Category Archives: Uncategorized

Obama: War Against The Catholic Faith

Posted on by

“You have to pass the bill so that you can find out what’s in it.”

–Nancy Pelosi on ObakaKare, one of the most idiotic statements ever made in politics

And apparently people are beginning to finally realize what’s in it, and they’re not much amused. Particularly when people sense that it declares open war on the Catholic faith.

Let me make this clear: I’m not Catholic. I keep my religious faith close, not public. And I realize that the Catholic Church isn’t perfect — certainly not any number of its priests. As a matter of fact, I may as well write it now: I’m not a large believer in organized religions. When I wrote the post “Church or Heart,” I summed it up: I keep God in my heart. I don’t believe you need an edifice to worship the Lord. Jesus didn’t need one. And, frankly, I’m not much of a “joiner.”

That said, here is a truthful letter from Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput which sums up Obama’s assault on religion:

February 1, 2012

Dear friends in Christ,

The United States Department of Health and Human Services announced on January 20 that almost all employers, including Catholic employers, will be forced to offer their employees health coverage that includes sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs, and contraception. Almost all health insurers will be forced to include those “services” in the health policies they write. And almost all individuals will be forced to buy that coverage as a part of their policies.

In so ruling, the current Administration has undermined both the principle of religious conscience and the First Amendment to the Constitution in an unprecedented way. Unless the ruling is overturned, faithful Catholics will be forced either to violate our consciences, or to drop health coverage for our employees and suffer the penalties for doing so. The Administration’s only concession was to give our institutions a one-year delay to comply. This is not merely inadequate. It is dangerous. And it betrays the good faith of many Catholics who — until now — have supported the current Administration with an honest will.

Bishops and lay Catholic leaders across the United States have made it clear that we cannot comply with this unjust law without compromising our convictions and undermining the Catholic identity of many of our service ministries. This is not just another important issue among the many we need to be concerned about. This ruling is different. This ruling interferes with the basic right of Catholic citizens to organize and work for the common good as Catholics in the public square.

Today, I ask of you two things. First, we need to pray for our country, for our Church, and for our own right to work freely as a believing community through our ministries in the public square. Second, we need to act. Please visit the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference website at www.pacatholic.org to learn how to contact your federal Representative and Senators. Write them, call them, visit them — and help them understand the deep resistance of Pennsylvania Catholics to this dangerous ruling. Please also visit www.usccb.org/conscience, to learn more about this attack on religious conscience, and how to work to reverse the Administration’s decision.

Your action on this issue matters — not just today but for many years to come; and in ways that will shape the ability of the Church to witness the Gospel publicly through her ministries well into the future. Please know that you have my gratitude and daily prayers. And please remember me in your prayers as well.
Sincerely yours in Christ,

Most Reverend Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap. Archbishop of Philadelphia

ObakaKare mandates that hospitals — all hospitals — provide, essentially, free hot and cold running abortions. And not only if you “take” federal funds. Across the board. Period.

Hugh Hewitt writes about this here, and here, and here, and here.

Finally, let me close with this quote, please:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn’t a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Our current completely secular government is coming for the Catholics. Clearly, they’ve purposely managed to not read any of the quotes literally “etched in stone” on numerous historic DC buildings, the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights.

And this is wrong.

You have made a terrible, terrible mistake, Obama, and HHS.

BZ

 Share

Super Bowl Sunday: 21 to 17, New York Giants WIN

Posted on by

New England Patriots or New York Giants?

BZ
P.S.
How about this urban myth:
Flushing the toilet at halftime is perfectly fine. There’s an urban legend that our nation’s sewer system is put on the brink of collapse during halftime of the Super Bowl, since so many people will be flushing at the same time. It’s not. Who better to debunk this myth than the fine people at Roto-Rooter? They say it’s fine ‒ municipal sewer systems are built to handle anything you can throw at them. Flush freely.
 Share

Ruth Bader Ginsburg to Egypt: DON’T Use Our Constitution As An Example

Posted on by


Just when you thought you’ve heard or read the most frightening things. . .

. . .up steps the former General Counsel for the ACLU and now SCOTUS jurist, Ruth Bader Ginsburg — sworn to uphold the US Constitution — telling another country, Egypt, that she doesn’t believe in the US Constitution.

Asked by the interviewer if she thought Egypt should use the Constitutions of other countries as a model, Ginsburg said Egyptians should be “aided by all Constitution-writing that has gone on since the end of World War II.”

“I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a Constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the Constitution of South Africa,” says Ginsburg, whom President Clinton nominated to the court in 1993. “That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary. … It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the U.S. Constitution.”

People tend to characterize the US Constitution in an incorrect fashion. As I wrote here, back in May of 2010, our Constitution addresses positive as well as negative rights.

And that’s what Leftists don’t care about.

POSITIVE vs NEGATIVE RIGHTS:
Our current Constitution frames much of what we value in terms of what we cannot do.

– The government cannot engage in unreasonable searches and seizures

– It cannot inflict cruel and unusual punishment
And therefore, the individual has a right to NOT be subject to various items, and so forth.
By our current Constitution, it does NOT “guarantee” so-called “rights” to such things as housing, clothing, food, jobs — rights that place upon the state to obtain the resources from other citizens to pay for them.
Let me make this abundantly clear: “RIGHTS THAT PLACE UPON THE STATE TO OBTAIN THE RESOURCES FROM OTHER CITIZENS TO PAY FOR THEM.”
Leftists wish to enable a solid “privileges or immunities clause” which becomes open-ended and — therefore — susceptible to specific ‘interpretation” by such pre-chosen federal judges!

The clear and sad bottom line is this — but, in truth, considering the individual, none of us should be shocked — RBG doesn’t believe in nor advocates the Constitution that she has foresworn to uphold. Because it’s old. It’s staid. It’s not a proverbial “Living Document.” And it doesn’t take into account the laws of other nations.

I’d care to remind you that it was, again, Ruth Bader Ginsburg who, in 2009, said that justices should take foreign laws into account when making their SCOTUS decisions.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says it’s ok for U.S. judges to use foreign law for guidance in their own decisions.

The courts four conservative members – Chief Justice John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas – oppose the use of foreign law in constitutional cases.

“I frankly don’t understand all the brouhaha lately from Congress and even from some of my colleagues about referring to foreign law,” Ginsburg said Friday in a symposium honoring her at Ohio State University, The New York Times reports.

Ginsburg says she’s fine with the idea that a U.S. court shouldn’t consider itself bound by the precedent established in international law.

But she’s also fine with the idea that a U.S. court can be influenced by strong reasoning from overseas.

“Why shouldn’t we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article written by a professor?” she says.

The Supreme Court’s reluctance to take into account foreign law has caused its global influence to wane, Ginsburg argues.

Frankly, I must admit, I couldn’t care less about how our Supreme Court is viewed globally. I only want SCOTUS to utilize domestic precedence in their considerations.

I suppose that either makes me a zealot or a terrorist. Take your pick. Damn me for believing that our Supreme Court should take only our national laws into consideration in terms of its rulings.

Imagine purple Leftist skies. Imagine Whirled Peas. Now imagine the United States unconstrained by its ancient and outdated document created by elderly white boys.

BZ

 Share