nChrist
|
 |
« on: April 01, 2013, 01:53:02 PM » |
|
________________________________________ The Patriot Post Brief 4-1-2013 From The Federalist Patriot Free Email Subscription ________________________________________
One Small Victory for Religious Liberty
April 1, 2013
The Foundation
"Judges, therefore, should be always men of learning and experience in the laws, of exemplary morals, great patience, calmness, coolness, and attention. Their minds should not be distracted with jarring interests; they should not be dependent upon any man, or body of men." --John Adams
Inspiration
"We received wonderful news late [Friday] afternoon that the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit had granted an injunction in favor of our clients, Frank and Phil Gilardi and their two companies, preventing application of the HHS Mandate against them until their appeal is fully resolved. The Mandate was set to apply on April 1st, when the companies' health plans were to be renewed. ... The Gilardis are Catholic, and they run their companies pursuant to their faith. In keeping with their Catholic faith, for at least the last ten years, the Gilardis have ensured that they do not pay for any contraceptive methods, including abortion-inducing drugs, and sterilization procedures in their employee health plan. If their employees choose to purchase such products and services with their own money, they are free to do so. The HHS Mandate, however, would require the Gilardis and their companies to pay for such products and services in violation of their Catholic faith. Failure to comply would result in annual penalties of more than $14 million dollars. ... The Mandate does not apply to our clients while their case proceeds on appeal, and they will not have to start paying for products and services on April 1st that run contrary to their religious beliefs." --The American Center for Law and Justice1
Political Futures
"When former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean began campaigning for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination, he would regularly say in his stump speech, 'I am tired of fighting elections on guns, God and gays. We're going to fight this election on our turf, which is going to be jobs, education and health care.' Fast-forward 10 years to the third month of President Obama's second term. Suddenly, the Democrats' turf doesn't look so friendly anymore. It's not hard to see why they're changing gears to fight a culture war of their own choosing. The U.S. economy is still suffering through the weakest economic recovery since the Great Depression. ... Suddenly, guns, God and gays don't look so bad as key issues for the Democratic Party. ... Democrats, detecting a sudden shift in public opinion on the issue [of same-sex 'marriage'], are just now starting to lead from behind. Unless the economy markedly improves in the near future, or Obamacare is miraculously implemented without a hitch, expect Obama and the White House to turn the 2014 election into an all-out culture war centered around gun control and gay marriage. This is the only turf that appears remotely friendly to them these days." --The Washington Examiner2
Government
"The farce that is the Supreme Court of the United States has now taken up a new cause: same-sex marriage. To push that cause, the anti-Constitutional members of the Supreme Court prepared to declare that the federal government cannot define marriage for the purpose of federal benefits under the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). This is the same Supreme Court that declared last year that the federal government can force individuals to buy health insurance. To simplify, then: The federal government can't define how federal cash gets spent, but it can define how your cash gets spent. There is no logical principle that undergirds any of this." --columnist Ben Shapiro3
Re: The Left
"No progressive 100 years ago could have conceived of gay marriage. In fact, merely a decade-and-a-half ago, the entirety of the Democratic Party supported traditional marriage, codified under law. ... For progressives, where's their next redefinition in the ongoing process of redefining marriage? Does the evolution end with one man and one woman, or one man and one man, or one woman and one woman? Why could it not next progress to one man and multiple women? Could it involve an adult and a minor? Could their evolving redefinition include first cousins or a parent and child? Could it include multiple heterosexuals or homosexuals in single or even joint or group spousal relationships? The answer: progressives, by their very definition, cannot answer you. We do know, however, that progressives are happy to do with marriage what they do with everything: hand it over to the federal government. Render under government what is government's. And what is government's province? It's anything progressives decide. ... [Conservatives] can tell you our end-goal, our ideal. Progressives cannot. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is a train-wreck of an ideology, with literally no end to its havoc. It is currently careening into the most fundamental building block of human civilization: the family." --professor and author Dr. Paul Kengor4
Faith and Family
"In recent decades, marriage has been weakened by a revisionist view that it is more about adults' desires than children's needs. This view reduces marriage primarily to intense emotional bonds. If marriage were just intense emotional regard, marital norms would make no sense as a principled matter. There is no reason of principle that requires an emotional union to be permanent. Or limited to two persons. Or sexual, much less sexually exclusive (as opposed to 'open'). Or inherently oriented to family life and shaped by its demands. Redefining marriage would further distance marriage from the needs of children and deny the importance of mothers and fathers. It would deny, as a matter of policy, the ideal that children need a mother and a father. ... It would be very difficult for the law to send a message that fathers matter once it had redefined marriage to make fathers optional." --Heritage Foundation's Ryan T. Anderson5
The Gipper
"Here in America, religious beliefs are central to our founding principles. We draw special strength from our unity as a people who trust in God, and from the lessons for us and our children in our rituals. ... Christians [celebrated] with their families the resurrection of Christ, His victory over death. We will remember that He gave His body and His blood -- washing clean the faults and the shortcomings of the world. In our rejoicing we will renew the hope that is ours through the risen Lord." --Ronald Reagan6
Culture
"Abortionist Kermit Gosnell is on trial in Philadelphia, and not just for killing babies outside the womb, but also for killing a mother through reckless use of anesthesia. Network TV coverage of the trial? Zero on ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, NPR and PBS. ... They're not unaware of it. CBS aired one story after the initial clinic raid in 2011. ... CBS even passed along that Gosnell's clinic was described as a 'house of horrors.' Now it's in court, and the networks can't find any horrors. ... [According to] the AP: 'A medical assistant told a jury Tuesday that she snipped the spines of at least 10 babies during unorthodox abortions at a West Philadelphia clinic, at the direction of the clinic's owner.' ... It gets more grotesque at every turn. Clinic assistant Adrienne Moton testified she took a photo of the child described as 'Baby A' with her cell phone before Dr. Gosnell took the baby out of the room. ... 'I just felt he could have had a chance. ... He could have been born any day.' Another Gosnell assistant said the abortionist joked about one child he murdered: 'This baby is big enough to walk around with me or walk me to the bus stop.' ... ABC, CBS and NBC piled up 96 stories on Todd Akin's medically inept comments on rape and abortion and also wallowed in outrage over Richard Mourdock's remarks on God's will and a child conceived in rape. Their pro-life rhetoric was sold as a major scandal. It's unbelievable that Dr. Gosnell's trial for his actions inside his 'house of horrors' haven't drawn one network story." --columnist L. Brent Bozell7
|