Religious Liberty in the Crosshairs

Forty-three organizations, mostly Catholic, have sued the federal government over the HHS regulations in Obamacare that would force them to violate their religious beliefs. Some people don’t care because they view this as a birth control issue, they are secular, and they consider the Catholic church to be positively medieval in its strictures against birth control. Others, among them Protestant Christians, are tempted to stay on the sidelines because they don’t agree with the church’s stance on the issue and they’re not Catholic.

Those Protestants need to beware. It won’t stop with Catholic doctrine. The juggernaut of state control of religious beliefs will encompass them sooner or later. Actually, the time is now. I teach at a Protestant university. Those regulations may tell us to offer abortifacient drugs, which would be against our doctrinal beliefs. Catholics, Protestants, and anyone else concerned about the survival of religious liberty in this nation ought to be on the alert and standing against this policy.

You would think a First Amendment case of this import would be receiving a lot of publicity. However, as usual, the president’s supporters in the mainstream media are doing their best to minimize coverage. Even when they do cover it, they will twist it into a birth control debate, knowing that most Americans will be on their side and will miss the real threat.

Amazingly, while this serious case is going forward, the media finds the antics of the pope’s butler more significant. I wasn’t sure what I thought of the following cartoon when it came out—not sure I would share it because I thought it might be slightly blasphemous. But upon further consideration, I concluded it truly makes its point, and I don’t think the Lord minds.

This is the equivalent of the Biblical warning about straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.

So what’s the president’s response thus far?

Well, not precisely. But I do believe if he wins reelection, what has transpired already will seem tame compared to what will follow after. Those of us with religious convictions are on his radar—we are targets.

Media-Ignored Stories

I wouldn’t blame you if you’ve missed a couple of really big stories lately. The reason you may have missed them is that they have rarely been mentioned in the mainstream media. The first is a potential constitutional earthquake. Reporters who say they are devoted to the First Amendment for its free-speech protections are strangely silent when it comes to religious freedom, particularly when their beloved Obamacare and “right-to-choose-abortion” beliefs may be smacked down.

Forty-three Catholic agencies have initiated lawsuits against the Obamacare mandate that they violate their religious beliefs by offering both contraceptive and abortifacient drugs to employees—and to students in the case of colleges.

If they can win these cases, religious liberty will continue to be protected. If not . . . well, you be the judge.

Then there is the embarrassing story that is developing in the Democrat primaries. Are you even aware there are Democrat primaries? They haven’t been a matter of news before now since the president has no formal opponent. Yet, in the West Virginia primary a convicted felon received 40% of the vote, in Arkansas, an unknown on the ballot also got about 40%, and in Kentucky, with no one else on the ballot but Obama, the “undecided” choice on the ticket received 40% as well. Does that sound like a Democrat electorate that is solidly behind reelection? Maybe they’ve been contemplating their leader’s real record:

This is no threat to Obama’s renomination, but it’s an early signal of what he may face in the general election. At least, that is my hope.

Avenger Obama Going “Forward”

I wrote a post a few days ago about the Obama campaign’s new slogan, “Forward.” It’s so ripe for parody, it’s almost too easy to do. Examples abound, many with the same theme:

What were they thinking by promoting this slogan? The cartoonist Michael Ramirez may have figured it out:

Obamacare is nowhere to be found in any current Obama ads. Wonder why? What does he have that he can tout? Well, one thing:

Maybe you can get the T-shirt:

I realize some have criticized the president for overplaying his hand in this matter. Well, to be honest, I have criticized the president for putting himself front and center and seemingly taking all credit. Perception is the key in campaigns. Perhaps we’ll be seeing this soon:

Try not to get too ill before election day.

Obama & Constitutional Law

A recent public opinion poll taken right after the oral arguments at the Supreme Court concerning the constitutionality of Obamacare shows a rather high favorable view of the Court. Analysts say this could be related to the pointed questioning the Obama administration’s solicitor general received by some of the justices. By most accounts, they shredded his arguments. In his defense, he was trying to defend the indefensible constitutionally.

I’ve often stated my resistance to government by opinion polls, and I remain steadfast in that position. Yet it is comforting at times to see the general public waking up to some of the travesties that have been promoted as constitutional. In this case, the Obama administration is attempting to use the Commerce Clause of the Constitution as covering for its unprecedented power grab. This is a classic example of twisting the document’s meaning into nonsense and, in the process, shredding the document itself.

Then we have the spectacle of the administration touting the president’s prowess at interpreting the Constitution, citing his time as a constitutional law professor. Let’s get one thing straight: he was never a fulltime professor, but only an adjunct brought in to teach occasionally. I have nothing against adjuncts; they are essential. In fact, I was one once. But just being an adjunct professor teaching a law class once in a while is not the supreme qualification for being an expert. Further, most of his law education was of the “living Constitution” variety, where the original wording and intent are discarded. Consequently, I’m not impressed by anyone proclaiming Obama as an authority on constitutional law. From what I’ve been able to glean of his take on the Constitution, I’d say he’s anything but an authority. He has some more lessons to learn, starting with the established maxim that the Supreme Court can rule on the constitutionality of a federal law.

May the Court, in this instance, rule wisely.

Comics Day Today

There are some days I just want to do comics. Congratulations, you’ve stumbled across one of those days. Enjoy these [in no particular thematic order]:

Unless I can replenish my comics supply, I’ll actually have to think of things to say tomorrow. Stay tuned.

Being Constitutional

The Supreme Court has made its decision on Obamacare. What, you didn’t hear about that? Well, that’s because it’s not public yet, and won’t be until June, I understand. But behind closed doors, the result is in. The justices are now busy writing their opinions; I predict we’ll have a number of those opinions offered since the Court will be split in its reasoning. Some of that reasoning will be sharp and constitutional; the rest will be shallow and political. Hopefully, constitutionalism will prevail and the entire law will be overturned, not just the individual mandate.

President Obama yesterday lectured the Court from afar by stating categorically that the attempt to set up a government-controlled healthcare system was undeniably constitutional, and that any decision to the contrary was judicial activism. He said conservatives should understand this since they are always decrying judicial activism.

Let me get this straight: declaring a law unconstitutional that took over 1/6 of the American economy and forced people to buy a product is judicial activism? No, Mr. President, that’s the proper role of the Court—reining in an extension of government power into an area where it has no authority to act.

That’s called being constitutional.

But I wouldn’t expect the president to understand that concept. He’s no James Madison.

Presidents take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, not to ignore it.

Fiscal Sanity & the Rule of Law

The administration did its best to convince the Supreme Court that Obamacare is constitutional. That’s called trying to make something out of nothing. When there’s nothing in the Constitution that can reasonably be construed as support for this type of government interference, one would hope the attempt to defend it would prove impossible. Nothing is certain, though, when four liberal ideologues refuse to budge. At least that’s what I expect. Yet even liberal commentators are saying the Court may overturn this “signature” piece of legislation. We’ll have to wait until June to find out. Perhaps there’s a fantasy swirling in the mind of our president about how he wishes he could have been present at the writing of the Constitution. He could have made it a “better” instrument:

You see, only a liberal/progressive/socialist really cares about people. Plans such as the one proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan to move us in the direction of fiscal responsibility emanate from evil, uncaring hearts:

You could say it all depends on one’s perspective, but I hope most Americans would grasp the concept that a life preserver is not a weapon.

Meanwhile, we await the return of fiscal sanity and the rule of law. Will they eventually prevail?