Brutally Honest

"They wanted to show the bishops and the Catholic laity who is boss"

Paul Rahe at Richochet on Obama's HHS decision:

On the face of it, President Obama would appear to be shooting himself in the foot. Why would he risk losing the Catholic vote? One could, of course, argue that his aim was to excite the feminists and give them a reason to turn out in November. As a rationale, however, even this seems a bit lame. The benefit that the President proposes to provide is insubstantial. The administration’s claim to the contrary notwithstanding, the pill and other birth control devices are not free. But the expense involved is not great. Among those who are employed and have healthcare insurance, no one is hard put to come up with the paltry sum required.

This suggests that there can be only one reason why Sebelius, Pelosi, and Obama decided to proceed. They wanted to show the bishops and the Catholic laity who is boss. They wanted to make those who think contraception wrong and abortion a species of murder complicit in both.  They wanted to rub the noses of their opponents in it. They wanted to marginalize them. Humiliation was, in fact, their only aim, and malice, their motive.

Last week, when, in response to the fierce resistance he had deliberately stirred up, the President offered the bishops what he called “an accommodation,” what he proffered was nothing more than a fig leaf. His maneuver was, in fact, a gesture of contempt, and I believe that it was Barack Obama’s final offer. From his perspective and from that of Sebelius and Pelosi, the genuine Catholics still within the Democratic coalition are no more than what Vladimir Lenin called “useful idiots,” and, now that the progressive project is near completion, they are expendable – for there is no longer any need to curry their favor.

He's got more.

Bottom line is that the Left, as represented by the Obama, Pelosi, Sebelius wing, have utter contempt for anyone, but particularly faithful Catholics, they see to be roadblocks to their agenda.

Utter contempt.

And two of the three stooges call themselves Catholic and love to tell us how virtuous and tolerant they truly are.

Complete and total bovine fecal matter.

Thanks to Glenn for the find.

African Americans for Obama!

By Locutisprime

Yes, you read that correctly. African Americans for Obama. The president's latest addition to his 2012 campaign. Apparently it is no longer chic to just brush off the fact that you are black and the only reason you voted for Barack Obama in the first place, was because he is black.

Fast forward four years and it is now time to organize. Don't forget, our president is the number one foremost community organizer. Just look what he accomplished when he set his sights on the white house four years ago. And now? He is setting his sightss on organizing the black African American vote in America. Unabashed, straight forward and in your face.

Which makes me wonder. What would happen if any of the other candidates vying for the office were to follow Obama's lead? What say? "White moderates for Romney?" Or......"Middle class white people for Gingrich?" Or...."White evangelicals for Santorum?" And we can't leave out "white libertarian loons who support Paul."

See the problem? Don't worry, neither will the mainstream media on this. This revelation of racially targeting a voter base will blow past the mainstream media faster than Ricky Bobby crossing the finish line in Talladega Nights.

Obama's priorities

Two stories I thought might be worth juxtaposing if only to help us all see more clearly as November approaches.

First up, Obama to cut combat pay:

Service members now will receive imminent danger pay only for days they actually spend in hazardous areas, Pentagon officials said here today.

The change, which took effect yesterday, was included in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, which President Barack Obama signed into law Dec. 31.

“Members will see the prorated amount in their Feb. 15 pay records,” Pentagon spokesman Navy Capt. John Kirby said.

The act called for DOD to pay service members imminent danger pay only for the time they spend in areas that qualify for the pay. In the past, service members received $225 per month if they spent any time that month in an area where the pay was authorized. “This is a more targeted way of handling that pay,” Kirby said.

Next up, Obama to send nearly a billion dollars to 'Arab Spring' Islamic radicals:

President Barack Obama proposed a $770 million aid package Monday for Arab countries undergoing democratic revolutions.

If approved, the “Middle East and North Africa Incentive Fund” will "incentivize long-term economic, political and trade reforms -- key pillars of stability -- by supporting governments that demonstrate a commitment to undergo meaningful change and empower their people."

The money is listed in the Fiscal Year 2013 budget (which starts this October) for the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development, which is responsible for economic development and humanitarian assistance.

The aid package would be on top of the $1.3 billion in annual military funding that the U.S. already sends Egypt, which remained unchanged in the budget proposal.

Cut combat pay.  Increase funding to radicals in the Middle East.

Hope and change anyone?

Crossposted at Wizbang.

"These statistics are bogus"

That's the conclusion of Lydia McGrew at What's Wrong with the World as she looks at the Guttmacher study claiming that 98% of Catholic women use contraception:

Recently I received a phone call from my non-Christian (as far as I know) philosopher friend Neil Manson who, because he has an active and fair mind, had been exercised over what seemed to him the high FQ (Fishiness Quotient) of the statistical meme presently going around to the effect that "98% of Catholic women use birth control." Or something. Maybe "98% of Catholic women have used birth control." The former is obviously ludicrous, as it would seem to include elderly Catholic women, of whom it seems plausible that there are more than 2% among Catholics. Anyway, Neil wanted to know if I had read anything debunking the statistic.

Well, I had to admit that I hadn't. This is mostly because the relevance of the claim to the HHS's mandate is, to put it mildly, obscure. If a large percentage of Jainists are chowing down on hamburgers on the side, it hardly follows that an expressly Jainist charitable organization should be forced by the federal government to fund a plan that buys free hamburgers for its employees. If a bunch of Quakers turn out to have gun licenses, employees of an expressly Quaker organization are not therefore entitled to have their fees paid to a shooting range or their ammo. provided at no cost through an employer plan. There is this commonsense notion that organizations that are explicitly identified as religious are allowed to uphold the actual doctrinal and behavioral standards of their respective religious bodies. Whether the rank and file membership of that religious body follow those standards in daily life should be irrelevant.

Still, it has proven rather interesting to look into the statistical claim.

And look she does, with a fine tooth comb.  Read the entire piece and then really tick off your Catholic bashing friends by passing it on.

Watch 'em froth at the mouth.

Damned liars.

Crossposted at Wizbang.

Obama: Accomodating Catholics?

By Locutisprime

For those who have been paying attention over the last two weeks, you may have noticed the controversy surrounding government mandated contraceptive coverage taking affect to force Catholic organizations, schools, universities and others to provide contraceptives to their employees. Simply stated, they are being asked told to set aside their religious belief and adhere to a governmental mandate.

Yesterday the president finished presenting his 'accommodation' proposal to American Catholics and others who are concerned about the mandate requiring them to provide contraceptives to their employees. It seems that the president's answer is to simply require the insurance companies to provide the contraceptive coverage to objectionable Catholics for free. In short, he won't require Catholics to pay for something that they find an egregious intrusion into their religion and that requires them to violate the tenets of their faith.

Oh no, the president has found what he obviously feels is the perfect workaround. He will still require that the contraceptives be provided to Catholics, but he will simply require someone else to pay for it. In this instance, he will require the insurance companies to pay for it. Which means that 'you and I' will pay for it. Or in other words, the majority of Americans will be required to subsidize Catholics (who don't want them) with contraceptives that the government wants to make sure they have. Contraceptives that violate their religious beliefs? No problem. We will just get someone else to pay for it.

A truly beautiful solution when you think about it. Barack Obama's entire presidency has been based upon forcing other people to pay for his egalitarian secular humanism and now he sees this as the perfect solution to his Catholic contraceptive dilemma. Really?

Wait and watch for the commentaries that will soon follow this afternoon. I hope the Catholics are as outraged about this 'accommodation' as I am. This is not a solution. This is not a work around. This is simply a methodology to hopefully convince the 'dumb masses' that once again there is no need to worry! As someone else will pay for it!

As an America who long ago rose above the ranks of political minions and the media lemmings, I see this as just one more example of the state mandated form of egalitarian socialism that is being forced down our throats by the maestro himself.

As I am typing this, I am listening to Kathleen Sebelius trying to make the sale on this latest version of state mandated idiocy. Once again the egalitarian angle of fairness and the right to access and allowing women to have the benefits that they need etc. etc. are the tools of Sebelius and others who will try to sooth the troubled souls of the masses on the issue.

Stay tuned, this isn't over. At least I hope not. If the Catholics roll over and accept this Obama crafted ruse, then they need to begin voluntarily stepping forward to present themselves for their numbers on their foreheads and on their hands.

It all begins anew

By Locutisprime

The dream nightmare begins anew.  Yes, it was five years ago and they want to make sure that everyone remembers the hope and the promises of change and how great things look now. Really? Go ahead, have a look. See if you get one of those tingly feelings up your leg like CNN's Chris Matthews made famous.

I received the following in email this afternoon form the Obama 2012 campaign.  A personal message from the President no less. 

Tick Tock America.

Five years ago today, a few thousand of us gathered in Springfield, Illinois, to launch an improbable campaign for president.

The task was to build a grassroots movement capable of making the kind of change we believe in.

You've got to see this video about that journey -- it will make you smile:

https://donate.barackobama.com/Springfield

From the very start this has been an experiment in our political process, testing whether ordinary people really can still come together to change this country.

We proved that it's possible. But we've also learned that entrenched interests adapt and claw back even harder, which means this election will be even more of a challenge.

I can't wait to see what you can do.

Barack

Did Obama really cave to the Catholic Church? (UPDATED)

I'm not so sure... I mean, isn't he still mandating what it is Americans can or can't do without due process?

President Obama is scheduled to announce Friday afternoon a revamp of his contraception policy requiring religious institutions to fully pay for birth control, changing the onus on who pays for contraception from employers to insurance companies.

Sources tell CBS News the White House will not back off the administration goal to provide increased access to birth control for women, but it will provide religious institutions additional details on how to comply with the law.

Senior administration officials tells CBS News the new policy will mean female employees of religious institutions will get free contraceptive coverage from health insurers, without employers having to pay for it.

Religious institutions don't have to cover it, don't have to pay for it, and they don't have to refer women to it. It is the insurance companies' responsibility, per the Obama administration.

I agree with Professor Reynolds:

My advice to the bishops: He’s on the run — don’t settle for his opening bid.

The focus needs to be liberty. Period.  Religious or otherwise and this administration's attempt to circumvent what our forefathers died on battlefields to give us.

He's still mandating, to religious organizations and all others, what Americans must purchase, must possess.

The man and those who think like him are still a threat.

Father Z references the words of his good friend Roman Fabrizio to spell it out:

Where am I going with all this?

It’s good  to see such a massive reaction  - albeit only a verbal one so far –  by the US bishops. But if they think that all they have to aim to is for Obama and his Kommissars to drop the contraception mandate they’re in for bitter surprises down the road, and they would prove that they are completely missing what’s at stake here (but some bishops gave me hope with what they wrote).

What I mean is that it is inherent to the very idea of socialized medicine that the state gets to tell you what to do and what to pay for and how much.

It’s all about the delusional thought that unhindered “planning” done by “experts” who “know” is what will make the magic machine work. They may back down on secondary provisions for political/electoral reasons, but the principle they want to enshrine is  that the state is the ultimate and basically the sole provider of healthcare. What it does is bring to completion the utter distortion of the relationship between the individual, the family and all “intermediate bodies” of society and the State. In other words, the contrary of subsidiarity, which is the XX century Catholic name for the originally Catholic concept of “limited government”. Once it’s in place, you can kiss the Declaration of Independence and the whole Land of the Free business goodbye. You’ll be forever a glorified European Union.

Sooner or later, because of the invitable rationing that comes with centralized healthcare, they won’t even need to mandate that you perform abortions or give away condoms. You’ll simply lose all hospitals and schools because there is no way a large independent health provider can survive in such a system. Why do  you think so many Italian hospitals, founded centuries ago, with names of saints and popes, are nowinn the hands of the Sistema Sanitario Nazionale, directly or indirectly? Why do you think there is hardly a Catholic school that is affordable anymore and which teaches anything different from what kids would hear at the Liceo Statale A. Gramsci or what have you?

The contraception/abortion coverage mandate is immoral, we all agree on that, but getting Catholics – and anybody who’s not in the service of the State – out of the healthcare system is PRECISELY what the goverment wants. If they can force you to accept it now, that’s good for the State, they take over indirectly.  If you go the principled way and shut down or sell facilities, that’s good for the State, they take over directly. If you manage to obtain an exemption, that’s still good, the principle of the State running the asylum will still be there and it will become unstoppable before too long and you’ll have to cave in anyway.

You can't help but wonder if we've been played.

America needs to see this man and his minions for what they are.  A threat to our liberty.

Crossposted at Wizbang.

UPDATE: Mark Shea calls today's move a head fake from our tyrant King:

Don’t be a sucker. No compromise. This assault on religious liberty must be utterly defeated and salt sowed in its smoldering ashes. This man is an enemy of the Church and is acting with malice.

Read the whole thing.

Army Office of the Chief of Chaplains warns Catholic priests

Michael Brendan Dougherty:

The emerging conflict between the Catholic Church and the Obama administration may have a new front: in the U.S. military itself.

The Catholic Church is fighting mad about an HHS ruling that would have them buy insurance for things they consider sinful–contraception, sterilization and abortion. 

All the bishops in the country sent out a letter to be read in their parishes promising that the Church "cannot-and will not-comply with this unjust law."

Even Archbishop Timothy Broglio, who is in charge of Catholic military chaplains sent out the same letter.  

But after he did, the Army's Office of the Chief of Chaplains sent out another communication forbidding Catholic priests to read the letter, in part because it seemed to encourage civil disobedience, and could be read as seditious against the Commander-in-Chief. 

More than one Catholic chaplain who spoke to us off the record confirmed that many chaplains disobeyed this instruction and read the letter anyway. Others sought further instructions from their Archbishop. 

Now after much behind-the-scenes bureaucratic wrangling, a new version of the letter will be read, one that was edited of the language about "unjust laws." 

A new statement issued this afternoon from Archbishop Broglio's office acknowledged the interference this way:

Archbishop Broglio and the Archdiocese stand firm in the belief, based on legal precedent, that such a directive from the Army constituted a violation of his Constitutionally-protected right of free speech and the free exercise of religion, as well as those same rights of all military chaplains and their congregants. 

Following a discussion between Archbishop Broglio and the Secretary of the Army, The Honorable John McHugh, it was agreed that it was a mistake to stop the reading of the Archbishop's letter.  Additionally, the line: "We cannot-we will not-comply with this unjust law" was removed by Archbishop Broglio at the suggestion of Secretary McHugh over the concern that it could potentially be misunderstood as a call to civil disobedience.

It's an issue that Catholic chaplains are taking very seriously in private. We obtained a confidential letter sent to the chaplains that  prepares priests to contact the Military Archdiocesan lawyer in case of more interference or any punishment. 

The Archdiocese believes that any attempt to keep a chaplain from freely teaching and preaching the Catholic faith, for which you were endorsed, is a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution.  If any of you are in any way punished or slated for punitive action, I ask that you kindly call our Archdiocesan Attorney, John L. Schlageter, Esq. at 202-719-3635 and he will immediately place you into contact with a Religious Freedom Law Firm that will be most willing to take your case free of charge.

The letter also tries to clarify to priests that the Archbishop's letter "concerns a moral, not a political issue." 

It's going to be so very interesting to see where this ends up, how far this administration will go, to suppress the conscience of faithful Catholics.

Every indication is that they will go far:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) vowed today that she will join with the Obama administration in standing up against the Catholic Church in defending a new regulation that will require Catholic individuals to buy, and Catholic institutions to provide, health insurance plans that cover sterilizations and artificial contraceptives, including those that induce abortions.

...

At her Wednesday press briefing, CNSNews.com asked Pelosi: “The administration has issued a regulation that will require all health-care plans to cover sterilization and all FDA-approved contraceptives, including those that induce abortions. This would force Catholic individuals and institutions to act against their consciences. All across the nation, Catholic bishops are saying:--

Pelosi responded: "Is this a speech, or do we have a question in disguise as a speech?"

CNSNews.com continued: “‘We cannot--we will not—comply with this law.’ Catholic bishops are saying they will not comply with this law. Will you stand with your fellow Catholics in resisting this law or will you stick by the administration?”

Pelosi: “First of all, I am going to stick with my fellow Catholics in supporting the administration on this. I think it was a very courageous decision that they made, and I support it.”

A showdown looms.

Who will blink?

The current war: AC vs. DC

By Locutisprime

The last great battle of AC vs. DC occurred between Nicolas Tesla and Thomas Edison. Known as the war of currents, Americans and the world had to choose between direct current and alternating current when it came to electricity. Thomas Edison, the inventor of the light bulb among other things, seemed to have the name recognition, and he seemed to have the inside track, but the alternative system proposed by Tesla ultimately prevailed. It was simply a better and safer system.

Fast forward a hundred and thirty years and we have another battle being waged between AC and DC. Only this time, the AC is the American Consumer and the DC is Washington. And once again, the issue seems to rest upon electricity. Only this time, it rests upon GM's new Volt. The car of the future if you are to believe all the hype coming out of the Obama administration. The Obama administration has been pushing this car since the day they took over GM, the problem is, the car is too expensive and it doesn't deliver on the promises made. Aside from those obvious shortcomings, much like Edison's DC current, the Volt is dangerous. It's prone to catching fire.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration is doing everything in their power to hustle the $60,000 plus innovation from GM that only a few can afford, but a curious thing has happened on the way to America's latest government sponsored dream. Americans aren't buying it:

Volt sales fall in January

General Motors extended-range electric Chevrolet Volt had its worst sales month since August, as negative publicity over fire risks hurt vehicles sales in January.

GM sold just 603 Volts - above its sales in January 2011, but far below GM's best-ever sales month in December, when GM sold 1,529 Volts.

Last week, GM North America President Mark Reuss said sales of the Volt have been hurt by bad publicity.

Reuss said bad publicity from the government's investigation into fire risks of post-crash Volts is "definitely a component" of the decline in sales.

GM sold about 7,700 in 2011, below GM's target of 10,000. GM abandoned its sales target of 45,000 for 2012 last month, saying it would match "supply to demand."

GM was outsold by Nissan Motor Co.'s all-electric Leaf in 2011, as the Japanese automaker sold nearly 9,700 last year. Nissan said it sold 676 Leafs in January, down from 954 in December.

Nissan hopes to double Leaf sales this year.

Reuss said that when GM restarts production in February at its Detroit-Hamtramck Assembly plant, it will build Volts in a "very reasonable" volume. He said there is some pent-up export demand.

Reuss says Volt awareness has gone up over the last two months in the wake of publicity over the government's investigation.

GM is focused on rehabilitating the Volt's reputation. "It's a tough road, but we've got to do it," Reuss said.

'The discussion revealed a testy side of the president’s personality that is at odds with his public image as “no-drama Obama,”' (UPDATED)

That from the Washington Post as they cover the recent public exchange between Obama and Arizona Governor Jan Brewer:

President Obama’s raw exchange with the governor of Arizona on an airport tarmac this week did more than overshadow his carefully stage-managed road trip to trumpet his State of the Union goals.

The discussion revealed a testy side of the president’s personality that is at odds with his public image as “no-drama Obama,” reviving criticism that he is unwilling to be second-guessed — or to even entertain another point of view.

Shortly after stepping off Air Force One on Wednesday in Phoenix, Obama challenged Gov. Jan Brewer (R) over characterizations she made of him in a recent book. His reaction, coming one day after he used his State of the Union address to call for a renewed spirit of political bipartisanship amid the nation’s economic woes, has exposed him to accusations that he is not interested in working with Republicans.

Brewer, whose “Scorpions for Breakfast” faults Obama for pandering to Hispanic voters in his immigration policy, said the president mentioned the book, unprompted, after she invited him to meet with her to discuss “Arizona’s comeback.”

“He was somewhat thin-skinned and a little tense to say the least,” Brewer told Phoenix radio station KFYI on Thursday. “I went there with good intentions . . . talking about Arizona and how I could give some assistance to him.”

White House press secretary Jay Carney scoffed at the notion that a deeper meaning was to be gleaned from the brief exchange, calling it “political theater.” And Obama told ABC News anchor Diane Sawyer in an interview that it was a “classic example of things getting blown out of proportion.”

Denying that he was “tense” during the encounter, as Brewer described, Obama said, laughing, that he is “usually accused of not being intense enough.”

“I think it’s always good publicity for a Republican if they’re in an argument with me. But this was really not a big deal,” he said.

According to Carney, the president told Brewer that her description in the book of a meeting they had in 2010 in the Oval Office “was not accurate.”

At the time, Brewer had told reporters that her meeting with Obama was “cordial,” but in the book she described him as “patronizing” and said he lectured her.

Over the past year, as his relations with congressional Republicans have soured, Obama has tried to cast the GOP as rigid ideologues whose allegiance to tea party conservatives has nearly caused financial catastrophe — first when House Speaker John A. Boehner (Ohio) “walked away” from Obama’s “grand bargain” offer during summer debt ceiling negotiations and again when Republicans grudgingly adopted the president’s proposed extension of a payroll tax cut at the 11th hour.

But Republicans have painted a different picture. During the debt-ceiling fight, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (Va.) told reporters that the president snapped at him in a negotiating session, saying “Don’t call my bluff” and abruptly walking out.

Republicans have more recently cast Obama’s “We can’t wait” campaign of taking executive action without congressional approval as evidence that he has chosen to ignore lawmakers. They characterized his appointment of Richard Cordray to head a financial consumer watchdog agency, even though the Senate rejected the nomination, as the act of an imperial president intent on imposing his will.

At the same time, White House officials have pushed back hard against two recent books — one about Obama’s economic advisers and the other about the president and first lady Michelle Obama’s relationship — that portray an insular administration.

On Thursday, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Obama’s 2008 presidential rival, suggested that Obama’s reaction to Brewer revealed a well-known “prickly personality.”

In the mean-time, some can't help but play the only card they seem capable of playing when their beloved President is confronted or criticized:

Despite the President being the person who walked away from Jan Brewer while she was still speaking, she's the disrespecter.

And, obviously, a racist to boot.

Weak.

Seriously freakin' weak.

And when your argument is weak...

UPDATE:  Tom Elia sent along this pic which I think best illustrates the shallowness of those who continue to defend this President. 

Of course, they can at least lay claim to being young, impressionable, starry-eyed idol worshippers.  What the hell is the excuse for everybody else?