that President Obama has shown towards Christians is almost palpable.

This is a man that worships himself on Sundays by lifting weights instead of attending a Church service.

It is becoming imperative that President Obama needs to be voted out of office next year due to this incident and many other policies that he has implemented.


Continue reading...

19 Responses to President Obama Mocks U.S. Catholic Bishops: “Darn Tooting!”

  • “Darn tooting” is mockery? Maybe I’m too young to understand the 70’s lingo. Looks like you’re typical run-of-the-mill policy disagreement to me.

  • He needs to go out because of his policies. That he’s an ass is a secondary reason that would make his early dismissal more satisfying.

  • RR,

    Affirming a “shout-out” at violating religious freedom is mocking the bishops.

  • “Affirming a ‘shout out’ at violating religious freedom is mocking the bishops.”

    Well, let’s take a look at these remarks in context. This is what the linked-to story actually said:


    “Insurance companies can’t drop your coverage for no good reason,” said Obama. “They won’t be able to deny your coverage because of preexisting conditions. Think about what that means for families all across America. Think about what it means for women.”

    “At that point, an audience member shouted: “Birth control.”

    “Absolutely. You’re stealing my line,” said Obama.

    “Breast cancer, cervical cancer, are no longer preexisting conditions,” Obama continued. “No longer can insurance companies discriminate against women just because you guys are the ones who have to give birth.”

    At this point, a member of a laughing audience shouted out: “Darn right!”

    “Darn tooting,” Obama answered back—to laughter. “They have to cover things like mammograms and contraception as preventive care, no more out-of-pocket costs.”


    When Obama says “they” won’t be able to deny coverage, he obviously is talking about insurance companies (a favorite bete noire of the left), NOT bishops.

    As far as I know, no Catholic institution has ever objected on moral grounds to covering genuine preventive health care such as mammograms. Nor is refusal to cover preexisting conditions a hallmark of Catholic medical ethics. All of these practices have, however, been common among health insurance companies (because of the very nature of insurance, which is based on minimizing risk to the insurance provider; from a purely economic point of view, covering a preexisting condition makes as much sense as selling someone fire insurance AFTER their house has burned down, but I digress.)

    In any event, it is certainly fair to say that this exchange indicates the depth of Obama’s committment to passing these regulations. It may also be fair to say that these remarks indicate a lack of concern about the violation of religious freedom involved.

    However, to characterize this as a direct “mockery” of the bishops is stretching things quite a bit.

  • Obama is playing to his core constituency, the something for nothing crowd. These are the same people of course railing against the cost of health insurance premiums and never making the connection between government mandates on insurers and the cost of the insurance. We shall see next year how many people still believe in the illusions of unicorns, pixie dust and better living through government fiat.

  • The contempt that President Obama has shown towards Christians is almost palpable.

    -Tito Edwards

    Meanwhile, from the pulpits in the diocese in which I live – from the out-of-town parishes to the downtown cathedral – silence remains the Church’s most-used method to communicate basic Christian moral teaching to the laity.

    Obama is playing to his core constituency, the something for nothing crowd. … We shall see next year how many people still believe in the illusions of unicorns, pixie dust and better living through government fiat.

    -Donald R. McClarey

    Obama isn’t playing, he’s prepping the battlespace.

    Much of the agenda of Obama and his core constituency is contrary to Christian morality. For example, there’s no practical difference in this life between desiring “something for nothing” and coveting thy neighbor’s goods. (I’ll leave drawing the connection between other elements of the Obama agenda and the commandments against coveting thy neighbor’s wife and adultery as an exercise for the reader.) Because the Church might be an impediment to Obama’s ambitions, it must be destroyed – or at least rendered impotent to influence voters by mockery.

    Exit question: Does silence from the pulpits imply the Church’s consent?

  • I could care less if Obama is “mocking bishops.” As a Catholic for 78 years, living in the diocese of Boston (

    Who could care less if “Obama is mocking Bishops?” Living under Bernard Law, in the Boston archdiocese, who could fault Obama’s perceived derision of the Bishops. But his “darn-tooting” repudiation of Catholic befiefs, tradition, and teaching is totally something else again. It lells all people (Catholics among them) that he doesn’t give a fig for anything but a responsive applause from his captive telepromter/audience. Well, I got news for Barry — you crossed a line too far — with anyone who thinks that for a few yuks you can endanger the health and welfare of all those that rely on the charity and compassion of Catholic Hospitals, Catholic adoption agencies, so that you can promulgate exactly what?
    You’ve totatally alienated any reflective Catholic, or perhaps anyone who is concerned about the role “the State” plays in preaching/preening to the Churches (and Mosques and Synagogues) about the concerns you have for anyone.
    By the way, run this past Axelgrease and Poofle.
    They, like you, are history.

  • “It is becoming imperative that President Obama needs to be voted out of office next year due to this incident and many other policies that he has implemented.”

    “…[B]ecoming imperative”? Did you just wake up, sir?

  • Edward,

    I should have said, “becoming more imperative.”

  • Elaine,

    I respectfully disagree with your incorrect analysis.

  • Tito,

    Can give reasons as to why her analysis is in incorrect?

  • Whoops, added an extra “in” there

  • I wouldn’t agree with every word Elaine wrote, but she’s right that this headline is unfair. The President wasn’t talking to or about Catholic Bishops; he was talking about a policy they disagree with. We need to distinguish between political disagreements and personal attacks.

  • The insurance mandate forces Catholic institutions in providing contraceptives in which Archbishop Dolan was telling President Obama that this is unacceptable. Hence when the audience member shouted “darn right” he was saying ‘hell yeah, we’ll make Catholic institutions’ provide contraceptives, which President Obama affirmed with a “darn tooting”.

    It’s all there in the post.

  • “In any event, it is certainly fair to say that this exchange indicates the depth of Obama’s committment to passing these regulations. It may also be fair to say that these remarks indicate a lack of concern about the violation of religious freedom involved.

    However, to characterize this as a direct “mockery” of the bishops is stretching things quite a bit.”


  • Tito – No. When the guy in the crowd said “darn right”, he was saying “darn right”, and also disagreeing with the bishops’ position, although he might not be aware of it.

    If Archbishop Dolan were standing right next to him and had been stating the argument, then the President said the argument was stupid, then the guy in the audience said “darn right”, then yes, that would be a mocking of the bishops’ position.

    If Obama said “the bishops are jerks” and the guy in the audicence said “darn right”, then he would have been mocking the bishops.

  • Pinky, RR, et al,

    We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

    I see mockery, you all see roses and posies.

  • “Hence when the audience member shouted “darn right” he was saying ‘hell yeah, we’ll make Catholic institutions’ provide contraceptives”

    How do you know what that audience member was “really” saying, unless you can read that person’s mind?

    My guess, which I admit is only a guess, is that he/she probably wasn’t thinking about Catholic institutions or bishops at all — the person was thinking about the alleged greed and heartlessness of insurance companies who deny coverage for preexisting conditions and for preventive care.

    The person in the audience obviously assumed that birth control qualifies as preventive care. While that could mean he/she actively rejects or despises Church teaching regarding contraception, it could just as easily mean that this person is not Catholic and has never had reason to think about or care what the Church teaches regarding contraception.

    That doesn’t mean I’m seeing “all roses and posies” here or trying to defend the policy in question. What I take away from this exchange is not that Obama “mocked” the bishops but that he ignored them — which is some ways is worse than mockery.

ObamaCare and the Constitution in a Nutshell

Thursday, February 3, AD 2011

Hattip to Neo-Neocon.  I have been reading judicial decisions for over three decades and few of them are better reasoned and written than that of Judge Roger Vinson striking down ObamaCare.  Go here to read his ruling.  My favorite portion of the decision is below. ( To get the full impact of it, I suggest you have the John Adams intro video below playing while you read it.)

Continue reading...

One Response to ObamaCare and the Constitution in a Nutshell

  • I’m coming around to the liberal objection to this particular line of argument. Congress can levy a 99% tax and use it to provide everyone unhealthy amounts of tea. I do believe ObamaCare is unconstitutional but not for the reason Judge Vinson gives.

Would Repealing ObamaCare Break the Budget

Wednesday, January 12, AD 2011

One of the priorities of the new Republican majority in the House is to repeal ObamaCare — though this would in effect be a purely sympolic move since a repeal would have no chance of passing the Senate, much less surviving an Obama veto. Nonetheless, pundits are having their say over the matter, and one of the odder arguments being advanced is that repealing ObamaCare would result in increasing the budget deficit. This has allowed Democrats to accuse Republicans of not only wanting sick people to go without treatment, but of wanting to spend more money than it would cost to insure them. How exactly does this math work?

As Ruth Marcus points out in the Washington Post, there’s a lot of funny math going into the CBO projection that repealing ObamaCare would increase the deficit.

The Congressional Budget Office projects that the health care law, if implemented as promised, would save $230 billion over the next decade. There are two important words in that sentence: projects and if.

Continue reading...

3 Responses to Would Repealing ObamaCare Break the Budget

  • The repeal bill should keep the cuts in place.

  • Repeal is also about reducing government control over our individual persons and finances.

    I read about a report that pegged repeal SAVINGS at $540 billion. Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.

    “Educated economists”???? More like comprehesively ignorant, clueless professors out of touch with reality and infallibly ignorant of how things work in the real world.

    Of course, paying for health care for 30,000,000 documented and undocumented dem voters will cost we the taxpayer a ton . . .

  • http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704415104576065723458609678.html?KEYWORDS=cbo+health+care+deficit+paul+ryan

    WSJ editorial: “ObamaCare’s Reality Deficit”

    I quote, “The accounting gimmicks are legion, but we’ll pick out a few: It uses 10 years of taxes to fund six years of subsidies. Social Security and Medicare revenues are double-counted to the tune of $398 billion. A new program funding long-term care frontloads taxes but backloads spending, gradually going broke by design. The law pretends that Congress will spend less on Medicare than it really will, in particular through an automatic 25% cut to physician payments that Democrats have already voted not to allow for this year.”

    “The CBO budget gnomes are required to “score” what’s on paper in front of them, no matter how unrealistic, and that’s the method its Congressional masters prefer. The political class makes believe that CBO’s forecasts are carved into stone tablets through divine revelation, but all they really show is that politicians have rigged the budget rules to hide the true cost of entitlements.”

3 Catholic Hospitals To Close Allegedly Because Of Obamacare?

Monday, October 11, AD 2010

CatholicVote is mounting a campaign to bring attention to 3 Catholic Hospitals that are closing. The CEO said that ObamaCare “absolutely” factored into the decision.

This is certainly a troubling concern, made more so by the allegations that the White House, the local media, and Sr. Keehan have tried their best to quiet the story.

However, one has to be cautious. The report that CV apparently relies on is based on a doctor’s opinion-a doctor that does not appear to have any knowledge of the actual discussions at the hospitals in question. This unnamed doctor alleges that it is due to Obamacare restricting the ability of the hospital to collect Medicare reimbursements and thereby making its debt unbearable.

Continue reading...

8 Responses to 3 Catholic Hospitals To Close Allegedly Because Of Obamacare?

  • Pingback: 3 Catholic Hospitals to Close Allegedly Because of Obamacare?: The American Catholic « Deacon John's Space
  • I agree with the overall gist of your post but I feel obliged to say that “unbearable debt” and “not profitable enough” are two quite different financial states. Your use of the phrase “not profitable enough” seems intended to imply that greed might be a factor. Exactly how much debt should Americans, catholic or otherwise, have rammed down their throats before they resist? Should we wait until the Greek debt crisis, with its concomitant violent civil unrest, looks like amateur hour compared to our own economic collapse? I do however agree that pro-life issues are a separate issue, and even more important, in this particular context.

  • Ugh, pardon my grammatical pratfall in that last sentence. Hopefully my point still came through.

  • Your use of the phrase “not profitable enough” seems intended to imply that greed might be a factor.

    I understand why you might think that, though it was not intentional. I only meant “not profitable” enough in order to have the resources to pay back its debt. I’m not accusing the hospital of short-changing patients in order to make a bigger buck somewhere else.

  • While Obamacare may not be a factor in the hospitals’ decisions, I can tell you non-profit hospitals are very afraid of what health care reform will do to revenues.

    The cover of a hospital administration magazine recently had its cover story about the potential threat to non-profits that health care reform holds. The cover photo was of a Catholic hospital.

  • Here’s from the CEO of the involved hospitals:

    “”Actually we’re doing well. We’re ahead of budget for the year. It’s more that when we look out over the landscape of health care over the next five years and the needs of these facilities, the needs of this community, we understand a different level of investment will be needed than what we can do on our own,” Cook said.

    They said much of that required investment is the result of the health care reform bill passed in Washington.

    The CEO said it means the need for more spending and less federal reimbursements.

    “Health care reform is absolutely playing a role. Was it the precipitating factor in this decision? No, but was it a factor in our planning over the next five years? Absolutely,” Cook added.”

  • Philip:

    Do you have a link for that quote?

    I’m a little confused by the quote, but it sounds like the hospitals think they’re required to expand services/facilities and combined with the other investment the hospital needs to do, the budget isn’t there so they want to bring in private investment to take over so the investment in the community can occur.

    While that may be a little more damning of Obamacare, it’s still a very tenuous connection. After all, they say the planning began before Obamacare, suggesting that much of the investment couldn’t be afforded even if Obamacare was passed.

    Regardless, CV needs to produce a lot more evidence before making the claims it’s making. A sentence quote isn’t enough.

Senator Kay Hagan Just Does Not Get It

Saturday, August 21, AD 2010

Miss Kay Hagan is doing a poor job of defending the “merits” of ObamaCare to a mother who has sick children.  In addition to her sick children, her and her husbands benefits have been cut down or eliminated in order to comply with ObamaCare.

Yet Miss Hagan insists on pushing for more European style socialism.

(Hat Tip:  Culture War Notes)

Continue reading...

2 Responses to Senator Kay Hagan Just Does Not Get It

  • She had to pass the bill so we could see what was in it.

    Remember in November.

  • I have just returned from a week’s vacation, staying with long-time friends in Switzerland.

    Here is what I know about their healthcare system: (My friends are, BTW, very happy with their health care).

    First-of-all, health insurance in Switzerland is absolutely mandatory! Virtually no exceptions!

    And, no, it’s not “Socialized Medicine”.

    You buy health insurance from private insurance companies and you go to your own private physician/health care provider. Your monthly premium can vary based on deductibles which you choose.

    Insurance companies cannot by law make a profit on the basic coverage which they must offer to all. And applicants cannot be rejected based on prior medical conditions.

    Where insurers can make a profit is on supplementary coverage, such as
    private rooms, etc.

    And, yes, there are co-pays.

    In Switzerland there is no Medicare.

    My friends are both in their late sixties and they participate in the mandatory insurance to the tune of what we here in the USA pay, about $13K per year. This includes their daughter who lives in Africa, three people.

    For the most part employers do not provide tax-favored medical insurance coverage to employees unlike here in the USA.

    One more thing: There is a government subsidy to those people whose insurance costs more than 8% of their income.

    Would this work in the USA?