Friday, January 27, 2012


The Obama administration is giving church-affiliated institutions until August 1, 2013 to comply with a new rule that employers cover birth control free of charge through their health plans. The extension applies to church-affiliated hospitals, universities, social service organizations and similar institutions.

Many church-affiliated institutions will have to cover free birth control for employees, the Obama administration announced Friday in an election-year move that outraged religious groups, fueling a national debate about the reach of government.

In a concession, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said nonprofit institutions such as church-affiliated hospitals, colleges and social service agencies will have one additional year to comply with the requirement, issued in regulations under the Kenyan-born president's Marxist health care overhaul.

"I believe this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services," Comrade Sebelius said in a statement.

Liberals and women's rights groups praised the decision, saying that women who work for religious employers should not have to accept a lower standard of health coverage.

Are we to believe that the women who work for religious employers have raised this as an issue?

"The administration stood firm," said Nancy Keenan, fuhrer of NARAL Pro-Choice America. "As a result millions will get access to contraception, and they will not have to ask their bosses for permission."

I’m sure Ms. Keenan, while laundering her swastika armband, will also applaud the triumph of the first amendment.

Ms. Keenan should read the first amendment for once.

Are you still reading, liberal America? Just for laughs, let’s see what the first amendment says about religion.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

Now since this alleged reform bill passed through both houses of the butt-kissin Congress, I think we can all agree that health care reform is a law that Congress did, in fact make. There's a kumbaya moment, huh?

And while our foreign-born Muslim president did not establish a religion (although I am sure his Islamic ass is planning that for term two), what about the second part of that phrase? Did the Kenyan illegal coerce Congress into passing a bill “prohibiting the free exercise of religion?”

I say he did.

I am not an expert on religion, but I am pretty familiar with the Catholic Church’s position on abortion and on birth control. By mandating that Catholic hospitals cover birth control, I submit that our wetback commander-in-chief and his crony Sebelius have in fact inhibited the free practice of religion by Catholics.

In fact, I do not see how any Christian could support this position.

I don’t mean Barry O, we already know he’s full of shit when it comes to faith.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a powerhouse law firm based in Washington that tackles religious freedom issues, predicted in a statement that religious groups "will never pay for abortion drugs in violation of their religious beliefs." Many religious conservatives consider the morning-after birth control pill to be an abortion drug.

One in six Americans receive care in a Catholic healthcare institution.

And contrary to the position of the Nazis who populate the Left, if their side has a right to choose, so does their opponent. And their opponent’s choice is to not offer birth control or abortions in their facilities. That’s why there’s Planned Parenthood.

I hope the Catholic Church takes a stand and closes the doors on their hospitals. I think it would take less than a week for the emporer-in-waiting to come to confession with a rosary in his hand.

And if they do it this year, maybe we can keep this egotistical would-be dictator from coasting into a second term.

Once again, the liberals in America prove that they are the most narrow-minded of all.

Otherwise, they would practice the same respect for diverse opinions that they want Obama to cram down the rest of our throats.

There is still time, America!


  1. Hello,
    Brother I'll go one further. If the government truly believed in equal rights, and "Seperation of Church and State" why the homosexual marriage issue? If State has no business in church affairs it would have no place in marriage. No Bible no basis for marriage. Outside of the bible all you have is a legal contract which the state could regulate. But they dont want to call it domestic partnership, or even consider that passing changes to benefits and inheritance laws would be pretty simple in comparison to attacking the religious institution of marriage. But everytime I bring this up they talk about the social stigma of not being able to be married and equal rights. I of course inform them that under their (note I didn't say mine) current seperation of church and state beliefs the state shouldn't recognize marriages anyway. I than see these same people fight for gay marriage and seperation of church and state. This of course means they are the very definition of that word that starts with "H" and ends with "Crit."

    Now the fact that the phrase "seperation of church and state" was in Jeffersons letter to the danbury church, and not law (which of course means they cherry picked the quote to use for their own means) is beside the point. They can't even abide by their own standards!!!

    If they were really after rights they would have taken the seperation of church and state route. They would have pushed for equal access to benefits under the law, and pushed for the state not to recognize marriage as it can only truly to recognized by God, the couple, and the church. Under such a system two men, women, or a man and women could make any other person a legal beneficiary to estate and benefits. No, the reason for the legalization of homosexual marriage is to attack the very foundations of the family unit as clearly defined by God. As a matter of fact had they done this in modern society I would rejoice!!! Not only would they not be able to regulate (read mandate) the acceptance of a life style by church groups (oh that one is coming) but my taxes would probably be a lot less.

    To get back to the point, NO NO NO, they have no respect for God and his people. That is why they will misquote Jefferson one day to force birth control (lets face it abortions next) and infiltrate the church with gay marriage the next. What was that word that starts with an H again? Or maybe we should just call them liars.

  2. Isn't it hard to believe that there are that many idots out there?

    I get that the people in the CFR may have an agenda, but why don't all the idiots with their signs see the light that if they trounce our rights today, their can get trampled tomorrow?

    Call a Muslim a's a hate crime.

    Call a Christian a get to be President.


  3. Ya know it never changes. Five years back I was lowest seniority in my job. They started not working me. I even asked my fraud of a union for help since this was supposed to be against contract. No one in my work group gave it a second thought until six months later they were being reduced in hours and paycheck. Now I hate unions!!! I have for a long time. That being said I tried to get them to do the job I was forced to pay them for. My coworkers wouldn't do the same until it impacted them. And that my friend is the point. People won't do ANYTHING until it impacts them and their little pie in the sky. Oh, they can see it coming. The tornado hits their friends house, their neighbors house, but it isn't real until it hits YOUR HOUSE. That is just the way people in this country think. The American people (like my former coworkers) are soon to find out that it would have been a whole lot easier to take action when the tornado hit your neighbors house. That way your prepared and possibly don't have to watch it take out your house. The guys in the CFR, Royal Institue of International Affairs, and all the other banker front groups understand how we work. The sad thing is that the people don't have the will to stand up for freedom. How sad that history will show that we sold our freedom so we could numb our minds on drugs and toys from china.

  4. I'd had an exchange with Stephen T. McCarthy on this topic, and he posited that they (liberals) don't worry about this turn of events because they're on the side that's setting the agenda.

    He may have something, although I can't help thinking that at some point that thumb is going to be pressing down on EVERYONE!

    But maybe as long as there are iPads and Big Macs and reality TV, no one will be smart enough to care.

  5. Since this was a separate thought I put it in a separate comment.

    Like most American ideas, unions once had a place. I have a friend who is confident in the ability of the free market to correct some of the injustices that used to exist in labor where I believe unions were good at the start.

    Until they became entities unto themselves, and the union leadership positions became full-time jobs.

    Simply put, unions now function just like government.

    And Americonneds eat it right up because they WANT someone to solve their problems for them, and do not see the freedom that they surrender when that happens.

  6. Brother,
    Yes liberals do HELP set the objective. So did all the members of the initial communist party under Stalin. Funny things is over 70% of the original founding communist government were imprisoned and murdered by Stalin later. I'm guessing at their last breath they were saying to themselves, "Wow, this really didn't work out the way I hoped it would." And all the silly libbies (my slang for liberals or to be honest COMMUNISTS) that are pushing these agendas now will be saying the same thing if it gets that bad (and it will most likely get that bad). Even Stalin himself had to have his chef taste the food before he would eat it, selpt in 8 different rooms that were all locked from the inside, and lived in fear. Great government there. Even their leader lived in constant fear. But that is just one of the attributes that all socialists share in common. They are conviced their right. When their version of "ism" (communism or fascism) doesn't work it was because of: Stalin, Hitler, Mao, exc, exc, exc.... They don't stop and think about the fact that IT'S NEVER WORKED!!!!

    As for the unions. My dad was a union man. They took good care of their worker and it was ran by the workers themselves. It did a lot of good. DID being the key word. At one time unions did do some good things in this country, no argument from me. I just feel they were doomed from the beginning. By their very nature they were prone to drinking the "ism."


    Link if your interested in a 1945 cartoon where I got the "ism" comment from.