Now, the Obama Administration has, by executive fiat, determined that a private company must give away its services to a class of people it (“The Administration”) has determined should get these services.
Going back to our California example, what is to stop the Federal Department of Energy from requiring auto insurers to provide no-cost insurance to anyone driving a car running on electricity, natural gas, or bio-diesel – to promote the use of those vehicles.
For that matter, what’s to prevent the U.S. Government from telling GM (which still owes us about $25 billion) they need to provide small, fuel efficient cars to people who cannot otherwise afford them, but live in areas that have limited public transportation?
I don’t understand where that authority comes from. But it worries me, very much.
This occurred to me, too – It’s almost as if Stephanopoulos got the memo first.
h/t Dave
Yeah, the question on contraception, at the time, seemed completely wingy, but now it all fits. Stephanopoulos DID work with Carville to get Bill Clinton elected; he’s an insider.
What I find very distressing is that this battle over contraception and birth control has glossed over the more central issue: the immoral, unconstitutional mandated purchase of health insurance.
BUT, even if you accepted the mandate, does the prevention/termination of a non-disease — PREGNANCY — have any place in health insurance?
One Republican has opined that this takes the mandate “too far”.
See what I mean. This kind of statement tacitly accepts the legitimacy of the mandate. The debate now is what is appropriate/inappropriate within this thoroughly unconstitutional law.
This is the point Steyn has made over and over again. Conservatives in practice merely keep the progressive seats warm while they take a sabbatical.
The point being made here is right. It is much deeper than contraception and birth control. If Obama can mandate this then there is nothing that he cannot regulate and mandate. This is part of what Obama meant when he campaigned on “fundamental change”. The radical left is making a play to control people’s lives and at the same time deal a body blow to organized religion.
Assuming that (God-willing) Obama loses the fall election (and that may be a big assumption), whomever the next guy is will have to spend his enitre first 4 years in office cleaning up the mess left by the crazy Left Wing Ideologist (aka a LWI).
I’m disgusted.
I posted the other day, re the public education systems’ pro-LGBTetc.etc, (who knows what other deviation they’ll be adding some day soon):
“There is more intolerance, bigotry, and bullying in our school systems than there ever was—and it’s not the ‘minorities’ who are the victims.
“Another aspect of the [educational] bureaucrats’ dishonesty: they seem to take a perverse pleasure in running roughshod over the rights and sensibilities of Christians. . . .”
In the links at this thread, Newt’s answer to the unexpected, at that time, ABC (Anything But Christian?) hectoring about birth control highlighted this pernicious bias. Here are two tweets that confirm this bias and congratulate Newt for forcefully belling the consensus media cat:
Ann Coulter: “Great point by newt on discrimination against Christians”
Jennifer Rubin: “Gingrich great on bias against christians worse than gays—really great answer”
In Nazi Germany, the canaries in the mine were the Jews. (Of course, as “God’s chosen people”, they still are.) IMO, the new canaries in the World-wide mine are the Christians, who are being attacked by the state all over the place. (Doing that in the public schools is a very good investment for the progressives: at SDA, in the comments, we quite often see the astonishing ignorance and utter bigotry of those under the influence of that particular Kool-Aid.)
Pastor Martin Neimuller: “First they came for . . .” Kate appears willing to highlight this issue in the posts made here at SDA, but, quite apart from the bigots mentioned above, except for a few stalwarts in the Comments section, there appears to be neither an admission of the present age’s quite audacious and powerful anti-Christian bias, nor any particular distaste about it. Or maybe people just aren’t saying . . . I find this seeming oversight interesting.
The problem: Administration decrees that employers must provide health insurance to employees that includes contraception.
The “compromise solution”: Administration decrees that employers must provide health insurance to employees that includes contraception, but at “no cost”.
See how that works? Any employer, not just the religious, with a moral objection to contraception is to pretend to themselves and others that they are not providing insurance coverage for contraception; and insurers get to pretend that they are not charging their customers for the contraception they provide.
It’s the perfect response from a mendacious administration bent on transforming the country from one that gives pride of place to individual, free-born, citizen-sovereigns to one in which the state reserves all power and authority, including moral authority, to itself. Under this regime, the individual is finished.
Me No @ 1:39: Right on! But for most of us, it is only now, with this contraception issue, that we see the full extent of the mandate.
Mike @ 2:00: Right, but the threat is not only that the state can force what heretofore were citizen-sovereigns to purchase this and that; and it’s not just their lives they want to control. They want to utterly subordinate persons themselves to the state.
I can’t stand Obama, but I have to give him some credit. Yes, I think—and sincerely hope—he’s overreached, but he knows his enemy: going straight for the jugular of the RC Church—“No one can serve two masters”—further reveals his hand. Obamacare’s just the beginning of his “final solution” for the USA.
telling GM they need to provide small,
fuel efficient cars to people who cannot otherwise afford them.
–
Wonderful.
–
I can get rid of this 1/3 horsepower,
5 kilometer government unicorn.
lookout@2:19: This is not an attack on Christians, except to the extent that Christians are persons.
And, the Catholic Church has been a strong supporter of democratic social policy for decades. For Obama, autonomous, rational citizens on any stripe are his enemies.
Some more insights into this:
At National Review today by George Weigel:
The Libertine Police State
Live-and-let-live is not the sexual revolution’s endgame.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/290842/libertine-police-state-george-weigel
And here’s one of Obama’s schemes to carry it out:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/290699/gospel-according-obama-charles-krauthammer
nick, I agree with your last statement. However, this latest move by Obama is most definitely an attack on Christians.
As I said, he knows who his enemies are. Going after the RC Church is a bold attempt to cut the tree off at its very roots. Many have discerned it long before now, but, as I said, this move on Obama’s part has altogether revealed his hand.
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves, that comes from some dude named Matthew, if there are people that don’t believe this is one evil fellow, I’m selling portable post holes. Next will be free insurance for people whose ears stick out.
lookout@2:47:
You do not have to be a Catholic or Christian of any kind to judge contraception, especially abortifacients, morally repugnant. Thus, to force all employers, Christian and otherwise, to purchase insurance coverage for their employees that includes coverage of contraception and abortifacients, in an attack on those employers’ moral autonomy—an essential feature of liberty and among the first principles upon which the US was founded.
eh tu@2:59:
Are you on one of Obama’s Truth Teams? If so, you need to be sent back for re-education.
With all due respect, nick, that you claim this has nothing to do with an attack on Christians and the RC Church and other faith communities is not credible. Of course, Obama doesn’t like all kinds of other people, but, as I said, he altogether understands that “One can’t serve two masters.” (Perhaps you don’t understand that reference.) Cheers.
In ancient Rome you could have any Religion you wanted. Only you has to admit the emperor was above them all as a god on earth.
Christianity of course was a special case. NOt worshiping him or immoral edicts. As where the Jews. Who felt the brunt of extinction in two wars. Funny that they both worshiped the same God, & would not bow to Caesar. Pray for him yes, but worship him no.
Obama so wants to be absolute dictator, you can smell it on the INTERNET.
We are in a train going backwards in time.So much for human political evolution. Where back to Priest Kings.
lookout@3:12:
The other master needn’t be God.
By the way, I did not say that this has nothing to do with an attack on Christians: it is such an attack, but because it is an attack on individual moral autonomy, whether it resides in a Christian or in a secularist. It is therefore an attack on persons.
BAN contraceptives.
To me, that’s the interesting choice of word.
Ban. Not delist, not user pays, but ban.
It kinda reminds me of a couple of elections ago when arts funding was allegedly cut and the critics howled about CENSORSHIP.
What it demonstrates is how the utopian socialist uses words to create a certain image that they’re the ones who care and their opposition is actually the one that’s encroaching on their freedom.
Bottom-line though. It’s not about freedom. It’s about free stuff paid for with other people’s money.
Rush addressed this today on his show.
Tied in the support of FDR’s New Deal with the Catholic church and how both have been like-minded until now.
Is there no one that Obama can’t piss-off?
I can’t get past the absurd notion of free birth control. Why not free toilet paper, free soap, free everything? Not only is Obama a destroyer of liberty but an enabler of mass looting and thuggery. If he is not defeated by anyone the Republicans can nominate, the US will move toward revolutionary conditions following financial collapse and depression. The only question is at what rank the military officers refuse the order to fire on their own citizens.
Obama quote ““We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”
http://www.wnd.com/2008/07/69601/
Ralph, I heard a bit of Limbaugh on this subject, and he was (IMHO) 100% right.
setyoufree said: “It’s not about freedom. It’s about free stuff paid for with other people’s money.”
As with the drug thing yesterday, in our modern times it is essentially impossible for the state to dictate such matters as banning contraception or abortion. Mere travel by car to a liberal state circumvents such bans. However it is quite immoral for people to be forced to pay for the contraception drugs of others , particularly if your particular religion forbids this.
Its like the halal butcher. Somebody wants to eat halal, that’s their deal. I don’t care. Somebody wants to make -me- pay for their halal meat, now I suddenly care. Somebody wants to make me eat halal too on top of paying for them, now I’m reaching for my bat.
So I guess we shall see how serious Americans are about their freedom this year. Just by my casual observation this last month, whole lot of people out there getting their bats all polished up and ready for election season.
Basically, “Obambi” abhors (or is that ab-whores?) the Constitution, preferring to gut it by administrative fiat.
So you can abolish ‘hope’ in individual rights, and conform to ‘change’ of state power.
In short, Obambi abhors the fact that family and church are counterchecks to the power of the state. All bow down and worship the edicts of the state even in the privacy of one’s bedroom.
Well there goes that line from Trudeaupia…now the state will invade your bedroom and tell you to like it. Moreover, they will mandate what is in your church bakesale as well.
You can mount the ramparts against state power against one conscience, religion, belief etc. any time you feel there is something worth saving…
Cheers
Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner?page=1
Re: Nuts
By Mark Steyn
February 11, 2012 3:09 P.M.
Re Obamacare, I’m with Michael. It has been somewhat dispiriting to see so many of my colleagues apparently sideswiped by what ought to have been stark staring obvious. As those of us who’ve lived under such systems have endeavored to point out:
I’ve been saying in this space for two years that the governmentalization of health care is the fastest way to a permanent left-of-center political culture. It redefines the relationship between the citizen and the state in fundamental ways that make limited government all but impossible.
That’s not an accident, it’s the whole point of it:
Government health care is not about health care, it’s about government. Once you look at it that way, what the Dems are doing makes perfect sense. For them.
If you don’t get that after this last fortnight, you never will. As I write in my weekend column, there is almost literally nothing that does not fall under Commissar Sebelius’s “health” portfolio. And she’s just getting warmed up:
The Secretary shall establish by regulation standards for determining and disclosing the nutrient content for standard menu items that come in different flavors, varieties, or combinations, but which are listed as a single menu item, such as soft drinks, ice cream, pizza, doughnuts, or children’s combination meals, through means determined by the Secretary, including ranges, averages, or other methods.
So once the Bishops have fought back the pharmacological abortion, maybe they can save the church bake sale.
As Michael says:
That’s the kind of men the country used to be made of: citizens, not subjects. It’s high time they and their representatives in Congress stepped up and said: Nuts, without waiting for the Supreme Court to do it for them.
Notice how the MSM are trying to disappear this topic. Talking nonsense about a compromise, like its a done deal. Making the seizing of religion in America sound normal. Making Obama who created this for more power seem reasonable. The USA has truly become a Dictatorship. I never thought to see it so happen in my life time. Nor at the speed of it without a peep from its inhabitants. No wonder its now ranked 67th as freedom of the press goes.
Of course Stephanopoulos got the memo first.
There is no separation of main stream media and liberal government in western nations.
So, on a more base level, who is going to pay for this “free” birth control, snipping the boys, morning after pill or abortionist’s time? Certainly not the insurance companies, their objective is to give the shareholders a fair return on their investment. Perhaps the tooth fairy has a new gig. Maybe bambam was looking at the Canadian healthcare(-lessness). Actually, I don’t think the Canadian healthcare system covers “the pill”. You have to buy or get your employer to provide a drug plan. The patient still has a co-pay.
Excuse me for not being current on the pill, patch or other forms of procreation control as the Mrs and I haven’t been in a position to need these for some time.
The “compromise” is just spin. Instead of saying that employers have to provide contraception it’s now insurers. Who pays the insurance premiums? The employer pays most of it. So who’s paying for the contraception again? Oh yeah the employer. The only surprising thing for me anyway is that this piece of spin took so long to produce. They are slipping.
So… isn’t insurance to cover a ‘loss’? (rhetorical) as opposed to a expected expense?
Under this theory, an insurance provider should pay for my toothpaste if I get dental care from them.
Just when I was beginning to forget why Newt doesn’t totally suck. (Even Romney did okay.) Admittedly I got fed up with the endless debates some time ago.
Yes, Snuffalufagus got a memo and yes, Obama is a wannabe tyrant, stupid, emotionally unstable, and holding the Constitution in complete contempt.
Can anyone tell me why these alphabet-network lefties are umpiring GOP debates?
Me No Dhimmi @1:39 – as far as I’m concerned, birth control should no more be covered by insurance than aspirin is.
Interesting, it confirms the post just below this one.
The administration and the mass media with directives from Soros, Media Matters, Journolist is one big orchestra, playing the tune full time, all the time.
There is hardly any time left to get the news in.
Goebbels would be proud.
The insurance provider isn’t forcing anyone to use contraception, it’s just another pharmaceutical that insurance pays for if an individual and their doctor consider it appropriate medication. If anyone is forcing someone to act against their will it’s the Church, and they have a long history of doing that, especially when it comes to contraception.
The basis of this whole issue is the ancient conflict between Christianity and Islam for world domination, and it’s far from over.
nick @ 3:10, a definition of the Truth Teams.
Russian Agitpróp, Agitpropbyuro or Agitation Propaganda Section; orig. for Agitatsiónno-propagandístskiĭ otdél
Now, the Obama Administration has, by executive fiat, determined that a private company must give away its services to a class of people it (“The Administration”) has determined should get these services.
Do you mean like Brad Wall has determined that SGI must discount it’s services for the rural conservative welfare bum class, at the expense of it’s other customers? And is this the radical right making a play to control peoples’ lives?
Next will be free insurance for people whose ears stick out.
Why not? Makes as much sense as giving it to freeloadin’ farmers.
However it is quite immoral for people to be forced to pay for the contraception drugs of others , particularly if your particular religion forbids this.
Yet I suspect you and your ilk have no problem with the forced subsidization of the raising for slaughter and consumption our poor earth born companions and fellow mortals, irrespective of the moral views of those who find the practice detestable and abhorrent. It’s that consistency thing again.
isn’t forcing anyone to use contraception… yes but Obama is forcing organizations run by church groups to pay for contraception through their insurance provider. That’s the problem there north of 60. The church groups are opposed to providing contraception. Employees can get contraception on their own.
Posted by: phil at February 13, 2012 8:48 PM
*yawn*
Gee, another phil-troll anti-farmer screed. Never saw THAT coming.
You could probably get some assistance with that monomania of yours, Ahab. Try looking under “Mental Help” in the yellow pages.
mhb23re at gmail d0t calm
Black Mamba asks the musical question: “Can anyone tell me why these alphabet-network lefties are umpiring GOP debates?”
Because the GOP big wigs are AFRAID OF THEM, is why. The GOP hierarchy is composed of a bunch of go-along-to-get-along pussies who already have what they want and won’t risk it just to win.
The DemocRats have a vision, the Republicans have a sinecure. That’s why the Tea Party is much more dangerous to (and hated by) the GOP than the Dems.
Go Tea Party.
Who is going to enforce this order? It is no more legal than telling the liquor store to deliver a case of Scotch to the White House for free.
“Who is going to enforce this order?”
Exactly- why does anyone even listen to an edict by a czar or agency head?
Weren’t the agencies merely ‘advisory’?