|
nChrist
|
 |
« on: February 13, 2012, 08:19:20 PM » |
|
________________________________________
The Patriot Post Brief 2-13-2012
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________
The Foundation
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State." --Thomas Jefferson, letter to a Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, 1802
For the Record
"It would be a mockery of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment if, for example, the Catholic Church were required by law to freely provide such 'health care services' ... as contraception, sterilization and pharmacological abortion -- to which Catholicism is doctrinally opposed as a grave contravention of its teachings about the sanctity of life. Ah. But there would be no such Free Exercise violation if the institutions so mandated are deemed, by regulatory fiat, not religious. And thus, the word came forth from [Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen] Sebelius decreeing the exact criteria required.... Criterion 1: A 'religious institution' must have 'the inculcation of religious values as its purpose.' But that's not the purpose of Catholic charities; it's to give succor to the poor. That's not the purpose of Catholic hospitals; it's to give succor to the sick. Therefore, they don't qualify as 'religious' -- and therefore can be required, among other things, to provide free morning-after abortifacients. Criterion 2: Any exempt institution must be one that 'primarily employs' and 'primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets.' Catholic soup kitchens do not demand religious IDs from either the hungry they feed or the custodians they employ. Catholic charities and hospitals -- even Catholic schools -- do not turn away Hindu or Jew. Their vocation is universal, precisely the kind of universal love-thy-neighbor vocation that is the very definition of religiosity as celebrated by the Gospel of Obama. ... The contradiction is glaring, the hypocrisy breathtaking. But that's not why Obama offered a hasty compromise on Friday. It's because the firestorm of protest was becoming a threat to his re-election. Sure, health care, good works and religion are important. But re-election is divine." --columnist Charles Krauthammer1
Editor's Note: Obama's "compromise" is nothing of the sort. The mandate still stands for religious institutions to provide health insurance that covers contraceptives (including abortifacients), but they don't have to pay for that part -- the insurance companies do. Either he's not smart or he thinks we're not, because that isn't how things work in the real world. That's why the Catholic Church and others have rightly rejected his attempt to pull a fast one.
Insight
"I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is 'needed' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' 'interests,' I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can." --Sen. Barry Goldwater (1909-1998 )
Opinion in Brief
"[Mitt Romney] comes across like a businessman who studied the data and came up with the formula that will make the deal. A particular problem is that he betrays little indignation at any of our problems and their causes. He's always sunny, pleasant, untouched by anger. ... Mitt Romney's aides are making the classic mistake of thinking the voters want maturity, serenity and a jolly spirit. What they want is a man who knows what time it is, who has a passion to reform our country, and who yet holds these qualities within a temperament that is mature, serene and jolly. Newt Gingrich has half the package: He has a passion to reform, but it exists inside a crazy suit. Mitt has no particular passion within an obviously sane suit. Which leads to Rick Santorum. Nobody in the conservative base hates Rick. Newt is hated by many and Mitt by some. Mr. Santorum is liked. He has real indignation about what's happened to America, and he brings passion to his ideas about reform. He's got little money, little organization -- there's no broad assumption he can pull it off. And by the time the Romney campaign is done dismantling him, he may have some people who hate him. But this will only underscore the Romney campaign's reputation for destroying, not creating. And nobody loves a Death Star." --columnist Peggy Noonan2
Re: The Left
"Americans seem to have decided that Obama is at bottom a trustworthy, honest man, regardless of his skills, or lack thereof, as an executive. That is unfortunate, because the facts suggest otherwise. As a presidential candidate Obama misled the public as to his intentions should he ascend to the Oval Office; as president, he has participated in open cronyism and corruption, buying votes to assure passage of unpopular legislation and awarding special favors to campaign contributors. In short, Obama the president, people forget, is Obama 'the person.' ... How to explain such mendacity from the man who vowed to cure our capital from its endemic corruption and vice? Simple: Obama is a disciple of the far-left-wing radical political strategist and teacher Saul Alinsky. ... In his famous tome, 'Rules For Radicals,' Alinsky wrote, 'to me ethics is doing what is best for the most,' and 'ethics are determined by whether one is losing or winning.' In other words, the ends justify the means for Alinsky -- but he advised his students that they must always give their behavior the sheen of a morality to make it palatable to the masses.... Obama learned this lesson well. ... Alinsky would be proud." --columnist Matt Patterson3
Political Futures
"Speaking of liberals, every time you hear one of them wail against photo IDs for voters, you know what they are really grousing about is that it would make it harder to cheat at election time. As usual, they, along with Eric Holder, try to pass off their criminal activities as compassion for young people and members of the black and Hispanic communities, pretending that photo IDs would disenfranchise millions of potential voters. On the face of it, it's such blatant hypocrisy that only born liars and cheaters like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, would even pay it lip service. After all, as everyone knows, photo IDs are required if you want to drive a car, get on a plane or buy a six-pack of Bud. But the other day, the liberals in the Illinois legislature drove the point home when they passed a state law requiring that anyone who wanted to buy drain cleaner or any other caustic substance provide a photo ID. While it figures that in Illinois, the state where governors regularly wind up in jail and dead people get to continue voting for Democrats, honest elections would not be a priority. Still, even in Chicago, it requires a monumental dose of cynicism to suggest that maintaining eternal vigilance over the sanctity of the hardware store trumps that of the voting booth." --columnist Burt Prelutsky4
The Gipper
"People ask me if in looking back at my college years I can remember any inkling that I would one day run for president. Well, actually, the thought first struck me on graduation day when the president handed me my diploma and asked, 'Are you better off today than you were four years ago?'" --Ronald Reagan5 |
