Archive / December, 2012

Hobby Lobby and the Loss of America’s Soul

hobby_lobby_banner_5B1_5D

Originally posted at American Thinker

In America, established rights such as religious liberty and the right to bear arms are currently under attack. Liberals are in charge and they seem to feel that straightforward Constitutional precepts require alteration or eradication.

Take for instance the “right to privacy” — the left has had no problem broadening the meaning of “privacy” to include the right to kill an unborn child. As for religious liberty, unless you’re a Muslim demanding a Ramadan meal, liberals like Supreme Court judge Sonia Sotomayor, rather than uphold religious liberty, facilitate Barack Obama’s effort to redefine the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.

Currently, Obamacare is ushering in a new definition of “religious liberty.” So far, the Catholic Church has already received fair warning that when it comes to providing insurance that covers birth control and abortion, there are limits on “religious liberty.” Moreover, they are also finding out that refusal to conform to progressive edicts could result in the federal government raining down fire and brimstone on the defiant.

So, in conjunction with the updated version of the “right to bear arms,” right about now liberals should provide a lexicon that defines religious liberty in the following way: The right for the government to demand, by law, that religious institutions be forced to support policies that contradict their core beliefs.

Take for example the Oklahoma-based companies craft store giant Hobby Lobby and booksellers Mardel Inc. In 2010 Hobby Lobby grossed $2.6 billion in sales, and employed 13,000 people in 455 outlets in 42 states.

Both companies are owned by Bible-believing Christian families who close up shop on the Sabbath and pay full-time employees a minimum wage of $11 per hour versus the federally required $7.25 minimum wage.

Currently, Hobby Lobby is the largest religiously-owned non-Catholic business to have filed a lawsuit against the HHS birth control directive. Yet, despite the fact that they’ve been founded and run on Christian principles, Oklahoma U.S. District Judge Joe Heaton ruled that Hobby Lobby and Mardel are not religious organizations and therefore subject to the federal birth control dictate.

Because the Christian-owned company maintains that the mandate “violates the religious beliefs for their owners,” it’s evident that Hobby Lobby must think “religious liberty” is defined in a way other than how it is being defined by liberals at this time.

Hobby Lobby maintains that the “morning-after pill is tantamount to abortion because it can prevent a fertilized egg from becoming implanted in a woman’s womb.” Therefore, “defy[ing] a federal mandate requiring it to offer employees health coverage that includes access to the morning-after pill” is the company’s way of staying true to its core convictions.

In the meantime, for failing to meet what she called “the demanding standard for the extraordinary relief,”Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor has denied a request for an injunction while the Hobby Lobby lawsuit is pending. If the injunction were granted that would have prevented the birth control mandate from beginning on January 1st.

Because it was denied, until the lawsuit reaches the lower courts, Hobby Lobby had better submit to the HHS mandate or, starting January 1, 2013, figure out a way to come up with $1.3 million a day in IRS excise taxes.

Whatever the ultimate outcome of the case, if government can now force Christians to pay for insurance that covers abortion-inducing drugs, shouldn’t they also require other religiously-based businesses like Halal food markets to sell foodstuffs considered haram? After all, in the words of the Honorable Joe Heaton, a food market is not a religious organization. Right?

Attorney Kyle Duncan of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty speaking for Hobby Lobby said the company would continue to “provide health insurance to all qualified employees.” But while its lawsuit is pending, the company does not intend to offer health insurance that provides pharmaceuticals that induce spontaneous abortion.

On behalf of Hobby Lobby, maybe Duncan should point out that the $3.75 per hour over and above the $7.25 per hour the Christian-run business’s full-time employees would be earning if they worked 40 hours a week elsewhere comes to $150 extra per week, which should be more than enough money to purchase emergency birth control.

Despite facing millions in fines, the noncompliant Hobby Lobby and Mardel Inc. CEO and founder David Green refuses to surrender the companies’ religious convictions. Green has said he’d rather abandon the business. A $2.2 billion-a-year company that is willing to close itsdoors rather than compromise its core principles? Now that’s impressive.

Green maintains that Hobby Lobby, “[b]y being required to make a choice between sacrificing our faith, or paying millions of dollars in fines, we essentially must choose which poison pill to swallow. We simply cannot abandon our religious beliefs to comply with this mandate.” Sounds like Hobby Lobby’s David Green believes verbatim the Scripture verse that asks “What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul?”

In the end it is clear that Hobby Lobby’s CEO is more concerned about his standing before God than his standing in the business world, hence proving that in their effort to gain the world, liberals’ redefinition of “religious liberty” forfeits our nation’s soul.

What You Didn’t Know About Your Neighborhood

638137738_3604406049_105d409a94_xlargeOriginally posted at American Thinker blog

One of the most stunning attributes of liberalism today is duplicity.  What other group uses legality as a basis to defend exterminating the unborn, yet when it comes to owning a handgun, legality becomes irrelevant?

From the White House to Your House, the push is now on to paint gun owners in a negative light and clearly, it’s working.  For example, in an effort to better serve New York’s Westchester and Rockland Counties, the Gannett-owned Journal News took it upon itself, without notifying the affected parties, to make public all the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of residents in the area with registered handguns.

The Journal News was so concerned about informing its readership of the prospective danger gun owners pose that it published a detailed interactive map with red and blue dots pinpointing the location of residents licensed to own pistols or revolvers and permit holders who “have purchased a firearm or updated the information on a permit in the past five years.”

Until recently, it was thought assault weapons were the menace.  Now, owning a gun, any gun, is right up there with committing a sex crime.  The Journal News’ address listing might as well have been a sex offender registry because gun stigma is now running a close second to being a convicted pedophile.  The only difference is that in the gun owner’s case, no crime was committed.

Janet Hasson, publisher and president of the Journal News Media Group, defended making the databank information available when she said:

One of our roles is to report publicly available information on timely issues, even when unpopular. We knew publication of the database (as well as the accompanying article providing context) would be controversial, but we felt sharing information about gun permits in our area was important in the aftermath of the Newtown shootings.

For Ms. Hasson, publishing names, addresses, and telephone numbers wasn’t enough.  It sounds as if Ms. Hasson is highly suspicious that every gun owner in America is a prospective Adam Lanza.

The disappointed newspaper publisher/president said that in the “aftermath of the Newtown shootings” her newspaper had “wanted to publish even more information.” Maybe Janet feels the drive-by harassers she has already provided with directions to private residences would have also appreciated the political affiliation of all Rockland and Westchester County gun owners.

The Florida-based school for journalists, the Poynter Institute, disagrees with Journal News’ tactics.

According to a Poynter Institute faculty member, “Unwarranted publishing of the names of permitted owners just encourages gun owners to skip the permitting.”  That means that thanks to the newspaper’s irresponsible actions, in order to maintain anonymity normally upstanding citizens may be driven to illegal gun ownership.

Despite the controversy, many defenders of the Journal News took to Twitter to express their anti-gun approval. One Tweet said: “The gun permit maps are an effective way of showing how horribly widespread gun ownership is.” Excuse me, but “horribly?”  Another relieved parent thanked the Journal News, saying, “Please thank them. This could be a turning point. I do not want my daughter playing in a house with guns.” Earth to Mom: kids have been known to drown in toilets, so are houses with bathrooms a problem too?

What is stunning about all this is the duplicitous left backing private information being made public. Apparently, in “right-to-privacy” circles, confidentiality only applies when it comes to the names, addresses, and phone numbers of individuals spotted at Rockland and Westchester abortion clinics.

And here’s where the deceit really kicks in. Aren’t these the usual suspects who scream “intimidation” when an old grandma spends her mornings praying the rosary outside an abortion clinic?

If, as Janet Hasson contends, “timeliness and popularity” surrounding an issue determines whether private information should be made public, wouldn’t it be wonderful if Journal News could also provide all pro-life members of the community the names and addresses of those seen at the local Planned Parenthood clinic? After all, having a gun owner live next door is certainly a concern to anti-gun people, but to anti-abortion people, having a neighbor who’s had an abortion living on the other side of the fence generates a ton of anxiety too.

Therefore, in lieu of a public database, the only hope that an intrepid journalist like Dwight R. Worley has to find a treasure trove of confidential abortion information is in a recycling bin or a dumpster.

So, it appears that all it takes to be branded a potential danger to society is a reckless newspaper publishing an article entitled “The gun owner next door: What you don’t know about the weapons in your neighborhood.” And, if that’s the case, then fair-minded anti-gun liberals should be open to warning concerned Rockland and Westchester County anti-abortion residents about ‘That woman next door: What you don’t know about the abortions in your neighborhood.’

America’s Vicarious Christmas Vacation

article-2252019-169E2327000005DC-572_634x715

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

President Barack Obama needs a break.  It’s tiring and takes a tremendous amount of effort to dismantle 250 years of what made America the great nation we once were. So, in anticipation of leaving the drudgery of governing behind, Obama abandoned the wrecking ball he’s been swinging for the last four years, left the 54 holiday trees that lost their lives in the White House, and jetted off with the wife, the kids and the dog for their nine-hour flight to Oahu.

Before Americans get all bent out of shape about the frivolous nature of the time and money involved in the Obama family enjoying an annual Christmas getaway, it’s important to remember that the $4 million estimated cost of the Hawaiian adventure covers things besides souvenirs and grass skirts. Flying in Air Force One at $182,000 an hour for nine hours comes to $3.3 million in round-trip airfare alone. And, in all fairness, the President does pick up the tab for the sumptuous compound on Kailuana Place.

For the other expenses, the Hawaii Reporter estimated that the $4 million price tag covered by the American taxpayer only covers travel, staff housing and protection, and the aforementioned enormous cost to fly Air Force One. Oh, and don’t forget the supplementary cargo plane for various and sundry vacation-related accoutrements.

Moreover, the President, Michelle, Malia, Sasha, and Bo have already made voluntary sacrifices this past year. For instance, last August the first family willingly forfeited their usual multimillion-dollar Martha’s Vineyard summer vacation so the President could toil away on behalf of the middle class without interruption.

Now that the election is over and Obama has securely established the fact that successful, hardworking people are to blame for most of America’s problems, it’s time for him to claim the just reward of a long past-due respite chock full of entertainment and leisure.

During the planned 17-day breather the President will be doing the usual “playing golf, eating at local restaurants with family members and escorting his daughters to island water parks and other activities.”

In other words, while America, on both a micro and macro level, anticipates a future of making do on a painful austerity budget, Barack Obama is resting up in preparation for his splashy, high-priced inauguration party and to resume the hard work he started of fundamentally trashing…sorry, “fundamentally transforming the United States of America.

As for the residents of Oahu or any poor schlub attempting to make his or her way around the island this Christmas, word to the wise: “You better leave early for any scheduled pig roasts, because for the next 2.5 weeks there are expected to be ‘unannounced delays as the presidential motorcade travels around the island.'”

Leis and luaus aside, there is a potential spoiler in the Obama vacation plans. The President may have to discontinue waxing his surfboard, leave the shaved ice behind, and head home before January 6th.  The glitch is that a deal was not reached to avert that fiscal cliff the President and Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner – also known as the Washington version of the notorious cliff-diving duo Thelma and Louise – are about to purposely drive America over.

Therefore, despite Obama’s undying dedication to saving the middle class, as of January 2nd, “a mix of rising taxes and mandatory spending cuts are set to kick in” – thus making Barack ‘Louise’ Obama the proud owner of what John ‘Thelma’ Boehner has coined “the largest tax increase in American history.”

Nonetheless, the President did not seem to be the least bit worried about how it might look luxuriating for two weeks while the nation teeters on the verge of a fiscal nightmare come January 2nd. Nor did he seem concerned one iota that those who bestowed upon him a second term might find it a tad insensitive to take a vacation with such an enormous price tag attached to it at this particular time.

And so, as he bid “aloha” before leaving for the island paradise of Hawaii, the President offered the following holiday advice to the uneasy lawmakers he left behind in Washington DC: “Enjoy some eggnog and Christmas cookies before getting back to business next week.”

A more symbolic gesture would be for Washington lawmakers, in honor of the mess they’ve helped to make, after banging back a couple of shots of cheap whiskey to choke on some stale fruit cake.

Either way, for the rest of America struggling desperately to make ends meet this Christmas, gratefulness should still abound.  Where else but in America could a nation on the brink of economic ruin have the pleasure of living vicariously through the life of the middle class’s biggest champion as he and his family enjoy a $4 million vacation getaway in Hawaii?

Whatever Happened to ‘They’re Gonna Do it Anyway?’

tumblr_mctd62n0101r3y2nqo1_1280Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Rest assured that if Americans are participating in an activity that liberals applaud, encouragement and financial facilitation are certain. However, if the uncooperative citizenry tends toward an activity that the left condemns, guilt, denunciation, and rebuke commence, and monitoring, restriction, and regulations follow.

Generally, if it involves the lusty side of human nature, liberals believe that self-control is an attribute most individuals lack. Ask anyone on the left why condoms should be made available to schoolchildren and standard answer is “They’re gonna to do it anyway.”

By and large, when it comes to sensual delights, Democrats tend to argue that nothing can be done to alter a person’s drive to satiate that primal urge. If hormones are raging, liberals are convinced that free birth control should be made available without limit. If prophylactic precautionary measures fail, government-funded abortion should be there to rectify inconvenient situations.

As a group, progressives seem to be convinced that the human libido is so intense that it overpowers free will. So, rather than discourage immoral behavior, to ensure “safe sex” and to save lives, they prod government to facilitate promiscuity at taxpayers’ expense.

Enabling heroin enthusiasts to avoid HIV and Hepatitis C with clean needle programs is another thing the left champions. As for marijuana, many ganja-loving liberals believe legalization is a great idea because not only are they “gonna to do it anyway,” but “everybody’s doing it,” so why miss out on the fun?

What’s confusing about this attitude is that the “They’re gonna to do it anyway” mantra does not apply to things like eating food and owning firearms, two activities leftists love to police.

Think about it. Who can name a more “They’re gonna to do it anyway” activity than eating? Eating is so much a part of our lives that at a minimum most of us eat at least three times a day which, for anyone other than Bill Clinton, is more than can be said about sex.

Michelle Obama, who’d probably support providing minors with birth control and dopers with needles, is busily swapping out candy for carrot sticks in vending machines. The first lady is totally convinced that nagging reins in appetite. However, the nudge approach seems to lack common sense, because if sexual impulses are impossible to regulate, how do you control a survival instinct like eating?

Don’t try to answer that question; liberals don’t make sense because they always attempt to have it both ways. Someone should inform progressives that, regardless of the pursuit, either human craving can be harnessed, or it’s pretty much impossible to force anyone to do anything against their will.

At present, freewheeling condom cheerleaders have turned their attention toward gun violence. The same people who declare that beginning at age 13 a person’s sex drive has a mind of its own also believe that violent lunatics hell-bent on chaos can have their impulses thwarted simply by limiting the types of weapons available to sane people.

If it is impossible to curtail sexual behavior in normal folks, how can hiding guns from the mentally ill affect irrational behavior? If the left’s condom logic were to be applied to the Second Amendment, gun lovers could get unlimited access to firearms. Then, in order to ensure public safety, someone would have to invent a condom specifically for guns.

In all seriousness, the misguided notion that gun control will curb violence makes almost as much sense as Michelle Obama believing that supervising food choices will convince high school athletes that they can survive on quinoa and sautéed spinach. Just because the Twinkies are no longer on school premises doesn’t mean that 250-pound football players are going to submit and agree to survive on 800 calories a day. Rest assured, neither will psychotics be deterred from murder and mayhem if that’s their aspiration.

Thus, once again, liberal contradiction proves that attempting to constrain truly uncontrollable people keeps no one safe and places unnecessary restrictions on everyone else.

Therefore, as the gun control debate heats up, Americans should note the liberal paradox that approves of granting irresponsible children the ability to exercise absolute free will in matters of the flesh, but wants to give government the role of ultimate micromanager in areas that affect responsible adults.

Whittling Away our Freedoms

whittling

Originally posted at American Thinker

In the aftermath of the tragic murders at Sandy Hook Elementary School, Barack Obama, together with a supportive left-wing media, has called for “meaningful action” to address the problem of mass shootings. Since that heartbreaking episode, the president has been publicly weeping, praying, pontificating, quoting Scripture, and poetically sharing verbal vignettes on the responsibilities of fatherhood. He’s been so convincing that pro-gun Democrats are abandoning their former commitment to the Second Amendment, crossing over, and siding with liberals on gun laws.

Meanwhile, despite all the passionate rhetoric, except for passing blame, Obama has yet to fully acknowledge his administration’s participation in the failed gun-walking operation called “Operation Fast and Furious.”

The orchestrated scheme called “Fast and Furious” started in the first year of Barack Obama’s presidency. That year, federal officials decided to allow straw buyers to visit gun stores in Arizona and Texas, load up vans with weapons like the AK-47 and drive them back across the border into México, straight into the hands of vicious cartels.

Rather than arrest the “trafficking kingpins” and confiscate the guns, the federal authorities that conducted the operation were instructed to allow “straw gun buyers for a smuggling ring to walk away from gun shops in Arizona with weapons,”so they could then be tracked. The problem is that, as usual, inept government bureaucracy lost track of the weaponry and the guns purchased illegally have been showing up at crime scenes along with dead bodies ever since.

The gun used in the shooting death of former Marine/U.S. Border agent Brian Terry was traced back to an Arizona gun shop. ICE agent Jamie Zapata was murdered by a drug cartel and the gun that took his life was traced to a gun shop in Dallas.

In total, “Operation Fast and Furious” allegedly allowed approximately 2,000 still unaccounted-for weapons to walk across the southern border. México’s former Attorney General Victor Humberto Benítez Treviño guesstimates that “Fast and Furious” guns, to date, have also killed more than 300 Mexicans.

The irony is that Mexican drug cartels sought out guns in the U.S. because Mexican gun laws are restrictive. Cartel members from a country with the same kind of laws currently being proposed murdered two U.S. Border agents and shot to death hundreds of Mexican civilians and soldiers with firearms obtained with the full knowledge and permission of the U.S. government.

At the Sandy Hook vigil, a teary-eyed Barack Obama stressed that “[t]he majority of those who died were children — beautiful little kids between the ages of 5 and 10 years old. They had their entire lives ahead of them — birthdays, graduations, weddings, kids of their own.”

Yet, after tugging at America’s heartstrings, it appears the president’s gun safety concerns remain exclusive to American guns, gun owners, and people.

If that weren’t true, then why, in 2010 when “Fast and Furious” weapons gunned down 14 teenagers and wounded 20 attending a birthday party in Ciudad Juarez, didn’t Barack Obama — who is now so concerned about missed “birthdays, graduations, weddings” — address the Mexican bloodbath? Why hasn’t the Obama administration accepted any responsibility or even suggested locating the still missing U.S. weapons?

As Obama manipulates tragedy to advance Second Amendment restrictions in the U.S., guns walked across the border with his approval are still taking lives.

Case in point: another “Fast and Furious” gun was recently found at the scene where a beauty queen died as a result of a shootout between a Mexican drug cartel and soldiers.

The day after Thanksgiving, in the mountainous area of Sinaloa, México, home to México’s most powerful Sinaloa drug cartel, 20-year-old Maria Susana Flores Gamez’s body was found together with an assault rifle that has since been revealed was walked across the border.

In February, the beauty pageant winner was awarded the title of 2012 Woman of Sinaloa. By November she was riding in a vehicle that engaged Mexican soldiers in a gun battle. Just as the 20 children who died in Newtown, Connecticut had nowhere to hide from Adam Lanza’s bullets, neither could Maria Susana Flores Gamez hide. Police believe she was used as a human shield and perished when Mexican police returned fire on gang members using an illegal firearm provided compliments of the gun-control obsessed Obama administration.

In the meantime, for four months, former U.S. Marine Jon Hammar is chained to a bed in México’s notorious CEDES prison. Jon is being held for declaring a legal antique Sears Roebuck shotgun to Mexican customs officials on his way to surf and hunt in Costa Rica. What is curious about Hammar’s situation is that after México was systematically flooded with illegal weaponry, the Obama State Department now claims they are powerless to help.

Maybe that’s because after the horrendous nature of the shooting in Connecticut, Barack Obama would rather not spoil the mood by calling attention to a legal gun owner rotting away in a Mexican jail on trumped-up gun charges. After all, why chance losing the emotional capital he needs to convince America that it’s time to moderate firearms?

Nonetheless, for the president to exploit tragedy for political gain while knowing full well that innocent people are being killed with the guns his administration placed in the hands of dangerous gang members is downright reprehensible. Someone needs to ask President Obama to clarify how he justifies condemning assault weapons, especially after his administration intentionally armed Mexican drug kingpins with the weaponry he now blames for the chaos and death we recently witnessed in Connecticut.

Therefore, rather than sitting idly by while freedom continues to be whittled away, it’s up to Americans to demand accountability. It’s time that Time magazine’s Person of the Year explains why he continues to insist that stricter gun control laws will save American lives when he’s well aware that his Justice Department, headed up byAttorney General Eric Holder, purposely and illegally furnished lethal firearms to murderers in México.

 

Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Are the lives of children the ‘price of our freedom?’

NewtownThe other night Barack Obama came to Newtown, Connecticut to attend the Sandy Hook Prayer Vigil.  He was there to offer condolences to the grieving and to honor the memory to the individuals killed in the massacre, whom he described as “twenty beautiful children and six remarkable adults.”

Of the six women who died, Obama conceded that “[t]hey responded as we all hope we might respond in such terrifying circumstances — with courage and with love, giving their lives to protect the children in their care.” Right from the start, women being praised for laying down their lives for a child provided a stark contrast to the Sandra Fluke culture Obama usually promotes, where selfishness trumps the sanctity of life.

Nonetheless, the man who warned against tying politics to tragedy segued smoothly from grief and prayerfulness into using a catastrophe for his own political purposes.

Oblivious to the contradiction posed when a person who believes that a fetus is not a human and that medical care should not be given to infants born alive in botched abortions speaks touchingly of newborn babes, Obama said “With their very first cry, this most precious, vital part of ourselves — our child — is suddenly exposed to the world, to possible mishap or malice.”

The President, who in the past has likened unwanted pregnancy to punishment, then shared that “[e]very parent knows there is nothing we will not do to shield our children from harm.”

After discussing parents protecting their children, Obama entered African proverb “it takes a village to raise a child” territory. The President suggested that parents are shocked when they realize that “loving your children isn’t enough to keep them safe.” According to Obama, “teaching them well, is something we can only do together, with the help of friends and neighbors, the help of a community” – and most importantly, “with the help of a nation,” otherwise known as a liberal-ideology-pushing entity called the U.S. government.

The Collectivist-in-Chief then proceeded to shepherd America’s children into the village with the following pronouncement: “And in that way, we come to realize that we bear a responsibility for every child because we’re counting on everybody else to help look after ours; that we’re all parents; that they’re all our children.”

Then, he said “This is our first task — caring for our children. It’s our first job. If we don’t get that right, we don’t get anything right. That’s how, as a society, we will be judged.” Amen to that one Mr. President, because right about now it’s good to know that caring for all our children is what could stem the tide of judgment.

From there, the Planned Parenthood cheerleader with the 100% NARAL voting record asked a question that he should pose to himself:

And by that measure, can we truly say, as a nation, that we are meeting our obligations? Can we honestly say that we’re doing enough to keep our children — all of them — safe from harm? Can we say that we’re truly doing enough to give all the children of this country the chance they deserve to live out their lives in happiness and with purpose?

America’s most famous feticide and infanticide crusader, answered himself correctly when he then stated, “[i]f we’re honest with ourselves, the answer is no… And we will have to change.”

He then recounted the grim fact that “Since [he’s] been President, this is the fourth time [America] came together to comfort a grieving community torn apart by a mass shooting.” What Obama failed, or chose not to point out, was that since 1966 there have been 16 mass shootings in America, eight of which – 50 percent – took place on his watch.

In response to a 953% increase in the annual mass-shooting rate in the last four years as compared to the previous 42 years, what did the President propose?  More change, of course!

Therefore, in anticipation of the forthcoming arguments that are bound to arise in response to the sort of ‘change’ he plans to implement, the President took preliminary steps to defuse predictable resistance. Obama’s vigil visit lay the groundwork for the “meaningful action” he promised on the night of the shootings, by jumping in front of the debate.

The President argued that “We will be told that the causes of such violence are complex, and that is true.”  However, in anticipation of enacting new laws, he then said “No single law — no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world, or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society.” Using that kind reasoning, the truth should not be an “excuse for inaction.”

From the sound of things, it seems America’s most ardent advocate for choice is about to circumvent the opposition to address gun laws, because “what other choice do we have” besides his choice?  During a prayer service, America’s Executive Power addict inappropriately flexed his sovereign muscle when he said that “in an effort aimed at preventing more tragedies like this” he would, once again, use “whatever power this office holds.”

Liberals believe 60 million dead babies and counting is a price worth paying for the right to choose. Now it sounds like the Second Amendment might be the price America is about to pay to ensure the safety of the same children who, were they inside a womb instead of a classroom, Obama would have zero problem aborting.

Signaling that freedom is about to be targeted and after expressing unwillingness to “accept events like this as routine,” Obama then posed an unsettling question: “Are we really prepared to say that we’re powerless in the face of such carnage, that the politics are too hard?”

Let’s remember – for community organizer types, random carnage is not only a crisis, it’s an opportunity that cries out for a remedy, especially when the death of innocent children provide the motivation to guilt the resistant into submission.  Therefore, the tone and direction of the President’s remarks seemed to suggest that disagreeable Constitutionalists had better get out of the way.

Then, exploiting a grieving community, the President probed further, “Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?” That statement should incite terror in every American who cherishes liberty.

And so Barack Obama offered Sandy Hook his presidential condolences, tearless weeping, and poignant personal anecdotes on parenting. However, after the statement that indicated he plans to place the unpredictable security of a few above the established freedom of many, “the price of our freedom” was truly a chilling choice of words.

America’s Throwaway Children

newtown-victim-400It is heartbreaking to think about the horror that ensued in that small Connecticut town where 28 innocent people were gunned down, eighteen of whom were the most innocent of innocents – wide-eyed, angelic first graders – and one of whom was the shooter’s own mother.

Babies – little munchkins who came to school to learn to count, read and sit cross-legged on the floor during story hour – these were the victims of a terror too unspeakable to comprehend.

Nonetheless, while America takes in and tries to process the sights, sounds and anguish of a tragedy of this magnitude, it’s hard for those who are committed to the sanctity of life to ignore the hypocrisy currently afoot in the aftermath surrounding the ordeal.

Some may argue that it is highly inappropriate and insensitive, while 20 first-graders are being prepared for burial, to tie human suffering to the topic of abortion.  But since liberals “never want to let a serious crisis to go to waste,” why not follow that lead by using this tragedy as a “teachable moment?”

For starters, it’s important to recognize that some do not understand that for most conservatives it’s the babies that drive our politics.  A problem arises whenever little ones are hurt and liberals respond by condemning violence against children. Instantly, the prolife community is criticized for recognizing the absurd paradox and pointing out the left’s hypocrisy.

As pint-sized bodies are shuttled away from the Connecticut crime scene, it’s important to remember that our nation legalized the slaughter of innocents more than 40 years ago.  Then, recently we put our approbation on continuing the carnage by reelecting the most radical advocate for abortion rights in our nation’s history. Five weeks later, in broad daylight, when slaughter and carnage come out of hiding we wonder why?

The brutality of senseless violence is hard to comprehend, especially when a high-powered rifle mows down precious little ones. But daily, Americans ignore the fact that weaponry like scalpels, saline, and suction exterminate far many more children than those who die in classrooms.

In essence, what happened in Newtown merely pulled back the curtain and revealed the spirit behind the everyday viciousness perpetrated against America’s children.  The difference is that normally the bloody massacre is hidden from the public’s eye.

As for those on the left who now weep for the lost, nice try, but not convincing.  Prochoice advocates shedding tears for the loss of the pure and the blameless just doesn’t fly. Neither does hearing partial birth abortion backers pontificate about preserving and protecting life. Doing so is comparable to the world’s most famous butcher, Dario Cecchini, lending his face to a PETA ad.

And while no one can, or should, judge the heart of a man, it is also quite perplexing to see infanticide supporter Barack Obama crying over the demise of small children when, if they were 6½ months in utero versus 6½ years old in a classroom, he’d be defending an individual’s right to terminate their lives.

Furthermore, after earning a 100% voting record score from NARAL, it’s also mindboggling at best to hear President Obama utter the following words about a select group of children: “The majority of those who died today were children — beautiful little kids between the ages of 5 and 10 years old. They had their entire lives ahead of them — birthdays, graduations, weddings, kids of their own.”

The only difference between the dead Obama wept for on national television and those that Planned Parenthood deprives daily of “birthdays, graduations, weddings [and] kids of their own” is that the latter are victims of the kind of violence the President approves of.

Nonetheless, in response to the tragedy Obama is now talking about “meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics.”  What he’s really talking about is taking “meaningful action” to institute more stringent gun control laws that will restrict law-abiding gun owners

Someone should remind Planned Parenthood’s presidential cheerleader that on the same day children were sprayed with bullets in a Connecticut elementary school, 3,500 innocent babies died at the hands of abortionists – and not one gun was involved in those murders.

Moreover, the words “regardless of politics,” are being used to support the gun control argument. Yet, while claiming to omit politics from the ‘violence against children’ issue, Obama is predictably using politics to retain his prochoice political base by conveniently disregarding the fact that in America every 10 days, 35,000 viable infants are victims of feticide.

As America deals with the horror in Connecticut, it’s clear to some that what happened in Newtown, Connecticut is the heartbreaking symptom of a national disease where to some the life of a child is nothing more than a disposable throwaway.

The sad truth is that the small and defenseless die horrific deaths everyday in America – some huddled under a desk and others under cold florescent lights in an abortion clinic.  Either way, the formula is the same: violence and the intent to kill which, regardless of the method, both deliver the same result – dead babies.  In a first grade classroom there are 20; in a clinic across town there could be 220.

What’s stunning is that this truth has not deterred the disingenuous from campaigning for the right to kill the unborn on Monday and then publicly quoting Scripture, weeping, and lighting memorial candles for murdered children on Friday.

And so, as usual, liberals try to have it both ways. Yet, for those who recognize hypocrisy it will be painful to watch as a nation in mourning accepts the feigning of grief from those who, under different circumstances, would heartily support killing the children they now weep for.

Michelle Obama Accuses the Right of Voter Suppression and Lying

Michelle Obama Joins Geithner At Visit To Treasury DepartmentOriginally posted at American Thinker blog

One would think that after November 6th Mrs. Obama would lay off the ‘Down with the Struggle’ nonsense.  For a couple of weeks, the first lady dropped off the radar, which was a bit odd, but after Thanksgiving she reemerged refreshed and ready to assist her husband with his ongoing post-election tax-the-rich campaign blitz.

On December 13th Michelle dialed up blackamericaweb’s Tom Joyner Morning Show. The most disturbing thing about the conversation that ensued was hearing the first lady of the United States participate in Joyner’s segregated “our people” talk.

In response to Tom expressing how he thought blacks wouldn’t show up to vote and his subsequent relief that they did, sounding a bit like Angela Davis Michelle Obama said “It’s becoming a habit.  Justice and rights – people like having the right to vote.  Folks in our community, we like being a part of this process.”

Tom then made the bizarre accusation that “it seemed the more people vote, the more people were telling us not to vote.”  Who? Where? Sybil Wilkes, the Tom Joyner version of Howard Stern’s Robin Quivers, chimed in and said, “Or how to prevent us from voting.”

Instead of refuting divisive/paranoid rhetoric and addressing absurd allegations, Michelle Obama replied, “That’s right.”

Joyner suggested that the people telling “us” not to vote, or trying to prevent “us” from voting, got “us” more “fired up – and we did the darn thing.” It’s not entirely clear, but the words “us” and “did the darn thing” may be referring to the reelection of Barack Obama. Mrs. Obama, not identifying who exactly was doing the messin’, agreed with Joyner when she said, “Yeah, don’t mess with our right to vote. Don’t do it.”

While it’s doubtful Michelle appreciates it when her husband’s political adversaries keep “people focused” by exhibiting “the tenacity [and] the everyday focus on issues, [by] calling stuff out [and] making it funny but still …on point,” she certainly appreciates those attributes in Obama’s political allies.

The first lady thanked the Joyner crew for its humor and its – “you know.”  She also acknowledged the radio program for faithfully addressing what’s “going on in the world on so many different levels.”  Like Sinbad in Harlem and Black Don’t Crack – Stars Turning 60 in 2013.

Bubbling over with heartfelt appreciation, Michelle also issued a friendly exhortation for the future by explaining that “the battles are not over… we cannot do what we did in 2008, which is vote and then go”…on vacation…oops, I mean…”back to sleep – because the real work is coming up.”

According to Mrs. Obama people need to stay focused, “because it’s easy to get confused in all the back and forth that goes on.” Regrettably, it sounds like Michelle was implying that the people who ‘made it happen’ for Barack lack focus and tend toward confusion.

Broaching the subjects of the fiscal cliff, education, the environment, and comprehensive immigration reform, Michelle Obama emphasized that “All of that has to happen… four years is not a lot of time… we’ve got two strong years where we’ve got to get a lot done.

America’s first lady reminded listeners that time is of the essence because if her husband’s leftist progressive policies are not rammed through in the next two years, after the 2014 election Congress and the Senate could thwart the ramming.

Mrs. Obama also explained that the 24-month offensive is necessary because getting things done is difficult.  Why? Because according to the FLOTUS, in Washington DC there’s a “whole lot of not-truth-telling that happens, if you know what I mean.”

As a matter of fact, yes, Michelle, there are many of us that know exactly what you mean when you say there is “a whole lot of not-truth-telling” going on.  The difference is that we believe most of the “not-truth-telling” comes out of the mouth of someone you’re intimately acquainted with, if you know what we mean?

Hip-hop Michelle thanked all those who she said “stepped up,” but not before the woman who knows a thing or two about belts warned: “So we have a solid victory under our belt, but we are nowhere near finished” – emphasis on the “nowhere near finished.”

Mrs. Obama didn’t disappoint.  The first lady stirred up the African-American Joyner audience by bringing up conflict-ridden issues such as rich-versus-poor class warfare and negative advertising directed toward her always-the-victim husband.  And, without offering one shred of proof, Michelle proceeded to accuse those on the right of voter suppression, which she claimed without evidence “was in full force in so many states all over this country.”

After indicting her husband’s political adversaries for mendacious conduct as well as voter suppression during the radio interview, one of things the first lady forgot to mention was that it is alleged that unions registered undocumented immigrants to vote.

Mrs. Obama conveniently failed to also cite things like Democrats attempting to impact elections by insisting that showing identification before voting is discriminatory; allegations that for a small fee illegal day workers were coaxed into voting; Obama supporters casting multiple votes; illegal campaign contributions adding beaucoup dollars to hubby’s war chest; and ballots failing to make it to military personnel on time, and if they did, never being counted.

However, in fairness to the first lady, on-air radio time pressure issues may explain why while flinging around accusations she ignored the fact that the New Black Panthers revisited Philadelphia on Election Day – “if you know what I mean?”

Finally, before signing off the Tom Joyner Morning show, the first lady did manage to reinforce the idea that the “folks in [her] community” do know “what the country should look like.” In addition, on their behalf, she also advanced the cause of “fairness and opportunity.” However, to assure Obama supporters that they did the right thing when they “did the darn thing,” Michelle Obama creatively incorporated a “whole lot of not-truth-telling” of her own – “if you know what I mean?”

Audio link to the interview

Harry Belafonte Suggests that Barack Obama Jail Political Detractors

harry-belafonteOriginally posted at American Thinker blog

The “King of Calypso,” Hugo Chávez enthusiast, and “Banana Boat” crooner, octogenarian Harry Belafonte is so thrilled with the reelection of Barack Obama that he’s taken to cable “news” network MSNBC to share his views on how President Obama should deal with political nemeses.

In addition to singing, acting and songwriting, throughout his career Harry “Viva la revolucion” Belafonte has also promoted himself as a civil rights advocate and humanitarian.  In addition to issuing indictments like: “Our foreign policy has made a wreck of this planet,” Mr. Belafonte also heartily endorses the ailing Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez’s socialist revolution.

Once, when addressing the Venezuelan people, Harry Belafonte told his audience that George W. Bush was the “greatest terrorist” in the world. Another time, sounding more like he was describing the current president, Mr. Belafonte made the following statement about the former president: “I think [G.W.] Bush has a very selfish, arrogant point of view. I think he is interested in power, I think he believes his truth is the only truth, and that he will do what he wants to do despite the people.”

Leaving aside Belafonte’s hatred for Bush and his fondness for dictator-style governing, it’s still kind of alarming to hear that ole’ Harry suggested President Obama incarcerate American citizens who speak out against him.

The topic came up when Belafonte appeared as a guest on Al Sharpton’s Politics Nation.  Belafonte was on a panel with global human rights/social justice activist Kerry Kennedy, daughter of the late Senator Robert Kennedy and former wife of NY Governor Andrew Cuomo. During the interview, Harry, who passionately and stridently exercised his first amendment rights throughout the eight years former President G.W. Bush was in office, shared some stunning Hugo Chávez-style advice for Barack Obama.

Sharpton began the conversation by asking Belafonte:

Ah… ah…you’ve fought for decades for some of the ‘quote’ entitlements that the…ah… right wing wants to try and balance this budget… ah… balance the deficit off of.  As you look at this Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security…You’ve been an activist leader from Roosevelt, Eleanor Roosevelt, to Dr. King through Mandela to Obama.  How do you view this and what is the challenge for those that are on the field today?

Belafonte replied, “What I think has most attracted me to this whole process is watching the political maturity of the American people.” Clearly, Harry Belafonte defines reelecting a president who is in the process of establishing a socialist-style government as “political maturity.”

Nevertheless, Harry continued to elaborate:

Because there was a great question during the first election as to whether or not Barack would even be elected.  And after the turn out so emphatically put him in the presidency it was interesting to watch the second turn[out] when everybody really didn’t quite know what the game would be.

Without referring directly to the looming fiscal cliff and oblivious to the fact that Obama voters had no clue what Obama was really talking about, Harry came to the conclusion that the American people “[i]n their maturity declared themselves fully: ‘We want what Barack Obama is talking about.  We want the country to go in that direction’.”

Then, the celebrated humanitarian shared the inhumane sentiment that Obama’s political rivals are a “[l]ingering infestation of really corrupt people who sit trying to dismantle the wishes of the people, the mandate that has been given to Barack Obama.”

In the past, Belafonte has accused the Obama-loving American media of falsely portraying Chávez as a “dictator.” At the time, the singer/activist also shared the opinion that in Venezuela there is “democracy and [the] citizens are ‘optimistic about their future.'” What Belafonte failed to mention was that Hugo Chávez regularly imprisons political dissidents, calling them “common criminals.”

Hence, to deal with the threat of political dissension here in America, it’s not surprising that Harry Belafonte would suggest that the “only thing left for Barab…Barack Obama to do is to work like a third world dictator and just throw all these guys in jail [Sharpton/Kennedy nervously giggle] for violating the American desire.”

Harry Belafonte, who has always enjoyed the freedom to voice his oppressed/oppressor point of view, obviously never considered two-term president G. W. Bush a man whose reelection reflected a mandate, let alone an expression of “American desire.” Yet, suddenly, with the reappointment of Barack Obama, the singer feels emboldened to openly call for nonconformists with differing opinions to be imprisoned?

Even still, rather than expressing astonishment, Americans should thank Mr. Harry Belafonte for not only giving us that snappy Caribbean “Day-O” banana song, but more importantly for lending his voice to express the true heart and soul of the progressive left.

 

Sell a Kidney – Save an Illegal’s Life

met-kidney-transplant 1208 kmOriginally posted at American Thinker

Jorge Mariscal of Chicago, Illinois is a graphic design student who has lived in America illegally for 23 years.  When Jorge was a year old, his mother, Sonia Lopez, smuggled him over the border from Mexico into the United States.  From the age of 16, he required dialysis, and at 24 years old, he found himself in need of a kidney transplant.  Despite his illegal status and without fear of prosecution or deportation, Jorge brazenly stepped forward and demanded that a Chicago hospital provide him with a benefit he has no legal right to — a free kidney.

Originally, for lack of legal status, Mariscal thought a kidney transplant was out of the question here in the U.S. and contemplated returning to Mexico, perhaps in hopes of filching a fresh kidney from a headless corpse.

After hearing Jorge’s story, Reverend José Landaverde from Our Lady of Guadalupe Anglican Mission, located in Chicago’s Little Village neighborhood, felt duty-bound to help the man.  José said, “Jorge is [sic] a lot of hope for the community. I believe that the Gospel moves us to be in solidarity with one another.”

Before condoning illegal immigrants participating in unlawful behavior, Fr. Landaverde should really brush up on Romans:13:1-7, which says, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.”

Nonetheless, thanks to the reverend’s activism, Jorge stayed in America and continued to defy the law.  Then, after eight years of waiting for a kidney, Loyola University Medical Center succumbed to the continued pressure from José Landaverde’s group and agreed to cover the cost of transferring a kidney from his illegal border-crossing mother, Sonia, into Jorge.

In addition to Mariscal’s free treatment at Loyola, after Our Lady of Guadalupe sponsored a hunger strike in June, the hospital also agreed to assess another illegal immigrant, Lorenzo Arroyo, for a liver transplant.  Arroyo’s brother Elfego was also placed on the transplant waiting list at Chicago’s Rush University Medical Center.

After his successful surgery, and since his fellow South-Sider Barack Obama promised to make immigration reform a top priority, Mariscal is “excited about his future and grateful for the help he received.”  As a get-well present, Obama should propose that the remainder of Jorge’s graphic design education costs be DREAM-Acted into oblivion via the American taxpayer.

Mariscal said, “It feels great to have a second opportunity at life. It’s an overwhelming feeling. I don’t think I would have been happy in Mexico.”  Jorge clearly doesn’t realize that this is actually his third “opportunity at life” — the second one being when Mom stuffed him into her backpack and made her way north from Tijuana into San Diego.  As for Jorge being “unhappy in Mexico,” prison escapees are happier too once they’re on the outside — but if they’re apprehended, happiness isn’t an acceptable reason for letting them remain free.

Yet, despite Jorge’s euphoria, there is a hitch.  Until ObamaCare officially “launches the exchanges” in 2014, although currently outfitted with a free kidney, Jorge “[r]emains frustrated with a health care system that he worries might leave out an untold number of illegal immigrants in need of lifesaving treatments.”

Jorge the man who just received hundreds of thousands of dollars in free health care, shamelessly parroted the Democrats’ “health care is a right” mantra when he asked, “Why can’t we be treated the same?”  After all, where’s the fairness in American citizens getting first dibs on all the livers?

Notwithstanding being an undignified lawbreaker, Jorge is resolute in his belief that all illegals should be given equal consideration when it comes to organ transplant surgery, or what he describes as a “[c]hance to fight for our lives with dignity.”

On second thought, the president really should consider adopting Jorge’s philosophy on free organ transplants for illegals.  If Obama reassigned to the top of the list all the undocumented aliens who’ve been denied a kidney, heart, or liver merely because of their illegal status, it would reinforce the illusion of his staunch commitment to fairness.

Either way, Fr. José must have forgotten to tell Jorge that illegal aliens fraudulently get free prescription drug coverage through Medicaid all the time.  Alas, it seems that after the transplant, that pesky immigration issue has cropped up and complicated matters for Jorge again.  Because he’s illegal, the undocumented alien with the free kidney transplant may actually have to pay $10K a year, for the rest of his life, for medicine that ensures that Mom’s renal endowment remains in good working order.

Whatever the outcome, Jorge Mariscal and his new kidney have little to worry about.  With ObamaCare on the horizon, that looming $10,000 tab is sure to be picked up yearly, courtesy of individuals with legal driver’s licenses who bequeath their organs to be donated after they die, as well as those who, for lack of an organ similar to the one Mr. Mariscal just received for free, die while still on a waiting list.

So, from all those on the verge of selling a kidney to pay taxes, to every illegal alien in need of a free organ transplant: thank you for providing America yet another opportunity to accommodate your every need.

%d bloggers like this: